Guest Opinion: 'Granny units' zone change puts R-1 neighborhoods in jeopardy Guest Opinion: 'Granny units' zone change puts R-1 neighborhoods in jeopardy (March 23, 2005)

by Tom Wyman

The Zoning Ordinance Update to be discussed and voted on by the City Council on April 11 would permit the construction of 450-square-foot second living units on R-1 lots.

Predictably, this is proving controversial. It was controversial when the city's Comprehensive Plan was being drafted some 10 years ago. This State-mandated plan provides a guide for the future development of the City and was adopted by the City Council in July 1998.

As a member of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, I participated in drafting the plan that was submitted to the Council. Even as we drafted the 400-plus-page document, we recognized that it included some elements that were contradictory. A key conflict is now apparent as city staff recommends zoning changes purportedly to implement the Comprehensive Plan.

Program H-4 of that plan recognizes the need to encourage the development of affordable and market-rate housing, but it also recognizes the need to maintain Palo Alto's attractive neighborhoods and to avoid actions that would diminish quality of life. The Comprehensive Plan does not mandate, nor even recommend, placing second dwelling units in single-family areas. It simply proposes that the city "evaluate" the possibility. There is no basis for proceeding if this evaluation and public support prove wanting.

"Granny units" should not be disallowed, and current provisions governing such units should remain in place. However, to increase the permissible size of units that could be built in R-1 areas from 200 to 450 square feet would undercut existing zoning restrictions and be a de facto rezoning of R-1 areas. There is no assurance that these units would be "affordable." The result would be greater density, more on-street parking, more neighborhood traffic and more noise and air pollution -- all in direct conflict with objectives of the city's Comprehensive Plan, as in the following:

1) The first goal of the transportation element is, "Less reliance on single-occupant vehicles." Locating additional housing in R-1 areas is not consistent with reducing reliance on the automobile. The plan emphasizes that it is important to, "Locate higher-density development along transit corridors and near multi-modal transit stations."

2) The natural-environment element calls for "clean, healthful air" noting that "motor vehicles are the primary source of pollution in Palo Alto." Another goal calls for minimizing the adverse impacts of noise. Increasing density in single-family residential areas would defeat both of these environmental objectives.

3) New zoning ordinances that increase automobile traffic would be contrary to Council priorities to calm traffic and to encourage the use of alternative transportation.

The Comprehensive Plan speaks repeatedly to the importance of maintaining the integrity of Palo Alto's residential areas. For example:

1) The first Goal of the Land Use and Community Design element asserts "... the need to protect the qualities that are important to Palo Alto." Policy L-4 calls for maintaining the character of Palo Alto's architecturally varied residential neighborhoods. Down-zoning R-1 neighborhoods is not consistent with maintaining the character of those areas.

2) Policy L-5 reads: "Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale."

3) Policy L-12 deals with the need to preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures.

The assumption by city staff that the proposed ordinance would have little effect on the construction of second units in R-1 areas is entirely unfounded.

Increasing the allowable size of second units from 200 to 450 square feet enhances the economics significantly and would clearly increase the incentive to build such units. Given the possibility that hundreds of such units might be built each year, the fundamental character of Palo Alto's residential areas could be seriously compromised.

The economic impact on our schools has not been addressed. Surely, more secondary units would have the potential of adding to our school age population with the result that taxes on increased property values would not cover the cost of educating those youngsters.

The objective of Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan is to offer a coherent vision for the city's future based on the input of residents. It is not a mandate for change.

One of Palo Alto's chief attractions is its lovely residential neighborhoods, and it is essential that firm lines be established to protect these vulnerable low-density areas. If this is not done, it's a short step to the point where neighborhood integrity and quality of life are lost to greater density. This is unacceptable.

Residents did not invest their life savings to buy homes in attractive neighborhoods only to see those neighborhoods deteriorate by ill-advised re-zoning ordinances.

The recommendation by staff to legalize construction of second units on R-1 lots will compromise the fundamental character of many neighborhoods and be in direct conflict with key elements of the Comprehensive Plan.

In spite of strong vocal opposition to this proposal during public hearings conducted by staff, this appears to be yet another instance where City Hall is not listening to residents but instead is moving ahead unilaterally with its own agenda.

Longtime Palo Alto resident Tom Wyman is a former member of the Library Advisory Commission, immediate past president of the Palo Alto Historical Association, a board member of the Palo Alto History Museum and author of several papers on Palo Alto history. He can be e-mailed at ellenandtom@sbcglobal.net.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.