Town Square

Post a New Topic

Townhome designs OK'd for Mayfield Mall site

Original post made on Apr 17, 2008

The 45 townhouses slated for Palo Alto's sliver of the former Mayfield Mall site slipped through the Architectural Review Board Thursday morning.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, April 17, 2008, 12:52 PM

Comments (15)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Love the phrase "slipped through", does anything slip through in Palo Alto?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by hhh
a resident of Southgate
on Apr 17, 2008 at 4:25 pm

did you realize that palo altans are walking concurrently with relatively peaceful ''indian'' lands . bay indians has no real warfare , just minor skirmishes,just think , when you walk down any street you are in parallel with a once fresh smelling living wonder of american continent that you now treat like rotten sludge...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Howard
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 18, 2008 at 12:15 am

Just when I though Palo Alto could not get any nuttier, along comes hhh with that gem.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Unfortunate Neighbor
a resident of South of Midtown
on Apr 18, 2008 at 7:35 am

San Antonio Road has huge backups now, just wait until Mayfield Mall, the Campus for Jewish Life, BRIDGE/BUILD, Alma Plaza, Ricky's, The Elk's Club, Vantage and Echelon are built and fully occupied, we won't be able to move along either Charleston or San Antonio Road any time of day.

This is excessive building without planning. Palo Alto is very good at that. Time to make San Antonio Road six lanes.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Too much traffic
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2008 at 9:03 am

Time to start sending more commercial and regular traffic down Embarcadero Road. That street is underutilized.
What we need is traffic calming measures on San Antonio Road, also.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Meadow Park
on Apr 18, 2008 at 9:43 am

The post by Unfortunate Neighbor mentions "This is excessive building without planning", after listing many South Palo Alto developments. A project that is built and operating is the Gideon Hausner Jewish Day School, 450 San Antonio Road, grades K-8 with 400 students. This project adds to the traffic congestion on San Antonio Road and, along with the Peninsula Day Care Center, 525 San Antonio Road, adds child safety concerns to congestion concerns. What we need is traffic calming measures on San Antonio Road. Traffic calming would reduce congestion and improve air quality and safety.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Palo Verde
on Apr 18, 2008 at 10:02 am

You have forgotten to mention the Jewish High School on Fabian, just a stone's throw from San Antonio.

One thing about these schools is that these are commuter schools and although of course we should be worried about children's safety, there will be few students arriving by foot or by bike. Most kids will have to arrive by car. This doubles the problem as parents who even live close enough for their kids to walk or bike will see that San Antonio is too dangerous for their kids to get there by themselves, so will drive them the few blocks to get there. It is a chicken and the egg scenario.

Because San Antonio is the boundary between Palo Alto and Mountain View the problem is worse, because it seems to me that what goes on one side of the street is ignored by the other side when it comes to planning. The kids who are going to live in the snakes head part of this development are going to be locked in unless their parents get them in the cars to get out of the development, there are major roads surrounding them, have you actually looked at these streets?

San Antonio should not have new residential streets as direct intersections. These new developments should exit and enter by the residential areas behind them and not onto San Antonio.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by a long time resident
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Apr 18, 2008 at 11:56 am

No development should be allowed until SanAntino is widened, rebuilt and the traffic problem there now is solved.
The frontage road should be one lane in one direction and the median eliminated so that six lanes could be built. The existing underused, underpass should be the only access for westbound traffic to the development. The "Neti"? left turn light needs to be eliminated. Within about 3 seconds of a car pulling up to this light all East bound traffic, no matter how many cars going East, their light turns red.

The school(s)cause backups as the autos double park while waiting to pick up the kids. SanAntino becomes a one lane street.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jenny
a resident of South of Midtown
on Apr 18, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Long time resident says, "No development should be allowed until San Antonio is widened, rebuilt and the traffic problem there now is solved". Too late now Mountain View has already approved their 450 housing units and PA is about to approve their 48 townhouses.

Palo Alto is already planning changes for San Antonio Road. The overhanging pine trees will be removed. The roadway will be flattened out and resurfaced. A bicycle path is planned and re-striping for a four lane roadway only is planned. In other words traffic congestion will get worse because nothing is going to change. That's Palo Alto's idea of planning for a huge increase in vehicle traffic.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Full and Fed Up
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 18, 2008 at 9:16 pm

Get ready for more bond measures, folks, the "no tax increase" way to pay for all this:
* Schools for the added students
* Upgraded roads for the additional traffic
* Additional police, fire fighters, parks and other city services

Think I'm joking - then why are they doing Measure A? Answer is to bill the taxpayers for the school impacts of past rounds of poorly planned, unmitigated growth.

There's only 1 answer to this problem, folks: Say (and vote) NO to Growth.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nothing will Change
a resident of Green Acres
on Apr 19, 2008 at 1:32 pm

I forgot to mention that from now on everyone will be riding bicycles, walking or taking public transportation. Our vaunted transportation department doesn't believe in cars.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 20, 2008 at 12:46 pm

I am puzzled by too much traffic's idea of wanting to send more commercial and regular traffic down Embarcadero Rd. I assure you this street is already heavily impacted most times of the day, we already get all the Stanford traffic, and we do not have the capacity to take more traffic! What's more, we have a very hard time just getting onto Highway 101 owing to the convergence of Embarcadero and Oregon: this is a true bottleneck already.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hulkamania
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 20, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Embarcadero underutilized?!?! Hahahahahahaha!!! Bring your lawn chair over, sit under a tree, and watch how underutilized Embarcadero is.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by They're architects
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 4, 2008 at 11:39 am

The Architectural Review Board is composed mostly of architects. Architects earn a living working for developers. They don't bite the hand that feeds them. They approve almost anything.
They even hand out zone changes. They might criticize something really ugly at first but at the final bell they say OK. They are rarely concerned about the environment in which the buildings will stand.
Just look at the Campus for Jewish Life. Have you ever seen anything bigger and less attractive? (I'm not using the real word.)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Andrew L. Freedman
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 4, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Hi folks,

hhh is correct.

In fact, in that area, a little further down San Antonio Road (towards Middlefield Road), there were other Indian burial mounds.

Some of the old timers could attest that they were still visible before the area was "developed" during the late 50s and early 60s.


Andy Freedman


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Steins, sausage and spaetzle: Mountain View hosts second Oktoberfest
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 3,067 views

Men Are Good For Three Things
By Laura Stec | 35 comments | 2,892 views

Two creative lights depart Palo Alto, leaving diverse legacies
By Jay Thorwaldson | 2 comments | 1,521 views

Reducing Council Size? Against
By Douglas Moran | 15 comments | 1,167 views

Storytime is Full
By Cheryl Bac | 6 comments | 1,064 views