Debating the definition of single-family zoning
Michael Brilliot of the SJ Planning Dept recently chided Planning Commissioner Pierluigi Oliverio for saying that San Jose's proposed Opportunity Housing initiative would eliminate single family zoning in the city, even though the initiative would allow up to six units on lots currently zoned for single families. Brilliot publicly said PLO was "inaccurate." Below is the email exchange between Brilliot, Oliverio, and Christopher Escher, Opportunity Now's cofounder, discussing the issue and the definition of single family zoning. The email thread is presented in reverse chronological order (most recent first) for clarity's sake.
From Christopher Escher to Michael Brilliot and Pierluigi Oliverio, responding to Brilliot's email (appended below) clarifying his "inaccurate" comment.
March 18, 2021
Thanks Michael, I really appreciate your quick and thoughtful reply.
I *think* I understand the distinctions you are drawing as part of your claim that PLO was "inaccurate" when he said the Opportunity Housing effort would eliminate single family zoning. But let me be frank: I find your formulations to be slippery and tinged with sophistry, and as a result have a negative effect on promoting a fair and informed debate on this issue.
Here's why:
1.) You dramatically misrepresent the impact of the Opportunity Housing proposal on the commonly-held understanding of "single family zoning." Two minutes on Google will tell anyone that single family zoning means:
"Single-family zoning makes it illegal for a community to build anything other than a single home on a single lot. That means no apartment buildings, condos or duplexes. We often associate single-family neighborhoods with suburbs, but many cities restrict large portions of their land to this type of building as well."
That's the first result on "define single family zoning." There are more if you want to do the search yourself, they all say the same thing.
I gather that your point is: well, we're not going to *formally* change the zoning, we're just changing the uses that can take place within the zoning. But you're cheating here, because your changes to what's allowed will *fundamentally eliminate many of the core principles of the commonly understood characteristics of single-family zoning.* Here's the money 'graph from your email:
"What we are proposing to do is to change the allowable uses within the zoning district. As currently proposed, this would allow one to four units with(in) single family zoning district where only one house is allowed now."
You can call it what you will but nobody, anywhere, would call a neighborhood full of duplexes and quadplexes a single family neighborhood. This is sophistry.
2.) Because of your exotic formulations, your claims of PLO's inaccuracy are misleading, and, well, inaccurate themselves.
Almost everyone--both academics and laypeople--understand the term "single family zoning" to mean what it says--a neighborhood that only allows single family homes. Not their footprint. Not their style. Single family homes. So when PLO suggests that Opportunity Housing is eliminating that restriction, he's accurate--certainly in spirit. Even if you want to clarify that it's not the zoning itself that will change, his claim is right next door to the truth. For you to dismiss his observation as simply "inaccurate," as you did in the SJ Spotlight story, is grossly unfair. And even worse, it's misleading, because it will suggest to most people that Opportunity Housing won't allow duplexes and fourplexes, when in fact it does.
3.) It feels like your public communication on this issue is partisan and selective.
Your explanation of this conflict in your email to PLO and me clarifies the linguistic differences between you two. Fair enough. But that's three people. I *really* wish you had been so forthcoming to the hundreds of people who saw the sanjosespotlight article, because it reads as though you are dismissing PLO's observations as disinformation, when in fact your disagreement is over arcane bureaucratic language. Maybe you were misquoted, it happens, but it seems like you are taking sides and that is really inappropriate. Your department should study Opportunity Housing, if directed to do so, in a neutral manner, and it feels like you're already made up your mind. If you want to go after some truly inaccurate comments about housing and planning in SJ, I suggest you take aim at your colleagues in the Housing Department who are spending taxpayer dollars to promote some real howlers.
Again, thanks for the reply, it's very much appreciated, even if we are in disagreement on this issue.
Christopher Escher
__________________________
This is Michael Brilliot's response to a request for clarification of his comments that PLO was "inaccurate" in his description of Opportunity Housing as eliminating single family zoning in SJ.
From: Michael Brilliot
To: Christopher Escher, Pierluigi Oliverio
March 17, 2021
Hi Pierluigi, Hi Christopher,
I have to say that Rena Guza below did provide a good explanation.
Single Family zoning districts, and really all zoning districts, regulate use and then have development standards. These development standards typically include, for example, heights and setbacks (Front, side and rear).
Our, or Planning's proposal is not to eliminate the single-family zoning district per se, or to rezone all properties with a single-family zoning district to a new zoning district, say the Opportunity Housing zoning district. The current proposal is to retain the existing single family zoning district, or more specifically the development standard within this zoning district. What we are proposing to do is to change the allowable uses within the zoning district. As currently proposed, this would allow one to four units with single family zoning district where only one house is allowed now (of course with a provision for an ADU). These units would have to be built within the development standards of the single-family zoning district or, to put another way, within the allowed box of a single-family house structure. The intent is to retain the character of a single-family neighborhood by retaining the character of the single-family structures.
Regarding whether the statement "Eliminating Single Family zoning" is accurate, it depends on your perspective. Technically, we are not proposing to eliminate it. Just modifying it to allow more flexibility for more housing units to be built within the development standards for single family homes. However, single family zoning was created in the early 20th century with the goal of keeping other uses, including factories and apartments, out of neighborhood; btw, often the primary underlying motive was to also keep "those" people out of these neighborhoods. So, from this perspective, it could appear to some that we are proposing to eliminate single family zoning, at least as it was originally conceived, because we are proposing to allow uses that other individual homes in signal family zoning districts.
Hope this helps,
Michael
________________
The following is Planning Commissioner Pierluigi Oliverio's original response to questions about Brilliot's claim that Oliverio was "inaccurate" in saying Opportunity Housing would do away with single family zoning.
From: Pierluigi Oliverio
To: Christopher Escher Michael Brilliot
March 15, 2021
Hi Christopher,
Thanks for the note.
I have not spoken with Michael about this so let me include him on this email and I expect he would have a response for you as well.
I read the blog and was a bit surprised myself. The term “elimination of single family house zoning” is common throughout newspaper websites on this topic.
I noticed District 5 United, one of the proponents of this proposal, uses a slightly different term “abolishing” single family house zoning.
Renee Gurza who used to staff the planning commission as the city attorney made this comment:
Opportunity Housing allows densification in those districts well beyond traditional parameters such that those zoning districts could (and would be expected to) eventually change significantly over time. I really do not see Mr. Oliverio’s and Mr. Brilliot’s statements to be in actual conflict. The former looks at practical effects over time and the latter focuses on the language of the proposed change and it’s more immediate impacts if enacted.
As far as your questions Chris, I believe you are correct on all of them. There must be a change to allow anything else other than a single family house to be built and when changed, it eliminates the protection from having a fourplex built next to your property. As one of the commenters mentioned perhaps it should be called “Flexible Single Family-Multifamily Zoning”
Regards,
Pierluigi
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity.