Portola Valley: Second units key to 'affordable housing'

I know that there is a state mandate which could affect town funding and perhaps these solutions make sense. If an older person can rent 1/3 of their home to someone, why wouldn't they ask for the market rent. I have seen regular (not spectacular) PV homes for rent for $10k-$12k per month. One third of the home would go for $3k-$4k. How is that affordable housing for a single person? Not sure what would be accomplished except for allowing some older folks to stay in their home with a steady income and increasing the density since under present rules they couldn't/shouldn't divide the home. Legislating economic policy never works. If a plumber needs $5k/month to rent a home/apartment, they can raise their rates to pay for it and we'll have plumbers making $200k per year. Are all these wealthy people in CA not going to utilize a plumber, hair dresser, painter, etc. This will all work out thru hands off economic policy.

I am a little confused as to why the city limits the parcels allowed to create 2nd units to only those over 3.5 acres. Sure, building a completely new structure on a large lot could have less visual impact on the neighborhood, but having the rental unit, perhaps a renovated accessory building already on the property, in closer proximity to the main homeowner might limit obnoxious behavior by the renters...

It seems to me that the state mandate is the problem. The state expects the population to keep growing, without making provisions for land use, and most importantly the availability of water to provide for a much greater population.
Right now we do not have enough and supply has been marginal for years.
Los Angeles should be a warning. That city has been "stealing" water from faraway areas to provide for its growth, starting back in the 1920. There was the water war of the Owens valley in 1923, which was not resolved until about the 1990, when the State Supreme Court ordered water from the Valley to be retained there to restore Mono Lake levels.
I recall that some years ago a large new development in the East Bay was denied because there was no water available for it. If I recall correctly, the courts ruled and ordered East Bay MUD to provide the water, without providing a source where that water would come from or whether it was actually available.
New housing must be conditioned on availability of water, adequate roads to handle the added population and other requirements.

In-law units on less than an acre can be unobtrusive and a great help to those who
need income from their property. This topic deserves much discussion.