Your June 11 article on Measure
“C” has several inaccuracies and too narrowly characterizes the
initiative’s effects on downtown development. This letter provides
corrections and clarifications, plus my comments on other
significant points raised at the June 8 joint City Council (CC) and
Planning Commission (PC) meeting.
Your June 11 article on Measure “C” has several inaccuracies and too narrowly characterizes the initiative’s effects on downtown development. This letter provides corrections and clarifications, plus my comments on other significant points raised at the June 8 joint City Council (CC) and Planning Commission (PC) meeting.
First, the article states that C “…dictates how many units can be built per acre”. This is incorrect. The number of units per acre is governed by the City’s General Plan and Zoning Codes.
Second, the article states that “one solution … would be to separate out downtown projects from the rest of the Measure C point competition.” This has already been done! Last year the CC reserved 205 housing units for a separate downtown competition. The PC and CC will also soon adopt 70 additional point opportunities for downtown projects, the largest change since the 1970’s.
Third, the article states that C requires 20 percent affordable housing. C only requires consistency with State law. C also allows a separate competition for affordable projects, and awards competition points for all projects which provide such housing. The specific number of affordable housing units is governed by State law and the City’s General Plan and policies.
I also have other comments regarding other statements raised in the article and points discussed at the meeting.
First, the headline of the article reads C hinders development and needs revision to build a better downtown. This is premature speculation. C was only passed in March of 2004 and substantive changes for downtown development have just now been made and others are still in process.
Secondly, Councilman Sellers is quoted as saying “If all we are doing is nibbling around the edges, tweaking Measure C, we won’t get to where we want to go.” I fail to see how reserving 205 units for downtown and adding 70 point opportunities for downtown projects can be characterized as “nibbling” or “tweaking.” These are massive changes. They will work.
Thirdly, Councilman Sellers suggested eliminating City development fees for downtown projects. Where does the money come from to replace the lost fees which would pay for road extensions, park improvements, etc.? From already strained City coffers? Or would the burden be shifted to projects outside the downtown? Shifting the burden is not fair.
Finally, The Times says that Councilman Sellers is convinced that downtown projects must be excluded from C if the concept will ever be successful. He is quoted as saying “Why in 15 years have we not had anybody apply to build downtown?” My answer is that the CC has only in the last year finally reserved housing units for the downtown, approved needed housing density increases, and directed massive criteria changes for the downtown. Prior CC’s could have adopted these three actions at any time, but didn’t. It’s good that this CC has finally taken these significant actions, but now we’re being told they’re not enough. How do we know? If anything, some of the changes go too far!
I believe excluding the downtown from C is wrong. If the CC does propose such an initiative it needs good planning to avoid pitfalls. For example: if the excluded units are in addition to what C currently allows, it would violate the General Plan and likely require additional and expensive environmental analysis. Providing the units within the population cap wouldn’t have that problem, but then the net effect would not be much different than what we’re already doing. Regardless of the source of the exempted units, new City laws and policies would need to be developed and adopted to replace the many C criteria which encourage desireable development.
The CC directed that C essentially exempt downtown projects from either providing Below Market Rate (BMR) deed-restricted housing, or paying the alternative $15,000 per unit fee. This is being implemented without assessing its impact on meeting the State’s affordable housing requirements. Besides losing affordable housing for teachers and others, it could also result in the State not approving future City General Plan housing elements.
The CC endorsed C changes that will enable downtown projects to skip improvements that other developments provide. This is a loss of about $10,000 per housing unit for community infrastructure and amenities. Forgiving these improvements and BMR’s is another fairness issue for downtown vs. non-downtown projects.
Another troubling thing is that forgiving point-related amenities, BMR’s, and City development fees may only serve to enrich downtown landowners and developers.
These changes will result in a $30,000 to $50,000+ reduction in development costs per housing unit. Will the typical downtown landowner not raise his land asking price if he knows that development costs have been reduced? Will the typical developer not ask the full market-driven price? I believe most will maximize profit, and the City will have lost millions of dollars in amenities and infrastructure with no offsetting benefit.
Some properties with unusual development problems may need assistance for financial viability, but not all of them. To maximize community benefit, the challenge is how to help only these projects.
I agree with Councilman Grzan that changes need to be carefully evaluated and impacts and Return on Investment (ROI) assessed. The City has already spent tens of millions on downtown infrastructure, beautification, façade improvement grants, dilapidated building replacement, housing, and a beautiful community center as a downtown draw.
Despite this investment, and a doubling of the City’s population under growth “control,” the downtown actually has less shopping diversity and entertainment than before.
To me, this means other factors are in play. Downtown housing is very important, but it is not the silver bullet for all problems.
Other downtown problem areas could well provide a greater benefit and ROI for City investment than forgiving fees: improved off-street lighting and sidewalks, more and better-connected parking, movie theatres, and a few others I care not to mention. The new C criteria will help most of these problem areas, if downtown projects are not exempted or given a free ride. Let’s fix these problems.
I favor downtown development, but not at any cost! The actions already taken and planned, along with the benefits of the upcoming courthouse and Depot St. improvements, will have a salutary effect on the downtown area. I do not believe that C exemption and fee elimination are warranted.
Ralph Lyle is the chair of the Morgan Hill Planning Commission and a member of the city council commissioned subcommittee that drafted Measure C.
