On March 21, San Jose Director of Housing Leslye Corsiglia addressed the Building Strong Neighborhoods Committee to discuss a proposal that would allow secondary units in San Jose. The group included District 9 Councilwoman Judy Chirco, District 10 Councilwoman Nancy Pyle and District 5 Councilwoman Nora Campos, who work with residents to improve neighborhoods. Corsiglia reported on community feedback that the San Jose Code Enforcement and Housing departments had received through a public outreach process. The city council had directed staffers in April 2004 to gather public input to assist the city in determining whether to lift the ban.

Citing traffic, infrastructure and safety concerns, the council passed an ordinance in 1984 that prohibited secondary units in San Jose. Yet Corsiglia said the demand for affordable housing within the city necessitated re-examining the existing ordinance.

"A lot has changed since 1984," she said.

Corsiglia told the committee that the council has three options: To continue to prohibit secondary units, to allow secondary units throughout the city or to develop a pilot project in which one area would be selected for a trial of secondary units. She said the housing department recommended a trial period.

"We want to choose an area that will be good to start with," Corsiglia said. "We want to be careful about lot size. A lot of places won't work because the lot size is so small. We'll see if the council is willing to look at [repealing the ban] and then select an area."

Corsiglia said that if the city council decides to allow secondary units, the dwellings would have to conform to certain parameters. The units would have to be located on property that is at least 6,000 square foot. The unit could be no larger than 650 square feet, and it would be limited to one bedroom. The property would also be required to have an additional parking space; and the design of the unit would have to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

Despite these stipulations, some residents are concerned that the amount of people who are allowed to live in a secondary unit will not be adequately restricted.

Under the state housing code, two occupants are allowed in a 150 square-foot sleeping room and one extra occupant is allowed for each 70 square feet of sleeping room after that. If 500 square feet of a 650 square-foot unit is considered sleeping room, up to seven people could legally live there, according to the code. The code applies to all residences, not just secondary units. If the council lifts the prohibition on secondary units, the city would be required to follow the state code.

"When people buy into an R-1 neighborhood, they expect to live in a single-family neighborhood," Willow Glen resident Tieralisa Caplow said. "The city can't control how many people live there, only if the unit is complying with the city's requirements."

The additional residents living in a secondary unit could impact parking and traffic conditions in the neighborhood, Caplow said.

Caplow also raised the concern that homeowners could move into a secondary unit and lease out their homes to tenants, which would allow even more people to move into a neighborhood.

"You could have 20 people living in a house," she said.

But Phyllis Ward, a representative from the Affordable Housing Network, said the impact of secondary units in surrounding neighborhoods would be minimal because the dwellings would be expensive to build. And allowing secondary units would ameliorate the housing shortage in San Jose at no cost to the city, she said.

"We have a crisis in the city," Ward said. "There is a need for affordable housing."

The proposal to lift the ban on secondary units is tentatively scheduled to appear before the San Jose City Council on April 5.