Town Square

Post a New Topic

Condo project proposed for San Antonio Road

Original post made on Sep 7, 2018

The developer behind a 16-home project on a former orchard site on Maybell Avenue is now pitching another housing project for south Palo Alto: a 48-condominium development on San Antonio Road.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, September 7, 2018, 9:36 AM

Comments (50)

62 people like this
Posted by Save San Antonio Road
a resident of South of Midtown
on Sep 7, 2018 at 10:55 am

1. San Antonio Road is currently a parking lot twice a day and this is even before the huge housing project near San Antonio Plaza opens. Adding more housing here will just make matters worse. (600+ apartments at old Safeway site on CA Ave. and 580+ apts across from Safeway).

2. This building looks horrible. Hopefully the ARB will encourage significantly better architecture. This architect should be embarrassed to place their name on this cheap effort.

3. We need to be mindful of kicking out all of the small businesses that occupy these lots. We are losing so many small retail/service businesses. At the current pace of closure, we will only be shopping at Stanford Shopping Center and driving our cars to Sunnyvale for service.

4. Don't buy into the "Transit Focused" horse droppings offered by the developer. Everyone who purchased a condo here will be driving. No way anyone in that condo will walk the 1/2 mile to caltrain station.


28 people like this
Posted by Housing supply
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 7, 2018 at 11:02 am

Good to see developers responding to council members memo from last year and proposing some housing alternatives to single family homes.


13 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 7, 2018 at 11:45 am

What useful businesses are we going to lose to accommodate this housing? At the same time, what useful businesses are nearby to serve those who will live there.

What public transport is available to those who will live there?

I doubt if walking to Costco will serve all their grocery needs even if they can carry them back.


12 people like this
Posted by groceries
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Sep 7, 2018 at 1:10 pm

Ever shop at Piazza's? Looks like close proximity to this site.


22 people like this
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 7, 2018 at 1:40 pm

I think this is a good place for a development like this, given that we need housing. I personally think approval of housing units needs to go hand in hand with plans to reduce office occupancy, to offset the new drivers. The above poster is right, San Antonio is maxed out but wouldn't be if there were fewer day worker commuters. I also think any loss in public serving retail or commercial space absolutely must be offset by adding it somewhere else in town. it's just getting ridiculous how our retail areas have been decimated by this corporate obsequious overdevelopment councilmembers of the last decade or so. Maybe keeping the amount of retail zoning we have should be a focus of the next citizen referendum.

I also wish they would consider more lower income spots.

I also think the Council has to stop letting developers satisfy parking requirements with puzzle lifts. They are time consuming and finicky and people stop using them. They will eventually park in the neighborhood for convenience. I also hope they beautify the project a bit, but otherwise think this is a reasonable proposal for that location, and a good location for more housing. I'm curious to know what the neighbors think, though, they know the area better.


18 people like this
Posted by Gale Johnson
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 7, 2018 at 3:26 pm

Gale Johnson is a registered user.

The Daily Post had an article about the project. Again, it will be for a minuscule number of very low and low income people. I'm just guessing, but I think a very high percentage of people (non techies) working for us in PA fit into those categories, and yet we do very little to provide housing for them. They have to commute for hours to serve us.

CC bends over backwards to keep developers happy with BMR...wink wink...projects. With election season coming up, let's hear from all the candidates and challenge them hard on where they really stand on building housing for every income level. Where do they stand, and walk, not talk, about housing for the very low and low income folks?


72 people like this
Posted by We have an overpopulation crisis -not a need for housing
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 7, 2018 at 10:06 pm

When are we going to get over the idea that we can cram everyone who wants to live in this area in? We have an overpopulation crisis - not a housing crisis.

We need to stop the city from replacing service businesses with housing. This area is currently zoned "service commercial" and is suppose to support "citywide and regional services." What good does it do to sell off all the land for city services and force us to drive further for them? It just gives developers the right to make more money off of a zoning change while residents get fewer services

We do not need more housing, or more people in cars on the road, or more kids overcrowding the schools or more people than we have room for. This state is an environmental mess - air pollution, polluted and not enough water, more Superfund sites than most places, more endangered species than most states, most loss of wetlands and conversion of open space to cemented urban space, and the list goes on.

If we want to change the zoning - make it a park. The city is 100 acres behind the number of acres that the new (and old) comprehensive plan calls for. That would be 4 acres per 1000 residents. We have added many, many thousands of residents and virtually no parks in the past decades. Hence the 100 acre deficit.

Or just leave the area service commercial and let it house businesses that people might find useful. No more ridiculous housing for an area with too many people who are destroying the environment.


11 people like this
Posted by chris
a resident of University South
on Sep 7, 2018 at 11:06 pm

We have,

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is clear that your opinion will not prevail over time. The more you obstruct now, the worse the solutions will be in the future.
It's time to look at the big picture.


27 people like this
Posted by Stop the Madness
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Sep 8, 2018 at 3:34 pm

>> We have an overpopulation crisis -not a need for housing

YES! Too many people wanting to reside in Palo Alto. Go live somewhere else.

Too many of these mundane high-rise condos being built. Pretty soon we won't be able to see the sky (e.g. the former San Antonio Shopping Center).

With all of these hideous dwellings comes more cars & parking needs + traffic congestion.

Palo Alto is becoming like Santana Row. Ugh.

And the same can be said of Mountain View.

What a drag it is getting up.


10 people like this
Posted by Liang
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Sep 8, 2018 at 6:09 pm

Too many people in Palo Alto. We leave country because of pollution and population density.

Also have the money to buy house. If one can not afford to live in Palo Alto, consider Cupertino. They have good schools and safe neighborhoods.

Palo Alto too crowded. More homes not the answer.


14 people like this
Posted by The developer
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 8, 2018 at 6:29 pm

Project Manager Ted O'Hanlon is the husband of former Palo Alto Housing Corp. Manager Candice Gonzalez. He is the private developer of the Maybell properties, he built quite a number of private homes.
Gonzalez recently left PAHC and went to work for a major developer, Sand Hill Properties.


16 people like this
Posted by JR
a resident of Palo Verde
on Sep 8, 2018 at 8:03 pm

San Antonio Road is terrible for residents, commuters, bikers, pedestrians, everyone, and if this gets built, then it will get only worse. Mountain View and Palo Alto are both dumping their projects that no other neighborhood wants at the edge of city limits, it's sad to see it happen. Only truck route in the city, hotel you need to make a U-Turn to reach, "bike lane" that only a suicidal biker would dare ride on... the list goes on and on.


10 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 8, 2018 at 8:28 pm

Posted by chris, a resident of University South


>> We have,

>> You are entitled to your opinion, but it is clear that your opinion will not prevail over time. The more you obstruct now, the worse the solutions will be in the future.
>> It's time to look at the big picture.

Hi Chris,

If you actually are a developer or are representing developer interests-- don't threaten people. It isn't over till its over. Go build your mini-Manhattan somewhere else where "the base" will be overly impressed by your money.


21 people like this
Posted by San Carlos envy
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Sep 8, 2018 at 8:39 pm

San Carlos envy is a registered user.

I just had a really nice evening in San Carlos. What a pretty downtown, with roomy and usable shops. In Palo Alto, all we seem to be able to do is build offices and stack-and-pack condos. We lose retail, and now this proposal to rezone retail to housing. Don't people need a place to buy things and get things serviced? And don't get me started on how congested San Antonio has become. Let alone the complete lack of park space nearby.

Please, let's stop Palo Alto from becoming an office park. Convert OFFICE SPACE to housing, and be sure to incorporate retail and open space. Let's restore quality of life for folks who live here, while also working to provide more affordable housing for the civil servants and teachers who make our city and school services run.


12 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 8, 2018 at 8:50 pm

"It's time to look at the big picture."

We have, and what is pictured to too, too big.


28 people like this
Posted by R. Davis
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 9, 2018 at 9:45 am

QUOTE: Too many of these mundane high-rise condos being built. Pretty soon we won't be able to see the sky (e.g. the former San Antonio Shopping Center).

Call me backwards but I kind of preferred the old Sears, Oshman's and Burger King configuration at San Antonio Shopping Center + the other stores in back (especially the long-defunct San Antonio Hobby Shop).


8 people like this
Posted by Ex Palo Altan
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 9, 2018 at 10:57 am

Mt. View should change its name to building view. I grew up in palo alto sad that all this over building in ruining a once awesome town. But glad I got out last spring when the getting was good. Everytime I get homesick and return to Palo Alto I am quickly reminded why I left. Awful Traffic, Road diets that make traffic worse, and a city council that is deaf to it constitutes. Were I live now isn’t as pretty but my neighbors are super friendly and I can let my kids play in the street with the other kids. Oh and I can’t get over how quiet it gets.


15 people like this
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 9, 2018 at 11:58 am

@San Carlos envy,
I agree with you, but the reason all this has happened is that someone wealthy knows they can get wealthier. It hasn't just happened. If residents want to restore balance, they will have to get together and make it happen, and usually the key ingredient is residents willing to pull together all the willing hands and lead. There are existing groups already or you can reach out to neighborhood groups and start your own. The time is now before the developers have populated our town with people who don't care about being housed in a box-like tiny rental with no view, civic services, retail or any kind of civic life, but will vote the way their employer who has taken over downtown and city council wants.


19 people like this
Posted by San Carlos envy
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Sep 9, 2018 at 2:18 pm

San Carlos envy is a registered user.

@Neighbor. Absolutely. I've donated to the campaigns of both Filseth and Dubois, and I have yard signs out for both. I am concerned about both Cormack and Wolbach having pro-developer stances (esp Cormack), so am hunting for a third candidate.

It is just so sad. I remember all the retail that we used to have on University, and now it's a ghost town of tech companies, VCs, and largely expensive restaurants. I remember thinking Jennifer's Convertibles was a waste of space (couches? really? on Univ Ave?), but at least it was retail... Now I drive to Mountain View for a music store, to Mountain View for a hardware store, etc. Awful. San Carlos just seemed so welcoming and useful, and it was packed with people. They even have space for a Diddams, a pet store, etc.


3 people like this
Posted by A Developer's View
a resident of another community
on Sep 9, 2018 at 2:57 pm

It's called progress. And whether you like it or not, the creation of additional office space and housing units creates profit. That's what life is all about.

If you need some personal space, go take a vacation somewhere. Your choice of destination and venue.

Here in Danville and Pleasanton, we don't cater to the whims of people living in the past.


37 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 9, 2018 at 5:05 pm

Posted by A Developer's View, a resident of another community

>> It's called progress.

You call it progress, I call it destruction.

>> And whether you like it or not, the creation of additional office space and housing units creates profit. That's what life is all about.

This says it all.

>> Here in Danville and Pleasanton, we don't cater to the whims of people living in the past.

So build all this new office space in Danville and Pleasanton, and, save the drive for all the commuters who would have to get to Palo Alto somehow.


5 people like this
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Sep 9, 2018 at 5:42 pm

^ Chevron has a very nice headquarters complex right between Danville and Pleasanton.
Environmentalists provide the entertainment at annual shareholder meetings.

Has Palo Alto priced ourself out of hosting any corporate shareholder meetings these days?


45 people like this
Posted by R. Davis
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 9, 2018 at 6:21 pm

QUOTE: It's called progress...Here in Danville and Pleasanton, we don't cater to the whims of people living in the past.

To quote an old Sierra Club adage..."Not opposition to progress but opposition to BLIND progress."

As far as the 'visions' of Danville & Pleasanton are concerned, I've been to your neck of the woods on occasion & prefer to avoid it if possible.


42 people like this
Posted by Danville Expatriate
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 10, 2018 at 8:00 am

To quote John Lennon..."I just had to get away."

Living in the OPA neighborhood is such a relief after having resided in Danville for over 5 years. Couldn't stand it.

>> Here in Danville and Pleasanton, we don't cater to the whims of people living in the past.

How true. They just cater to the whims of a white conservative mindset whose only purpose in life is to make more money and pave everything over.


2 people like this
Posted by Ex Palo Altan
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 10, 2018 at 10:42 am

^ So Facebook, Apple, and Google are conservative companies? It must be, cause they are the root of all these problems on the peninsula, they should just move to Texas.....(sarcasm) Everything is the fault of evil conservatives.

This mindset and hate is just another reason why I’m glad I left Palo Alto


8 people like this
Posted by I Don't Do 680
a resident of Stanford
on Sep 10, 2018 at 7:01 pm

[Post removed.]




14 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 11, 2018 at 6:18 am

mauricio is a registered user.

"We need more housing" is a lie. Repeating a lie ad nauseam doesn't make it true. "WE" need less populations, and this applies to the entire planet. Palo Alto does not lend itself to being little Manhattan. The only solution is to vote out any pro development council member and have a majority that would reject all plans for more housing and commercial development.


21 people like this
Posted by R. Davis
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 11, 2018 at 8:05 am

QUOTE: The only solution is to vote out any pro development council member and have a majority that would reject all plans for more housing and commercial development.

With the battle lines already drawn, this is the logical approach for those who wish to see less development in Palo Alto.

But come voting time, be wary of 'double-speak' as most politicians will say anything to get elected...it's in their genes.


17 people like this
Posted by The State Will Make Us Grow
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 11, 2018 at 11:28 am

The State Will Make Us Grow is a registered user.

Does anyone on PAOnline pay attention to what is happening in the state capitol? Land use legislation that takes power to manage both commercial and residential development away from local governments has been quietly approved in bits and pieces over many years. More is coming.

Turn your heads toward Sacramento, and pay attention to what BOTH parties are doing to support real estate and development interests--without providing resources to lift up schools and transportation infrastructure to support growth. Lobbyists rule in Sacramento because the people are not paying attention.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.


17 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 11, 2018 at 12:08 pm

Sunnyvale police have stated that they are not going to be able to deal with the growth of the city. Web Link It is about time that CC understood that our infrastructure cannot keep being stretched. It is not about space, traffic, parking, but about police, fire, schools, recreational amenities, water, power, gas, etc. etc. that will also be stretched to accommodate all the influx.

Physically building more homes and creating more jobs is going to reduce not only the quality of life, but the safety of every single person living or working within the town.

We are people, not sardines.


10 people like this
Posted by J
a resident of Mountain View
on Sep 11, 2018 at 1:15 pm

@Save San Antonio Road, the location is actually 1 mile from the train station, which is a 20 minute walk. If it were a 1/2 mile (10 minutes) or less it'd attract a good number of train commuters, but 20 minutes is too far, and taking a bike on Caltrain requires dedication.


14 people like this
Posted by Old School
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 11, 2018 at 6:17 pm

One thing the developers and designers of this high-rise monstrosity (at the old San Antonio Shopping Center site) did not take into consideration...

The seasonal wind and rain during the winter months. The walk-through areas are going to be like a breezeway at a stadium. Heavy precipitation (plus the wind factors) are going to make for a very harsh experience for those walking to their respective dwellings from outside. Mark my words.

Then again, the developers don't care. They've already made their money off the buyers who just had to live there.


3 people like this
Posted by Eugene
a resident of University South
on Sep 12, 2018 at 6:43 am

Our schools would benfit from socioeconomic diversity.


7 people like this
Posted by JR
a resident of Palo Verde
on Sep 12, 2018 at 7:44 am

Ever wonder why you see almost zero people walking along San Antonio? It turns out that walking past a bunch of cars and trucks stuck in gridlock traffic isn't very pleasant.

Let's get real, nobody is going to walk to the train station from these proposed condos.


5 people like this
Posted by JR
a resident of Palo Verde
on Sep 12, 2018 at 7:50 am

IF the city is serious about building residences along San Antonio then the transportation situation needs to be straightened out first. San Antonio would be a perfectly fine street if car traffic were blocked after Charleston (turn the 101 overpass into bike / ped only) and car traffic reduced to one lane between Charleston and Alma with large bike lanes and trees along the median. That's the cost of making San Antonio a livable street, commuters and through traffic would hate it no doubt.

If San Antonio is a neighborhood street then turn it into one, if it's an expressway then don't build houses. You can't have it both ways.


1 person likes this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 12, 2018 at 7:58 am

Ever since the Arastradero traffic calming mess San Antonio has taken up the slack for south Palo Alto to get to Gunn, VA, Foothill Expressway.

If Arastradero were returned to an efficient flowing artery, it would relieve some of the San Antonio traffic.


18 people like this
Posted by R. Davis
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 12, 2018 at 8:29 am

QUOTE: If Arastradero were returned to an efficient flowing artery, it would relieve some of the San Antonio traffic.

How would you propose this alternative?

Increase the speed limits near a school zone (Terman/Gunn)? Not likely.

Widen the section of Arastradero Road between Alma & ECR via eminent domain?
Again, highly unlikely.

About the only way to create an 'efficient flowing artery' would be to create a series of one-way streets as they do in the larger cities & eventually even these thoroughfares get clogged during heavy commute times.

Judging by the number of single-driver cars we see nowadays during periods of traffic gridlock, about the only way to relieve it is through carpooling & shared riderships. Again, highly unlikely.

We're screwed.





3 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 12, 2018 at 9:30 am

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> Ever since the Arastradero traffic calming mess San Antonio has taken up the slack for south Palo Alto to get to Gunn, VA, Foothill Expressway.

>> If Arastradero were returned to an efficient flowing artery, it would relieve some of the San Antonio traffic.

How many cars were able to flow through Arastradero/El Camino and Arastradero/Foothill per hour before and after traffic calming? Are those numbers online somewhere? How does the change, if there was one, compare to the increase in traffic due to the employment boom in the industrial park Arastradero/Foothill/Page Mill triangle?


Like this comment
Posted by Speechless
a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 12, 2018 at 12:03 pm

48? Right below 50. No RC! Hallelujah!


Like this comment
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Sep 12, 2018 at 6:35 pm

^ "48? Right below 50. No RC!" -- unclear on the condo vs apartment concept?


5 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 13, 2018 at 9:07 am

A big problem is the city allowing individual projects to be evaluated against specific "current issues' agendas without evaluating the impact on the existing neighborhoods. Problem in point is lack of parking for the employees and visitors of any project. We have contracts with support organizations for power, water, and city maintenance that do not expand with the addition of new projects, or additions to existing projects. We have organizations that tell their employees to park on residential streets - and those people think those are their parking spaces - then we have the street cleaning crew who has to navigate a group of parked cars for people who do not live here or pay city taxes here. We just had the city fixing power lines and tree cuttings - thank you - but the resulting broken branches and additional leaf drop has been a major challenge. The street cleaning machine is not the best choice available as it's intake tube gets jambed up. Stove piping projects and evaluating against the "current need" has to also address what city services are currently providing that can sustain the neighborhood with the additional traffic flow. We have houses on Arastadero and Charleston that are impacted by the current change in the "traffic flow" that has proven to be unsuccessful. We keep pushing growth in counter-effective measures. Any new projects or buildings need to provide parking for both the employees and participants/residents without impacting the surrounding neighborhood and existing city services that we pau for in our utility bills..


9 people like this
Posted by Pamela Hater
a resident of The Greenhouse
on Sep 13, 2018 at 9:47 am

I am a Palo Alto resident. I live at Greenhouse ll and family has owned here since it was built. The condominiums Greenhouse l and Greenhouse ll that were built in Palo Alto 40 years ago, across the street from this current hotel construction and the proposed additional construction, have already been impacted by the dramatic construction and development on San Antonio road close to El Camino and by Middlefield. There is severe traffic congestion and not enough street parking. We are told there is a good chance that the City of Palo Alto will remove the street parking directly in front of the Condominiums about 20 or more spaces which would be disastrous for the residents. The City of Palo Alto approved the Greenhouse l and ll projects back in the 1970s with insufficient parking. Now 40 years later the demographics have changed and there are more people renting and there is more density of residents. More need for more parking. New development brings revenues for the city and possibly some affordable housing. What requirements are being mandated to deal with the increase of traffic and yes, pollution? Have there been conversations about strategies for moving traffic more efficiently such as San Antonio one way and another street going in the opposite direction a few streets over? This is how SF has handled this density of traffic. Profit and tax revenues can not be the most powerful voices with the most clout. Don't the long established residents have a right to a quality of life and not to be bulldozed by people who have business and profit as the primary motivator and not the effects on the community? They are not going to live here. For developers of the project they have an investment and financial gain but for the community, the quality of life is going down with heavy traffic, parking and pollution. There will be more years of construction, weekly noise impact plus Saturday noise impact. Where is the peace and quiet and our quality of life? What about compensation for the disruption and impact? And finally what happens to emergency services when the traffic is gridlocked day in and out in front of these condominiums and other condominiums and other housing down San Antonio Road heading west to El Camino? thank you.











16 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 13, 2018 at 10:56 am

The problem of parking is city wide. I went to a play at Lucie Stern and the parking in the surrounding neighborhood was packed. I feel sorry for the people that live in walking distance of that city center. As to my neighborhood the street is now fully parked by employees/attendees of events at the Oshman Center/Gym, etc. You see the same cars every day. The streets need to be marked with signs for street cleaning for the neighborhoods surrounding that organizational site. When I brought that up with a city employees they said not likely. The city is complicit in allowing employee parking in residential neighborhoods and are fully aware when they approve building permits. That is part of the deal? We need to update any approval process where the city is complicit in directing parking to residential streets that then compromise the city services that we are paying for and need. I also get trash on the street from those cars - cleaning their ash trays? In case you have not noticed the state is burning up from careless people and we seem to be increasing the ratio of careless people on the streets. You can't keep squishing more people into the sardine can.


10 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 13, 2018 at 11:52 am

Online Name is a registered user.

"The problem of parking is city wide. I went to a play at Lucie Stern and the parking in the surrounding neighborhood was packed. I feel sorry for the people that live in walking distance of that city center."

And during the day we've got school pickup/dropoff traffic and parking issues.

But according to our mayor and our city, we don't have parking or traffic problems so they should have to respond to our comments or complaints.


Like this comment
Posted by Me 2
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 13, 2018 at 12:24 pm

Uh, about Lucie Stern - there's construction for the new Junior Museum that's taking away parking temporarily. Kind of hard to miss it. To make it an example of "oh, too much traffic" is disingenuous.


8 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Sep 13, 2018 at 12:43 pm

Stern Theatre area - play was before any work started on the Junior Museum - this was last year and I have not gone to another play at that location due to the parking crunch. It was a problem then and a problem now. So the next question is when they finish and open the new construction site will there be enough parking for the events? Don't think so. They will depend on parking in residential areas.


Like this comment
Posted by Me 2
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 13, 2018 at 2:09 pm

"Stern Theatre area - play was before any work started on the Junior Museum - this was last year and I have not gone to another play at that location due to the parking crunch. It was a problem then and a problem now."

So, you're using an one example of last year to make a broad statement?

N=1 does not make it statistically significant.


7 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 13, 2018 at 3:38 pm

mauricio is a registered user.

Quote: What requirements are being mandated to deal with the increase of traffic and yes, pollution?

Well, according to the Mayor and her fellow travelers, there are no pollution and traffic issues in Palo Alto. Have you ever, for example, heard Steve Levy mention the word pollution even once when he pontificates his perpetual growth plans?


12 people like this
Posted by Right Near My Home In...
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 13, 2018 at 6:43 pm

> Well, according to the Mayor and her fellow travelers, there are no pollution and traffic issues in Palo Alto. Have you ever, for example, heard Steve Levy mention the word pollution even once when he pontificates his perpetual growth plans?

Do they know something that we don't? Perhaps some sort of special report from the EPA citing Palo Alto's unique suburban ecosystem?


3 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 14, 2018 at 6:05 am

mauricio is a registered user.

There must be a new science the mega growthers are privy to, unlike us mortals. Their new science indicates that the more people and businesses move to Palo Alto, the less traffic and pollution the town will have.


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

El Camino: Another scheme to increase congestion?
By Douglas Moran | 24 comments | 2,616 views

Trials of My Grandmother
By Aldis Petriceks | 2 comments | 1,226 views

Lakes and Larders (part 2)
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 992 views

Salt & Straw Palo Alto to open Nov. 23
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 668 views