Morgan Hill City Hall stepped into the ongoing public debate over Measure S by distributing a “fact sheet” on the growth control system update, which voters will consider for approval in the Nov. 8 election.
“This fact sheet is intended to provide factual information from the city about extending and amending the city’s development control ordinance, which would otherwise expire in 2020, to 2035,” reads the introduction to the fact sheet, which city staff disseminated by email and social media Nov. 3. “In general, (Measure S) restricts development through a competitive bidding system, requires water conservation, requires preservation of open space and includes provisions designed to preserve city character.”
If approved, Measure S would update the city’s Residential Development Control System. This ordinance, which limits the city’s population and the number of homes built in the city limits each year, was last approved by the voters in 2004 as Measure C.
Opponents of Measure S—including mayoral candidate Kirk Bertolet and council candidates Rene Spring and Armando Benavides—think the measure doesn’t do enough to limit growth in Morgan Hill.
Morgan Hill Community Services Coordinator Nichole Martin said the city posted the fact sheet “as a continuation of its communication about Measure S.” The document provides a comparison with the existing growth control ordinance “to show how Measure S addresses some of the key issues important to the community.”
One of the key changes in Measure S is it will slow down the city’s annual growth, according to the city’s fact sheet. Measure S would set an annual maximum growth rate of 215 homes per year, and the council could opt to reduce that number any year during the life of the measure (until 2035). But the 215-home maximum could never be increased, according to the Measure S legalese.
Measure S also “includes provisions for City Council to reduce number of allotments if it determines that the community’s public infrastructure (including schools) will be inadequate to accommodate new development,” the city’s fact sheet reads.
Under Measure C, the number of homes built annually over the last decade has varied from 173 (2011) to 344 (2009), with an average of 247, according to city staff.
Another key feature of Measure S is it creates a population “cap” of 58,200 in 2035, while Measure C strives toward a population “target” of 48,000 in 2020, the fact sheet continues. Under the current system, the annual number of allotments—set by the council with input from the planning commission, residents and developers—is determined by a “formula to achieve (the) target population.”
Measure S would also restrict developers’ ability to gain extensions to their granted allotments if they are unable to start construction on time. The Nov. 8 measure would allow “no more than one extension for a maximum of one year with limited eligibility (City or other public agency delay or severe act of nature),” reads the city’s fact sheet.
Measure C, on the other hand, allows allotment extensions for a number of reasons. Since the 2009 recession, the council has granted dozens of extensions for allotments to developers who did not have enough money to build their allotments, or had purchased projects from owners who couldn’t afford to follow through with their construction plans.
One of the more controversial—and nuanced—changes in Measure S is the new guidelines under which the city council may apply to annex land for more residential development.
Under Measure S, the city council must make six findings in any annexation proposal before submitting an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), according to the city’s fact sheet. These findings are:
• Expansion is necessary to accommodate the growth specified in the General Plan;
• Expansion is consistent with the city’s own policies or rules “specifying preferred sequence of future annexations;”
• Public services and infrastructure “are or will be sufficient to accommodate development resulting from expansion” of the Urban Service Area (USA) boundary, and “additional development will not adversely impact” services and infrastructure;
• Expansion supports “orderly development” and “prioritizes infill” construction in areas already served by city services;
• Expansion is necessary to accommodate housing and/or employment needs of Morgan Hill;
• Expansion promotes “fiscal responsibility, cost-effective service delivery” and the city’s ability to plan for and maintain urban services over time.
Under Measure C, which expires in 2020, the council has to make one of two findings in order to request annexation from LAFCO: there is insufficient land within existing USA to accommodate five years worth of residential growth, or the proposal meets the city’s policy for a “desirable infill” project, the Nov. 3 fact sheet states.
Proponents of Measure S have said the existing annexation application threshold is inadequate because the council and LAFCO frequently disagree on how much “developable land” there is in current city boundaries.
In March, LAFCO denied two requests by the city to expand the USA around 229 acres in the Southeast Quadrant and about 70 acres on the southwest side of town. The majority of LAFCO commissioners said the annexations would fail to limit urban sprawl and preserve open space.
All five members of the council—including incumbents Mayor Steve Tate, Councilman Larry Carr and Councilwoman Marilyn Librers—support Measure S. Even Councilman Rich Constantine, who voted against placing the measure on the ballot in August because it wasn’t sufficiently supported by three years worth of factual analysis commissioned by the council, has said he hopes the voters approve Measure S.
Other candidates supporting Measure S are council candidate Mario Banuelos and mayoral candidate Joseph Carrillo.
Opposing Measure S on the Nov. 8 ballot are mayoral candidate Bertolet, as well as council candidates Benavides and Spring.
Opponents have said if Measure S fails, they would encourage the council to draw up a more restrictive RDCS update to place on the ballot at the next election before 2020. Those who support Measure S have said its failure Nov. 8 wouldn’t leave the city enough time to draft another ballot measure because developers compete for housing allotments two years before they can begin construction.
