Columnists

Meetings galore – not just the regularly scheduled meetings, but cooperative meetings alive with the energy of new faces and fresh ideas – the kind of meetings you don’t want to take a break from because you’ll miss something.

I have a personal policy of not responding to comments regarding any of my writings or posts in social media. As a City Planning Commissioner and one who is involved in several aspects of the community, I have to hold myself to the highest level of behavior (and it’s pretty much just who I am). In my experience, even my most benign response can quickly devolve into a hostile conversation led by those who don’t adhere to a civil dialogue or resist twisting words. Too bad really, since I do believe in a good conversation.So I have broken my silence in responding here because I just cannot sit and watch some of the misinformation propagated by so few that is seen by so many.Mark Grzan has insisted on misinforming others about the Agricultural Preservation Set Aside; and yes, he is the author of the gross example of the misinformation I mentioned in my last column.I want to introduce simple facts if I could, so here is the exact Agricultural Preservation Set-Asides language:Policy CNF-3.14 Agricultural Preservation set-Asides. Set aside at least 300 allotments for housing that may be applied anywhere in the City through 2035. Recipient projects must directly establish permanent agricultural conservation easements within the City Limits or within the City’s Priority Agricultural Conservation Area.Zoning Section 18.78.060.D.1 adds: Easements must be established within the City’s Sphere of Influence and in a manner consistent with the Citywide Agricultural Lands Preservation Program. The number of allotments granted will be commensurate with the community benefit obtained from the resulting preservation of agricultural lands. No more than 35 set-aside allotments are available for agricultural preservation projects within a single year.Let me interpret a little here, from the top.“Allotments”: an allotment is the permission to apply to build a residential dwelling unit. An allotment does not assure the right to build; you must still meet several criteria before you have the right to begin building. One allotment is needed for each dwelling “unit” (a dwelling for one family).“Housing that may be applied anywhere in the City”: you can only build on lands designated for development and you can only build what is zoned for that land (examples: free standing homes or townhomes) and at the density allowed (example: five houses per acre, or maybe 15 depending on zoning).“Agricultural conservation easements”: a restriction you place on the land so that no development can ever take place except for normal agricultural related structures and a single family dwelling unit per existing lot.“City’s Priority Agricultural Conservation Area”: this is an area of farmland identified in the 2014 Agricultural Lands Preservation Program and incorporated into the Citywide Agricultural Lands Preservation Program. It is essentially all in the Southeast Quadrant area. Still with me?So in simpler terms: if you protect priority agricultural lands you can build anywhere in Morgan Hill where allowed, without going through the RDCS competition. However you must protect an equal area of farmland that you propose to build on (one-to-one in acreage) and you must still receive a passing score of at least 80 percent in the RDCS competition criteria; you just don’t have to compete or wait for the competition, which takes place only once a year.A developer skips competing for allotments, which makes life easier for them, AND the region gets agricultural lands protected in perpetuity from development. Looks like a win-win here.This is almost exactly the opposite of what Mr. Grzan is saying—and there is no way that Measure S implies that we can build outside of the city limits. We can’t, and Mr. Grzan knows that.We need to be careful what we say in public and the letter by Mr. Grzan either indicates that he is not at all familiar with the document and commonly used terms, or is intentionally misleading potential voters. His stint as a councilmember should have educated him to the meaning of everything I repeated here.Please check out the included snapshots of Mr. Grzan’s comments on social media that expand on his assertions. I leave it up to you to decide what his intent is.Thank you for your time, and please read the Measure S document and ask real questions of those who are informed.John McKay is a Morgan Hill resident, city planning commissioner and co-founder of the Morgan Hill Tourism Alliance. This op-ed is a response to the most recent letter to the editor authored by Mark Grzan.