After nine months of study, wrangling and discussion, the
Measure P Update committee has submitted its recommended amendments
to the City Council. The committee updated 27 sections of the
measure and asked for council feedback at Wednesday
’s meeting.
After nine months of study, wrangling and discussion, the Measure P Update committee has submitted its recommended amendments to the City Council. The committee updated 27 sections of the measure and asked for council feedback at Wednesday’s meeting.
When the changes are settled, the matter will be put before the voters for approval in the November 2003 election or, more probably, the March 2004 election.
Measure P is the voter-approved residential growth-control ordinance, passed in 1990, mandating that the city will not grow larger than 38,800 by 2010. It came to life after Morgan Hill had experienced a massive period of growth that seriously affected the schools and public service.
Planning Director David Bischoff walked the council through the 24 amendments with the council on Wednesday with help from Councilmen Steve Tate and Larry Carr who were on the committee.
“The committee met 17 times over six months,” Bischoff said, emphasizing how long it took to review and propose improvements to a complicated ordinance. But he said the updates may do the trick, not only to make the ordinance easier for staff members and developers to work with, but to allow the city to fulfill state-mandated regional below-market-rate housing numbers.
“I believe it will be possible to meet ABAG’s fair share requirement,” Bischoff said.
The most significant change, Bischoff said, was to change the numbers from 38,800 in 2010 to 48,000 in 2020 as the life of the measure was extended. These numbers coincide with the recently updated general plan.
“With the old numbers,” Bischoff said, “the deficit (in affordable housing) would be 236; with the new, there is a surplus of 37 units.” The state could impose penalties on cities that do not meet the requirements.
The second major change is on the east/west split. The measure currently requires a one-third split of units east, one-third west and one-third distributed on points without regard to location. That would be eliminated.
“You don’t get the best possible projects (with the split – there is more eastside land than west) as you would if they all compete together,” Bischoff said.
Developers compete to earn points that, in turn, can lead to building permits – or housing starts. To succeed in the competition, developers work to make their projects attractive with parks, proper access and other improving features, including location.
Other changes are less intrusive, and involve phasing or making certain requirements “permissive rather than mandatory.” Projects that are transit-oriented or located downtown or infill properties lying vacant instead of encouraging sprawl will be looked upon with favor. Favor is an attractive feature because it leads to points which, in turn, can lead to building permits, depending upon the number of allotments for a given fiscal year.
SURVEY
Before the update went much further, the council wanted an idea of where the voting public is – do they understand what Measure P is and why it should be updated? The city hired at survey team to find out.
More than 600 surveys were conducted over four days, in English and Spanish. After determining that the subject was a resident and registered to vote, they were asked a series of questions:
Is the city headed in the right direction? Are you satisfied with police, fire, parks and recreation services? Are you familiar with Measure P? Do you oppose or support an increase in the increased total population numbers by 2020? Should growth be faster or slower?
Does the slow-growth ordinance decrease the possibility of attracting retail businesses to town? Should growth be concentrated downtown or allowed to expand the city? Should small existing areas in Holiday Lake Estates and elsewhere be allowed to hook up to city services without being counted as part of the Measure P population count?
Would you support a tax of $10 a month per household to maintain or expand police, fire, parks and recreation services?
Bischoff said Monday that the preliminary results of the survey have been received. The final report, he said, is due at the end of the week and will be presented to the City Council and the Measure P Task Force at the same time. The task force meets on April 15.
The council sent its thoughts on the amendments back to the update committee.
MORE ON MEASURE P
Measure P states that the number of building allotments must be divided between single-family residences, mobile homes and multiple-family dwellings, with at least 33 percent going to single-family units.
Under Measure P, the number of building allotments for a fiscal year is limited to the number equal to the “desired population increase” for that year divided by the occupancy level per dwelling unit. The “desired population increase” number is found by this formula: find the difference between 38,800 (the 2010 limit) and the population in the city on Jan. 1 of the previous year (34,785 on Jan. 1, 2002).
Divide this number by the remaining number of years left before 2010. Since the average number of people per household is 3.054, the desired population increase for next year would be 502. That number divided by the average number per household would allow a total of 164 allocations to be awarded for fiscal year 2004-05.
The total building allotment for FY 2004-05 can be increased or decreased based on the Jan. 1, 2003 population and persons per household estimates. These numbers are determined by the state Department of Finance and normally are released at the beginning of May. The final allocations will be awarded at the May 13 Planning Commission meeting.
The Measure P City Council workshop – open to the public – is scheduled for April 29.
