Publication Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Outcry over granny units
Outcry over granny units
(March 16, 2005) Council decision postponed due to volume of public testimony
by Jocelyn Dong
A proposal allowing the construction of granny units on 80 percent of the city's single-family properties drew a full house Monday evening, prompting the City Council to postpone their decision.
Though couched as one of the driest of topics -- zoning ordinance updates -- 60 residents passionately addressed council members for almost three hours. The length of public testimony prompted a postponement of the issue until April 11.
The proposals reflect the latest in a string of challenges facing Palo Alto neighbors as they live shoulder to shoulder in a built-out city. In past years, battles have erupted over "monster" homes, privacy, and increased traffic. At the same time, people concerned with the skyrocketing housing costs have championed the need to build affordable housing.
Proponents of the granny-unit rule -- which would allow 450-square-foot homes to be built on single-family properties of 6,000 square feet or more -- argued that daycare workers, teachers, firefighters, service workers and others could benefit from the new housing.
"We need the people from 'outside,'" businessman Mark Sabin said of the vast majority of workers who commute to Palo Alto. He cited statistics showing the average Palo Alto home cost nine times the median income in 2000, while in 1970 that figure was only three times the median income.
"That's why it's important we have an ordinance like this."
Others hailed the proposal as fitting into the Palo Alto "slow growth" philosophy. City staff estimated that possibly only eight new units, also known as in-law cottages, would be built per year.
"This is an ideal way to change the number of affordable housing units in town," said Judith Wasserman, chair of the city's Architectural Review Board.
Residents intent on preserving the character of their neighborhoods, however, argued that allowing 450-square-foot granny units in backyards would degrade the quality of life -- bringing traffic, parking, noise and privacy intrusions.
"Threatened -- that's what we're feeling," said Carlin Otto, whose street could have 33 homes eligible for the second dwelling units according to a neighbor's estimate. Relaxing the rules to allow units on properties smaller than 8,100 square feet "would be a disaster for Palo Alto."
She nodded vigorously when another speaker said that residents were talking of forcing a city-wide referendum on the proposal if council approved it.
Other residents felt the city was violating their trust with the granny units. "We thought we were entering into a covenant with the city" by buying in a single-family residential neighborhood, said Mary Carlstead.
She recalled a mayor who predicted the city would one day find itself at a point when it could no longer welcome new development -- or additional residents.
"The time has come," Carlstead said. "We have no more room."
Some residents even questioned whether additional cottages would be affordable to service workers. A real estate agent estimated that a granny unit could cost $135,000, leading another speaker to predict landlords would charge market-rate rent.
A few residents championed the idea of developing a program to regulate granny units -- to ensure that neighborhoods would not be overrun with them, and that the rents would not be sky-high.
In addition to the in-law cottage proposal, the single-family residential zoning-ordinance update would also:
* Allow second stories to be built on homes in substandard lots of at least 25 feet in width; homes could be no taller than 24 feet,
* Set the maximum lot size at 9,999 square feet,
* Require noise-producing equipment to housed and insulated,
* Require 66 percent of neighbors to support a single-story overlay zone, if one is requested for a neighborhood interested in prohibiting two-story homes,
* Clarify how far homes must be set back from the street.
Senior Staff Writer Jocelyn Dong can be reached at jdong@paweekly.com.
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
