Editor,
I am seriously concerned about the state-mandated development of ADUs (accessory dwelling units) popping up in our cities as well as proposed senate bills 9 and 10 and their negative impact on single-family zoned neighborhoods (R1).
Editor,
I am seriously concerned about the state-mandated development of ADUs (accessory dwelling units) popping up in our cities as well as proposed senate bills 9 and 10 and their negative impact on single-family zoned neighborhoods (R1).
ADUs can be two stories (above or replacing a garage or in a backyard or front yard), up to two ADUs for each single-family lot. One ADU (up to 1,200 square feet) and one junior ADU (up to 500 square feet) with no additional on-site parking. What was a single-family home can now turn into a duplex or triplex to rent out.
Also, the state currently has a quota for dense housing development, for each city, with penalties, if not adhered to. Senate bills 9 and 10 take this a step further with a one-size-fits-all approach.
For example, Senate Bill 10 allows 10-unit market-rate apartments almost anywhere regardless of zoning. It’s the kiss of death for single-family neighborhoods and a developer’s golden goose.
However, the pandemic is seriously changing the housing situation for the better and for a long time as people leave urban areas and the state, and some companies move out. A large number of people will continue to work at home, saving companies money and productivity. Office buildings will be converted to residential and the state already has rent control. There is no real need for ADUs and not as many dense multiunit developments. Some state legislators need to get their heads out of the sand and in tune with what’s changing around them.
Gary Isoardi
San Mateo
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(1) comment
Mr. Isoardi, obviously the state would like to mandate more housing. After all, more housing means more property taxes. More housing means more traffic, which means more fuel taxes, which means more toll-lanes, which means more work for CalTrans union workers. More housing means more contributions from developers, etc. But please be careful, Mr. Isoardi, pretty soon, you’ll be called, if you haven’t already, a NIMBY owner.
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.