California needs more affordable housing. One strategy I find very intriguing is to tap into the Accessible Dwelling Unit model, which is a small detached apartment that is allowed on any residential-zoned property, often called “granny flat” or “ADU” for short. Many homeowners would love to add an ADU to their property but do not have the funds available to make it happen. If we can provide financial assistance using a combination of public and private funds that have already been earmarked for affordable housing, we would have a simple, extremely cost-effective way of creating more affordable homes on the Peninsula.
My vision would be to grant up to $150,000 toward the ADU and the owner is required to pay one third of the overall cost. In return for this grant, the ADU would be deed restricted as a low-cost rental unit for 10 years. Low cost rental applicants can include low-income families, elderly family members, first responders, health care workers, people with special needs and teachers so they may live locally. After 10 years, the deed restriction would be removed and the ADU becomes free and clear to be used at the homeowner’s discretion with an option to continue in the program. Those who continue in the program would receive a financial incentive to do so.
I would like to see San Mateo County administer the program so that we have one central source of information and regulations. This would alleviate the complexities created by each city having different regulations and requirements. Because ADUs are so cost effective, a million-dollar investment could yield between six and 10 units. The cost of a typical affordable unit in a multifamily building can be as high as $1 million to build. While we desperately need the multifamily units, especially in city centers and near transit, this ADU program would be a great way to augment our affordable housing needs and stretch our available capital. The guidelines that currently exist for low-income housing could be altered to include this program and the county would use the revised guidelines to protect both the property owner and the tenant.
There are various ways to keep the costs down on building these ADUs, like free utility hookups, no fee permits or inspection costs, waiver of local fees or fire sprinkler requirements. The carpenters’ union is currently building ADUs in a factory in the Bay Area, this is a great way of reducing construction costs. The ADU could even be outfitted with solar panels, offsetting the need for additional power service to the property. The units should be built to the highest level of sustainability to keep the operating and maintenance costs to a minimum for both the owners and low-income renter.
I see this program as a great way to introduce new people and younger families into our established neighborhoods which in my opinion will infuse a new sense of community and vitality. These new units would greatly reduce both long-distance commutes and traffic congestion, give thousands of local workers — the people who make our cities function — the ability to enjoy living in and engaging in the cities where they work.
The keys to a successful program will be the simplicity of its goals and requirements, paired with the flexibility necessary to implement it in the many unique residential sites that are found throughout the county. We need to keep it streamlined and simple to end up with affordable housing at a highly reduced cost. This type of program can change not only the lives of the people who are provided affordable homes near their jobs, it can also bring equity, vibrancy and a shared sense of community to the neighborhoods that embrace it.
John Ebneter is a resident of San Mateo, has over 40 years experience in construction and is a member of the San Mateo Planning Commission. John is an active member in numerous local nonprofits. Goals include ways to make housing affordable in San Mateo and reduce environmental impact.
(9) comments
ADU's are an aspiration but they will not fix the problem. They are a bit of gauze on an open wound, slowing the problem. We have to build more housing at every level at rates unseen in decades. Kill measure P. Group up San Mateo, literally time to build up.
Ray raises an excellent question.
We wouldn't need to be entertaining these solutions that result in lower quality of life if we would just limit office development.
As other commenters said, making it easier to add granny units is a great way to increase congestion, traffic, parking problems, and generally lower our quality of life. If we want to become L.A. north, we should definitely do that.
ADUs will do exactly none of those things. Increased congestion/traffic and lower quality of life is directly related to a continued refusal to build enough homes to satisfy job growth, which is what the Peninsula has done for the past several decades. Fully legalizing and providing funding for ADUs is a very good (if not wholly adequate) way to build some of the housing we so badly need here and to eliminate the issues previously discussed.
Jordan...agree and add that many today think TOD & designated high density is a modern phenomenon...they were around BEFORE the advent of automotive travel.
TOD & designated high density areas were in the downtown's.
Renters vs home owners are at about 50/50 of the voting population and going to switch over to a majority of renters soon
Plus, all of the discussion for the general plan might cast in stone (concrete) boomer lifestyle metrics that the young will be stuck with for their lives.
John...fulfill your vision...PUT UP $150,000 for a unit in YOUR backyard.
In your 40 years of building, did you build market rate, for profit housing in San Mateo or did you do affordable housing?
Fabulouw concept John. we need this sort of creative thinking and stop worrying about the nimbys who first answered your column. With the larger lots and frontages in the R-1 zones, parking and 'crowding' will not be a problem. Hopefully more forward thinking folks will push for this idea. Bravo John.
John, sounds like you have come up with a great plan to cause more density and overcrowding. People like John forget that most of us do not want to live in a city like that and it is due to quality of life. As a builder, you would think John would know we have zoning laws and building codes for a reason. The city of San Mateo is crowded enough for most of its citizens, building more units in ones backyard is as welcome as giving our power over to a regional unelected board, which by the way is being forced on us as well.
Where would all these new people park their cars? Add them to the already crowded street parking?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.