May 6, 2005

San Jose City Council approves by 6-4 vote researching
parameters for ‘granny unit’ pilot program

By Sheila Sanchez
Staff Writer

May 3 was a good evening for San Jose Councilman Forrest Williams and a bad one for Councilwoman Nancy Pyle.

Williams and Pyle were on opposite ends of the spectrum on whether to allow city planning, housing and code-enforcement officials to begin researching parameters to begin a pilot program citywide that would allow the dwellings in certain properties.

By a vote of 6-4, with Councilmembers Cindy Chavez, Nora Campos and Ken Yeager joining Pyle in opposing the units, the council directed the city’s administration to draft the program reviewing existing circumstances and provide updated data and information regarding impact on city’s neighborhoods, traffic, parking and resources to the council to support lifting the 1984 ban on the dwellings.

Once city staffers have completed their research for the program, they’ll return to the city’s Driving a Strong Economy Committee for a recommendation that will ultimately be heard by the council again.

Pyle raises concerns
“If someone buys a property with the understanding that they’re buying R-1 property are we not, in effect, giving a breach of contract to that person by saying it’s not going to stay R-1 and that some of it may be R-2?” Pyle asked before the vote was taken to the applause of some audience members.

Pyle also expressed concern that as the city faces drastic budget cuts to reduce its deficit, staff needed to monitor the program would be lost. “I’m trying to figure out who’s going to be available to monitor the situation?” she asked.

San Jose Chief Planner Stephen M. Haase explained the city was not rezoning properties to R-2 and would consider levying some fee against the units for monitoring purposes. “We’re only looking at what the state law has provided for an R-1-zoned property to allow an independent living unit of limited size. That’s been established under state law,” he said.

Breach of contract?
On May 2, Len Procker sent an e-mail to Pyle and to several media outlets stating the same concerns raised by Pyle.

“Allowing secondary units breaks the implied contract between the R-1 home owner and the city,” he said. “Did you move to Pierce Ranch hoping it would get more crowded?”

Procker recalled how two meetings last summer to discuss the issue with then Council-woman Pat Dando revealed that the majority of attendees were against the units.

Procker is also worried the units can be approved secretly without public input. “Secrecy is simply not right in neighborhoods,” he wrote, adding that city code stipulates that seven people could live under unit parameters being considered, such as allowing them on lots of at least 6,000 square feet, be a maximum of 650 square feet, be no taller than 16 feet high, have one bedroom, one bathroom, one partial kitchen, one additional parking space and be architecturally compatible with the main house.

Yeager said it was a breach of contract to allow the secondary dwellings on single-family-unit lots. “We’re putting two units on one lot which to me sounds a lot like an R-2,” he said.

Chavez thanked Williams and city staff for their work, but said she was against the program because she felt uncomfortable “adding challenges to a system that’s already challenged.

“If we start with a pilot project and it does go broader, I think it will only negatively impact the areas already most impacted,” Chavez said. “When I think of the implications for downtown and the older neighborhoods it concerns me a great deal… This feels backwards to me.”

Source of affordable housing
Councilman Chuck Reed, who voted in favor of the program, said he was sure there were places in the city where the dwellings could be permitted without impacting the neighborhoods. “This could be a good source of affordable housing. We ought to try the pilot program,” he said.

Councilwoman Linda LeZotte agreed with Reed, recalling how when her mother-in-law could no longer live alone she moved into property owned by her sister-in-law, who built her a separate unit next to her home. “There’s a need here.

I think something can be crafted. I’m willing to take a look at what’s going to come back to us,” she said.

LeZotte said the units could also benefit the disabled population in the area, especially with cuts threatening state in-home supportive services and the closing of Agnews Developmental Center in San Jose.

Councilwoman Judy Chirco agreed with Reed and LeZotte. “I want to see what can be done with guidelines that respect existing communities but add an element of housing that is not available,” she said.

Campos said she’s not convinced the program would benefit her high-density district 5, where many garages have been illegally converted into housing units and the city still does not have the staff to make sure they’re safe. “I’m concerned we don’t have the capacity to monitor what’s out there,” she said.

Time to take action
Williams, however, said it was time for the Council to take action as city officials have been studying the secondary-units proposal for eight years.

“It’s time to answer the questions that have been raised tonight. The only way to answer those questions is to take action and find out. We need options. The world has changed since 1984 and it’s going to change even more as we move to the future. The demand is there. People are living longer. Parents are requiring care and the cost is expensive. We have to give options to our constituents. I’m not afraid to find a way. If we stay in our cocoons and never go out to find the solutions we’ll never know.”

San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales, who voted in favor of the proposal, said, “If we’re going to rebuild the economy we’ve got to find ways to build affordable housing. When I have people coming up to me saying they need a place for their mother and father to live in the waning years of their life…I can’t figure out why we wouldn’t at least pursue how to make that accommodation within our city.”

Community opposition
During the public speaking portion of the meeting, Ruth Cavagnaro-Gilwee was disgusted with council members who voted in favor of studying the issue further because she fears the units would turn her Rose Garden neighborhood into a “rental district.”

“If we want to provide for lower-income families in our area, we should do that with higher density planned developments,” said Persi Kanga, speaking against the units and asking city officials to only allow them on 15,000-square-foot lots.

“Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that we’re going to police this adequately…. It’s going to get out of control,” Kanga said.

Jeff Orloff also spoke against the units. He said he protects his backyard privacy with an eight-foot fence. He said if the units were 16 feet high with windows it would impact him. “You could say that it’s only going to affect one percent, but the reality is that if you’re the one who ends up with the building next door, that’s a big impact to you,” Orloff said. “We won’t be able to control this. We can’t control with current staffing the estimated 2,700 illegal units across the city. I don’t see how we’re going to ensure that these are owner-occupied structures. It just isn’t going to happen. Please vote against this proposal.”

Marvin Christy of the McLaughlin Corridor Neighbor-hood Association spoke against the proposal. He said parking in his community is too congested and utilities are already overburdened.

Community support
Neil Najibi, a Willow Glen resident, read a letter written by his wife about his elderly in-laws who live in Florida and now need to be under their care.

He said the units would help them care for them in the proximity of their home because new houses are too expensive and they can’t afford to send them to a rest home. “We owe this to our elderly parents to take care of them if they can’t do it themselves,” Najibi said. “Pass this. This is needed… I see the concerns here but we’re human. We have an obligation with our parents. If we don’t do it people we’ll build illegal units.”

Felipe Zepeda spoke in favor of the units, saying they will generate property taxes. “The second unit is for my parents, if I build it. I know the suburban concern...but it’s a pilot program. We’re just going to take a shot at it. It’s a test. If it doesn’t work, at least, we can say we tried it,” Zepeda said.

Phyllis Ward, a spokeswoman for the Affordable Housing Network, supported creating a secondary-unit ordinance citywide. “San Jose has a housing shortage,” she said, estimating the unmet need for housing at 59,058 units.

Evergreen resident Gordon Lund called secondary units an excellent idea and the only way for the city to increase affordable housing in already developed areas. He said he would like to build one to maybe bring his mother to live with him, help accommodate an older child or help out a single retired sister-in-law from Illinois who has no other family. He asked the units to only be allowed on 8,000-square-foot lots.

Tracey Chew, vice chairwoman of the Santa Clara County Collaborative on Housing and Homeless Issues, said, “Our opportunities are scarce now. There’s less available land. It’s more expensive. There’s less local, state and federal resources available for affordable housing.”

She added: “Please keep in mind the extremely low-income families and the people who want to take care of their parents because if you do the lot sizes too big, it’s only going to help the rich families and not the poor families.”

Tom Fink, chairman of the city’s Housing Advisory Commission, also recommended the council pass an ordinance allowing them citywide. “This issue has been on the back burner for a long time,” he said. “Every extra unit of safe-code-compliant housing puts someone under a roof.”

Jim Peterson, also with the Affordable Housing Network, said he supported a pilot program and begged the Council to allow them on 6,000-square-foot lots. “Don’t go to the 7,000- or 8,000-square-foot lot sizes,” he pleaded. “Where are my aging parents going to live? I don’t want them to be in a home. I want them to be in my property where I can take care of them.”

Carol Herzog spoke against the units, as she believes the city is already crowded enough. “Secondary units are not the way to solve this problem. What would be the guarantee that they would be affordable housing. If people really want their sick relatives to live with them add a room to your house so you can really watch over them,” she said.

Former San Jose City Councilman David Pandori called the proposal a bad idea. “You’re about to turn 20 years of solid policy on its head,” he said. “You don’t plan cities with a shoe horn.

“Don’t pretend you’re going to do a pilot program. Pilot programs are for recycling… A pilot program will become somebody’s permanent neighborhood problem,” Pandori said.