On May 17, the City Council voted 3-2 (Caitlin Jachimowicz, Rene Spring against) to approve a time extension request for a construction project proposed for the corner of East Dunne and Murphy avenues. At face value, that may not seem like a big deal. But, since last December two significant actions occurred—one questionable, and one that shouldn’t be legal.
Last December, the developer requested an extension for this project. Even though it only fulfilled one of eight requirements to qualify for an extension, the Council (4-1, Spring against) determined there was enough potential impact to the neighboring residents and church that granting an unqualified extension was in the best interest of the city. At the urging of Councilmember Larry Carr, a stipulation was added to the amended agreement, Section #11 of Ordinance #2228, that “No further extension will be provided.”
On May 17, Mayor Steve Tate and Councilmembers Carr and Rich Constantine broke their word and approved another six-month extension for the project, violating the restriction they voted into the ordinance. I have a problem with that. I think the residents of Morgan Hill should have a problem with that, too. Not because a bunch of houses will be built where a bunch of houses will eventually be built, but because three members of the city council violated an ordinance to resolve their problem.
The council says they have the authority to amend development agreements. That’s true, but what makes this agreement different from other agreements is the council added a specific restriction in Section #11 prohibiting an extension. Ordinance language is legally binding, and the council had sufficient time to amend Section #11.
The developer’s request was in the city’s hands at the end of March. There were two council meetings and one planning commission meeting prior to the May 17 vote, with included staff reports noting the extension request. I sent at least three emails questioning this extension. Tate, Carr and Constantine chose to put all that and Section #11 aside, and simply changed the agreement to approve the extension. Their only justification was a very convenient “what’s best for the city” excuse.
It’s hard for me to trust members of our city council who feel comfortable violating ordinances, except in an emergency, by simply saying they’re doing “what’s best for the city.” What’s best for the city is having leaders who stand behind the integrity they say they have, who demonstrate that the rules apply to them and developers as much as the rules apply to everyone else in Morgan Hill.
I’ve heard no legal explanation allowing Mayor Tate, Mr. Carr or Mr. Constantine to circumvent the restriction in Section #11. In their “what’s best for the city” excuse, I only heard them attempting to absolve themselves of guilty feelings for going back on their word.
The council can still fix this. I hope they do. I think it’s more important to build trust through integrity and credibility than to build a few houses.
Chris Monack
Morgan Hill
