This is going to damage communities - if my neighbor slammed some ADU or housing right next to my fence, so I had months of construction noise, and then this big building and extra noise and parking, I'd be fuming. I'd probably never speak to them again.

My biggest fear is a wave of violence - this is a country which makes it easy to buy guns, alcohol and drugs, so you can imagine what some crazy people might do when their neighbors destroy their lives by wreaking this house and garden. For many people that's all they have, and somebody next door tying to make a quick buck knows 20% of your life savings.

This is classic Sacramento in the pocket of developers messing up our communities.

For Sale signs are now essentially warning signs.

I'm glad new homes are coming to Palo Alto under SB 9. Our city is a great place to live, and it is time we made room for new neighbors.

"Our city is a great place to live, and it is time we made room for new neighbors."

Don't you mean WAS a great place to live. Have you somehow missed all the complaints about people losing their privacy in their yards, their new weirdo neighbors staring into their bedrooms, etc.

When our neighbor added a second-story addition, they and their architect worked very hard to ensure their new window walls weren't staring into right our bathroom, bedroom and/or yard.

I doubt everyone will be lucky enough to have such considerate and thoughtful neighbors.

You might also look at all the complaints about the "hacker houses" rented to 8+ techies and the problems finding parking or the protests that defeated a similar proposal for some unfamiliar clergyman who tried to stick a "mission" housing 12+ people in an already crowded neighborhood.

We should all welcome this - it is creating 100,000s of jobs and income for the real-estate industry. The rise in interest rates has slowed the housing market and the real-estate industry is in trouble. Realtors and developers will thrive on this, brining much needed money and income to the industry.

Also my pensions has investments in REITS and this will help them too. These reforms make me less worried about retirements and the profit in my pension plan.

[Post removed; successive comments by same poster are not permitted.]

Thank you for this article! I am not voting for Marc Berman this time around.

A few years ago the big news was that several neighborhoods had put in second story restrictions along with similar rules. Anyone who is used to a secluded back yard, privacy being able to walk around naked without fear of being stared at from another window either in the backyard, bedroom, bathroom, etc. are now in fear of losing that sense of privacy in their own homes.

Or is voyeurism going to be the next social contagion?

“Thank you for this article! I am not voting for Marc Berman this time around.”


Remember Assemblyman Berman promised that SB9 was all about “affordability?” Web Link There’s nothing in the actual law about that. Shall we start a pool on how much this house will sell for - say, above or below $3.5 million? Maybe he meant the Developer themself could afford to buy up once they sold it.

Falsely calling expensive housing “affordable” is standard practice in Sacramento of course. In 2022 Berman himself proposed a state bill that would outlaw city impact fees on some MARKET RATE housing, falsely claiming “affordable.” Those fees go to infrastructure, parks, and yes, real Affordable Housing. Even Sacramento wasn’t ready for that … then.

"Or is voyeurism going to be the next social contagion?"

Know the apartment building at the corner of El Camino and Oregon, the one with floor to ceiling windows offering great views for 12 lanes of traffic stopped at the lights at ECR, Page Mill and Oregon?

We used to call it Voyeur Locale when it was called something like Alto Locale before they changed the name.

"Falsely calling expensive housing “affordable” is standard practice in Sacramento of course. In 2022 Berman himself proposed a state bill that would outlaw city impact fees on some MARKET RATE housing, falsely claiming “affordable.” Those fees go to infrastructure, parks, and yes, real Affordable Housing. Even Sacramento wasn’t ready for that … then."

Re Berman and his falsehoods, he wasted the time of more than 200 people on a ZOOM about housing right before one of the key bills was up for a vote. During the long Zoom, he claimed to be too busy to pay attention to that bill because he was faced with SO MANY bills he couldn't pay attention, had no opinion of the various provisions of the bill that we read aloud to him, insisted he didn't yet know how he was going to vote, to contact his legislative aide, etc etc.

And the VERY NEXT DAY voted for the housing bill under discussion!

He's a disingenuous DODO (Developer Owned Developer Operated) stooge who doesn't need to read the bills because he just votes the way his deep-pocketed backers tell him.

No wonder that MONTHS ago he'd raised $1,000,000 more than his opponent. I wonder how many much more he's raised since then and how many glossy mailers he'll send this time.

Sorry, but why do my neighbors need to get notified about what I plan to do with my own property? I’m not building an oil refinery. I’m building a home for people to live in.

If they have strong opinions, they’re welcome to do something different with their own property. Palo Alto, you are truly the worst.

6 homes. This is a theoretical not actual thing. I remodeled a while back. About $700/sqr foot. Land is another $400. It’s going to be hard to use this bill to provide multi-units per lot that are attractive enough to sell at that price. Some rare lots, sure like in the area behind Gunn. But most will use ADUs to expand their own living area relatively cheaply. Few of those will be rented (yes, we added an ADU for exactly this reason— a place for visiting adult kids)

ADUs are an excellent way to get more space - many folks we know have expanded their house using ADUs. Our architect said he's crazy busy with them as folks want a bit more living space - maybe add a home office and home gyn. It's great that Sacramento allows up to build larger homes as California traditionally has too small homes.

Re ADUs. Do the same construction regulations and codes apply to the building of ADUs? Are building inspections during construction the same and as rigid as for construction of a single family residence? I have doubts, as I have noticed in-wall construction framing that appears not to confirm to mandated earthquake standards.

What a big mess, ADUs, prop 19. and other dangerous laws and regulations. No big surprise, reading this story. No wonder people are leaving the area. The true mission of most cities and counties in the bay area is to increase, taxes, fee's, tolls and increase the profits of the controlling California political party connected developers and businesses. Just look at Redwood City as an example. Out of control development, narrow crowded poorly planned and maintained streets and roads and decline in population.

We live in a state with one party rule where the narrative is the basis of all decisions. Laws in Sacramento passed with no review of the impact to the local neighborhoods. We are flooded with SB whatever and politicians are glad to take the money for the sponsor of the SB and whomever benefits.

[Portion removed.]

The definition of affordable housing for me is apartments our children can live in when they return with their college degrees. With supply and demand being the long term equation of pricing, the pricing of the rents are typically high so roommates are required followed by an increased supply to bring down pricing so our younger people can live here and keep us all young.

I purchased my home but also purchased my neighborhood.

Between this crap and the "Builders Remedy" we need to take back our community's right to dictate how and where growth happens. we need to protect our neighborhoods.

As it is, when we purchased our home almost 20 years ago, there were nearly no cars parking on the neighborhood streets. Now, its almost impossible to find street parking on any given day.

Imagine taking one lot with two cars parked now split into three lots and now six cars are fighting for street space. Now imagine how many bicyclists are in danger from curb parked cars.

This is a bad idea and our representitives who put this in place need to get rid of it or WE WILL VOTE YOU OUT.

WE WILL VOTE YOU OUT requires an enormous, dedicated campaign. The political parties are organized and well funded. When Berman first ran for the Assembly he ended up in a run-off against Vicki Veenker, a far more qualified candidate. But the Dem Party and some PACs backed Berman. I think they wanted a reliable yes vote to push an agenda that includes a boatload of poorly reasoned housing legislation. So, yes, we need to vote differently. That requires paying attention, watching the endorsement game, and ignoring the insipid shiny fliers that fill our mailboxes every election.

I sincerely doubt this zoning change will promote alcoholism, drug abuse and gun violence. However, anything that might curtail nude backyard frolicking in our fair city must be stopped immediately.

"WE WILL VOTE YOU OUT requires an enormous, dedicated campaign. The political parties are organized and well funded. When Berman first ran for the Assembly he ended up in a run-off against Vicki Veenker, a far more qualified candidate. But the Dem Party and some PACs backed Berman."

Where do we sign up for WE WILL VOTE YOU OUT??? I recently searched for the history of Dem Party endorsements because I was curious about their past endorsements in a particular race and was disgusted at their endorsements of candidates with absolutely no experience beyond their ability to parrot slogans and espouse "civility."

Re "nude backyard frolicking in our fair city," I suspect the "attractive nuisance law" will address that once residents discover that THEY are at fault if drivers crash while ogling them walking around nude in their homes and/or their kids injure themselves spying on neighbors skinny dipping in their own backyard pools and hot tubs. Let the lawsuits begin!

Seriously, pay attention to who's endorsing and funding the candidates before voting.

Notice that the people who want more housing are in the downtown area where they can go to bars and restaurants. It is like looking at the TV show Friends. They are single, have no children, and probably have graduated from student housing somewhere. They love the hurly burly life. They are looking for "action". The more the merrier.

Then there are the empty nesters who have moved into apartments where their needs will be taken care of.

A different category of comments are people who have children in the school system. They bought houses so their children would have a safe place to be - study, be in student activities, have pets. That is where the cities tax payments come from. R-1 homes.

Every city has a hierarchal level of demographics reflecting the life and time of the residents. Childhood, school, work, create family of their own, establish a home. Then move on when the children leave to restart the process.

But then we have the legislators who live in the most progressive sections of the state, have no children, have no families because they came from somewhere else, and represent the narrow category of residents who live on the fringe. They want to turn this whole state into their world.

Worse - HCD which is their creation imagines a criteria for success that other state agencies cannot fulfill to support - water in, water out, electricity, sewage treatment, streets, crime. All smoke and mirrors. All hype. Stop them - make them fess up that they do not fund water, electricity, waste reduction. They are too busy in some bar somewhere.

We live in a very small house that lost most of its sky view from a neighbor’s remodel (rental), and I’m still all for increasing density with a thoughtful process that requires compromise from constituents. However, a free-for-all--throwing evolved design principles--and probably ancient rules for balancing density with harmony/privacy--is extremely damaging to community building. Marc Berman is indeed a disappointment, whether from lack of diligence in reading/researching the bill, or in his gullibility of defining "affordability." I won't be voting for him either.

Responding to Evan's singular view of existence:
"Sorry, but why do my neighbors need to get notified about what I plan to do with my own property? I’m not building an oil refinery. I’m building a home for people to live in."

Evan, one can certainly live in isolation within a neighborhood--it is already a sad state for many in the modern world--but being part of a respectful community has so many benefits that include a stronger immune system, better mental health, and a sense of belonging in a world not always changing for the better.
Offsetting windows, locating a room which optimizes sky view for you and neighbors is a good thing for you and your neighbors. One can't help but feel your comment is coming from design ignorance/lack of experience, tremendous entitlement, or being overly self-centered. I hope it is the first. Consider educating yourself.

"But then we have the legislators who live in the most progressive sections of the state,..." and like Berman who ranks in the top 5 state legislators for having the largest investment portfolios in the state and are laughing all the way to the bank.

"Responding to Evan's singular view of existence:
"Sorry, but why do my neighbors need to get notified about what I plan to do with my own property? I’m not building an oil refinery. I’m building a home for people to live in."

Evan, one can certainly live in isolation within a neighborhood--it is already a sad state for many in the modern world--but being part of a respectful community has so many benefits..."

[Portion removed.]

Lots of older Palo Alto homes have ADU's (called granny units back then). So while I can understand specific complaints about a specific new unit, I don't understand the general aversion. They were normal back in the day, and apparently will be again.

the older, larger homes on the north side had side units for the "help". Malcolm Harris's book "Palo Alto" tells the history of this area that is five generations deep with the railroad coming across America. Stanford was one of the greats who helped build that railroad and the campus for the university - originally called The Farm. He brings you up to the current period with the tech Bros's and their building of their companies and the world of the Sand Hill Venture Capitalist.

An ADU today on a home property with children is awkward. That is not your grandma living there.

SB9 is a policy failure. There has been one unit in Palo Alto. And its an ADU not a duplex, qaudplex, or lot-split. The result in Palo Alto is typical of statewide results.

Recall that the chattering class of SB9 supporters hung their hats on a Terman Center study saying SB9 would supply up to 750k new "missing middle" units.

The people who think up these laws on housing live in an urban city that is having increasing problems. Continually tinkering with the housing laws are just creating more problems. The City of SF is categorized as a tourist city. The residents are in a wide range of jobs and wage levels due to the requirements of supporting the tourist trade. And they do not agree with each other as to how to proceed.

WE are in a suburban city that is focused on families getting their children through school. Living in a SAFE place so our children are protected. WE have top ranked high schools and the University as our focus areas. Yes we have techies that travel to Google - Mountain View or FB - Menlo Park where their main campuses are.

WE are not going to tear our neighborhoods up and create chaos just to satisfy a
bunch of San Francisco politicians who may be out the door in the next go around. The public can stand only so much disarray and chaos. And we are not going to be stampeded around making wrong decisions. WE are going to run this city like NORMAL people.