News

Council to weigh appeal of polarizing downtown development

Development at 429 University Ave. to be subject of May 4 hearing

The intense community dispute over a downtown development that is slated to go up at the former location of Shady Lane on University Avenue will soon be heading to the City Council for resolution.

Despite urgings from the project's developer, the council agreed on Monday night to schedule a public hearing to consider a citizen appeal of 429 University Ave., a project that has recently won the approval of the Architectural Review Board and the endorsement of the city's Planning Department.

In agreeing to consider the appeal on May 4, the council went against a staff recommendation and intense lobbying by the developer to let the approval stand.

Councilman Pat Burt, Vice Mayor Greg Schmid and Councilman Eric Filseth all supported pulling the item from the council's "consent calendar," an action that requires support from three members. Without this action, the development would have been automatically approved.

The council made its decision after being flooded with letters from both sides of the dispute. Supporters of the projects argued that the applicants have already spent more than a year going through the planning process, revising the project's design and making sure it meets all code requirements. Opponents have maintained that the modernist building designed by Ken Hayes is incompatible with the Victorian-dominated block of Kipling Street, between University and Lytton avenues.

Elizabeth and Jaime Wong, who are trying to develop the property, insisted that they followed all the rules and that it's not fair for the city to add an unexpected hurdle at the end of the arduous process.

Jaime Wong asked the council to "do what's fair" and argued that it's not right for the city to tell him he cannot build a project that followed all the guidelines based on the caprice of a "disgruntled neighbor."

"I did what's right. I followed the rules. Now ... I urge the council to also do what's right and support the Architectural Review Board's and the director of planning's approval," Jaime Wong said.

The neighbor, Michael Harbour, took the opposite view. Harbour, who is appealing the project, thanked the council for considering his arguments and for "listening to the citizens who expressed lots of concerns."

Indeed, the huge packet of letters that the council received suggests that the dispute goes well beyond this particular project or Harbour's specific criticisms. Many letters supporting the appeal came from residents in other neighborhoods who have been persistent critics of recent development trends.

Elaine Meyer, who lives in the University South area, was one of those residents. In addressing the council Monday night, Meyer called the project at University Avenue "a poster child for everything that's wrong in our planning process.

"It offends and inconvenience its neighbors, it exacerbates the parking shortage, its style is incompatible with our main styles and it pushed out a beloved retail store, Shady Lane," Meyer said.

Ruth and Michael Lowy also urged the council to hear the appeal and not to let those who have been "destroying Palo Alto's building character and neighborhood over the past years ... to 'bulldoze' yet another downtown area with a massive building that will further destroy a pedestrian street and add to the parking problems."

Others disagreed and characterized the development as a well thought-out and thoroughly vetted proposal that would enrich downtown life.

David Kleiman, who is in the process of developing two modernist developments downtown, was in this camp.

"This project was carefully considered by the ARB (Architectural Review Board), and any further consideration of the project by the City Council would be a subversion of the ARB's process," Kleiman wrote in a letter. "The project is consistent with all Palo Alto codes, and it would be a welcome addition to University Avenue."

Attorney John Hanna also registered his disappointment at the council's decision to hear the appeal.

"This sends a very bad message," Hanna told the council. "Let's not kill the goose that laid the golden egg."

Both sides will have another chance to make their arguments on May 4, when the formal appeal hearing takes place.

Comments

21 people like this
Posted by Neilson Buchanan
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 7, 2015 at 10:13 am

Onward to May 4!

All issues for both sides must be vetted...not avoided. John Hanna's Golden Goose is laying down more "stuff" than Golden Eggs. Impact on environment, traffic, parking, water, etc, etc is simply not in the public record and therefore not part of a rational, forward looking development process. Last night I found it ironic that Jim Keene spoke so eloquently about forward thinking ways to manage water consumption. Yet city staff does not address objective interventions begging to be discussed vis a vis 429 University and other pipeline/pre pipeline projects in our overdeveloped downtown. Where is information on neighborhood quality? Traffic? Parking? Adjacent neighborhoods are bearing heavier and heavier the commercial parking load. Laws of physics apply. Let's get to the bottom of how almost all Univ Ave properties are eligible to development without real obligation to address parking deficits.


23 people like this
Posted by ARB reform
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 7, 2015 at 10:21 am

When is the Mayor or anyone going to start what I heard was ARB reform.

They like all buildings and especially big ones. Citizens have to appeal all the time, so when will ARB rubber stamping stop?

Or is the problem with the Planning Department?


19 people like this
Posted by Downtown Worker
a resident of Menlo Park
on Apr 7, 2015 at 10:43 am

I think it should come down to a pretty simple question: did the developer follow the law? From what I've read, there's no exemptions or exceptions granted here. This is exactly what the residentialists campaigned on: developments should follow zoning - not PC zoning, not exceptions from the council, just the zoning laws as they are on the books.

Are we seeing residentialists who campaigned on enforcing the laws on the books and "some growth" show their true colors as opponents of all growth? Or will it always be "yes, some new buildings and new life somewhere, someday, but not this one, not this time." If you can't build a four-story building on University Ave, where can you build one? And if you can't build to the height limit, where in downtown can new buildings realistically go?

It's one thing to insist that zoning laws be enforced, another to run on that platform and then switch to stopping all new buildings once you don't need to care about votes anymore.


26 people like this
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 7, 2015 at 10:57 am

I don't think anyone disagrees that the developer followed code. But the exceptions granted via trade outs (paying into the parking fund for example) are still an issue. Projects in the pipeline before the PC moratorium are grandfathered.

The questions on the table are whether the glass box style and the in your lap wall scape is a good fit for the location and/or downtown in general.


14 people like this
Posted by Downtown Worker
a resident of Menlo Park
on Apr 7, 2015 at 11:03 am

In lieu fees have nothing to do with PC Zoning - they are a standard feature of downtown areas that feature shared parking. AFAIK, every downtown on the Peninsula with a parking garage has the option to contribute to a garage rather than build underground parking.

If this development used PC zoning, someone tell me. That would have been an important thing left out of all the articles!


3 people like this
Posted by PA citizen
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 7, 2015 at 11:11 am

to ARB Reform:

Don't forget, they can both be problems. Actually, I'd say that's the case.


15 people like this
Posted by Downtown North-er
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 7, 2015 at 11:29 am

Nielson-- you can't make the water argument around a downtown building. Apartment dwellers use 70% less water than home owners b/c there's no landscaping. That's right, you move out of your house and BAM, your water usage goes down 70%!!!!.
Just admit that you don't like development of any kind, anywhere and especially anything that looks remotely contemporary. Regarding increase in traffic, let's get more density downtown where people don't need to get into their cars to buy a loaf of bread, pick up a prescription and drop something off at the cleaners. How often do you drive unnecessarily and where do you park, on the street or in your garage?
Come up some solutions other than "no more development".


13 people like this
Posted by Looking for data?
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 7, 2015 at 11:54 am

The councilmembers who responded to the public are on solid ground.
The National Citizen Survey 2014 surveyed 3000 people in Palo Alto. Here are a few tidbits from Web Link

Percent rating Excellent or Good
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government 52% (page 9)

The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking 50% (page 9)

Generally acting in the best interest of the community 54% (Appendix p.6-7)

Quality of Palo Alto government 58%

Land use, planning and zoning 43% (page 32)

Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto 51% (page 17)

Overall "built environment" of Palo Alto (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) Excellent 18% Good 49% (page 55)


9 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 7, 2015 at 12:16 pm

I think what was clear that the role of the ARB has to be defined more clearly. From where I am sitting they have a role to vet proposed plans to see if they meet the standards and code for the specific area they are planning to put the building. Each area of the city has different requirements - obviously the main street of the city - University - is not the same as El Camino Real as it goes towards Mountain View.

I do not see their role as approving the design - only if it has matches the code requirements for the site. Since this is a very long process then it is not expected that everyone in the city is going to participate.

When the building has met its qualifications then the last qualification is its beauty and enhancement to the area in question.

The city has to have a long term goal as to what University and California are suppose to end up looking like. Each building cannot take on a different design theme that ends up in a mish-mash of design attributes.
if the over all goal is established now then architects will go into the process having some requirements as to style guidelines.

If the ARB is attempting to approve the design which has no compatibility to the area then that has got to stop. They should be not be provided that authority to do so. It could end up in a conflict of interest.


10 people like this
Posted by Neilson Buchanan
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 7, 2015 at 1:05 pm

Dear Downtown North-er,

You raise two tood issues. First, office development with impact accountability is AWOL in Palo Alto. Impact is not part of the ARB process and Planning Department has serially avoided citizens' pleas for staff reports to cover parking location, traffic, etc. Enuf said.

Second, housing and its density are legit issues. I have urged leaders, especially the energetic PAF leaders, to enter this vacuum. Housing concepts should be presented to the public for 27 University, Fry's, along Alma and El Camino Real to create calm, rational understand of divisive issues. Several PA leaders recently visited Mt. View to explore the art of the possible. Ball is in our court. I am quite open to challenging the status quo, including height.

For example, sometime in the next few years additional Channing House type of facilities are needed up and down the Peninsula. This means facility height over 55 feet. Other height exceptions will be warranted. The current piecemeal luxury penthouses over downtown offices are sham for absentee owners...no real inventory gain. I also caution anyone who thinks any surge of real housing units will lower prices... nobody has presented credible case that overall housing prices can be eased by politically cautious housing gain in PA. I am always available for more direct conversation about this stuff. 155 Bryant.

My most passionate concern is housing equity and sociology. The long term sociological impact of ever increasing job/housing imbalance boggles my mind.


22 people like this
Posted by NoWay
a resident of University South
on Apr 7, 2015 at 3:45 pm

Elizabeth Wong raised the rent too many times and forced Shady Lane to look elsewhere. It's a shame that the landlords greed pushed a beloved retail shop out of downtown. The Wongs don't think this is fair, but many residents don't think that they are being fair either. The Victorian feel of Kipling should not be ruined by a modernist building with no character.


16 people like this
Posted by rule of law
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 7, 2015 at 4:20 pm

There seems to be this bizarre notion that City Council can just approve projects ad hoc and that it has more discretion in doing those approvals than it really does. Parking, traffic, TDRs, in-lieu fees - these are all controlled by our zoning ordinance - where you can build, how many parking spots you need, how big you can go, etc. By law, city council has to approve projects which meet all zoning requirements - you don't get to change the zoning code on a per-project basis. If you don't like the law, you can ask Council to change it, but you can't ask Council to ignore it when you feel like it.

When you talk about "impacts" not being considered- this is not really true. They are and were considered every time we revisit the zoning ordinance and the comp plan. EIRs are done for the Comp Plan and for specific plans and major changes to the zoning ordinance. So this notion that the city is just ignoring them is fallacious. They're following all the correct processes. If you want to change them, that's fine, but you can't ask them to ignore the law for specific projects you happen to not like. The law is the law for everyone.

I'll also note that what you're pushing for is contrary to the Comp Plan. The downtown is supposed to be the densest part of town. No one goes to a "downtown" with the expectation that there will be tons of parking and no traffic - that's a strip mall, not a downtown. A downtown is supposed to the most bustling place in town. The whole idea is that that's where we add density and we leave other parts of the city less dense. The Comp Plan is heavily focused on walkability as well as encouraging development near transit. Comp Plan encourages retail on the bottom floor and you're getting that here - it's only smaller than it was before because they had to add a ramp for the parking that you're so vehement about. This project does everything the Comp Plan envisions.

So I'm just left very confused here. This project follows all zoning codes and is consistent with the Comp Plan and yet all the people who were screaming "follow zoning, no exceptions!" are still upset. Sounds to me like some people just don't want to accept any change. I have yet to hear any of the Maybell opponents ever speak in favor of a new project. I'll eat my words when that does happen, but I haven't seen it.



13 people like this
Posted by Where are the mitigations?
a resident of South of Midtown
on Apr 7, 2015 at 4:30 pm

Mr. Buchanan recommends that we consider exceeding the 50' height limit in portions of the city other than where he lives. I live in Palo Alto near the recent Mountain View developments. The impacts have been significant. These were very badly designed and ARE NOT a good example of good higher density housing design. Our part of Palo Alto already got the former Hyatt Rickey's site redeveloped with housing (and a tandem parking experiment that was a very bad idea). We got the Bridge and BUILD projects, Treehouse, Alma Plaza, multiple large projects on East Meadow--to name just a few--adding up to about 1,000 units. --All completed over the last ten years. Where are the transportation mitigations? Ummmm....Still not done.


8 people like this
Posted by Gale Johnson
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 7, 2015 at 4:31 pm

Well, now that there will be a hearing on this project I'm sure it will be very lengthy, probably a waste of time, but nonetheless allowing people to speak out on both sides of the issue, and that's good...I guess. I'm sure we'll hear from many wannabe architects on what is right or wrong or best for that area. And then we'll expect Council, none of whom had any aspirations of becoming architects, I assume, to make a decision.

If you don't want glass box architecture (that's called modernist I'm told) then write rules that prohibits it. You don't have to reminisce about Birge Clark's style or Eichler homes, just get it right for our new techie PA generation. Believe me, their idealistic ideas and designs for our future will change. They don't realize it now and it won't be seen for a couple generations but then the new people will say "what the hell were they thinking about" back in 2015.

Kinda crazy things happening here in my town, but I suffer thru it and still love my town.


4 people like this
Posted by Todd
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 7, 2015 at 4:32 pm

Yeah, but what happens when the rule of law still creates an undesired outcome? There needs to be some sort of recourse to stop someone from doing things I don't like, even if they're legal and allowed.


6 people like this
Posted by Midtowner
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 7, 2015 at 4:51 pm

This is exactly what people like the man who registered a citizen's appeal. The ARB does not represent the taste or views of the actual people who live in Palo Alto:

"This project was carefully considered by the ARB (Architectural Review Board), and any further consideration of the project by the City Council would be a subversion of the ARB's process," Kleiman wrote in a letter."


15 people like this
Posted by squeeky wheels
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 7, 2015 at 6:03 pm

@rule of law has it right.

This development has followed all of our zoning ordinances. It is in line with our comprehensive plan, which aims to put *exactly* this kind of building (mixed use, higher density) in this area (University Ave corridor). Ms. Wong has spent two years on "the process", and followed every recommendation given to her by staff and appointed commissions.

Despite all of that, the PASZ people, Neilson Buchanon, and other squeeky wheels have decided that this building somehow violates their personal building codes.

All of the talk during PC Reform of "we just want Palo Alto to follow our existing ordinances" was a sham. This group of people transparently just want to keep everyone out of "their" town. Even when someone follows our existing ordinances to a T.

So, now the new council has spent the last few sessions on a meaningless commercial cap, and will spend another couple of sessions to have a hearing on a fully compliant building.

Thank goodness we don't really pay them anything, or I would say "your tax dollars at work."


15 people like this
Posted by Oldster
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 7, 2015 at 7:01 pm

Those complaining about design and fit.... what would you have said when Birge Clark's Spanish colonial post office on Hamilton was up for consideration? The first of its style for the USPS in the ...entire... U....S....of....A. while Palo Alto was still mostly a mix of Victorian and Craftsman with a smattering of Art Deco.

Ever since the Ohlone shell mounds were levelled by the Baylands, Palo Altoans have been constantly creating new buildings and lovingly preserving those we will pay to upkeep. Kudos to the Wongs for fixing up some of our finer old buildings to earn parking credits and for perservering through the latest Palo Alto process (2 years?!) to bring a well-built building to our main street. Bring on the 21st Century!


8 people like this
Posted by Wong building
a resident of Professorville
on Apr 7, 2015 at 7:46 pm

[Post removed.]


8 people like this
Posted by Alison W -another oldster
a resident of Ventura
on Apr 7, 2015 at 8:24 pm

[Portion removed.] I really like the mixture of folk that continues to change and evolve with our town; the large mansions that shocked me then they first replaced little cottages some years ago, now are a familiar and fitting part of my neighborhood, the Wong's 'modern' building will look just right very soon.


15 people like this
Posted by Raquel Rossman
a resident of another community
on Apr 7, 2015 at 8:40 pm

I have traveled to Palo Alto, University Avenue specifically and loved the architectural structure where Shady Lane used to be. Why not keep that style and stop modernizing to a structure that will not only have enough parking but that will take away the Victorian style of what University Avenue is.
I loved it when Shady Lane was there. Palo Alto lost a very unique and beautiful boutique.


7 people like this
Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 7, 2015 at 8:42 pm

Seems to me that the various creative ways of reducing parking requirements should be suspended until some viable remedies to the parking conundrum are in place. Like it or not, Mr. Hayes clearly knows all the angles and he was hired for his expertise. If blame must be placed, isn't it more appropriate to blame the rules rather than those who follow them? We've seen this before; if the City opens a door one can hardly fault a developer for walking through it. Suspending the work-arounds and requiring adequate on-site parking for all new development would at least not exacerbate a very bad problem. The work-arounds can always be restored after the severe parking shortage is resolved.


7 people like this
Posted by Todd
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 7, 2015 at 8:59 pm

"The work-arounds can always be restored after the severe parking shortage is resolved."

How can you have a "parking shortage" if there are still plenty of parking spaces available throughout the day? Do we need two spaces per car now, just so no one can park too close and ding your Tesla?


13 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 7, 2015 at 10:30 pm

Most cities have a central theme as to look - both old and new buildings. University Avenue is the main street of the city. A mish mash of building styles does not equate to progress - it equates to poor taste and planning.
There should be a flow of style so that both the old and new buildings provide an overall comprehensive look to the city.
The architects need to focus on this as a small town - not a major metropolis. We don't have a lot of blocks to work with here - there should be a consistent flowing look.


2 people like this
Posted by Adobe meadower
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 7, 2015 at 10:49 pm

At least vice mayor Schmidt is consistent. Filseth and Bert argue inconsistently depending on the situation. It s all "follows code" in one case then flipping over the next...


2 people like this
Posted by Neilson Buchanan
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 8, 2015 at 8:02 am

one more clarification.... Thoughtful, well-vetted exceptions for height (especially real housing options not luxury penthouse bandaids) should be limited to the two downtown cores adjacent to the transportation hubs. This includes Alma/University/Embarcadero, 27 University and Fry's. This would include my neighborhood DTN and should not be seriously considered across all of Palo Alto.

ECR is much more complex.


6 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 8, 2015 at 8:35 am

>>Thoughtful, well-vetted exceptions for height (especially real housing options not luxury penthouse bandaids) should be limited to the two downtown cores adjacent to the transportation hubs. This includes Alma/University/Embarcadero, 27 University and Fry's.

Embarcadero is already "real" housing except for Rinconada Park, Gamble Gardens, the schools and the Town & Country mess. The tallest building on Embarcadero will be the huge Paly Theater building when it's completed.

Are you proposing to turn Embarccadero into high rises for a better view of the gridlock?


14 people like this
Posted by Sense and sensibility
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 8, 2015 at 8:44 am

all the people going on about code are the equivalent of those who say they followed procedure, so what if the patient died. The overdevelopment crowd have gotten away with building to the linits of the code specs while ignoring that other rules apply. Council needs to take that into consideration and tighten the rules to stop this abuse.


9 people like this
Posted by curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 8, 2015 at 10:16 am

"This project was carefully considered by the ARB (Architectural Review Board), and any further consideration of the project by the City Council would be a subversion of the ARB's process," Kleiman wrote in a letter."

Wrong!! The ARB is appointed by and answerable to the city council. It is an advisory body, not a legislative one.

In practice, however, the council has taken the path of least exertion and abdicated its review responsibility, which has promoted the ARB arrogance that Klieman's letter aptly displays.

The council must take the tiller. It can start by dismissing the ARB's "ruling" in this case (it has tons of practice doing that to the planning commission), praying the ARB resigns in a snit so it can be restocked with knowledgeable members who are responsible to the community.


6 people like this
Posted by Looking for data?
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 8, 2015 at 11:49 am

>The overdevelopment crowd have gotten away with building to the limits of the code specs while ignoring that other rules apply. Council needs to take that into consideration and tighten the rules to stop this abuse.

The developers have only conformed to the numbers. Not to the other sections if the code and the Comprehensive Plan. Numbers are only one part of reality. Here's another one:
Do not create traffic jams on University Avenue or on the streets feeding into/out of it.


6 people like this
Posted by Jaa
a resident of University South
on Apr 8, 2015 at 5:40 pm

I went to the meeting and the thing that really got to me, was the seemingly presumptive demeanor of the pro-development camp. Clearly, "caprice of a disgruntled neighbor" and "jealous sibling" when referring to the appellate was both demonizing and dismissive. Also, the way the pro-development people aligned themselves with the "visionaries and pragmatics that have made Palo Alto what it is today", I believe is what the owner of the building on 429 University Avenue actually said. Then came the lawyers and then came the architects, business as usual. I read the appeal and it is very eloquently written. Mr. Harbour was a gentleman. His supporters were heartfelt and genuine. I support the appeal and am looking forward to May 4. For those who support the appeal, your voice does need to be heard there.


14 people like this
Posted by Cheezy Design, Sleezy Designer
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 8, 2015 at 6:57 pm

Ken Hayes' architecture is talentless. Anyone can design a box. His buildings look cheap and are of poor quality--glass walls are far less expensive than real walls. The designs look dated and boring in no time, as well as having no real charm....just cold and uninviting, sterile and unwelcoming. Absolutely nothing about Ken Hayes' architectural,projects make you want to step inside; they only make you want to look away, they are so void of any REAL architectural interest.

Why in the world does the city do ANY business with him at all? The are far better architects to be found for less money.

Unless there is something fishy and under-the-table going on!



4 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 9, 2015 at 10:39 am

Palo Alto is the town supporting Stanford University. The architecture at SU used to flow into Palo Alto so that there was a consistent look and feel.
The city needs to focus on maintaining a consistent look in the new buildings. Glass boxes are just a mish mash that have no relevance to the city.

Take Park City Utah - highly affluent small town with a theme. Marriott extended the city using the same theme so the new buildings are a consistent flow to the old buildings. The whole place works - it is a western town with a lot of very rich people.

Take Disneyland - each area has a flow of design that is consistent. New buildings but consistent themes.

We are not Park City or Disneyland but the people who plan those locations are extremely smart and spot on as to what draws people in. SU draws people in so that should be a guide to what works - what does not work.

side note - I was stuck at a signal on El Camino and noticed a building near Xfinity that was closed, dirty, weeds, so sign as to leasing agent. That should not be allowed - if the owner does not maintain the property then take it away by eminent domain.

San Francisco kicked out a lessor because they were not moving forward with utilization of a building. If a building is just sitting there and falling apart then go after the owner or leasing agent to clean it up and put it to use.


Like this comment
Posted by Robert
a resident of another community
on Apr 9, 2015 at 12:24 pm

"We are not Park City or Disneyland but the people who plan those locations are extremely smart and spot on as to what draws people in."

I though the consensus was that you didn't want people drawn in? If people don't want to live in or visit Palo Alto, isn't that a good thing? Meaning less traffic and pressure for development?


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 9, 2015 at 8:42 pm

Robert - you live in the east bay. How about your town? Must not be so great because you keep talking about our town.


Like this comment
Posted by Robert
a resident of another community
on Apr 9, 2015 at 10:01 pm

Actually I don't live in the east bay, though feel free to still dismiss my opinion, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't fall into your increasingly narrow perceptions of who constitues a "true resident"


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Adobe-Meadow

on Apr 9, 2015 at 10:02 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 10, 2015 at 9:48 am

Robert - you did not express an opinion - you merely questioned other people's opinions. In previous entrees you indicated you live in the east bay. So if not here do you live - what is going on in your town?

If you read the newspapers and letters to the editors in the SJM everyone on the peninsula and south bay is talking the same subjects. Everyone is concerned with what is happening in their cities / towns. Everyone is collectively concerned - not just Palo Alto. Everyone has items on their ballots concerning the type of growth in their communities.

The people in Cupertino are really upset as to the Apple development bringing in more people than the schools can handle - the infrastructure can't accommodate the influx of people.

Tell us where you live so we can check out the comments that come out of your town.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 10, 2015 at 10:23 am

If people look at the pull down chart at the bottom is the surrounding cities so a person can indicate where they are from - if a surrounding city. You don't have to be mystery speaker - as if an oracle from above.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

He said – she said – who is lying? Justice Brett Kavanaugh or PA resident Christine Ford
By Diana Diamond | 69 comments | 5,390 views

Let's Talk Internships
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 2 comments | 792 views

Couples: Sex and Connection (Chicken or Egg?)
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 550 views

Zucchini Takeover
By Laura Stec | 1 comment | 534 views