August 19, 2004

Public meeting on secondary units reveals strong opposition to dwellings
Most want 1984 ban on units reinstated

Sheila Sanchez
Staff Writer

By a show of hands, all but one of the 62 attendees at a public meeting last week in Almaden Valley to discuss secondary units are against the controversial proposal and would like the 1984 ban on the dwellings reinstated by city officials.

Eager arms shot straight in the air when San Jose planner John Davidson asked how many were against the much-debated “granny” or “mother-in-law” apartments that housing experts argue could help alleviate the affordable housing crunch in the Bay Area while at the same time give property owners extra cash to pay for expensive mortgages or the flexibility to care for a frail senior in the comfort of the proximity of their home.

Using aerial slides to indicate how the units might fit into their neighborhoods, Davidson showed what he called the “buildable envelope” around some properties, such as in the pricey Indian Springs Court neighborhood—near the Country Club—where four different giant 12,000-square foot residential parcels would find constraints based on whether the city allows the units to be detached.

Davidson discovered that even in the large lots, with big homes occupying most of the buildable envelope, the units would be restricted. In three of the four homes shown, the units could only be built as second-story dwellings or in the property’s existing interior space.

Showing other scenarios in Almaden, such as in the Bubblingwell Place neighborhood, where residential lots are about 8,000 square feet and with large homes occupying most of the buildable envelope, the units would again find the same restrictions.

“In all these cases most people don’t have the additional area to build on,” Davidson said during the Aug. 11 meeting at Castillero Middle School. “And in most cases, detached secondary units wouldn’t work because of lot size.”

Sponsored by San Jose Vice Mayor Pat Dando, the meeting was one of more than a dozen that have taken place around the city’s 10 council districts to receive input from the public about whether to reinstate the 20-year-old prohibition against the units or whether to create an ordinance that would allow them under strict criteria. “We want your opinion, advise and thinking on secondary units,” said Dando.

Banned by the city in 1984 based on the idea that tens of thousands of secondary units would be built, the issue came before the San Jose City Council in April because of passage of the 2002 secondary units law contained in Assembly Bill 1866, sponsored by Assemblyman Roderick Wright and signed by former California Gov. Gray Davis. The law mandates cities to review their policies on secondary units.

“We want to create some sort of an ordinance,” Davidson said. “We also want to hear how many people want the findings reaffirmed.”

A draft ordinance on the issue is likely to come before the council in October or November and could become effective in January of 2005 and reevaluated in January of 2006. Dando has blasted AB 1866 for limiting local ability to control land use decisions.

Bob Boydston, president of the Almaden Valley Community Association, said it was wrong for state lawmakers to dictate to local communities what their building policies should be. “I recommend civil disobedience in this case,” Boydston said. “I recommend the League of California Cities to say, ‘hell, no, we won’t go.’”

Almaden resident Bill Eagan said he’s opposed to the units for the same reasons they were outlawed in 1984—adverse health, safety and welfare impacts. “If the object of the state’s game is to help the working poor, this is not the way to do it. This is not going to help them become homeowners.”

Len Procker said the units could become problematic because the city’s code is unenforceable and “too wishy-washy.”

“If any ordinance goes through there should be a recipe for enforcement of existing units (and) new units.

“Ministerial approval is a big problem because I’ll wake up one day at it will be like a mushroom. Bam, there they will be. That’s not right… There’s no enforcement and not letting the neighbors know is too secretive. It should be out in the open. It should be reviewed,” he said.

Others asked about occupancy parameters and how many people could move into the units. “What about a big family of four cars, two dogs, five cats and eight children? Where do you draw the line?” Procker queried.

Joanne Stone said based on the city’s building code, which allows one person to live in a residential dwelling per 70 square feet of space, about seven people could legally live in a 650-square-feet unit. Concerns were expressed about how many would be allowed to live in the primary unit if the owner moves into the secondary unit.

Barbara Beswetherick expressed concerns about impacts on existing infrastructure such as water, sewage, garbage and electricity. Another asked where would additional cars from secondary units be parked as many garages currently do not have room for existing vehicles, a problem exacerbated during garbage night when residents complain they can’t find spots for their cars with the cans and yard waste in the way.

Davidson explained the units could be detached or attached independent living spaces containing at least a bath and partial kitchen, adding that the council has been discussing the issue for the past year and has advised staff to develop parameters for the creation of an ordinance.

“This is preliminary. We’re here to get your feedback and that feedback can be to reaffirm those adverse health, safety and welfare findings,” he stressed.

City planners are mulling over the proposed parameters that would allow the units, such as restricting them to so-called R-1 zoning districts and in minimum lot sizes of 6,000 square feet with the maximum unit size not exceeding 650 square feet with one bedroom and one additional parking space outside of the property front and side setbacks.

Davidson said just enforcing a parking parameter would restrict how many units would be developed.

Other parameters being considered are to require one of the two units be owner occupied, that the units be within the property’s “buildable envelope,” that detached units allowed be constructed a minimum of six feet from the existing building and that design criteria require matching materials, roof pitch and location of entrance.

Some bad news for meeting attendees was that Almaden Valley has the second highest number of R-1, 6,000-square-foot parcels of the city’s 10 council districts, after Councilwoman Judy Chirco’s District 9, which includes the Cambrian area and a small section of Willow Glen.

Of the 86,031 parcels that could be eligible for the units citywide, Almaden Valley has 11,997 parcels, or 13.9 percent, following District 9, which has 16,260 parcels, or 18.9 percent. The two districts are followed by districts one and six, which have 11,833 and 10,681 parcels, respectively.

Davidson said planners are suggesting that an owner occupancy requirement be included if the ordinance is created, meaning either the main or the secondary unit be occupied by the property owner and that such occupancy be recorded against the property through the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office.

The requirement would be checked as a part of the final inspection, and later enforced on a complaint-driven basis. The latter requirement elicited laughter from the audience.

There are 2,700 illegal detached secondary units in the city’s Strong Neighborhood Initiative areas, or one-third of the city, and only less than 500 legal secondary units. Code enforcement is waiting to take action against such units until the council adopts an ordinance, Davidson said.

The city is considering allowing existing secondary units if they meet the requirements of the proposed secondary unit ordinance and the building code, Davidson said.

One unidentified resident said, “If 2,700 couldn’t be enforced, how can you enforce future illegal ones?”

“They’re an insult to a guy like me who tries to follow the rules. If they’re illegal they should be removed and there should be enforcement,” said Gary Jansen. “The 1984 findings are worse now. If this was not a good idea 20 years ago, it’s not a good idea now when it’s a lot more crowded.

“We need to get local control back. The state legislature is out of touch. We bought our homes expecting R-1 in the neighborhood, if someone wants two they ought to go through a rezoning process,” Jansen added.

Barbara Fontana begged Davidson and council members, including Dando, to preserve the quiet character of most Almaden neighborhoods. “This is a desirable place to live and I think there will an incentive to build these here (in Almaden). I’m very much against it… We would be taking on a slum situation that we don’t want. I can see the state wanting additional revenue. I can see an argument veiled in the selling feature of, ‘we want to create additional housing.’ We have a lot of housing in San Jose. We have enough density,” she said.

“If we put a secondary unit allowable on property I can see how it can breathe some contention in Almaden Valley because most people don’t want them… It begs to the question of enforcement. I think there could be a lot of abuses if you go forward with this,” Fontana warned.

Davidson said cities that have allowed them such as Santa Clara, Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Cupertino, have created very few. In Santa Cruz, for example, which has the smallest lot size requirement, about seven per year have been built and in San Diego, which has the largest lot size requirements, one a year has been built.

There will be another meeting in District 10 about secondary units. The meeting will be at Steinbeck Middle School, in the indoor commons, 820 Steinbeck Dr., San Jose, Calif., 95123, at 6:30 p.m., Aug. 25, Dando encourages meeting attendees to write letters to their state legislators about the issue.

For more information, visit www.ci.san- jose.ca.us/planning/sjplan/ or e-mail john.davidson@sanjoseca.gov. He can also be reached at (408) 277-8831.