The 4025 Orme property, listed here as an SB9 lot split development, was clear cut by the new owner (without a permit) of all trees but for 3 Oaks. Big beautiful trees were destroyed to the dismay of neighbors. Thankfully such clear cutting has been made illegal, and hopefully will stop this practice.

SB9 developments require the owner/developer to live on the property as their legal residence for at least 3 years from completion. But most SB9 owners are buying as investors, with no desire to live there. It’s doubt this can be enforced by the City given it would take years of monitoring.
What a racket.

Indeed "what a racket"!! And the developers love it. Too bad about the residents, taxpayers and community.

High time to start demanding answers from the politicians backing these anti-democratic laws and then voting accordingly for those supporting residents, not the deep-pocketed lobbyists so dedicated to destroying our neighborhoods, creating more traffic and pushing higher density during a drought that will force us to drink "toilet to tap" water. Yum.

What it shows, and this has been said many times before, is that the Council and the State care nothing about residents who already live here, only about the potential for cramming more people in. Our homes and neighborhoods are no longer are own but we are pawns to be ignored and overrun with red tape and unwanted interference.

Our parking, our water, our power, our sewers, our traffic, our tree canopies, are all fair game in this agenda of destroying, yes destroying, neighborhood harmony, character and community.

Palo Alto used to be the type of place where everyone knew their neighbors, everyone enjoyed the neighborhood vibe, and children could play outside in the street. Not any more.

Looking at the grouping of comments on housing the young unmarried people with no children tend to group near the downtown area. Restaurants, bars, night life. Their opinions on housing are very different then the people with children in the school system that need a more "suburban" approach so the children in school can do their sports at school and study. It is generational in nature. When the singles get married and have children their view on housing will change.

The people who have produced the legislation on housing - Mr. Weiner - have a very different life style. No children in school. Relatively little family life as compared to a married family with children. Goals and objectives totally different.

We are allowing people with different life styles apply their approach to everyone. People want to live in an area that suits their particular life style and family requirements. There is no one size fits all here. The state is legislating for one size fits all. It is not working. Start that conversation with the Berman's, Weiners, etc. Quit trying to destroy the traditional family oriented zoning that has produced a good school system. And hopefully successful children.