April 15, 2004

AVCA hears opposition to controversial ‘secondary unit' proposal
Association also discusses ‘art mandate' funding

By Sheila Sanchez
Staff Writer

Members of the Almaden Valley Community Association (AVCA) will consult with affordable housing network experts before taking an official position on a controversial proposal allowing construction of secondary units in 6,000-square-foot single-family lots.

At the association's April 12 meeting Bob Boydston, AVCA president, explained the issue to the about 30 attendees gathered at the McDonalds restaurant on Almaden Expressway.

“It's the policy of the AVCA to come to a position, but we come to a position after we've listened to both sides,” said Boydston. We want to get that [their] side of the story.”

Opposition was overwhelming with residents voicing concerns that the dwellings will adversely affect the character of their neighborhoods.

Len Procker, who has lived in Almaden Valley since1980, said people move into the city's R-1 zone district to escape congestion, noise, pollution and parking problems.

The proposal would impact middle-income earners who have about 60 percent of their wealth invested in their home, he said.

“If property values deteriorate for whatever reason, I think it's a slap in the face of the middle-income earner,” he said. “It's a wolf in sheep's clothes. This is a step toward having rental units all over the city in the R-1-zoned neighborhoods. The owner of the large house can move into the secondary unit and rent out his house to as many families as would like to live together… It's an incredible thing to do.”

City officials are considering the policy because a state law, AB 866, sponsored by former Los Angeles Assemblyman Rod Wright, requires cities to review permit requests without notifying neighbors or holding public hearings.

Wright said the law is necessary because many cities were blocking construction of such units by charging high permit fees, requiring excessive parking or holding long public reviews.

City officials are considering presenting the issue to constituents in the city's 10 council districts followed by two meetings in each district to get the public involved in drafting a policy.

“Vice Mayor Dando wants input and from that input she wants to draft the ordinance,” said Dando's spokeswoman Denelle Fedor,.

The proposal states the units must be 650 square feet, 16 feet tall, have one bedroom, a bathroom, a partial kitchen and one additional parking space, in addition to the two-covered parking spaces required for the primary unit.

The units must also be built with the same materials used to build the main house, with a matching roof pitch. Access can't be visible from the street and one unit must be owner-occupied, to prevent the properties from becoming entirely occupied by renters.

While the proposal doesn't specify how many people could live in the unit, state code allows one resident for each 70 square feet, excluding footage for a kitchen and bathroom. That means up to four people could live in a 650-square-foot unit.

A woman questioned why the city is considering 6,000-square-foot lots when a state survey recommended 7,000-square-foot lots would be better suited.

“What bothers me is that it's only going to go through the permit process instead of asking what the neighbors think,” she said.

People also are concerned how the new ordinance will affect the thousands of secondary units already existing, including many rented illegally or used as offices. Nearly 6,000 illegal secondary units have been found in one third of the city, according to a survey of Strong Neighborhoods Initiative areas.

“Instead of concentrating on allowing new ones, we should find ways to allow our neighborhoods to exist the way they already are,” said Fedor.

Illegal units exist in the city and “nobody has done anything about them,” Boydston added. “Why were these allowed to be built? If they're going to have all these illegal ones, why would anyone pay attention to the new law?”

Fedor said those who object can call code enforcement and complain, but “I don't think we want to be policing the city. Not that it makes it right… There are so many illegal attachments that now we need to look at what we need to do about them.”

Art improvement projects
The association also discussed Title 22 of the municipal code mandating 2 percent of the city's capital improvement projects be spent on art.

Almaden resident Al Day's letter was reviewed.“ In past years, we have seen how foolishly money has been spent on art in city-sponsored projects; e.g., the more than $500,000 for the Quetzacoatl (an uninspiring pile of composite cement resembling a cow pie) and the $1 million spent just for the design of equally uninspiring swatches of color around the Convention Center main entrance,” said the letter.

Boydston said he attended an airport improvement meeting several weeks ago and thought it was “silly. This is nothing against art, but it ought to be, in my opinion, an individual decision,” said Boydston.

At that same meeting, Day was told the airport expansion cost is $2.9 billion: those in charge wondered how much of that is subject to the 2 percent art requirement. “This would mean upwards of $60 million would have to be spent for art at the airport… it seems like an extremely frivolous waste of taxpayers dollars,” said Boydston.

Day suggested Title 22 be changed allotting a reasonable amount for allocation toward art for each city project and making the numbers accountable to an elected official.”

He complained the Arts Commission should be accountable, expressing concern about several city art projects with high budgets, including one for $200,000 for additional artworks for the Hayes Mansion.

“This could be art done by our local students or whatever,” he said.

“This is the city with the big budget problems?” asked another upset resident.

Day encouraged the association and San Jose residents to fight to kill Title 22. “ In our opinion, this mandate is foolhardy. The amount of money spent for art should be based o n the particular characteristic for each individual project. Setting a mandated amount to be spent for art on each project simply promotes irrational spending of tax dollars,” read the letter.

Day explained the mandated 2 percent number is equal to $8 and $10 million for art at the almost $500 million new City Hall.“In this era of deficits and cutbacks, this amount of money spent on art for that complex is obscene,” he said. “What do we, as taxpayers, have to do to get Title 22 changed to something more reasonable? Do we need to circulate a petition, or can this be addressed by the city council?” he asked in the letter.