HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2402-2697 City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: STUDY SESSION
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: March 18, 2024
Report #:2402-2697
TITLE
Presentation from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Community Planning Studio on its Findings Related
to San Antonio Road Corridor Existing Conditions and Alternatives Report. CEQA Status - Not a
project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council receive the presentation.
BACKGROUND
Students from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo’s City and Regional Planning Department’s Community
Planning Studio have studied the San Antonio Road Corridor as part of a class assignment and
prepared an existing conditions and alternatives report (Attachments A and B, respectively) for
the City’s consideration.
The City Council authorized staff to engage with Cal Poly to support this student-led initiative
that provides real world, practical land use and transportation experience to undergraduate
students interested in pursuing a career in community planning.
The attached report and associated material from two community workshops (Attachment C)
were prepared entirely by the students and represent their findings. The transmittal and
presentation of this information is not an endorsement from the City or staff as to the
feasibility, practicability or factual accuracy of the material presented.
The intent of this partnership and the City’s support for this program is to stimulate a
community discussion concerning the San Antonio Road Corridor as the City begins a formal
study and analysis to prepare a community plan for this area. Future planning will address
anticipated housing production and population growth, multi-modal transportation access and
solutions, commercial services and community amenities, such as open space and parks.
As step toward the formal community plan process, staff would like to thank and recognize the
Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Community Planning Studio students and the leadership of Assistant
Professor Dr. Dave Amos for their interest in the City, the long hours dedicated toward this
project and engagement with the Palo Alto community.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
This study session presentation has no fiscal impact. The City anticipates spending
approximately $3,000 in support of transportation, lodging and meal expenses for student visits
to the project study area.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Three community engagement events were conducted by the Cal Poly students in or near the
study area.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This report is for informational purposes only with no action required by the Council.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Existing Conditions Report
Attachment B: Alternatives Report
Attachment C: January 24, 2024 Visioning Workshop Material
APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director
San Antonio Road Corridor
Existing Conditions Report
City of Palo Alto
Cal Poly Community Planning
Fall 2023
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Land Use
Introduction
Major Findings
Regional Context
Regulatory Setting
Housing
Mountain View
Chapter 2: Transportation
Introduction
Major Findings
Regulatory Setting
Roadway Network
Bicycle Network
Pedestrian Network
Public Transportation
Transportation Demand Management
Safety
Parking
Airport
Chapter 3: Environment Introduction
Major Findings
Hydrogoloy and Water Resources
Biological Resources
Hazards
Climate
Noise
Chapter 4: Urban Design
Introduction
Major Findings
City Structure
Corridor Structure
Streetscape
Urban Form
Walkability
4
4
5
8
19
25
36
36
37
39
43
47
49
55
56
58
61
66
66
67
72
75
84
90
98
98
100
102
108
111
115
Chapter 5: Education, Culture, and History
Introduction
Major Findings
Education
Culture
History
120
120
122
132
137
Land Use
4
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Introdution
This chapter reviews the context for land use planning in Palo Alto and provides a
snapshot of the community’s character. It provides a comprehensive overview of Palo
Alto’s regional context, regulations, land use designations, zoning, housing, and the
relationship to Mountain View. This chapter also identifies opportunities and potential
challenges related to the long-term growth and development of the city, and it
analyzes the development potential of Palo Alto under existing City plans, policies, and
regulations.
Major Findings
• The City of Palo Alto is mandated to provide 6,086 housing units based on the
State of California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). These units are
distributed across different income levels: 778 for extremely low-income, 778 for
very low-income, 896 for low-income, 1,013 for moderate-income, and 2,621 for
above-moderate income households.
• The City of Palo Alto has identified 48 housing opportunity sites within the project
area. Among these, 34 sites are designated for rezoning to allow high-density
residential development, while the remaining sites are selected for upzoning to
achieve higher density. In total, these sites are expected to yield 1,289 housing units.
• Palo Alto has 23 Land Use Designations; seven of which are present within the
project area. Light Industrial and Research/Office Park land uses make up about 60
percent of the project area while residential land uses make up 26 percent of the
project area.
• Research/Office/Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) and General Manufacturing (GM)
zones make up about 60 percent of the project area. Residential zones make up about
15 percent of the project area; Single-Family Residential makes up nine percent
alone. Planned Communities make up 21 percent of the project area.
• The City of Mountain View has nine different land uses adjacent to the project
area. The mix of land uses are mostly spread evenly across the border. However,
Low-Density Residential and General Industrial land uses make up the majority of
adjacent land use. There are only five zones adjacent to the project area. Similar to
the land use, Single-Family Residential and General Industrial zones make up the
majority of adjacent zoning.
5
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Regional Context
Palo Alto is located within Silicon Valley in the northwesternmost corner of Santa
Clara County. Palo Alto is 35 miles south of San Francisco and 14 miles northwest of
San Jose (see Figure 1). At approximately 25.96 square miles, the city is bordered by
East Palo Alto and Menlo Park to the north, Los Altos and Mountain View to the south,
San Fransico Bay to the east, and unincorporated Santa Clara County everywhere else
(see Figure 2). Multiple highways run through Palo Alto including, US Highway 101, CA
Highway 82, and a small portion of US Interstate 280.
Figure 1 - Regional Context Map
6
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Figure 2 - City Boundary Map
The San Antonio Road Corridor is approximately 260 acres (see Figure 3) and is
located at the easternmost edge of Palo Alto, bordering the city of Mountain View.
The San Antonio Road corridor is in close proximity to major technology companies
headquartered in Silicon Valley, including Google, Facebook, Apple, and numerous
startup offices. The San Antonio Road Corridor has experienced significant residential
and commercial development driven by the demand for housing and office spaces in
proximity to Silicon Valley. This proximity contributes to the corridor’s significant
business and residential development. San Antonio Road is accessible by major
highways, including Highway 101 and El Camino Real, providing connectivity to
neighboring cities, airports, and the broader Bay Area.
Legend
Project Boundary Line
Palo Alto
Legend
Site Boundary
City Boundary
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mid
d
l
e
e
l
d
R
d
Hig
h
w
a
y
1
0
1
Ore
g
o
n
E
x
p
y
Palo Alto
Mountain View
7
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Figure 3 - Project Area Map
8
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
This section explores federal regulations relevant to Palo Alto and the project area.
These regulations play a vital role in shaping land use policies in the area. This section
encompasses various federal laws that impact the region, highlighting the broader
regulatory framework that influences the planning and development processes within
Palo Alto.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was created to protect historic
properties and cultural resources. It encompasses rules that are tailored for federal
land-holding agencies and extend to all projects funded, permitted, or approved by
federal agencies with potential cultural resource impacts. Although the project area
does not have any historical buildings, there is a historical district adjacent to the
project area.
Greenmeadow is a historic district adjacent to the site, known for its Mid-Century
Modern architecture. Designed by Joseph Eichler in 1954, it includes 220 well-preserved
structures. These homes are characterized by Eichler’s signature style with single-
story layouts, floor-to-ceiling glass, T-Shape interior, and innovative features. Notably,
Greenmeadow has a Community Center that was an innovative concept at the time. The
district shows Eichler’s dedication to planning and architectural design, highlighting
his lasting impact on modern American architecture.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides annual
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) to state, cities, and counties. These
grants are used to fund organizations that create programs for low- and moderate-
income residents and community development needs.
In May 2021, Palo Alto received $536,756 in CDBG funding. This funding supports the
Rebuilding Together Peninsula Safe at Home Project, addressing home repair needs for
low-income Palo Alto homeowners. Additionally, the funds are directed towards public
service initiatives, including support services for the Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s
Single Room Occupancy program, Silicon Valley Independent Living Housing and
emergency services, and rental relief assistance organizations like LifeMoves.
9
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
State Regulations
This section describes the State regulatory framework related to land use and
community character in the Palo Alto planning area. With a focus on promoting
affordable housing and sustainable development, these regulations aim to address the
state’s housing challenges. The City adheres to California’s broader policies while also
implementing local strategies to balance growth and preserve community character.
The San Antonio Road Corridor project will encompass a wide variety of federal, state,
regional, and local regulations that require careful consideration throughout the design
process.
SB 9
SB 9 allows homeowners to divide their property into two lots, thereby increasing
opportunities for homeownership in their neighborhood. Two homes can be built on
each of those lots, with the effect of legalizing fourplexes in areas that previously only
allowed one home. The bill provides protection against the displacement of existing
tenants. SB 9 is widely seen as the most ambitious and controversial housing bill of
many passed last year. Palo Alto was among the cities that expressed opposition to SB
9, specifically the by-right approval process because it fails to recognize the extensive
public engagement associated with developing and adopting zoning ordinances and
housing elements. Since the law was passed in August, Palo Alto and other cities
have been trying to reassert their power over new housing projects by revising their
design standards and adding new objective criteria that SB 9 projects will have to
meet to qualify for approval. In Palo Alto, the City Council adopted an urgency
ordinance on December 6th that establishes new rules for single-family homes and
replaces subjective criteria for neighborhood compatibility with objective standards.
The city also plans to pass a permanent ordinance in response to SB 9 later in 2023,
after reviews by the Architectural Review Board and the Planning and Transportation
Commission. The ordinance is expected to include additional requirements and
restrictions, with some council members favoring requiring at least one of the new
residences to be designated at below market rate. The majority of single-family lots
in the San Antonio Road project area are not large enough to accommodate a second
dwelling unit. Considering the average lot size in the project area and the lack of public
engagement, SB will likely not be applicable to the San Antonio Road Corridor project.
SB 35
SB 35 establishes streamlining procedures for affordable housing and mixed-use
projects under certain conditions. In order to be eligible for streamlining, the project
must meet specific standards including affordability (at least 50 percent of the proposed
residential units must be dedicated as affordable to households at 80 percent AMI for
either rental or ownership projects), number of units, zoning and affordability, location,
10
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
historic buildings, and more. The bill was enacted in 2018 to streamline multifamily
infill development in jurisdictions that are not meeting their housing production
goals. SB 35 allows qualified multifamily infill projects to go through a simplified and
expedited housing approval process in jurisdictions that are not on track to meet their
housing production goals. Eligible projects must provide a minimum share of affordable
units, follow certain labor provisions, and be consistent with local planning standards.
SB 35 creates a streamlined and ministerial process for housing developments that
meet objective design standards including height restrictions and density limits.
A recent legislative analysis of the bill indicates that a large majority of cities and
counties in California are subject to SB 35 because they have failed to generate enough
units in one or more income levels to meet their RHNA goals. Since the bill’s adoption,
most of the state’s 100 percent affordable housing projects have been subject to SB 35
and the bill has reduced the approval timelines for these projects, in some cases, from
years to months. SB 35 has the potential to streamline the production of necessary
housing and mixed-use projects in the San Antonio Road area. However, some parties
have expressed concern over the bill taking away the ability of local government
to make local planning decisions about the built environment and it does not give
opportunities to residents to provide comments or input. While the bill holds promise
of expediting the production of essential housing, it raises concerns about the potential
erosion of local autonomy and community involvement in the project decision-making
process.
SB 10
SB 10 provides cities with an easier path for “up-zoning” residential neighborhoods
close to job centers, public transit, and existing urban areas. Under SB 10, cities can
choose to authorize construction of up to 10 units on a single parcel without requiring
an environmental review. Bypassing environmental review speeds up development and
allows for more residential units to be built in a shorter amount of time. By creating a
pathway for streamlined upzoning in transit-rich areas, SB 10 allows more Californians,
including communities of color, to access high opportunity areas and will help alleviate
traffic congestion and pollution. Current laws can prevent local governments from
zoning for smaller, less expensive housing. SB 10 provides tools for local governments
to zone for up to ten homes per parcel in transit-rich areas, or urban infill sites. In
theory, by creating a pathway for streamlined upzoning in transit-rich areas, the bill
allows more Californians to access high-opportunity areas and will help alleviate traffic
congestion and pollution. The City of Palo Alto has expressed opposition to SB 10,
viewing the bill as a potentially anti-democratic power. Some community members
have concerns stemming from the idea that SB 10 encourages local governments to
up-zone parcels in vaguely defined job-rich and transit-rich areas, independent of
their general plan, and with no affordability requirements or measures to provide for
the necessary infrastructure and other associated community needs. Such actions in
high-demand areas, like Palo Alto, do not significantly decrease housing affordability
11
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
but rather increase land prices. Due to the fact zoning has not been an obstacle for
affordable housing in Palo Alto, SB 10 will likely not have much relevance or impact on
the San Antonio Road Corridor.
SB 478
Under SB 478, developments that have between three and seven units would have a
minimum FAR of 1.0, while those with between eight and ten units must be allowed
a FAR of 1.25. This bill could help stop the misuse of FAR and minimum lot size
requirements that prevent the construction of multi-family buildings in areas already
zoned to allow them. Because there is a significant amount of medium-density
residential zones in Palo Alto that allow a FAR of 0.4 or 0.6, SB 478 would effectively
double the density of these residential lots. Due to Palo Alto’s existing strategies for
increasing density, SB 478 will help further promote and streamline the production
of medium-density housing and mixed-use developments in the San Antonio Road
Corridor.
Regional Regulations
This section describes the regional regulatory framework related to land use and
community character in the Palo Alto planning area. The City adheres to California’s
broader policies while also implementing local strategies to balance growth and
preserve community character. The San Antonio Road Corridor project will encompass
a wide variety of federal, state, regional, and local regulations that require careful
consideration throughout the design process.
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is a regulatory agency in California
responsible for overseeing changes in local government organization and boundaries.
The fundamental thrust of Plan Bay Area is to accommodate the majority of growth in
priority development areas. Priority development areas include infill areas within a city
usually served by transit, such as historic downtowns and underutilized commercial
strips. This approach is consistent with and supportive of LAFCO’s goals to encourage
orderly boundaries, discourage urban sprawl, and preserve agricultural and open space
lands. Plan Bay Area includes projections for the region’s population, housing, and job
growth within existing urbanized areas. These projections demonstrate that the region
has the capacity to accommodate expected growth over the next 30 years without
sprawling further into undeveloped land on the urban fringe.
Federal regulations require the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to
produce a Regional Transportation Plan, while state law requires the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and MTC to jointly develop the Bay Area’s Sustainable
12
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Communities Strategy. To meet these requirements, MTC and ABAG address both
in a single document - Plan Bay Area. Palo Alto may update its Housing Element to
ensure that it accommodates the regional housing needs allocated by the ABAG. Palo
Alto may also coordinate with the MTC to explore opportunities for enhancing public
transportation and promoting development near transit hubs to reduce reliance on
private vehicles.
Local Regulations
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030 (Comprehensive Plan)
The Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the City in 2017, encompasses the official policies
of the City concerning land use and community design, transportation, housing,
natural environment, safety, business and economics, and community services. These
policies apply to both public and private properties, with a primary emphasis on
shaping the city’s physical landscape. The Comprehensive Plan is a legal document
and must adhere to specific state-mandated content requirements. State law defines
the subjects that must be covered and the maps and diagrams that the plan requires.
The plan must be comprehensive, long-range, and internally consistent. Its policies
apply to all properties within Palo Alto’s Sphere of Influence, which encompasses all
the land within the city limits, the Stanford University campus, and other properties in
unincorporated Santa Clara County.
Land Use Goals
As a comprehensive document, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan lists many goals,
strategies, policies, and actions across a mix of topics. The goals related to land use
include growth management, sustainable communities, distinct neighborhoods,
commercial centers, employment districts, design of buildings and public space,
historic resources, parks and gathering places, public streets and public spaces, and the
Palo Alto Airport.
Land Use Designations
The Land Use Element outlines 23 Land Use Designations in the city; seven of which
are present within the project area (see Figure 4) and are defined and described in
Table 1 below. Each parcel is assigned a Land Use Designation that conveys the City’s
intended purpose and character. These designations establish the fundamental policies
and features that are then implemented through zoning regulations. Most of the
adjacent land uses within Palo Alto are the same as in the project area; except for a
small portion that is designated as School District Land which exists on the east border
of the project area between Alma Street and Middlefield Road.
13
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Figure 4 - Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Map
14
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Land Use Designations Allowed
Density/FAR
Single-Family
Residential
Residential neighborhoods characterized by
detached single-family homes, typically with one
dwelling unit on each lot.
1-7 du/ac
1-14 du/ac*
*On parcels where
second units or
duplexes occur
Multi-Family
Residential
Residential neighborhoods characterized by three
or more dwelling units, which may be in the same
building or in separate buildings on the same site.
8-40 du/ac
8-90 du/ac
Mixed-Use
Intended to promote pedestrian-oriented places
that layer compatible land uses, public amenities,
and utilities together at various scales and
intensities.
1.15 FAR
Service
Commercial
Facilities providing citywide and regional services
and relying on customers arriving by car. Typical
uses include auto services and dealerships, motels,
lumberyards, appliance stores, and restaurants,
including fast service types.
0.4 FAR
Neighborhood
Commercial
Includes shopping centers with off-street parking
or a cluster of street-front stores that serve the
immediate neighborhood. Typical uses include
supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores,
barber shops, restaurants, self-serve laundries, dry
cleaners, and hardware stores.
0.4 FAR
Light Industrial
Wholesale and storage warehouses and the
manufacturing, processing, repairing, and
packaging of goods.
0.5 FAR
Research/
Office Park
Office, research, and manufacturing establishments
whose operations are buffered from adjacent
residential uses.
0.3-0.5 FAR
Table 1 - Description of Land Use Designations
15
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Desegnaiton Acres
(Project Area)
Percentage
(Project Area)
Residential
Single-Family Residential 22.5 10%
Multi-Family Residential 36.4 16%
Subtotal 58.9 26%
Commercial/Mixed Use
Service Commercial 21.8 9%
Neighborhood Commercial 2.2 1%
Mixed-Use 12.6 5%
Subtotal 36.6 15%
Business/Industrial
Research/Office Park 41.6 18%
Light Industrial 93.2 40%
Subtotal 134.8 59%
TOTAL 230.3 100%
Table 2 - Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations(Does not include 29.9 acres (12 percent) of public right-of-way within project area)
Table 2 (above) lists the acreage and percent share for each land use designation in the
project area. Light Industrial and Research/Office Park land uses make up 59 percent of
the project area and are mostly located in the north half of the project area. Residential
land uses make up 26 percent of the project area and are located in the southern half
of the project area, south of East Charleston Road. Service Commercial, Neighborhood
Commercial, and Mixed-Use land uses form 15 percent of the project area. These
commercial uses mostly exist in the middle of the project area between East Charleston
Road and Middlefield Road with a small portion just below Middlefield Road. Mixed-Use
land use is in one area just north of East Charleston Road.
Zoning
The Zoning Ordinance serves as the chief regulatory tool for translating the objectives
of the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Element into practice. It outlines the legally
permissible type, intensity, and development criteria for a specific parcel. In accordance
with state law, the Zoning Ordinance is required to conform to the Land Use and
Development Policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing zoning in the
project area is generally consistent with the planned distribution of uses articulated
in the Comprehensive Plan. Figure 5 shows the zoning districts within the project area
and Table 3 lists the titles and percent distribution of these zoning districts.
16
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Figure 5 - Zoning Map
17
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Title Acres
(Project Area)
Percent
(Project Area)
Residential
R-1(8000) (Single Family Residential)21.1 9%
R-2 (Two Family Residential)0.3 >1%
RM-20 (Low-Density Multiple-Family Residential)10.2 4%
RM-30 (Medium-Density Multiple-Family Residential)4.4 2%
Subtotal 36.0 15%
Commercial
CN (Neighborhood Commercial)2.2 9%
CS (Service Commercial)*12.8 1%
Subtotal 15.0 15%
Industrial
ROLM (Research, Office, Limited Manufacturing)**35.0 18%
GM (General Manufacturing)96.4 40%
Subtotal 131.4 59%
Planned Community
PC (Planned Community)47.6 21%
Subtotal 47.6 21%
TOTAL 230 100%
Table 3 - Zoning Distribution(Does not include 29.2 (11percent) acres of public right-of-way within project area)*Includes CS (AD)**Includes ROLM (D)(AD)
Similar to the land use designations, Research/Office/Limited Manufacturing (ROLM)
and General Manufacturing (GM) zones make up 57 percent of the project area and
are located mostly in the north half of the project area. The ROLM zones permit a
specific set of office, research, and manufacturing activities within a manufacturing and
research park setting, designed for uses needing larger spaces with access to natural
light and air. While office uses are allowed, they shouldn’t dominate this district. The
ROLM district primarily targets areas designated for research and office park use in the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, especially those east of El Camino Real.
Planned Community (PC) zones make up 21 percent of the area and are spread
throughout the project area. Planned Community zones are designed to support
developments that encompass various activities like residential, commercial,
professional, research, administrative, and industrial uses. These zones offer flexibility
for combinations of uses under controlled conditions that may not be achievable
18
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
in other districts. They are especially suited for well-planned, comprehensive
developments that provide significant public benefits and align with the goals of the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
Residential (R-1, R-2, RM-20, and RM-30) zones make up 15 percent of the project area
and are located in the south half of the project area, south of East Charleston Road.
Single Family Residential (R-1) aims to establish, protect, and improve areas suitable
for standalone homes, emphasizing natural surroundings and open spaces for privacy,
outdoor living, and children’s play. The zones allow for accessory dwelling units, junior
accessory dwelling units, and accessory structures or buildings.
Two-Family Residential (R-2) permits a second dwelling unit under the same ownership
as the primary one on suitable sites in areas designated for single-family. Regulations
are in place to maintain the fundamental single-family character and community
facilities like schools and public spaces are restricted unless their inclusion does not
result in a net loss of housing.
Low-Density Multiple-Family Residential (RM-20) is designed for a mix of single-family
and multiple-family housing that harmonizes with nearby low-density residential
zones, including single-family districts. This district also acts as a transitional zone to
moderate-density multiple-family or nonresidential areas.
Medium-Density Multiple-Family Residential (RM-30) aims to create and improve
neighborhoods for multiple-family housing with specific site development standards
and visual features to minimize impacts on adjacent lower-density residential districts.
This density level is suitable for larger properties where developments can provide
their own parking and fulfill open space requirements, typically in the form of garden
apartments or cluster developments.
Both Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Service Commercial (CS) zones make up
only seven percent of the project area. These commercial zones only exist in the
middle of the project area between East Charleston Road and Middlefield Road. The
Neighborhood Commercial zones aim to establish and preserve neighborhood shopping
zones, mainly for retail sales, personal services, eateries, and moderately-sized offices
catering to the local community. Regulations are designed to ensure these activities are
highly compatible with the nearby residential areas. The Service Commercial zones are
designed to establish and maintain zones for citywide and regional services that may
not be suitable for neighborhood or pedestrian-oriented shopping areas. These services
often necessitate automotive access for customer convenience, vehicle/equipment
maintenance, loading/unloading, and parking of commercial service vehicles.
19
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Zoning Subdistricts and Combining Districts
Special Residential Building Site R-1 Subdistricts (7000), (8000), (10000), (20000)
• The special residential building site R-1 subdistricts adapt R-1 single-family
residential zone regulations to establish and preserve diverse single-family living
areas with varying site sizes and development characteristics. Each subdistrict
variation corresponds to the zone’s minimum lot size; R-1 (8000) has an 8,000 square
foot minimum lot size.
Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District
• The Automobile Dealership (AD) district modifies service commercial (CS) and
general manufacturing (GM or GM(B)) district regulations to establish areas for
automobile dealerships specializing in new and used vehicle sales and service on
both citywide and regional levels. Such uses generally require specific parking,
access, and outdoor display provisions for customer convenience, vehicle servicing,
loading/unloading, and commercial service vehicle parking.
Site and Design (D) Review Combining District
• The Site and Design Review Combining District aims to establish a review and
approval process for development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive
areas, as well as established community areas that might be affected by negative
aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic, or other disruptions. The goal is
to ensure that such development harmonizes with surrounding land uses, aligns with
environmental and ecological goals, and conforms to the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan.
Housing
Housing Supply
The housing inventory in Palo Alto currently consists of 26,161 units. Among these, 61
percent are designated as single-family homes. Furthermore, within this housing stock,
there are 11,423 units currently rented by tenants, while 14,727 units are owned by
homeowners. These figures provide a snapshot of the housing landscape in the region
and its distribution among various housing types and ownership arrangements.
20
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Housing Element
The Housing Element is a component of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan. The primary
goal of the housing element is to establish a comprehensive strategy to ensure the city
allocates sufficient land for safe, high-quality, and affordable housing for its residents.
It encompasses an assessment of both current and future housing needs and outlines
a strategy for housing objectives, policies, and initiatives. The State of Califorina
mandates that each city must update its housing element every eight years to fulfill
the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA). This allocation determines the housing
requirements at various affordability levels. Currently, the City of Palo Alto does not
have an approved Housing Element from the state, as it was rejected twice due to non-
compliance with RHNA requirements. The city has resubmitted its 2023-2031 housing
element and is awaiting state approval.
Income Level Number of Units
Extremely Low 778
Very Low 778
Low 896
Moderate 1,013
Above Moderate 2,621
TOTAL 6,086
Table 4 - RHNA Numbers
Table 4 provides an overview of RHNA numbers for the City of Palo Alto for the 2023-
2031 Housing Element cycle. It breaks down the allocation of housing units by income
level, with a total of 6,086 units distributed across various income categories.
Housing Policies
The City of Palo Alto Housing Element aims to address the expanding population
and job market. The population growth has led to a sharp increase in housing
demand, resulting in soaring housing costs. As a consequence, residents are finding
it increasingly difficult to afford homes in the city. Between 2020 and 2021, home
prices surged by 40 percent, accompanied by a 55 percent spike in rental prices. As
of 2021, the median home price in Palo Alto reached $3.6 million. This trend mirrors
the situation observed in numerous Silicon Valley areas, where housing demand has
outpaced supply causing housing prices to escalate rapidly.
The Palo Alto Housing Element highlights the challenges the city faces in expanding
its housing supply. With limited vacant land for development and smaller lot sizes,
constructing multi-family housing becomes more challenging. Furthermore, Palo
21
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Alto has the highest impact and capacity fees in the region. These fees make is
more expensive to develop in Palo Alto. Additionally, there is a high number of jobs
compared to residents, contributing to rising house costs.
In 2019, the City made significant updates to its Zoning Code to boost housing
production and affordability, as outlined in the City of Palo Alto’s 2023-2031 Housing
Element. These changes removed residential density standards in commercial mixed-
use zoning districts and introduced minimum density requirements in multi-family
residential districts. Ground-floor commercial retail requirements were reduced for
residential mixed-use projects, and the Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR) increased through the
Housing Incentive Program (HIP). Additionally, there were reductions in residential
open space and parking requirements, all aimed at increasing housing production.
Affordable Housing
Palo Alto is committed to affordable housing, with the second-largest affordable
housing inventory in Santa Clara County. The city has allocated $52 million to support
affordable housing through various funds:
1. Commercial Housing Fund: Supported by fees from new commercial developments,
this fund helps create housing for the workforce. Currently, there’s less than $1.3
million available
2. Residential Housing Fund: This fund, with around $365,000 available, supports
different types of affordable housing projects, including new constructions,
acquisitions, and rehabilitations.
3. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund: Administered by HUD, this
federal funding supports community development and housing activities in Palo
Alto. In 2021, Palo Alto received $536,756 in funding
4. Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Fund: This fund focuses on projects
benefiting low- and moderate-income families, preventing slum elimination, and
addressing urgent community needs. In 2021, $536,756 was allocated for projects
like home repairs and rental relief assistance.
5. Below Market Rate (BMR) Emergency Fund: Developers building three or more
residential units in Palo Alto must contribute at least 15 percent of units at below
market rates for moderate-income households, ensuring a stock of affordable
housing in the city.
22
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Notable projects that have used Palo Alto’s affordable housing funding since 2017
include:
• Project Homekey: Providing 88 rooms at 1237 San Antonio Road, benefitting over
200 individuals annually. The City contributed $11 Million in land and operational
expenses.
• Mitchell Park Place: Featuring 50 units at 525 East Charleston Road, designed for
residents with intellectual or developmental disabilities. The City contributed $3
million to the project.
• Educator Workforce Housing: Offering 110 units for teachers and staff at 231 Grant
Avenue. The City contributed $3 million toward the project.
• Wilton Court: Providing 59 units at 3705 El Camino Real, catering to adults with
disabilities. The City contributed $20.5 million toward the project.
• Buena Vista Mobile Home Park: Successful preservation efforts with 117 units at
3980 El Camino Real, supported by the city’s $14.5 million contribution.
• Mayfield Place: A partnership with Stanford University, resulting in the construction
of 70 affordable units, located at 2500 El Camino Real.
In Palo Alto, many local non-profits are working to provide affordable housing options.
Here is a list of affordable housing organizations in the area, all dedicated to making
housing safe and accessible for residents.
• Alta Housing
• Community Housing Developer
• Eden Housing
• HIP Housing
• HomeFirst
• Housing Authority, San Clara County
• Housing Industry Foundation
• Mid Pen Housing
• Stevenson House
Opportunity Sites
The City of Palo Alto plans to rezone sites to meet their remaining RHNA requirements.
The City used nine rezoning strategies to identify opportunity sites. The nine strategies
are as follows:
23
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
1. General up-zoning of sites that allow for multi-family residential use,
2. Sites located within half-mile of a CalTrain station,
3. Sites within half-mile of high-frequency bus transit corridors,
4. Parking lots owned by the City,
5. Vacant parcels and surface parking surrounding local faith-based institutions,
6. Sites within the General Manufacturing (GM) zone,
7. Sites within Research, Office, and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) zone,
8. Sites owned by Stanford University,
9. And additional sites identified by City staff.
Within the San Antonio project area, the city has identified 48 opportunity sites (see
Figure 6). Among these sites, 34 are currently zoned as GM but can be rezoned to allow
high-density residential use. The GM sites can accommodate 885 housing units. The
city has also identified an additional 13 opportunity sites for upzoning, enabling a
higher density than currently permitted. These 13 sites are zoned for CS, RM-20, and
RM-30, collectively adding 302 units. Additionally, there is one opportunity site within
a quarter-mile of a Caltrain station. This site is a large surface parking lot and has the
potential to add 50 housing units. Furthermore, the Housing Element has highlighted
one pipeline project located at 788 San Antonio Avenue, which is set to add 102 new
housing units. In total, these sites represent 1,289 housing units within the project
area.
24
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Figure 6 - Opportunity Sites
25
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Mountain View
Adjacent Land Use Designations
The properties adjacent to the project are are designated Low-Density Residential,
Medium-Density Residential, Medium High-Density Residential, General Commercial,
General Mixed-Use, Mixed-Use Corridor, General Industrial, Industrial/Regional
Commercial, and High-Intensity Office (see Figure 7). These nine adjacent land uses
are defined and described in Table 5 below. The mix of land uses adjacent to the project
area are spread evenly across the border. However, Low-Density Residential and
General Industrial land uses make up the majority of adjacent land use.
26
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Figure 7 - Adjacent Land Use in Mountian View
27
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Land Use Designations Allowed
Density/FAR
Low-Density
Residential
Detached, single-family houses and
similar uses compatible with a quiet living
environment.
6 du/ac
Medium-Density
Residential
A mix of single- and multi-family housing
with a residential character appropriate to a
range of densities and a broad mix of housing
types.
13-25 du/ac
Medium High-Density
Residential
Multi-family housing such as apartments and
condominiums, with shared open space for
common use.
26-35 du/ac
General Commercial A broad range of commercial and light
industrial uses serving businesses and
residents, such as automotive repair, retail
and wholesale businesses, carpentry shops,
veterinary clinics, and similar types of uses.
0.4 FAR
General Mixed-Use A mix of commercial, office, and residential
uses.
1.35 FAR
(approx 43 du/ac)
0.50 FAR
can be office and
commercial
Mixed-Use Corridor Allows a broad range of commercial, office,
and residential uses and public spaces serving
both surrounding neighborhoods and visitors
from nearby areas.
1.85 FAR
(approx 60 du/ac)
0.50 FAR
can be office and
commercial
General Industrial Production, storage, and wholesale of goods
and services to create a broad industrial base.
0.35 FAR
Industrial/Regional
Commercial
Regional commercial and some continued
light manufacturing and research and
development uses.
0.5 FAR
High-Intensity Office Major corporations, financial and
administrative offices, high-technology
industries, and other scientific facilities, as
well as supporting retail and service uses.
0.35 FAR
Table 5 - Adjacent Land Use Designations in Mountain View
28
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Adjacent Zoning
The properties adjacent to the project area are zoned as Single-Family (R-1),
Commercial/Residential-Arterial (CRA), Commercial-Service (CS), General Industrial
(MM and MM-40), and Planned Community/Precise Plan (P) (see Figure 8). General
Industrial (MM-40), located between Middlefield Road and US Highway 101, and Single-
Family Residential (R-1) zones make up the majority of adjacent land use.
Single-Family (R-1) zoning is designated for detached, single-family dwellings, dual
urban opportunity developments, and similar uses that align with a peaceful, family-
oriented living environment. This district is in line with the low-density residential
land use designation of the General Plan.
Commercial/Residential-Arterial (CRA) zoning district allows for a wide variety
of commercial, office, and residential uses situated along the city’s primary traffic
routes. It is intended for businesses that serve the local community and also cater to
visitors from outside the city. This district accommodates hotels, motels, retail stores,
restaurants, offices, housing, and similar compatible uses.
Commercial-Service (CS) zoning district permits service commercial and industrial
activities that cater to the needs of local residents and businesses. Such activities
encompass automotive repair, retail and wholesale businesses, carpentry shops,
veterinary clinics, and similar compatible uses.
General Industrial (MM/MM-40) zoning was created to promote responsible industrial
development within the city, offering a dedicated environment for such purposes. It
is governed by regulations that ensure clean air and water in the bay area, and protect
neighboring residential areas from potential hazards, noise, or other disruptions.
Planned Community/Precise Plan (P) zoning is established to accommodate uses or
combinations of uses suitable for planned area development. It should only be applied
to areas that, due to factors like proximity to other zoning districts, topography,
location, size, shape, or existing development, need special consideration to be
effectively integrated into the community and adjacent districts. The intent is to
support planned circulation patterns, residential densities, coverage limits, and the
preservation of open spaces, following modern land planning and zoning principles.
29
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Figure 8 - Adjacent Zoning in Mountain View
30
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Relationship Between Palo Alto and Mountain View
Palo Alto and Mountain View have a strong relationship not only as geographical
neighbors but as partners sharing resources for common objectives. Their collaboration
involves important elements such as fire protection and water quality control, with
Mountain View relying on the recycled water supply from the Palo Alto Regional
Water Quality Control Plant. Additionally, in emergency scenarios, Mountain View
is seamlessly integrated into the contingency plans of both Palo Alto and Sunnyvale
through shared emergency water lines.
Law enforcement dispatch operations are also a joint effort, involving Palo Alto,
Los Altos, and Mountain View. Sustainability initiatives are manifested in shared
endeavors, most significantly at the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station,
which serves as a unified waste collection facility for Palo Alto, Mountain View, and
Sunnyvale. However, the relationship between the two cities has some challenges.
A perfect example is the shared agreement between Palo Alto and the Shoreline
Amphitheatre to mitigate noise concerns stemming from seasonal concerts.
Google
Alphabet was created through a corporate restructuring of Google in October 2015
and became the parent company of Google as well as several of its former subsidiaries,
including Calico, X, CapitalG, and Sidewalk Labs. With 19.9 million square feet,
Alphabet has a Bay Area footprint that’s 38 percent larger than Apple’s. Alphabet’s
holdings, calculated by commercial real estate research firm CoStar Group, reflect its
vast and expanding operations in the Bay Area. Google, Alphabet’s largest division,
employs more than 34,000 people in the Bay Area. 20,000 of those employees work
in Google’s home, Mountain View, with 1,000 more working in Palo Alto according to
CoStar Group.
Google plays a significant role in the urban form of both Palo Alto and Mountain View.
The company has a large influence in shaping the urban landscape with its strategic
housing policies. With the objective of minimizing employee commute times, Google
envisions the construction of approximately 13,000 housing units across the South
Bay Area, with a significant emphasis on Mountain View. The submission of plans for
two mixed-use developments, the Middlefield Park and North Bayshore master plans
in Mountain View, indicates a substantial housing influx, forecasting nearly 9,000
additional units in the coming decades. Google’s expanding influence can be seen in its
real estate investments. The recent acquisition of a sizable manufacturing facility at
3850 Fabian Way, in close proximity to the San Antonio Road project area, hints at the
potential extension of Google’s presence into Palo Alto.
31
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
In May of 2022, Google opened the doors to its new sustainable Bay View campus in
California, marking the first time the company has developed one of its own major
campuses. About twelve and a half miles from San Antonio Road, the project is all-
electric, net water positive, and is the largest geothermal installation in North America.
It covers 17,000 acres adjacent to open space, has two office buildings, a 1,000-person
event center, and 240 short-term employee accommodation units. Even with the
included accommodation units, the new campus is sure to increase the demand for
housing in the surrounding communities, including the San Antonio Road area.
North Bayshore Master Plan
On June 13, 2023, the Mountain View City Council approved the North Bayshore Master
Plan, a collaborative effort between Google LLC and LendLease, to establish a mixed-
use neighborhood in North Bayshore. The project includes demolishing all buildings
and improvements to construct up to:
• 7,000 residential units
• 26.1 acres of public parks and open spaces
• 233,990 square feet of retail spaces
• 55,000 square feet of community facilities
• 3.14 million square feet of office space
• New public and private streets, along with bicycle and pedestrian improvements
• A private district utility system
Approvals also include a 30-year Development Agreement and a Tentative Map to
create 37 new parcels (including condominium and commercial lots). The Council
also certified a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and adopted a statement of
overriding considerations. The 153-acre Master Plan area is bounded by Charleston
Road to the north, Stevens Creek to the east, Space Park Way to the south, and Huff
Avenue to the west. The plan area also includes portions of the Gateway Master Plan
area located at the northwest corner of Shoreline Boulevard and the US 101 freeway
northbound on-ramp; six parcels between San Antonio Road and Marine Way; and the
Shoreline Amphitheatre parcel north of Amphitheatre Parkway. The Master Plan is
located in the P-39 (North Bayshore) Precise Plan and the PF (Public Facilities) zoning
district.
32
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Key Terms
• Comprehensive Plan: A comprehensive plan, also referred to as a general plan or
master plan, is a comprehensive policy document that informs future land use
decisions. It establishes land use designations and policies that identify a range of
zoning options that can be applied to property.
• Element: California Law requires specific topics, also called “Elements,” to be
covered in a general plan. Required elements include land use, circulation, housing,
conservation, open space, noise, and safety.
• GHG (Greenhouse gas): gases in the earth’s atmosphere that trap heat causing an
increase in average surface temperature. The major source is the burning of fossil
fuels- coal, natural gas, and petroleum.
• Housing Element: The housing element provides an assessment of current and future
housing needs and outlines a strategy for housing objectives, policies, and initiatives.
• Land Use Element: The purpose of the land use element is to designate the proposed
general distribution, general location, and extent of uses of the land in the city.
• Land Use Designations: A description of policies relating to existing and future
land use and density of development with which all future zoning bylaws and
amendments must be consistent.
• RHNA: The Regional Housing Needs Assessment is a California requirement making
cities and county areas plan for new housing to accommodate future growth. This
assessment operates on an eight-year cycle.
• SB (Senate Bill): proposed legislation
• VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled): measures the amount of travel for all vehicles in a
region over a period of time
33
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
Sources
Avalos, G. (2018, December 11). Google gobbles up huge Palo Alto building owned by
satellites maker. The Mercury News. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/11/
google-gobbles-up-huge-palo-alto-building-owned-by-satellites-maker/
City of Mountain View. (n.d.). A Codification of the General Ordinances of the City
of Mountain View, California. Municode. https://library.municode.com/ca/
mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO
City of Mountain View. (2012, July 12). Mountain View 2030 General Plan.
City of Mountain View. https://www.mountainview.gov/home/
showpublisheddocument/6469/638214115708670000
City of Palo Alto. (n.d.). Community Development Block Grant. City of Palo Alto.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/
Housing-Policies-Projects/Community-Development-Block-Grant
City of Palo Alto. (n.d.). Greenmeadow Historic District. City of Palo Alto. https://www.
cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-
Preservation/Historic-Districts/Greenmeadow-Historic-District
City of Palo Alto. (n.d.). Housing Element Public Web App. City of Palo Alto
GIS. https://gis.cityofpaloalto.org/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.
html?id=990a1123dd204297a198df35af92a61c
City of Palo Alto. (n.d.). Housing Policies & Projects. City of Palo Alto. https://www.
cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Housing-
Policies-Projects
City of Palo Alto. (n.d.). Interactive Map. Palo Alto Housing Element Update. https://
experience.arcgis.com/experience/7a1f0356697345479bc63099e4e1b83d/
City of Palo Alto. (n.d.). Palo Alto Municipal Code. American Legal Publishing. https://
codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/overview
City of Palo Alto. (2017). City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. City of Palo Alto.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/planning-amp-
development-services/3.-comprehensive-plan/comprehensive-plan/full-comp-
plan-2030_with-june21-amendments.pdf
34
Existing Conditions Report | Land Use
City of Palo Alto. (2023, May 15). Status Update on the Development of the 2023-2031
Housing Element. City of Palo Alto. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-
Articles/City-Manager/Status-Update-on-the-Development-of-the-2023-2031-
Housing-Element
Elias, J. (2023, April 21). Google’s 80-acre San Jose mega-campus is on hold as company
reckons with economic slowdown. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/21/
googles-80-acre-san-jose-mega-campus-on-hold-amid-economic-slowdown-.
html
Google. (n.d.). North Bayshore Master Plan. North Bayshore. https://realestate.
withgoogle.com/northbayshore/plan/
National Conference Of State Historic Preservation Officers. (n.d.). National Historic
Preservation Act Of 1966. NCSHPO. http://rb.gy/thpbu
Plan Bay Area. (n.d.). Plan Bay Area 2050 (2021). Plan Bay Area 2050 +. https://www.
planbayarea.org/plan-bay-area-2050
Sheyner, G. (2021, October 15). Palo Alto scrambles to react to barrage of new housing
laws. Palo Alto Online. https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/10/15/palo-alto-
scrambles-to-react-to-barrage-of-new-housing-laws
Sheyner, G. (2023, September 19). City hopes to lure growth — and grants — to
San Antonio Road. Palo Alto Online. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/
news/2023/09/19/palo-alto-looks-to-steer-growth----and-grants----toward-
san-antonio-road
Transportation
36
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
Introduction
This Existing Conditions Report provides an in-depth analysis of the transportation
policies and infrastructure that is evident on the road and within the broader Palo
Alto area. It is intended to document the vehicular and pedestrian conditions on San
Antonio Road while providing context with the neighboring city of Mountain View and
the County of Santa Clara. Information and data in this document were collected from
multiple sources including City and County documents and available transportation
data.
Major Findings
• Bicycle Facilities: Per the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, there are
minimal bikeway facilities on the road. Sharrows are present but not consistently
applied along San Antonio Road. There is minimal bike parking for the public within
the project area.
• Pedestrian Facilities: Most blocks have sidewalks on at least one side of the road.
Areas where sidewalks are nonexistent are near the major expressways bordering
the project area. There are no opportunities for pedestrian crossings on San Antonio
Road over Alma Street or Highway 101, making it difficult to use this road as a
pedestrian.
• Roadways: Connecting sections of East Charleston Road and Middlefield Road are
below the threshold at 16,126 and 14,578 vehicles per day respectively. According
to National Association of City Transportation Officials, four lane roads that have a
capacity of up to 25,000 vehicles per day can function as three lane roads. Average
LOS of C and D grades at intersections of San Antonio Road and East Charleston
Road and Middlefield Road in 2017.
• Public Transportation: Caltrain has approximately 300 daily users of the station.
Route 21 has one to two dozen daily users at three stops in the project area. San
Antonio Shopping Center is the closest public transit hub with stops from VTA
buses 21, 40, 522, 22, Mountain View Community Shuttle, MVGo Shuttle, Marguerite
Shuttle (Stanford University).
• Transportation Demand Management: The City of Palo Alto collaborates with
the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association to implement commuter
programs that will reduce single-occupant vehicle trips. Although these programs
currently serve only downtown Palo Alto, the success of their performance can bring
greater TDM efforts to the San Antonio Road Corridor.
37
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
• Safety: San Antonio Road and Middlefield Road are recommended as a walking
route for Safe Routes to School (SRS), but not as a biking route. The recommended
biking and walking route is at Mackay Drive and San Antonio Avenue. There is a
section of East Charleston Road between Fabian Way and San Antonio Road that is
not designated a SRS, opportunity to complete connection. Around half of vehicle
collisions in Palo Alto are caused by speeding.
• Parking Services: Although none of the City’s existing parking programs serve
the San Antonio Road Corridor, the City’s code allows residents and institutions to
petition for the expansion of some of these programs to their neighborhoods. Along
with these programs, parking reductions for multi-family developments and retail
establishments can apply to the project area.
• Airport: Although both the Palo Alto Airport and the Moffett Federal Airfield have
flight tracks flying over the top corner of the project, north of Highway 101, there
is very little noise and safety impacts affecting the San Antonio Road Corridor. The
only limitation to potential development along San Antonio Road is a building
height limitation of 382 feet above sea level.
Regulatory Setting
This section will provide a brief overview of the state laws/policies and local laws/
policies that directly affect transportation in the Palo Alto area. This regulatory
framework enables decision-makers to make well-informed decisions about
transportation and its infrastructure within the city.
Federal
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The ADA legislation is designed to prohibit discrimination against individuals
with disabilities and ensures their full participation in all qualities of life including
employment, transportation, public accommodations, and more. It mandates that
employers, businesses, and public entities make reasonable and just accommodations
to provide equal opportunities and access to those with disabilities. ADA requires
that all facilities, either Title II (public) or Title III (private), must be accessible and
usable by people with disabilities. Government agencies like the U.S. Department
of Transportation (USDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have
adopted ADA policies into statewide planning efforts and transportation systems.
38
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
State
California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358)
AB 1358 requires that the circulation element of any general plan must address
transportation from a multi-modal perspective. It also requires such elements to
consider the different users of a transportation system and the modes that each user
may use. Street designs must encompass complete street principles to meet the needs
of all users– drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, or transit passengers– regardless of age or
physical ability.
Regional
Plan Bay Area
Plan Bay Area is a long-range plan designed to incorporate sustainable and equitable
growth principles for the Bay Area Region. Developed through collaboration between
transportation agencies, regional authorities, and local governments, it addresses
critical issues like land use, housing, transportation, and environmental preservation.
The plan aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, improve transportation
infrastructure, create vibrant communities, and enhance the overall quality of life in
the region.
Local
Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP)
Adopted in 2012, the BPTP is a comprehensive initiative aimed at promoting walking
and cycling as sustainable modes of transportation within the city of Palo Alto. The
plan outlines a series of improvements and strategies including protected bike lanes
and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure. It seeks to create a safer, more accessible, and
interconnected network of bike and pedestrian pathways. The goal is to reduce reliance
on motor vehicles and encourage active modes of transportation, which promotes
public health and contributes to a greener and more sustainable urban environment. An
update to the plan began in the summer of 2023 to address newer trends in bicycle and
transportation technology and to better reflect the current needs of the community.
Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan is a visionary document that outlines the long-term
development and land use goals for the City of Palo Alto. It provides a comprehensive
framework for guiding housing, transportation, community development, urban
growth, and sustainability. The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
emphasizes the promotion of cycling, walking, and public transportation as alternative
modes of transportation. Additionally, it aims to enhance connectivity between
39
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
neighborhoods and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, all while creating a more efficient
and environmentally friendly system within the city. The Comprehensive Plan is
currently being updated.
Palo Alto Municipal Code
The Palo Alto Municipal Code discusses specific transportation regulations within the
city. These sections address various aspects of transportation, such as bicycle lanes,
pedestrian safety, parking, and trucking regulations. These sections aim to reduce
congestion, manage traffic flow, provide safe and efficient movement of vehicles and
pedestrians, and maintain the city’s commitment to sustainable transportation options.
Roadway Network
Roadway Characteristics
Road hierarchy refers to the organization and classification of roads based on their
functions, capacity, and importance in a transportation network. The hierarchy is
designed to efficiently manage traffic flow, facilitate transportation, and meet the
diverse needs of users. See Figure 1 for all the road typologies within the project area.
Highways
Highways are high-capacity, high-speed roadways that provide a regional connection
between cities, counties, and states. They typically have designated points for
movement on and off the roadway.
• Highway 101, at the northmost extent of San Antonio Road and with a posted speed
of 65 miles per hour, is the key regional road connector for Palo Alto. There are six
lanes in each direction,
with two being express
lanes for commuter traffic.
FASTRAK, the Bay Area
regional tolling system,
charges tolls for use of
these express lanes along
the entire section of
Highway 101 within Palo
Alto. The highway is the
most direct route through
the peninsula for travel
from the South Bay and
areas of the East Bay.
Figure 2 - Arterial at East Charleston Road and San Antonio Road.
40
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
Figure 1 - Existing road typologies
41
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
Arterials
Arterial roads are high-capacity, medium-speed roadways that direct traffic from
smaller streets and collectors towards highways and freeways. See Figure 2.
• San Antonio Road is a high-capacity arterial road, with a posted speed limit of 35
miles per hour. San Antonio Road consists of four travel lanes, with up to three turn
lanes at the intersection of San Antonio Road and Middlefield Road and San Antonio
Road and East Charleston Road. On-street parking is limited to the side of the road
adjacent to the Greenhouse condo complex. San Antonio Road provides the north/
south lateral connection between Highway 101, Alma Street, and State Route 82.
The adjacent roadways that provide this type of connection are Rengstorff Avenue in
Mountain View and the Oregon Expressway in Palo Alto.
• Middlefield Road consists of four travel lanes with a center turn lane, with a
posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. Immediately west of the project area along
Middlefield Road are multiple public facilities within proximity. They include
Cubberley Community Center, Mitchell Park, JLS Middle School, and Herbert Hoover
and Fairmeadow Elementary Schools. The northern section past San Antonio Road
offers street parking, while the opposite section towards Mountain View does not.
• East Charleston Road has four travel lanes with a central turn lane, with a posted
speed limit of 25 miles per hour. Within the project area, East Charleston Road
fronts the Taube Koret Campus. Outside of Palo Alto, the road provides the main
connection with the Costco shopping center and another onramp for southbound
Highway 101 to the east in the city of Mountain View. There are no provisions for
street parking along Middlefield Road within the project area.
• Alma Street/Central Expressway is a four-lane road with a central turn lane that
widens to two at intersections, with a posted speed of 35 miles per hour. Along the
north face of Alma Street residential, commercial, and office areas have no frontage
towards the street. Parallel to the
south side of Alma Street is the
right of way for Caltrain. At the
intersection of Alma Street and San
Antonio Road, there is a highway-
like interchange system.
Collectors and local roads
Collectors and local roads are low-
capacity, low-speed streets that
provide access to mainly lower-
density residential homes. Speeds Figure 3 - Local roads at Dake Avenue.
42
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
for these roads throughout Palo Alto are 25 miles per hour. All of these types of roads
within the project area have two lanes. See Figure 3 for an example of a local road.
• East Bayshore Road is a frontage road that runs parallel to Highway 101. The road
has one travel lane in each direction, with a third turn lane at the intersection with
San Antonio Road. There is no on-street parking.
• San Antonio Avenue serves as a collector for the east side of the Greenmeadow
neighborhood. It runs parallel to San Antonio Road as a frontage road between Alma
Street and Middlefield Road.
• Nita Avenue provides access to the north end of the Alphabet office complex and
the Monta Loma neighborhood in
Mountain View.
• Leghorn Street is opposite the
Greenhouse condo complex and
continues toward Mountain View.
Traffic Volume
Highway 101 as of 2017 Caltrans counts
had a northbound average annual
daily traffic (ADDT) count of 230,000,
and a southbound AADT of 213,200,
measured at the San Antonio Road
intersection.
Alma Street according to 2016 average
daily traffic (ADT) counts was the most
traveled arterial road, with 28,895
vehicles total along the section between
East Charleston Road. Extrapolating
from the section that ends at Fabian
Way, East Charleston Road had an ADT
of 16,126. Middlefield Road between East
Charleston Road and San Antonio Road
had 14,578 vehicles. East Bayshore Road
as a small frontage road has an ADT of 4,957 vehicles.
Traffic Control
Intelligent traffic control devices have been introduced throughout the project area.
The SynchroGreen Adaptive Control System installed along San Antonio Road adapts
the signal timing to match traffic patterns and volume. In the most recent data from
Figure 4 - Intelligent traffic control along San Antonio Road.
43
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
2013 to 2017, the city has recorded single-digit percentage reductions in motor vehicle
volume at intersections along San Antonio Road (See Figure 4).
Trucking
Chapter 10.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code designates the San Antonio corridor as
a corridor for heavy and oversized truck movement. Designated truck routes include
through and local trucks, allowing these vehicles a means to travel across Palo Alto
without having to obtain permission from the City. All other roads except those
designated in the section prohibit these categories of trucks from traversing them.
Bicycle Network
Bicycle Facilities
The existing bikeway network follows California’s classification of bicycle facilities.
These consist of Class I, Class II, and Class III bikeways. Figure 5 depicts the current
network. Palo Alto’s network consists primarily of class II lanes, or one-way facilities on
either side of the roadway with no road buffers. Half of San Antonio Road has a class III
bike lane, but there is no bike lane covering the rest of this road.
Class I Bikeways
Class I bikeways, or shared-use bike paths, are paved right-of-way paths designated
solely for bicyclists, pedestrians, and other non-motorized travel modes. These paths
are physically buffered from vehicular traffic providing additional safety for users.
Class I paths are predominantly present where roadways are absent and provide critical
connections to other areas of the city. San Antonio Road has no bikeways for this class.
Class II Bikeways
Class II bikeways are classified as striped lanes for bicyclists. These facilities are the
most common classification through Palo Alto. They typically have a single stripe of
paint separating the bicycle lane and the travel lane, but may also have a striped buffer
area instead. The BPTP recommends these lanes be a minimum of four feet wide from
the curb if there is no street parking or five feet wide if there is street parking. This
bikeway class is absent on San Antonio Road but is present on nearby streets in the
project area.
Class III Bikeways
Class III bikeways, commonly referred to as ‘sharrows’, are shared vehicular/bicyclist
travel lanes on a roadway. These typically are designated for low-speed, low-volume
roads to increase rider safety and prevent accidents. Such roadways are marked with
44
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
Figure 5 - Existing bicycle infrastructure
45
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
appropriate signage on the road with paint and have standard signs along the curb.
Almost a mile of San
Antonio Road has class
III sharrows but this is
not continuous along
the whole road.
Class IV Bikeways
Class IV bikeways are
physically separated
lanes from the traffic
lanes using planters or
bollards. While similar
to bike boulevards,
these are meant for
higher-speed and
higher-volume roads
and further reduce the
interaction between
cyclists and motor vehicles. There are currently no class IV bikeways in Palo Alto.
Figure 6 shows the different types of bike lanes
Bikeway Design Guidelines
The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) recently created
the Urban Bikeway Design Guideline. This 2014 document provides strategies for
cities to develop state-of-the-art techniques that can help create streets that are
safe and efficient for bicyclists. Palo Alto uses these guidelines to improve existing
bikeway infrastructure to promote bicycling as a sustainable form of transportation.
Some design guidelines implemented in the project area include using green colorized
pavement to denote the bike “lanes” and improving signage for both bicyclists and
vehicles.
Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking facilities are important for securely locking and storing bicycles and
other forms of active transportation when not in use. The risk of theft, vandalism, or
just inconvenience is high for bicyclists who do not have access to convenient storage
or parking facilities at their destination. Downtown centers, or areas with high-mixed-
use capabilities, are high-priority areas for bike infrastructure and parking facilities.
The lack thereof results in the use of light poles, ADA railings, trees, and other urban
infrastructure as spaces to lock bikes.
Figure 6 - Bike Lane Classifications
46
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
Short-term and Long-term Facilities
Short-term facilities are typically known as sidewalks or on-street “racks”, providing
enough space for the user to lock their bike frame to the rack. These facilities are
located in publicly accessible areas for convenience to the user and are intended to
provide storage for up to several hours. Bike racks in public spaces are less secure and
have fewer safety precautions during intended use.
Long-term facilities allow for the entire bicycle to be stored within a “bike locker or
cage”, providing a high level of security but are less convenient. Long-term storage is
more popular due to the increase in electric bikes, which are typically more expensive
and more likely to be stolen. These facilities are more popular during inclement
weather and are often found indoors or in covered areas.
Bicycle Parking on San Antonio Road
There are bike stations located at most transit hubs and Caltrain stations throughout
the city. At the San Antonio CalTrain station, there are 18 bike spaces (See Table 1).
These stations are inconveniently located on the southern side of Alma Street, making
it difficult to access with the poor infrastructure available. There are additional bike
racks sparsely located at various businesses along the corridor, but an initial visual
survey found a lack of sufficient bike racks in the area.
Zone Station E-Lockers Rack
Spaces
Bike
Share
Bike Valet and
Garages
3 Palo Alto 16 Caltrain
BikeLink
178 -Secure indoor bike
parking
3 California Ave 8 Caltrain
BikeLink
33 --
3 San Antonio 8 Caltrain
BikeLink
18 --
Table 1 - Caltrain Bike Parking Options by Station in Palo Alto
Bikes Onboard Caltrain
Caltrain allows those with bikes to park them on their train during a commute. A train
will typically have two to three bike cars with limited bike spaces per car. Caltrain bike
cars are usually marked by yellow signs or paint. Lightweight, aluminum, or steel city
bikes are recommended due to their compact size, allowing more bikes to be stored.
There is no charge for storing a bike on board, but there are rules and regulations that
are specific to the train. In addition, special permission to have a bike at the train
station may be required in some places.
47
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
Current Projects & Programs
Bike Rack Program
The City has a program that offers free bike racks to businesses within city limits.
Those businesses are responsible for the installation of the racks. The program is not
publicized well by the City and very few businesses know about it.
Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard Projects (NTSBB)
NTSBB projects work to expand the growing network of bicycle boulevards and
traffic-calming infrastructure throughout the city. Such projects create low-stress
environments and prioritize safety for pedestrians and bicyclists for consistent use.
The City’s current boulevard project on Ross Road aims to improve youth safety during
usage and reduce vehicular mobility without causing confusion. There have been
proposals to create bike boulevards that cross San Antonio Road, but none of these
have come to fruition.
Pedestrian Network
Pedestrian Facilities
The existing pedestrian network in the city consists of hundreds of miles of sidewalks,
courtyards, trails, and private pathways. According to the BPTP, Palo Alto had over 250
miles of sidewalks. These facilities are dissimilar in their appearance, condition, and
usability, however. About half of San Antonio Road has pedestrian infrastructure, but
there are gaps in the sidewalk network.
Sidewalks
The city had twenty-three sidewalk districts created following a 1985 sidewalk survey
documenting the conditions and damage across the network. Since 1985, the districts
have expanded to include newer facilities, including private pathways and trails. Many
sidewalk facilities are in poor condition and experience little foot traffic. There are an
additional 15 miles of Class I, or shared-use, pathways in the city.
About half of San Antonio Road has standard sidewalk facilities, as shown in Figure 7.
There are no sidewalk connections to Highway 101 and Alma Street, which are the two
main arterials that form the boundary of the project area. There are also no pedestrian
connections going northbound towards the Baylands or south across Alma Street
towards the Caltrain station. The central section of San Antonio Road has sidewalks in
good condition with easy access to nearby retail and landmarks.
48
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
Figure 7 - Existing pedestrian conditions
49
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
Trails
Many unpaved trails exist within the regional open space areas, such as the Baylands,
and in large private developments. The trails also have trailheads that prevent
unwanted vehicles from entering the trails. These devices often make accessibility
worse. The Baylands Nature Preserve Trail connects to the northern end of San Antonio
Road north of Highway 101, but pedestrian facilities do not extend over Highway 101
and connect to the rest of San Antonio Road.
Current Programs & Policies
Sidewalk Repair Capital Contract Program
The annual sidewalk repair program services all 23 sidewalk districts through the Public
Works Department’s Engineering Services Division. It focuses on pressing issues such
as meeting ADA requirements, removing and replacing damaged sidewalks, curb and
gutter replacement, and other related work. The program was completed in 2016 and is
currently being used to monitor and assess repairs to the network.
Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Repair Program
The Public Works Engineering Services Division runs the sidewalk, curb, and gutter
repair program to repair pedestrian infrastructure. This program is independent of
the Capital Contract Program districts and focuses solely on damaged sidewalk areas.
Reporting damages is done through the division, but the PaloAlto311 program is aiming
to streamline this process.
San Antonio Road/Charleston Road Intersection Improvement Project
This project is aimed at improving the infrastructure conditions at the San Antonio
Road and Charleston Road intersection. The project also addresses poor vehicle level of
service (LOS) and intersection operations. Four community meetings were conducted
across 2018 and 2019 to gather feedback and insight from locals. A concept plan was
approved in early 2020, but construction has yet to be started as of late 2023. The
final design will include curb extension and protection for pedestrians in addition to
improved crosswalk conditions.
Public Transportation
Public transportation use for the city of Palo Alto is low. As of 2014, five percent of daily
trips were taken on public transportation. It should be noted that the effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic have had a lasting effect on ridership numbers into the present
day. VTA has only seen ridership return to 72 percent of pre-COVID numbers.
50
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
Rail Service
Caltrain is a passenger commuter rail service that runs from Gilroy to San Jose, Palo
Alto, and San Francisco. Caltrain serves as the highest-capacity regional public transit
provider in the South Bay region, and the second most in the entire Bay Area after
BART. In September of 2023, average weekday ridership reached 21,366. This is one-
third of the ridership of February 2020. The average weekday combined boardings and
alightings in 2019 was 978 people. At the same ratio between pre and post-COVID
total Caltrain ridership, the average daily weekday traffic would be around 310 at San
Antonio Station.
The San Antonio Station is the closest Caltrain station to the project area, located
on the border of Palo Alto in the neighboring city of Mountain View. Aside from San
Antonio Station, Palo Alto has three other Caltrain stops. These are the California
Avenue, Stanford, and Palo Alto Transit Center. The station is served by trains on the
Local 1, Weekend Local 2, and Express Limited 3 routes. The station does not receive
service from trains running the Express Limited 4, 5, and 7 ‘Baby Bullet’ routes.
Generally, the northbound direction starts service an hour before and ends service two
hours before the southbound direction during both the weekdays and the weekends.
Train Schedules
During the weekday, San Antonio Station receives the Local 1 and 2 trains, with the
Express Limited 3 train stopping at peak commuting times.
The northbound direction for the weekday at the San Antonio station has headways of
around:
• 45 minutes from 4:51 am to 6:20 am
• 24 minutes from 6:20 am to 9:19 am
• 1 hour from 9:19 am to 3:17 pm
• 30-45 minutes from 3:17 pm to 11:37 pm
The southbound direction during the weekday has headways of around:
• 30 minutes from 5:59 am to 9:48 am
• 1 hour from 9:48 am to 3:48 pm
• 30 minutes from 3:48 pm to 7:50 pm
• 1 hour from 7:50 pm to 1:12 am
During the weekend, only Local 1 and 2 trains have stops at San Antonio, with
51
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
headways of around one hour the entire day. Operating times are from 7:43 a.m. to
11:37 a.m. in the northbound direction and 9:41 a.m. to 1:17 a.m. in the southbound
direction.
Pedestrian Connection
The connection between the San Antonio Station and the project area is limited. There
are no pedestrian facilities along San Antonio Road to provide access from the station;
instead, pedestrians must cross at the corner of Alma Street and Mayfield Avenue.
Bus and Shuttle Service
There is a collection of public, semi-public, and private transit options offered within
the Palo Alto project area (See Figure 8). Palo Alto, being a city within Santa Clara
County, is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA). Palo Alto also has some bus connections with SamTrans (San Mateo County)
and AC Transit (Alameda County), but these routes center around the Palo Alto Transit
Center and do not have as much relevance to the project area.
VTA Route 21
Route 21 is the only public transit
route with stops within the project
area area. Headways for Route 21
are every 30 minutes on weekdays
and one hour on weekends.
Some key stops for Route 21 are
the downtown Palo Alto Transit
Center, the San Antonio Shopping
Center, and the Mountain View
Caltrain Station.
Depicted in Figure 9, there are
three stops for the local bus 21
route directly along the section of
San Antonio Road. The southbound
bus stop at the corner of San
Antonio Road and Middlefield Road
has an average weekday boarding
count of 17.9 and an average
weekday alightings (the number of
passengers disembarking) of 9.6.
The northbound direction has two Figure 8 - Transit options in the near region.
52
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
Figure 9 - Existing transit stops
53
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
stops, one junior stop adjacent to Nita Avenue that receives 1.9 and three boardings and
alightings respectively, and the senior stop between San Antonio Court and Middlefield
that has an average weekday count of 4.1 boardings and 19.5 alightings.
VTA Route 40
The next most relevant local bus to the project area, 41, runs parallel to San Antonio
Road along Rengstorff Avenue in Mountain View. Headways for Route 41 are every 30
minutes on weekdays and one hour on weekends. Some key stops for Route 41 are the
San Antonio Shopping Center, the Mountain View Caltrain Station, Foothill College,
and Los Altos High School.
VTA School Route 288
Route 288 is a school bus route that serves Henry M. Gunn High School. One bus serves
this route before and after high school hours, only when school is in session.
ACE Shuttle Orange
The ACE Orange Shuttle connects employers to the Great America ACE Station in Santa
Clara. There are eight trips from 06:06 am to 06:39 pm Monday through Friday that
are scheduled in sync with ACE trains. There are stops along Fabian Way, the corner
of Fabian Way and East Charleston Road, the corner of San Antonio Road and Casey
Avenue, and Marine Way.
Just south of the project area between Alma Street and State Route 82 is the San
Antonio Shopping Center. While not a designated transit center, the Center hosts
stops for multiple transit options, including the Mountain View Community Shuttle,
Marguerite Shuttle, VTA 522 Rapid Bus, and MVGo.
VTA 522 Rapid Bus
The 522 Bus runs between downtown San Jose to the Palo Alto Transit Center. The stop
at the San Antonio Shopping Center is at the corner of State Route 82 and Showers
Drive. An average of 252 people board or alight every weekday. Headways at this stop
are around every hour, from 5:28 a.m. to 10:05 p.m. As an express bus, fares are $5 for
adults, which is twice the cost of a local bus fare.
Mountain View Community Shuttle
The City of Mountain View in partnership with Google and VTA runs a fare-free parallel
shuttle service. From Monday to Friday, headways are every 30 minutes between 7
a.m. and 7 p.m. On Saturday and Sunday, headways are every hour between 10 a.m.
and 6 p.m. The San Antonio Shopping Center is the most popular stop along the route,
making up 29,721 (17.2 percent) and 32,270 (18.4 percent) boardings and alightings
54
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
over two routes.
MVGo
The Mountain View Transportation Management Association is a nonprofit
organization that operates the MVGo fare-free shuttle system. MVgo Routes C and D
provide weekday service between the San Antonio Shopping Center at the intersection
of Miller Avenue and San Antonio Road and the Bayshore area at Marine Lane and
Casey Avenue. Route C operates southbound along San Antonio Road between 6:25
a.m. and 7:36 p.m., with headways of 20-40 minutes. Route D operates northbound
along San Antonio Road between 6:56 a.m. and 7:37 p.m., with headways of 20-40
minutes. Both routes average between one and two riders daily at the San Antonio
Road/Miller stop.
Marguerite Shuttle
Stanford University operates a private shuttle system that mainly runs around the
campus area. The shuttle system is free and open to the public, with an annual ridership
of 2.74 million in 2019. At certain periods of the week, these shuttles run outside the
campus. The primary external route, the Shopping Express, travels directly to the San
Antonio Shopping Center, south of the project area. On Fridays, headways are every 60
minutes between 3 a.m. and 10:47 p.m. On Saturdays and Sundays, headways are every
60 minutes between 9 a.m. and 7:47 p.m.
Private Transit Options
Throughout the Bay Area, a collection of over 20 registered private transportation
companies offer transportation by private coach bus. They represent the seventh most
popular transportation resource in the Bay Area at over 2.6 million passengers. These
shuttles originated in the early 2000s by Google to transport workers to and from their
campuses. Today, a wide variety of companies charter private buses for use by their
employees. In a survey conducted by the Metropolitan Transportation Committee, the
county of Santa Clara in 2016 had 50-100 shuttles operating per day. The most popular
routes provide connections with San Francisco and Alameda counties. However, survey
data is anonymous, and information regarding the operations of these companies is
hard to come by due to the decentralized nature of shuttle company contracting.
55
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
Transportation Demand
Management
Transportation demand management (TDM) plays a pivotal role in shaping the future
of transportation in Palo Alto. Using a series of TDM strategies, the City aims to reduce
congestion by encouraging a shift from single-occupant vehicles to more sustainable,
collective forms of transport such as mass transit, carpools, and private shuttles. The
following sections discuss the TDM efforts that the City is currently employing.
Municipal Code
Section 18.52.030(i) summarizes the circumstances under which a new development
must provide a TDM plan. According to the City Code, a TDM is required under these
circumstances:
• For projects generating 50 or more net new weekday (AM or PM peak hour) or
weekend peak hour trips
• For projects claiming a reduction in net new trips due to proximity to public transit
or the implementation of a TDM plan
• For projects requesting a parking reduction
Under the authority of the Director, new developments may request a reduction of up to
20 percent of the total parking spaces required for the site.
Palo Alto Transportation Management Association
The City of Palo Alto often collaborates with the Palo Alto Transportation Management
Association (TMA) to regulate TDM efforts. Palo Alto TMA is an independent, non-
profit organization that was launched in January 2015 to assist the City’s ambitious goal
of reducing single-occupant vehicle (SOV) trips by 30 percent while also prioritizing
transportation and parking challenges.
Since then, Palo Alto TMA has launched several employee and manager programs for
commuters working in downtown Palo Alto. Although these programs currently serve
only downtown employees and employers, the City’s Comprehensive Plan does note the
expansion of these programs to other areas of the city depending on their performance.
56
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
Safety
The most commonly used indicator for roadway safety is the Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System (SWITRS). It is a database of logged collisions from the
California Highway Patrol. These data points are logged not only along highways but
also local streets through local partner agencies. From 2018 to 2022, Palo Alto had an
average of 281.8 crashes per year, with an average of 370.6 fatalities and injuries from
those crashes.
Safe Routes to School
Palo Alto has established
a Safe Routes to School
(SRS) program in
partnership with the
Palo Alto Unified School
District (PAUSD) and Palo
Alto Council of PTA’s.
Schools that have Safe
Routes that intersect with
San Antonio Road include
Fairmeadow Elementary
School, JLS Middle
School, Hoover Elementary
School, and Greendell
School (See Figure 10). The establishment of SRS is particularly important due to the
relatively high percentage of students that walk and bike to school. For the 2021 school
year, 42 percent of elementary schoolers and 67 percent of middle schoolers either
walked or biked to school. SRS materials can be accessed online, with illustrated route
maps provided for all schools.
All of the listed schools’ SRS intersecting San Antonio Road are shared. There is a
walking and biking route that runs down Nita Avenue, crossing the intersection of Nita
Avenue and San Antonio Road and running down the neighborhood street of MacKay
Drive. There is a route running down San Antonio Road, and is only suggested for
walking. Middlefield Road also has a walking-only suggested route. The majority of
East Charleston Road is a suggested walking and biking route, except for the section
between Fabian Way and San Antonio Road.
Figure 10 - Safe Routes to School Map at San Antonio Road.
57
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
Physical Safety Improvements
To increase neighborhood road safety, the Office of Transportation established the
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) in 2001. The NTCP outlines standard
traffic calming education, enforcement, and engineering measures. Residents can
petition for these safety measures to be implemented on their local streets. Locations
identified by the community are measured against criteria in the NTCP to determine if
interventions need to be made, and then community approval solicited.
The City has identified the intersection of San Antonio Road and East Charleston Road
as an area for improvement in pedestrian safety. A frontage lane exists for parking,
increasing conflict between drivers and pedestrians. The proposed interventions would
address the failure of drivers to yield on red right turns to pedestrians.
The Palo Alto City Council in 2017 adopted a resolution that called for changes to
roadway design song corridors that experience higher average speeds than the posted
limit. Previous changes included signing and striping, which reduced roadway speeds
by two to four miles per hour. Middlefield Road after the intersection with San Antonio
Road was one of the segments targeted for design changes.
Vehicle
There are a number of categories for vehicle-based fatalities and crashes, such as from
drugs, alcohol, speeding, and distracted driving. Drug and alcohol related fatalities and
injuries crashes were an average of 24.6 per year. Distracted driving caused an average
of 33.6 fatalities and injuries per year. Speeding related fatalities and injuries were the
most consequential out of all the categories, with an average of 149.8 per year.
Bicycle
According to SWITRS data, the 2018-2022 average bicyclist fatality and injury rate
has been 53.2 per year. San Antonio Road’s existing bike infrastructure are sharrows,
meaning bikes use road lanes. For bicyclists, this creates conflict with fast-moving cars
and trucks. A common reaction to these unsafe conditions is the riding of bicycles on
sidewalks instead. This behavior puts both bicyclists and pedestrians at risk of serious
injury.
Pedestrian
According to SWITRS data, the 2018-2022 average pedestrian fatality and injury rate
has been 22 per year. San Antonio Road has average sidewalk facilities between Mackay
Drive and East Charleston Road. However, as San Antonio Road approaches Alma Street
and Highway 101, conditions become much more precarious, with use of a mixture of
unmarked crossings and substandard walkways necessary to cross.
58
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
Parking
Existing Parking Programs
The City of Palo Alto implements several parking programs and initiatives within the
city for residents, employees, and visitors. This includes the Residential Preferred
Parking Program (RPP) which offers on-street permits to eligible residents and
employees living or working in the six RPP districts. Employees can also apply for off-
street parking permits serving garages and lots in the California Avenue and University
Avenue Business Districts. The City also regulates parking downtown through its
Downtown Color Zone Parking Program which enforces time limits within color zones.
Refer to Figure 11 to see how parking is managed in the Downtown Parking District.
The City staffs two valet attendants at the Alma/High Street garage in its Valet Assist
Program to encourage the use of city-owned parking garages and lots.
Figure 11 - Palo Alto’s Downtown Parking Assessment District
In recent years, the City introduced its Safe Parking Program which allows churches and
institutions to provide safe places to park and access amenities, serving as a form of
transitional housing for Palo Alto’s vehicle dwellers population.
These programs are mostly concentrated in the western half of the city. However, the
RPP and Safe Parking Program allow residents and institutions to petition for these
programs to operate within their neighborhoods. Currently, none of the City’s parking
programs and services cover the San Antonio Road Corridor.
KEY TO PARKING LOTS AND GARAGES
A Emerson/Lytton Lot
Ramona/University Garage
Ramona/Lytton Lot
Civic Center Garage
Emerson/Ramona Lot
Hamilton/Waverley Lot
Gilman/Bryant Lot
Florence/Lytton Lot
Gilman/Waverley Lot
Lytton/Waverley Lot
Bryant/Lytton Garage
Sheraton Hotel Lot
Pay Toilet
B
C
D
E
F
G
K
S/L
P High/Hamilton Lot
High/Alma North Garage
High/Alma South Garage
Emerson/High Lot
Cowper/Hamilton Lot
Lytton/Kipling Lot
Private Pay Garage
Webster/Cowper Garage
30-Minute Parking Spaces
Train Station
Transit Stop
Marguerite Shuttle Stop
Bicycle Boulevard/Bikestation®
Public Restroom
Q
R
T
$
WC
underpass to stanford university
Q
High/Alma North Garage
Permit Parking O
Emerson/High Lot
2-Hour Parking
R
P
High/
Hamilton
Lot
2-Hour
Parking
Emerson/
Lytton Lot
2-Hour
Parking
Emerson/
Ramona
Lot
2-Hour
Parking
Ramona/
University
Garage
3-Hour
Parking
Ramona/
Lytton Lot
2-Hour &
Senior
Permit
Parking
Civic Center
Garage
3-Hour &
Permit Parking
A
C
N B
CC
PURPLE ZONE CORAL ZONE
3-Hour &
Permit
Parking Florence/
Lytton Lot
2-Hour
Parking
POST
OFFICE
2-Hour
Parking
Gilm
a
n
/
B
r
y
a
n
t
L
o
t
Per
m
i
t
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
Bryant/Lytton Garage
Gilm
a
n
/
W
a
v
e
r
l
e
y
L
o
t
Per
m
i
t
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
LLyttytt on Aon A vv enueenue
UU nivniv ersitersit y Ay A vv enueenue
HH amiltamilt on Aon A vv enueenue
FF oror est Aest A vv enueenue
AAlm
a
S
lm
a
S
trtr
ee
t
ee
t
EEm
e
r
s
o
n
S
m
e
r
s
o
n
S
trtr
ee
t
ee
t
BBrryyanan
t S
t S
trtr
ee
t
ee
t
WW
aavverer
lele
y
S
y
S
trtr
ee
t
ee
t
WW
eb
s
t
eb
s
t
er
S
er
S
trtr
ee
t
ee
t
TTas
s
o
S
as
s
o
S
trtr
ee
t
ee
t
KKip
l
i
n
g
S
ip
l
i
n
g
S
trtr
ee
t
ee
t
Lytton/Waverley Lot
2-Hour &
Permit Parking
K K
S/L
F
D
E G
Lytton/
Kipling Lot
2-Hour &
Permit
Parking Private
Parking
Garage
Cowper/Hamilton Lot
2-Hour Parking
Webster/Cowper Garage
3-Hour &
Permit Parking
T
$
H
WC
Parking lot and garage
restrictions and color zone
requirements are in effect 8 a.m.–
5 p.m. Monday to Friday only,
holidays excepted.
Yellow commercial-loading zones,
30-minute parking spaces,white
passenger-loading zones and
disability designated spaces are
exempt from the color-zone
regulations.
COLOR ZONES
LIME ZONE BLUE ZONE
▲
TO HWY 101
El Palo Alto
Tra
n
sit
C
e
n
t
e
r
▲
CC
N H
X
O
High/Alma South Garage
3-Hour and
Permit Parking
Lytton/
Waverley Lot
Permit Parking
Hamilton/Waverley Lot
Bik
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
®
PT
RR
PT
RR
RR
▲
EEl Cl C
am
i
n
o
R
am
i
n
o
R
ea
l
ea
l
PT
Per
m
i
t
Par
k
i
n
g
X
RRam
o
n
a
S
am
o
n
a
S
trtr
ee
t
ee
t
FFlo
r
lo
r
en
c
en
c
e
S
e
S
trtr
ee
t
ee
t
GGilm
a
n
S
ilm
a
n
S
trtr
ee
t
ee
t
CCoowpwp
er
S
er
S
trtr
ee
t
ee
t
HHig
h
S
ig
h
S
trtr
ee
t
ee
t
▲
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼
▼▼▼
▼▼
▼
▲
▲
▲
▲▲▲▲
▲▲
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲▲
▼
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲▲
▲
TO HWY 280 ▲
▲
▲▲
▲▲
▲
▲
▲▲
Nan
A
g
g
–
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
r
A
r
t
h
u
r
R
u
d
a
–
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
e
t
r
o
P
r
i
n
t
i
n
g
–
P
r
i
n
t
e
r
Downtown Parking Assessment District
59
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
Existing Parking Conditions
Because the City of Palo Alto’s existing parking programs do not expand to the San
Antonio Road Corridor, street parking is unregulated within the project scope.
Figure 12 - Street frontage along San Antonio is for vehicle parking only.
Based on an initial site visit, on-street parking is the more common form of parking
along San Antonio Road as opposed to off-street parking. Beginning at the intersection
between East Charleston Road and San Antonio Road, the frontage there is completely
dedicated to 33 spaces of on-street parking as seen in Figure 12.
In terms of off-street parking, lots supply spaces for vehicles, especially in the northern
half of the San Antonio Road Corridor where there are many light industrial businesses.
An initial site visit found that some of the vehicles using these lots had to make use
of the limited space provided there. This could be attributed to San Antonio Road’s
function as a trucking road. Most of the light industrial businesses utilize their lot
space to create alleyways to support loading trucks.
There is a concentrated community of vehicle dwellers who park their RVs and cars
along the streets of the San Antonio Road Corridor as shown in Figure 13. Although this
is a small group of people occupying the area in parked spaces, it is important to note
that the redevelopment of the corridor will pose potentially extreme impacts to this
community.
Figure 13 - Parked RVs along Fabian Way.
60
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
Parking Policies and Standards (City Documents)
The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code provides a framework
for how parking can be managed within the city. The following sections discuss the
City’s current parking policies and standards.
Palo Alto’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Addressed in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the City seeks to improve parking
conditions by managing the current supply and demand through a series of policies.
These policies align with the City’s overarching transportation objective of enhancing
the city’s walkability, promoting biking, encouraging ridesharing, and improving transit
usage. Below are several important parking policies that more strongly apply to the San
Antonio Road Corridor Concept Plan.
• Policy T-5.1: All new development projects should manage parking demand
generated by the project, without the use of on-street parking, consistent with the
established parking regulations. As demonstrated parking demand decreases over
time, and parking requirements for new construction should decrease.
• Policy T-5.12: To promote bicycle use, increase the number of safe, attractive, and
well-designed bicycle parking spaces available in the city, including spots for diverse
types of bicycles and associated equipment, including bicycle trailers, prioritizing
heavily traveled areas such as commercial and retail centers, employment districts,
recreational/cultural facilities, multi-modal transit facilities, and ride share stops for
bicycle parking infrastructure.
The programs defined under Policy T 5.1 explore the possibilities of amending the
City’s Municipal Code to update parking standards based on location conditions and
users’ needs. One program is geared towards reducing parking requirements for multi-
family housing to encourage the utilization of alternative transportation modes,
provided it does not adversely affect the neighborhood. Another program similarly
seeks to lower parking requirements for retail and restaurant establishments to
stimulate the establishment of new businesses and promote the adoption of alternative
transportation modes.
The programs included in Policy T-5.12 involve performing bicycle parking assessments
and installing secure e-bike lockers in transit stations and parking garages. In addition,
the City seeks to collaborate with employers, businesses, schools, and community
service providers to explore options for increasing bicycle parking availability.
Zoning Code
Parking requirements in the City of Palo Alto are defined in the City’s Municipal Code
and Zoning Ordinance. The standards and minimums are captured in Section 18.52.040.
61
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
Parking minimums are designated and regulated based on all the land uses present in
Palo Alto. See an example of land uses provided in Table 2.
Uses Vehicle Spaces Required
Single Family Residential (Primary Unit)
In the OS district
In all other districts
Two Family Residential
R-2 and RMD districts
R-1 and RE districts (Section 18.42.180)
4 spaces, at least 1 covered
2 spaces, at least 1 covered
1.5 per unit, 1 space per unit covered
1 per unit
Multi-Family Residential 1 per micro-unit
1 per studio unit
1 per 1-bedroom unit
2 per 2-bedroom or larger unit, 1 space
per unit must be covered
General Business Services
Enclosed
Open Lot
1 per 250 sq. ft.
1 per 500 st. ft. of sales
Commercial Recreation 1 space per each 4-person capacity
Table 2 - Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements
Airport
Palo Alto is centrally located between two major regional international airports, San
Francisco International Airport (SFO) and San Jose Mineta International Airport (SJC).
While the operation of SFO and SJC does not prompt development considerations for
the redevelopment of the San Antonio Road Corridor, the region’s two local airports,
Moffett Field and Palo Alto Airport (PAO), do.
The following sections discuss relevant information regarding the two regional airports
in relation to the redesign of the concept plan.
Palo Alto Airport
Depicted in Figure 14, the Palo Alto Airport (PAO) is located at the northwestern
edge of Santa Clara County and on the western shore of the southern portion of San
Francisco Bay. The Airport occupies 102 acres of land and serves as a reliever for
the three major Bay Area airports. Although the airport was previously operated by
the County of Santa Clara, it is now under the management of the City of Palo Alto,
62
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
transferring PAO’s key
challenges such as noise
impacts and runway
conditions to city staff.
Development
Considerations
According to the Palo Alto
Airport Comprehensive
Land Use Plan (CLUP),
Runway 31 is the only flight
path that crosses through
the San Antonio Road
Corridor project. It only
flies over the northern corner of the site. Despite this, none of PAO’s 2022 Airport Noise
contours reach the San Antonio Road Corridor. PAO’s CLUP also discusses building
height limitations for surrounding areas. These height limitations do not impact any
development of the San Antonio Road Corridor. Lastly, the CLUP identifies six airport
safety zones that impose density and use limitations within the zones to minimize the
number of people exposed to potential aircraft accidents in the vicinity of the airport.
None of the safety zones reach the San Antonio Road Corridor.
Moffett Field
Seen in Figure 15, Moffett Federal Airfield
is a U.S. Government-owned airport
situated in the north-central area of Santa
Clara County, near San Francisco Bay,
neighboring Mountain View and Sunnyvale.
The airport covers 952 acres and is operated
by NASA Ames Research Center. It was a
former U.S. Naval Air Station and still has
a military presence, with the California Air
National Guard stationed there. The airport
hosts U.S. Coast Guard and NASA test
flights, along with government personnel
and air cargo operations. Civilian activities
at the airport are limited and expected to
remain so.
Figure 15 - Location map of the Moffett Federal Airfield.
Figure 14 - Location map of the Palo Alto Airport.
63
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
Development Considerations
The Moffett Federal Airfield CLUP reveals that the airfield’s flight tracks do fly over
the northern corner of the project site. However, its noise contours do not reach the
project boundaries. The project site is also not included in any of Moffett Airfield’s
safety zones. The only design consideration imposed by the operation of this airfield is
a height restriction of 382 feet above sea level in the northern corner of the project site
and west of San Antonio Road.
Key Terms/Abbreviations
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM): strategies that improve transportation
system efficiency and reduce congestion by shifting trips from single-occupant
vehicles to collective forms of transport, including mass transit, carpools, and private
shuttles.
• Level of Service (LOS): Qualitative analysis of the flow of traffic.
• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): Measure of the amount of travel for vehicles for an
area over a given period of time, typically one-year. It is calculated as the sum of the
number of miles traveled by each vehicle.
64
Exisitng Conditions Report Transportation
Sources
Bike to work (& wherever) days. City of Palo Alto, CA. (2023, May 16). https://www.
cityofpaloalto.org/Events-Directory/Office-of-Transportation/Bike-to-Work-Day
Caltrain. (n.d.). Bikes on the train. Caltrain. https://www.caltrain.com/rider-
information/bicycles/bikes-train
The City of Palo Alto. (2012). Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
The City of Palo Alto. (2017). 2017 Traffic Safety and Operations Report.
The City of Palo Alto. (2023). Office of Transportation
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, (2016). Bay Area Shuttle Census
Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority, (2022). Open Data Ridership
Caltrain, (2019). Ridership by Station
Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority, (2023). SAN ANTONIO ROAD CORRIDOR
TRANSIT ASSESSMENT
Stanford. (2022, June 10). How to take your bike on Caltrain. Stanford Research Park.
https://stanfordresearchpark.com/articles/how-to-take-your-bike-on-caltrain
Environment
66
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Introduction
The environment chapter of the Existing Conditions Report addresses topics related
to water and water resources, biological resources, natural hazards, climate, and noise.
Although most of the project area is urban landscape, there are many environmental
considerations, such as climate change and hazardous materials, that must be
addressed. An evaluation of the environment will allow for more informed decisions on
future development and the potential mitigation measures needed.
Major Findings
• Water: The City of Palo Alto has sufficient and high-quality water resources to
support a growing population. They have developed plans and policies to implement
water conservation efforts and conserve their ample water supply, even in times of
emergency or drought.
• Urban Forest: The City of Palo Alto has an Urban Forest Management Plan which
includes all private and public trees, plants, and associated organisms in the Palo
Alto ecosystems. There are several urban tree canopy target areas where the city has
identified potential locations to plant more trees.
• Pollinator pathways: Palo Alto has multiple pollinator pathways, roads with native
plant habitat and food for pollinators, that serve as regional habitat connections
between city parks, the foothills preserve, the Palo Alto Baylands and associated
ecosystems outside of the city. San Antonio Road is not currently a pollinator
pathway despite its proximity to the Bayland Preserve.
• Hazardous materials: The San Antonio Road Corridor is one of two areas in Palo
Alto with a relatively high density of hazardous material sites. Most are considered
cleaned up, but there are three sites with land use restrictions, and five permitted
underground storage tank sites. Hazardous materials are at risk of mobilization with
sea level rise and associated groundwater table rise.
• Noise: Highway 101 is the major noise source for the San Antonio Road Corridor. The
60 dba noise contour extends as far south as Middlefield Road. This has implications
for noise sensitive land uses, such as residential and hotels as their acceptable noise
level exposure is less than 60 db.
• Climate Change: The San Antonio Road Corridor is highly prone to sea level rise. To
mitigate risks, Palo Alto aims to develop a multi-year Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan
and assess vulnerabilities to protect vital infrastructure and property, given the sea
level’s accelerating rise and the outdated flood protection systems.
67
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Hydrology and Water Resources
This section outlines existing conditions regarding water resources and water
availability for the City of Palo Alto.
Regulatory Setting
Palo Alto Urban Water Management Plan
The City’s Urban Water Management Plan outlines the water demand, water supply
sources, reliability of sources, water conservation efforts, and water shortage plans. The
goal of the plan is to ensure the city’s water resources are being properly allocated and
accounted for past and future use.
Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan addresses the future management of
the Baylands Nature Preserve. It addresses topics concerning conservation, recreation
and visitor use with the purpose of ensuring the protection of biological resources and
natural resources. The plan limits development in the Baylands.
One Water Plan
As part of the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, the City has begun drafting the
One Water Plan to address water conservation, alternative water sources, uncertainties,
and future risks. The Plan will also develop criteria for assessing water supply and
conservation efforts. The Plan is set to be completed in early 2024.
Water bodies
Palo Alto is surrounded by land on most sides, but its northern boundary is adjacent to
the San Francisco Bay. The land and marshes that lay north of Highway 101 and south
of the San Francisco Bay are environmentally protected lands known as the Baylands
Nature Preserve. The city is also host to six creeks: San Franciscquito Creek, Matadero
Creek, Adobe Creek, Barron Creek, Arastradero Creek, and Stevens Creek. In the more
urbanized areas of the city, the creeks have been heavily engineered to serve primarily
as flood control channels.
The San Francisco Bay and Adobe Creek are the primary water bodies that interact
with the project site. As can be seen in Figure 1, Adobe Creek is the closest water body
to the project site. Adobe Creek used to run through the San Antonio Corridor project
site, but the channelization has moved the creek outside of the project boundaries. The
northern most area of the site touches the Saline Emergent wetland adjacent to the San
Francisco Bay.
68
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Fig
u
r
e
1
-
M
a
p
o
f
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
b
o
d
i
e
s
69
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Water Supply
Palo Alto receives 100 percent of its potable water from the San Francisco Regional
Water System (SFRWS), which is managed by the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC), through the Regional Water System. The water distributed by the
SFPUC mostly comes from the Sierra Nevada snowmelt distributed by the Hetch Hetchy
water distribution system. 15 percent of treated water used by SFPUC comes from its
local watersheds in Alameda and San Mateo County. 85 percent of this water comes
from the Tuolumne River Watershed alone and the rest from Alameda Creek watershed
and San Mateo County Watershed.
The Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) is operated by the City and
produces recycled water for irrigation of golf courses, parks, and minor appliances.
These two water supplies, SFPUC and recycled water, made up 100 percent of the city’s
water supply in 2020. As can be seen in Table 1, the city’s water supply is estimated to
increase over the years due to SFPUC supply.
Water Quality
According to the 2022 Water Quality Report, the City’s water meets all the federal
and state drinking water quality standards. SFPUC treats all surface water before it is
delivered to cities. It is disinfected using ultraviolet light and chlorine, pH adjustment,
fluoridation, and chloramination. SFPUC regularly conducts testing to ensure the water
meets federal and state drinking water standards. The City has certified there is no lead
in the water system infrastructure and water sample tests have confirmed there is no
detectable lead in the water.
Table 1 - Current and Planned Water Supply (UWMP)
70
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Groundwater
The Urban Water Management Plan identifies the groundwater availability in Santa
Clara County and the City of Palo Alto. The county has a steady level of groundwater
available as potable water demand has been reduced. The city has five wells that were
continuously used from the mid 1950s to 1962 and operated again in 1988 to provide
supplemental water supply. The city has not used its groundwater since 1991, when it
was operational for about a month and a half during a severe cutback. The water quality
is less than desirable compared to the SFPUC’s water supply as it has a high amount of
dissolved solids and hardness.
As part of the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project, the wells were
rehabilitated, and three new wells and a 2.5-million-gallon storage reservoir and
pump station were constructed a decade ago. The expansion allowed for up to 11,000
gpm (gallons per minute) of well capacity and three million gallons of storage. This
construction was to ensure sufficient water during an emergency water shortage or
drought conditions.
The San Antonio Road Corridor is not in the vicinity of the groundwater wells’ location.
The wells are located in the northern western part of the city.
Wastewater
The Regional Water Quality Control Plant serves as Palo Alto’s and the surrounding
cities’ wastewater treatment plant. Ten percent of the wastewater flow is from
industries, 30 percent from commercial businesses and institutions, and 60 percent
from residences. The plant has a capacity of 39 MGD (million gallons per day) during
average dry weather flow and 80 MGD for peak wet weather flow. The current average
flow is 17.24 MGD. The maximum design daily flow is 90,000 acre-foot per year
(AF/year) and the average design daily flow sits below half of the capacity at 44,000
AF/year. The plant has sufficient capacity for dry and wet weather flows as well as for
future projections. The wastewater that is not treated and recycled is discharged into
the San Francisco Bay.
Watersheds
The City of Palo has five watersheds within their city boundaries: San Francisquito
Creek Watershed, San Fransisco Bay Watershed, Matadero Creek Watershed, Barron
Creek Watershed, and Adobe Creek Watershed (see Figure 2). The San Antonio Road
Corridor project area lies in the Adobe Creek Watershed area and the Permanente Creek
Watershed which lies mostly in the City of Mountain View.
71
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Fig
u
r
e
2
-
M
a
p
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
s
i
n
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
(
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
)
72
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
The Adobe Creek watershed covers approximately eleven square miles of Santa Clara
County, most of which covers mountainous terrain. It consists of seven tributary creeks,
19 miles of natural creek bed, and 2.3 miles of engineered channels. The drainage area
above the Adobe Fork is undeveloped open space, but most of the area is developed
urban land. 46.5 percent of the area is residential, forest 36.3 percent, 11.8 percent is
industrial/commercial across multiple cities, including Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos
Hills, and Mountain View. The watershed has no designated uses by the San Francisco
Bay Water Board, but it is an important natural resource for warm freshwater habitat
and water contact recreation. The watershed has no water quality impairments. Adobe
Creek meets Barron Creek west of Highway 101 and drains into the Palo Alto Flood
Basin and South San Francisco Bay.
The Barron Creek watershed covers an area of 15.5 square miles, three of which are
areas of urban development. Barron Creek is five miles long, flowing through the Town
of Los Altos Hills and parts of residential, commercial, and industrial areas of the
City of Palo Alto. The creek joins Adobe Creek and brains into the Lower South San
Francisco Bay. About 50 percent of the Creek has been channelized for flood control
purposes. The watershed is essential for fish migration and cold freshwater habitat.
Barron Creek is located just south of the project boundary area.
Biological Resources
Regulatory setting
Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
See Hydrology and Water Resources
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
The Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment element contains goals,
policies, and programs related to protecting, preserving, and prioritizing the natural
environment within Palo Alto. Key natural environment goals include protection and
conservation of open space, urban forest and understory, creeks and riparian areas.
Goal N-1: Protect, conserve and enhance Palo Alto’s citywide system of open space,
including connected and accessible natural and urban habitats, ecosystems and natural
resources, providing a source of public health, natural beauty and enjoyment for Palo
Alto residents.
Goal N-2: A thriving urban forest that provides public health, ecological, economic, and
aesthetic benefits for Palo Alto.
Goal N-3: Conservation of both natural and channelized creeks and riparian areas as
open space amenities, natural habitat areas and elements of community design.
73
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Urban Forest Master Plan
The Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan was adopted in 2015 and updated in 2019
containing goals, policies, and programs related to increasing the urban tree canopy.
The plan focuses on public and private trees and the overlapping goals of city staff and
property owners regarding the urban forest.
Land Cover
The project area is defined as an Urban Forest as its vegetation and habitat type in the
Natural Environment Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. More than one-
third of Palo Alto is natural open spaces which include the Palo Alto Baylands and the
Foothills Nature Preserve. The Palo Alto Baylands are adjacent to the northern end of
the project boundary and are made up of salt marsh, non-native grassland, riparian, and
lagoon habitats.
A series of pollinator pathways exist using roads, parks, community gardens, and creeks
to connect the two nature preserves. Pollinator pathways are corridors where habitat
and food sources have been planted between the sidewalk and road for bees, butterflies,
and birds. One of the identified pollinator pathways cuts through the project site along
Middlefield Road (see Figure 3).
Wildlife and Plants
The Palo Alto Baylands is a habitat for a diverse selection of plants and animals.
The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan notes special status wildlife and plant species in
the Bayland Preserve which are the western burrowing owl, California seablite, and
northern coastal salt marsh. Additional special status species listed by the California
Natural Diversity Database include the Ridgway’s rail (bird) and salt marsh harvest
mouse which are both listed as federally endangered. California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) lists the salt marsh common yellowthroat as a special status species.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the western snowy plover, which
is a federally threatened species, has a critical habitat near the Palo Alto Baylands.
There are a variety of threats to special status wildlife and plant species. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture predator control services has identified feral cats and other
target species that are a threat to Ridgway’s rail and the burrowing owl, both species
located in the Baylands Preserve. The target species include feral and free-ranging
cats and dogs, raccoons, striped skunks, and red foxes. There are additional feral cat
management and control recommendations in the Palo Alto Baylands Byxbee Park
Master Plan to protect the burrowing owl and their habitat. Feral cats will be trapped
and taken to Palo Alto Animal Services and feeding stations will be removed as they are
identified.
74
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Figure 3 - Natural systems map
75
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Urban Forest
The Urban Forest Master Plan defines the urban forest as the trees, plants, and related
organisms in the shared ecosystem in Palo Alto. The Urban Forest planning boundary
includes all of Palo Alto between Highways 101 and 280 and the Municipal Golf Course.
The airport, Baylands, Arastradero Preserve, and Foothills Park are excluded from the
plan. The plan seeks to address the challenge of redeveloping more intense land uses
that lead to the loss of planting sites. The plan aims to create policies and procedures
that make development projects opportunities to increase the urban tree canopy. A
portion of the project site from Middlefield Road to Highway 101 is included in one
of the Comprehensive Plan Urban Canopy Target Areas (see Figure 3). Urban tree
canopy has many benefits including building energy use reduction, carbon dioxide
sequestration, air quality, stormwater runoff reductions, and aesthetics and property
value. Trees also provide critical habitat for pollinators, seed distributors, and other
species critical to surrounding ecosystems. The urban forest is more successful with
companion vegetation that contributes to tree health and ecosystem function.
The protected tree species in Palo Alto are the Big Leaf Maple, California Incense
Cedar, Coast Live Oak, Blue Oak, California Black Oak, Valley Oak, and Coast Redwood.
The trees must be 11.5 inches or more in diameter at breast height (DBH) with the
exception of the Coast Redwood which must be 18 inches or more DBH. Additionally,
all public trees and all mature trees greater than fifteen inches DBH are protected
excluding invasive species and high water use trees. Designated trees can be protected
during development project review and approval, due to identification for carbon
sequestration or environmental mitigation purposes, or as a replacement mitigation
tree. Heritage trees are individual trees protected of various sizes, species, or historical
significance determined by the city council or nominated by property owners. Title 8 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code considers trees under or near power lines regulated trees
and may be protected regardless of ownership. Palo Alto has a Line Clearing Program to
maintain vegetation clearance from utilities per the State of California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) rules.
Hazards
Regulatory Settings
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Minimum federal standards for floodplain management in the United States are
maintained by FEMA. FEMA managed floodplains are lowland and flat areas adjacent to
coastal and inland waters that are subject to flooding in any given year.
76
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act is a California state regulation that requires seismic
hazard zones to be mapped by the State Geologist. Cities are required to regulate
development projects within the zones mapped by the state.
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act is a California state regulation the
restricts development on or close to active faults. Human occupied structures are
prohibited from being built on active fault traces.
California Building Code
The California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 2, is the California Building
Code. The California Buildings Standards Commission is responsible for the building
standards in the California Building Code including earthquake conditions.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hazardous waste regulations are in Title
40, Code of Federal Regulations, (40 CFR), Parts 260-279. These regulations are
implemented by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
California Code of Regulations (CCR)
The California hazardous waste laws are found in the California Code of Regulations
(CCR), division 4.5, title 22. These laws are in the California Health and Safety Code and
the individual generating waste is responsible for identifying whether it meets the CCR
criteria for hazardous waste.
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
The Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan safety element contains goals, policies, and
programs related to protecting communities, ecosystems, and property from natural
and human caused hazards. The safety element includes mitigation, monitoring, public
education, and response for hazards that impact the community.
Seismic and Geologic Hazards
The San Francisco Bay Area has many active fault zones. Palo Alto is near the San
Andreas Fault Zone and the San Gregorio Fault Zone in the Santa Cruz Mountains.
Across the San Francisco Bay is the Calaveras Fault Zone and Hayward Fault Zone. All
these fault zones could potentially impact the City of Palo Alto and the project site.
The Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan models 100-year and
500-year probabilistic earthquake scenario peak ground acceleration. The project site
ranges from strong (VI) to very strong (VII) on the modified Mercalli Scale for potential
shaking. Earthquakes are listed in the top three natural hazards prioritized by the city
77
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
in the Threat and Hazards Identification and Risk Assessment. The risk associated with
earthquakes is primarily fault rupture and seismic shaking and secondarily liquefaction
and earthquake induced landslides. The project area is at risk of building damage
due to earthquakes. Earthquake induced landslides are not a risk to the project area
as it is in a low-lying area of Palo Alto. However, the Palo Alto Foothills are the area
that is susceptible to landslides in the event of an earthquake. Liquefaction affects
development due to the soil becoming water-logged and losing strength after seismic
events. The rising groundwater table due to sea level rise may exacerbate liquefaction
in the project area. Liquefaction is a moderate risk throughout most of the project site
and a very high-risk risk east of Highway 101 (see Figure 4).
Wildfire
Wildfire risk is becoming more widespread in California due to population increases,
drought conditions, and fire suppression efforts. The Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) is
the location where development meets highly vegetated areas and is prone to wildfire.
Fire potential is influenced by fuel, topography, weather, and wind. The increased
slope increases the intensity and spread rate of wildfires along with fuel sources and
arrangement. Fuel sources include vegetation, man-made structures, and combustibles.
The potential of fuel igniting and fire spreading is exacerbated by high temperature,
low relative humidity, and high wind.
There is no recorded history of wildfires in the City of Palo Alto. Historical fires in the
area include Portola Valley LEIB in 1962 in San Mateo County and Stevens in 2007 in
Santa Clara County. The risk area is the Santa Cruz Mountain Range to the west of
the city. The Palo Alto Foothills are adjacent to the Santa Cruz Mountains which are
in a high and very high fire severity zone. Much of this high-risk area is the Palo Alto
Foothills Preserve and has minimal urban development. Most of the urban area of Palo
Alto is in a low wildfire severity zone including the project site. Wildfire resources
are available to the city through the Palo Alto Fire Department and Santa Clara
County’s Office of Emergency Management for wildfire updates, evacuation and shelter
information and resources, and air quality monitoring.
78
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Figure 4 - Map of liquefaction risk
79
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Figure 5 - 100-year flood zone map
80
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Floods
The San Antonio Road Corridor project area is next to the Palo Alto Baylands and
Adobe Creek. During periods of heavy rainfall, areas near creaks and the Bay may flood.
Properties in flood zones are at risk of damage in the event of flooding. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps define the flood risk. Impervious
surfaces in urban areas increase flood potential within the site and downstream.
The project site is identified within the 100-year flood zone as Zone AE (base flood
elevations determined) north of East Charleston Road (see Figure 5).
Following a significant flood event in December 1955, the City made several changes in
partnership with Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water), to manage flood risk
and prevent property damage in the low-lying areas of Palo Alto near Adobe Creek and
the Baylands. In 1956, the City constructed 2.3 miles of engineered trapezoidal concrete
drainage channel, rerouting Adobe Creek slightly north, from El Camino Real to US 101.
Adobe Creek combines with Barron Creek and empties into the Palo Alto Flood Basin
(PAFB) north of US 101. The flood basin was created in 1956 with tide gate construction
following in 1957 creating control over the water level in the Baylands and preventing
tidal flooding in extreme high tide events. The water level in the 618-acre flood basin
is maintained at approximately two feet below sea level to allow room to absorb flood
water. The tide gate reduces the saltwater flow to the PAFB. Valley Water is working on
the Palo Alto Flood Basin Tide Gate Structure Replacement Project to address issues
with the tide gate’s service life, seismic stability, future sea level rise, and increased
flood protection due to changing climate.
Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials include liquids, solids, and contained gases that are the by-
products of manufacturing processes, discarded household materials, and discarded
commercial products. Areas within one mile of railroads or major highways are
considered at risk from hazardous material release. Hazardous waste is subject to
either the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations (40 CFR) or California Health and Safety Code (HSC) and California Code of
Regulations, Title 22 section 66261.3 (22 CCR).
The industrial area by Highway 101 in South Palo Alto is part of the project site and
is considered one of two major areas of hazardous materials in the City of Palo Alto.
Commercial and Industrial land uses on and around the site have hazardous materials
organized in the Comprehensive Plan by California State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) geotracker sites, Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC) cleanup
program sites, and hazardous waste generators. From the SWRCB geotracker, there are
18 Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) locations within the project area that all
81
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
have a “completed-case closed” status. The project area has an additional 14 SWRCB
cleanup program sites with varying statuses, five of which are “completed-case closed,”
three “open-remediation,” three “open-inactive,” two “open-verification monitoring,”
and one “open-site assessment.”
There are five DTSC cleanup sites. and five locations with Permitted Underground
Storage Tanks Systems (UST) with 17 total open USTs storing petroleum or other
hazardous substances.
Historically, there was a landfill at Shoreline Park in Mountain View located north of
the project area along the San Francisco Bay. The site is currently a 750-acre wildlife
refuge and recreation area. The landfill is no longer in use but is an open Tittle 27
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill hazardous material site. It is still monitored and
maintained by the city to respond to the landfill gas and leachate that decomposing
materials produce. The City of Mountain View collects the gas through underground
pipes and incinerates it to reduce emissions. The leachate is collected and pumped into
the sanitary sewer.
Sea Level Rise is causing the groundwater table in Palo Alto to rise. When the
groundwater table is within six feet of the surface it is considered a high shallow
groundwater table and is at high risk for mobilization of contaminates. With 36 inches
of projected sea level rise, the Palo Alto landfill and two other hazardous material
sites are at high risk of mobilization of contaminates. There are additional hazardous
material sites, including six within the project boundary that become high risk sites
with the high range, end of the century, 84-inch sea level rise projection.
Emergency and Evacuation
The city of Palo Alto is vulnerable to many natural and human hazards including
earthquakes, fires, floods, and hazardous waste. The Palo Alto Emergency Operations
plan outlines the preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation efforts that the city
undertakes in the event of hazards. The Office of Emergency Services (OES) is defined
as a public safety department and the Emergency Services Chief is responsible for
directing response and recovery activities.
Palo Alto is a part of the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation
Plan (MJHMP). This plan aims to build partnerships between communities in Santa
Clara County to create solutions to shared hazard risks. Hazard mitigation plans are
critical in reducing disaster damage and costs by identifying, assessing, and reducing
the risks of hazards. Many natural hazards, including flooding, earthquakes, and
wildfires, will affect areas larger than Palo Alto, so multi-jurisdictional planning
coordinates efforts to better address common hazards.
82
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II requires compliance in emergency
management and disaster programs. There are specifications for sheltering, public
notifications, and transportation. The Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act requires additional planning to ensure equal access and coverage
for people with disabilities. Palo Alto meets the needs of people with disabilities
through the following efforts: notification and warning procedures, evacuation,
transportation and sheltering considerations, accommodations for service animals,
and accessibility to information. Additionally, Palo Alto serves individuals with “access
and functional needs” that may not be directly related to a disability. These people may
need additional support with maintaining independence, effective communication,
transportation, supervision, or medical care.
83
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Figure 8 - Map of hazardous material sites with land use restrictions
84
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Climate
This section will cover the existing climate conditions of the City of Palo Alto and will
discuss the various methods in place to address the rising concerns of climate change.
Regulatory Settings
2022 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
The 2022 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan along with the Palo Alto 2020
Comprehensive Plan, provide key statewide legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions and addressing climate impacts. The State of California has been
a leader in developing and implementing policies and regulations to directly address
sector specific issues.
Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan
The Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan outlines goals, policies, and programs in place
that address environmental risks such as air pollution and climate change.
California Global Solutions Act
Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), California Global Solutions Act of 2006, 2016 Senate Bill (SB) 32
expands upon the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requiring the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40%
below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act
In October of 2015, Senate Bill 350 (SB 350) was signed into law, establishing new clean
energy, clean air and greenhouse gas reduction goals for 2030 and beyond.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) encourages local
governments to adopt a GHG Reduction Strategy that is consistent with AB 32 goals.
The GHG Reduction Strategy may streamline environmental review of community
development projects.
Climate Change
Climate change is important to plan for because of its present and long-lasting impacts
on cities and communities. One reason for this is the increase of Greenhouse Gases
(GHGs) in the atmosphere, causing the planet to warm. In recent years, GHG emissions
have been on the rise due to an increase in industry and transportation-related
emissions. To address these issues, cities can create goals and policies to reduce and
85
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
mitigate human-made emissions. Palo Alto’s 2022 Sustainability and Climate Action
Plan identifies current climate change impacts that are of concern while outlining the
manner in which they plan to address them. Some of the effects already seen are sea
level rise, the increase of wildfires, changes in weather, and drastic water shortages.
In addition, there are community and financial impacts. Several studies conclude
on the disproportionate impact on vulnerable communities. When it comes to
environmental impacts, they tend to experience the changes first and more intensely.
Communities with socioeconomic inequities struggle more to prepare for and recover
from environmental disasters. Similarly, with climate-related disasters becoming
more frequent, costs for disaster response and relief will increase substantially.
These disasters are prone to affect buildings, water infrastructure, transportation
infrastructure adding to the rising costs.
To prepare for the impacts of climate change, Palo Alto allocates resources and funds
toward climate-protecting strategies as stated in the Climate Action Plan. The goal is
not to react to climate-lead effects, but instead, to create a more resilient future that
has the ability to adapt to projected climate changes.
Sea Level Rise
One significant aspect of climate adaptation in Palo Alto is addressing the challenge
of sea level rise. The State of California projects that rising sea levels resulting
from greenhouse gas emissions and climate change pose substantial economic,
environmental, and social risks to communities along the San Francisco Bay Shoreline,
including Palo Alto. Many essential city services and infrastructure in Palo Alto are
situated in areas that are projected to be inundated if adaptation measures are not put
in place. Part of the San Antonio Road Corridor is projected to be vulnerable to a 24-
inch to a 55-inch rise in sea level, as seen in Figure 9.
A key goal outlined in the 2022 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan is the
development and adoption of a multi-year Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan,
incorporating a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. This assessment identifies
risks to the Palo Alto Baylands, C]city infrastructure, and properties from high tide,
100-year coastal storm events, and rising shallow groundwater. The Sea Level Rise
Adaptation Plan works to preserve and expand habitat and protect city and community
assets and private property.
The Sea Level Rise Adaption Plan Draft states the sea level in the San Francisco Bay area
has increased by 8 inches since the 1850s and this number is currently accelerating. The
San Francisquito Creek Downstream Project completed in 2019, widened sections of the
creek channel and built new larger engineered levees along the creek to accommodate
86
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
a 100-year storm tide and three feet of sea level rise. Palo Alto’s existing coastal
flood protection relies on a levee network that extends along the shoreline from San
Francisquito Creek in the north to approximately San Antonio Road in Mountain View
to the south. The city’s creeks (San Francisquito, Barron, Adobe, and Matadero Creek)
are altered and include channelized sections and riverine levees to reduce flood risk to
developed areas. However, they no longer meet FEMA accreditation standards for flood
protection from a 100-year coastal or riverine flood event. Due to this, several portions
of the city, including the project site, are at risk of flooding.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
The City of Palo Alto’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan has an established goal
to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030. This shall be achieved by reducing greenhouse
gas emissions (GHG). Overall, addressing GHG emissions is crucial for cities, given that
they account for 75 percent of global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, with
transportation and buildings being major contributors. For cities to start mitigating
climate change, they must identify and quantify the sources of emissions, typically
achieved through a standardized GHG inventory.
The 2021 GHG inventory for Palo Alto, conducted by AECOM, adheres to the Global
Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) basic protocol
for a generation based GHG inventory. Generation-based GHG inventory assesses
a community’s emissions based on its energy consumption, encompassing direct
energy use, consumption via the electrical grid, and emissions from waste treatment/
decomposition. It is the industry-accepted methodology for quantifying community
GHG emissions, categorized by emission source.
In 2021, Palo Alto emitted approximately 359,312 metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2e) across various sectors. This represents a 53.9 percent reduction in
total community emissions compared to the 1990 baseline year, despite a 19.5 percent
increase in population. Emissions per resident decreased from 14 metric tons (MT)
CO2e in 1990 to 5.4 MT CO2e in 2021. The California Air Resources Board recommends
a target of six MT CO2e per capita by 2030 for local governments. The reduction in
emissions resulted from various factors, visualized in Figure 10. The most significant
contributions come from achieving carbon neutrality in the city’s electricity supply
(44.2 percent), declines in transportation emissions (28.6 percent), and reductions in
natural gas (methane) consumption (13.9 percent). In comparison to 2020, there was a
6.7 percent decrease in total community emissions.
87
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Figure 9 - Sea level rise map
88
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Figure 10 - 1990 vs 2021 emissions by sector
89
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Pollutants
In evaluating the impact of air pollution on the planning area, it is important to
consider the types of pollutants present and their respective severities. Two significant
pollutants outlined in IQAir, are particulate matter 10 (PM10) and particulate matter
(PM2.5). PM2.5 refers to fine particulate matter. These particles are often produced
from various sources, including combustion processes, industrial emissions, and
natural sources such as dust and pollen. PM2.5 can pose health risks by penetrating the
respiratory system, potentially causing respiratory and cardiovascular problems. PM10
denotes larger particulate matter and sources include construction activities, industrial
processes, and natural factors such as windblown dust and pollen. The inhalation of
PM10 particles impacts human health by causing respiratory issues.
Sources of these pollutants are diverse and are categorized as primary or secondary.
Among the primary sources, automobile emissions play a significant role, contributing
to the presence of PM10 and PM2.5 in the air. In terms of the project area, this is an
increased concern due to its proximity to Highway 101. This increases the risk of health
effects associated with exposure to these pollutants. Prolonged inhalation of these
fine particulates can lead to a range of health issues, including coughing, exacerbation
of pre-existing conditions like asthma, and an increased risk of lung-related diseases.
Thus, understanding the sources and severity of these pollutants is vital for proactive
planning and measures aimed at safeguarding the health and well-being of Palo Alto
residents.
The Bay Area faces challenges related to air quality and pollution, but Palo Alto’s
air quality is more favorable compared to the surrounding cities. According to AirIQ,
Palo Alto averaged an annual PM2.5 concentration of 6.5 micrograms per cubic meter
(μg/m3) in 2019 while neighboring cities such as Fremont reported 7.5 μg/m3 and
San Fransisco reported 7.1 μg/m3. However, this does not diminish the importance of
moving towards efforts to minimize the impact of air pollutants in the community.
There are ongoing initiatives and efforts in place to improve air quality, such as
reducing automobile emissions and addressing other primary sources of air polluation.
Temperature
According to the 2022 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, the Palo Alto region has
experienced a 1.7-degree Fahrenheit temperature increase from 1950 to 2005. These
rising temperatures are expected to lead to more prolonged and severe droughts in
California, posing significant challenges for government operations, water resources,
ecosystems, agriculture, and recreational activities.
90
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
In 2022, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) released its Sixth
Assessment Report, emphasizing the need to limit global temperature rise to 1.5
degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) to prevent significant climate-related
impacts. The Paris Agreement shares this goal, aiming to stay below a 2 degrees Celsius
(3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase above pre-industrial levels. Global
temperatures have already increased by 1.1 degrees Celsius. This means the future
impacts such as sea-level rise, higher temperatures, and increased fire risk are prone
to occur. Therefore, Palo Alto recognizes the importance of building resilience to these
changes while actively working to mitigate climate effects.
Air Quality
Current air quality levels in Palo Alto are dependent on a combination of factors,
including daily emissions, weather, and geography. The San Antonio Road Corridor is
an area of concern for air quality due to it being a large industrial area. Large industries
tend to emit more pollutants, leading to an increase in hazardous air quality conditions.
In addition, this corridor is a strong arterial road for heavy traffic such as trucks. Palo
Alto has created the following programs outlined in the Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive
Plan to help address these issues:
• Program N5.1.2 Implement Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
recommended standards for the design of buildings near heavily traveled roads, in
order to minimize exposure to auto-related emissions (123).
• Program N5.1.3 Explore adopting new standards that target the reduction of very
fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which is associated with increased impacts on health
(123).
Increases in allergen and air pollutants resulting from changing environmental
conditions could lead to hazardous conditions, such as heat stroke and respiratory
ailments for sensitive groups (State of California Natural Resources Agency 2009).
Noise
This section will cover the existing noise conditions of the project site and its
surroundings and relevant state and local regulatory requirements.
Regulatory Setting
Noise Element
California law requires that all General Plans include a Noise Element addressing noise-
related impacts on the community and policies to regulate it. Goal N-6 of the General
91
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Plan outlines policies related to minimizing noise and planning for land uses with
consideration for noise levels. Additionally, the goal summarizes policies related to
construction, airport, and rail noise.
Noise Ordinance
The Palo Alto Noise Ordinance outlines allowable noise levels for residential and
commercial properties based on the ambient noise level. It also limits hours of
construction. Residential noise levels are limited to six decibels above the local ambient
and commercial and industrial properties are limited to eight decibels above the local
ambient.
Noise Background
In a city, noise levels affect land use decisions. Noise is defined as unwanted sounds
considered loud or disruptive. Noise is an important environmental consideration as
it can be hazardous to quality of life, health and safety. Long-term exposure to noise
can cause hearing loss and sleep pattern disturbances. In a city, noise levels affect land
use decisions with the major noise sources typically being related to motor vehicles,
airports, and construction.
Community noise encompasses all the noise levels within a given environment and
generally refers to ambient noise. It is usually measured using the Day-Night Average
Level (Ldn). Ldn is a calculation of an area’s noise levels over a 24-hour period with
special calculations overnight on account of human perceptions of noise. Thus, sounds
at night are recorded at a higher noise level. Noise levels are measured in decibels.
Noise Sources
In the city of Palo Alto, the major noise sources are traffic, trains, airports, construction,
and yard maintenance. The most predominant noise course is traffic noise from
vehicles along the roadways.
Vehicular Noise
The highest noise levels occur along high traffic volume roadways, including freeways,
service roads, and arterials. To aid the understanding of the major noise courses of
the city, a noise contour map is made available in the Comprehensive Plan. As can be
seen in Figure 11, the noise coming from Highway 101 bleeds into the project area at
70 decibles adjusted (dBA), 65 dBA, and 60 dBA. In the San Antonio Road Corridor,
the high traffic roadways are Highway 101, San Antonio Road, Alama Street, and the
railroad. Highway 101 produces the most vehicular noise followed by San Antonio Road.
92
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
San Antonio Road functions as a service road which means there is a high volume of
cars and trucks that pass through. Future noise contour projections predict the noise
level will continue to increase affecting a larger area of the city and project area.
Airport
The project area is close to two airports: the Palo Alto Airport, a general aviation
airport, and Moffett Field Airport, a civil-military airport in the City of Mountain View.
Both airports are at a safe distance to not have to be considered a major source of noise
for the plan area, according to airport noise contour maps.
Noise Sensitive Areas
The City’s Comprehsenive Plan includes considerations for land use designations
according to noise sensitivity levels. Land uses considered to be “sensitive receptors”
include homes, schools, medical clinics, senior and childcare facilities, public open
spaces, and conservation areas. The outdoor noise levels in residential areas should
not exceed 60 DB, except when the city determines that it is not economically or
aesthetically feasible. Table 2 outlines the acceptable noise levels for various land uses.
Table 2 - Noise sensitive land uses
93
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Figure 11 - Noise contour map of the City of Palo Alto
94
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Key Terms
• 100-year flood: a flood that has a 1 percent or greater of happening in any given year
• AF (acre-foot)/Year: annual quantity of water measured in acre-feet over a year. An
acre-foot refers to the amount of water needed to cover an acre of land about 1 foot
deep.
• Decibel: unit of measure for the intensity of sound
• GHG (greenhouse gas): gases in the earth’s atmosphere that trap heat causing an
increase in average surface temperature. The major source is the burning of fossil
fuels- coal, natural gas, and petroleum.
• GPM (gallons per minute): measure of the volume of water flow a water pump can
move, in gallons per minute
• Human hazards: (anthropogenic) result of human intent or error such as pollution,
toxic wastes, dam failures
• Liquefaction: when loosely packed, water-logged sediments on the ground surface
lose their strength causing soils to tilt and sink damaging buildings and roads
• Primary pollutants: air pollutants emitted directly from a source, such as those
coming from cars, power plants, wildfires.
• Secondary pollutants: air pollutants formed in the atmosphere as a result of a
reaction between primary pollutants and molecules in the atmosphere.
95
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Sources
California Water Boards. (n.d.). GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
City of Palo Alto. (2017). Baylands Conservation and Development Plan: Existing
Conditions Report. [PDF]. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/
public/v/1/community-services/parks-and-open-space/baylands/bccp_
existingconditions_20171213_r.pdf
City of Palo Alto. (n.d.). Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.cityofpaloalto.
org/Departments/Emergency-Services/Plans-and-Information/Local-Hazard-
Mitigation-Plan
City of Palo Alto. (n.d.). Protected Trees. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/
Public-Works/Public-Services/Palo-Altos-Urban-Forest/Development-Process/
Protected-Trees
City of Palo Alto. (2022). Palo Alto Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, June 2022.
[PDF]. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/
environmental-compliance/sea-level-rise/palo-alto-sea-level-rise-vulnerability-
assessment-june-2022-062822-linked-final.pdf
City of Mountain View. (n.d.). Shoreline at Mountain View. https://www.mountainview.
gov/our-city/departments/community-services/shoreline-at-mountain-
view?locale=enCity of Palo Alto. (2020). Urban Water Management Plan 2020.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/utilities/uwmp/2020-
uwmp_final-submission-to-dwr.pdf
City of Palo Alto. (2019). Urban Forest Management Plan: After Adoption. [PDF].
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/tree-section/
ufmp/urban-forest-mp-after-adoption-reduced-2-25-19-complete.pdf
Santa Clara County Emergency Management. (n.d.). Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Volume 1. [PDF]. https://emergencymanagement.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/
exjcpb261/files/For%20Partners/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-LHMP-Vol-1.pdf
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. (n.d.). Barron
Watershed. https://scvurppp.org/watersheds/santa-clara-basin-watersheds/
barron-watershed/
96
Existing Conditions Report | Environment
Santa Clara Valley Water District. (n.d.). Palo Alto Flood Basin Tide Gate Structure
Replacement Project. https://www.valleywater.org/project-updates/palo-alto-
flood-basin-tide-gate-structure-replacement-project
Urban Design
98
Existing Conditions Report | Urban Design
Introduction
This Existing Conditions Report divides the Urban Design of San Antonio Road into
city structure, corridor structure, streetscape, urban form, and walkability. Palo Alto’s
city structure consists of neighborhoods and districts. There are thirty-six residential
neighborhoods within the city, regional and multi-neighborhood commercial centers,
and multiple employment districts (with the San Antonio Road Corridor being one
of them). The corridor structure has been dissected into community context, nodes,
and gateways. Community context involves residential, commercial, and business/
industrial contexts. Nodes include regional, sub-regional, and neighborhood nodes.
The corridor contains two gateways, one of which is a designated entrance into the city.
The streetscape section details urban greenery, pedestrian experience, and wayfinding
accessibility. Urban form discusses land usage and zoning, specifying the corridors
gateways and existing typologies. Walkability involves the physical form of the corridor
and amenities provided to pedestrians to improve the corridor experience
Major Findings
• City Structure: Palo Alto’s Urban Design Element is organized into residential
neighborhoods, commercial centers, and distinct employment districts. Palo Alto
is comprised of 35 distinct neighborhoods, with an emphasis on single-family and
multi-family residential land use classifications. The majority of neighborhoods in
Palo Alto can be broadly categorized into traditional and modern. These architectural
and development characteristics distinguish neighborhoods in terms of street layout,
aesthetics, and privacy.
• Corridor Structure: The corridor structure consists of contexts, nodes, and
gateways. There are residential, commercial, and business/industrial contexts.
Corridor nodes include of regional, sub-regional, and neighborhood categories.
Gateways are located at the north and south ends of the corridor adjacent to onramps
from Highway 101 and the Expressway.
• Urban Form: San Antonio Road is identified as a gateway to the city. The project site
includes single- and multi-family residential, light industrial, mixed-use, office park,
and service commercial land uses. The corridor is divided into four distinct zoning
districts with associated development standards. The project site features a range of
building typologies, with existing structures varying from one to five stories. Lower-
density residential and smaller businesses typically have fewer stories, while high-
density residential and industrial properties tend to have more stories.
99
Existing Conditions Report | Urban Design
• Streetscape: San Antonio Road’s appearance is utilitarian in nature, but pockets of
architectural interest add character to the site. The project area is primarily oriented
toward office and industrial uses resulting in prevelant on-street parking and vehicle
oriented spaces. Many of the buildings have a degree of landscaping linking them
to the street. While the sidewalk is well-maintained along the main corridor, small
arterial streets have less consistent sidewalks. The street tree network is robust with
greenery and landscaping throughout. The corridor maintains effective wayfinding
making the area easily-navigable. There are various visible and exposed utility boxes.
Several vacant buildings and larger, empty parking lots occupy the streetscape,
detracting from a pedestrian-oriented vibrant feel.
• Walkability: The San Antonio Road Corridor lacks consistent walkability, with
limited and often poorly maintained sidewalks that primarily cater to vehicles,
placing pedestrians between parked and driving vehicles. Pedestrian amenities are
scarce, including minimal urban furniture, limited public transit access, and a low
number of crosswalks, especially considering the length of the corridor. Despite
nearby essential businesses, the site lacks the comprehensive amenities necessary
for a pedestrian-friendly environment.
Existing Conditions Report | Urban Design
100
City Structure
Neighborhoods & Districts
The Land Use and Community Design Element of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan
delineates urban form into three land use categories: residential neighborhoods,
commercial centers, and employment districts.
Residential Neighborhoods
Figure 1 - Residential Neighborhoods
101
Existing Conditions Report | Urban Design
Palo Alto consists of many unique neighborhoods that have expanded as the
community has grown. According to a map published by PaloAltoOnline, there are a
total of 36 distinct neighborhoods, primarily characterized by single-family and multi-
family residential land use classifications. San Antonio Road occupies the eastern
perimeter of Palo Alto and is in close proximity to several residential neighborhoods.
Figure 1 detailing these neighborhoods and their proximities to the site is provided for
reference above.
Commercial Centers
The city has both regional and multi-neighborhood commercial centers that
serve as hubs for retail, office, and residential activities. Examples include the
Stanford Shopping Center and University Ave./ Downtown Palo Alto. The Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan identifies downtown as a key player in fostering a sense of
community and promoting the
cultural identity of the city. With
an emphasis on pedestrian and
transit accessibility, streetscape
elements such as trees, benches,
outdoor seating areas, sidewalks,
and plazas comprise Downtown’s
urban design. Notably, Stanford
Shopping Center has also
undergone a transformation
in recent years, shifting from a
vehicle-oriented retail center to a
more walkable, pedestrian-friendly
environment.
Employment Districts
The city also features distinct employment districts, including Stanford Research Park,
Stanford Medical Center, East Bayshore and San Antonio Road Corridor. These Districts
are characterized by large one- to four-story buildings, mainly serving industrial and
office uses. Access is primarily by automobile or employer-supported transit, with
multi-family residential located near these employment uses.
Figure 2 - Commercial Center
102
Existing Conditions Report | Urban Design
Neighborhood Characteristics
Although there exists some variation in the characteristics of these neighborhoods in
Palo Alto, the majority exhibit a relatively uniform appearance and structural layout.
These neighborhoods can be broadly categorized into two main types based on their
architectural and development characteristics: traditional (dating back to pre-1940s)
and modern. Traditional neighborhoods, primarily located on the west side of the city,
adhere to classic development patterns, featuring narrow streets, curbside parking,
and street trees between the sidewalk and curb. In contrast, modern neighborhoods,
heavily influenced by Modernist design principles, feature houses with austere facades
and a focus on private backyard areas. These neighborhoods are distinguished by their
winding streets and cul-de-sacs, fostering a heightened sense of privacy. The presence
of flattened curbs directly abutting the sidewalk, without a planting strip, is a notable
departure from the appearance of traditional neighborhoods.
Corridor Structure
The San Antonio Corridor which spans the length of the project site is composed of
unique neighborhoods and distinct commercial/employment districts. The corridor
structure has been dissected into community context, nodes, and gateways.
Figure 3 - Employment Districts
103
Existing Conditions Report | Urban Design
SAN ANTONIO RD.
ALM
A
S
T
.
MID
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
R
D
.
E. CH
A
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
.
Figure 1: Contexts, Nodes, and Gateways
.25 miles0
Residential Context
Commercial Context
Industrial/Business Context
Gateway
Regional node
Sub-regional node
Neighborhood node
Preschools and schools
Employment districst
Project Site
CONTEXTS, NODES, GATEWAYS
Figure 4: Corridor contexts, nodes, and gateways
Figure 4 - Corridor contexts, nodes, and gateways
104
Existing Conditions Report | Urban Design
Community Context
Community context refers to the character of the built environment alongside the
corridor. This influences the ways in which people use the corridor and should guide
the design of adjacent infrastructure. The San Antonio Road Corridor consists of
residential, commercial, and business/industrial contexts.
Residential Context
The corridor’s residential context includes single-family residential, multi-family
residential, and mixed-use residential neighborhoods. Greendell, San Alma, and The
Greenhouse are three of Palo Alto’s thirty-six designated neighborhoods which fall
within site boundaries. Greendell is a single-family neighborhood between Ferne
Avenue, San Antonio Avenue and Mackay Drive. Surrounded by commercial areas, the
neighborhood features a tranditional layout with winding streets and cul-de-sacs. San
Alma is a multi-family residential neighborhood located east of Alma Street, off San
Antonio Avenue, and consists of one and two story townhomes and below market rate
condominiums. The Greenhouse is a multi-family residential neighborhood located
off of San Antonio and Leghorn consisting of a set of two adjoining condominium
complexes dotted with trees, walking paths, and lawns.
Figure 5: Single-family housingFigure 5 - Single-family housing
105
Existing Conditions Report | Urban Design
Figure 6: Multi-family housing
The Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life is an 8.5-acre mixed-use residential site
anchored by the Oshman Family Jewish Community Center and Moldaw Family
Residences. Throughout the site, design elements were placed strategically to pay
tribute to the project’s Jewish roots and evoking the feeling of an urban village. The
Moldaw Family Residences are upscale senior living units with independent and
dependent living options available.
Figure 7: Taube Koret Campus
Commercial Context
While the character of the corridor is largely residential and business/industrial,
the segment of the San Antonio Road Coordior between Middlefield Road and East
Charleston Road contains a majority of the corridor’s commercial businesses. The
character of the commercial strip is auto-oriented. Landscaping efforts have been made
along the commercial corridor which helps reduce visual unease from car-oriented lots.
The east and west sides of San Antonio Road have protected sidewalks along the entire
commercial segment, as well as street parking along roughly half of the segment.
Figure 6 - Multi-family housing
Figure 7 - Taube Koret Campus
106
Existing Conditions Report | Urban Design
The Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies this segment of San Antonio Road as
service commercial, with businesses along the segment providing citywide and regional
services that rely on an auto-oriented customers. Parking lots require good automobile
and service access so customers can safely load and unload without impeding traffic. To
encourage housing near transit centers, nonresidential FARs will range up to 0.4 and
higher density multi-family housing may be allowed in specific locations.
On the west side of San Antonio Road, just outside of the project area boundary line,
the Charleston Shopping Center is classified as a Neighborhood Center. This is a small
retail area that draws customers from the immediate surrounding area. The Center
includes a grocery store and a variety of smaller retail shops and offices oriented toward
the everyday needs of local residents. Adjacent streets provide walking, biking, and
transit connections.
Figure 8: Buildings and roads in commerical segments
Business/Industral Context
The segment of San Antonio Road from the Highway 101 overpass to the northmost
section of the project site, as well as alternating sections within the corridor are
identified as diverse business and light industrial districts. This development type is not
commonly found within the city. These districts are characterized by large one- to four-
story buildings, with some taller buildings, separated by parking lots and landscaped
areas. The districts are accessed primarily by automobile or employer-supported transit,
though future changes in land use and tenancy could support a shift toward transit,
pedestrian, and bicycle travel. These areas serve as an opportunity for the service
industry and start-up businesses to rent low-cost larger spaces.
Figure 8 - Buildings and roads in commercial segments
The business and light industrial areas of the site contribute to a majority of the San
Antonio corridor being included in the employment district. These areas are dominated
by low-rise offices with large parking lots. The health and longevity of businesses
within the employment district are important because they provide thousands of local
jobs, establish a customer base for many other Palo Alto businesses and generate tax
revenues for the city.
Figure 9: Buildings and roads in commerical segments
Nodes
Nodes are specific areas with concentrated transportation activity. These could be
intersecting streets, transit access, trailheads and accesses, parking accesses, and
crossing pedestrians and cyclists. The corridor contains regional, sub-regional, and
neighborhood nodes.
Regional Nodes
The intersection of Highway 101 and San Antonio Road is a regional node located
within the project area. Highway 101, also known as the Bayshore Freeway, is a major
north-south freeway that runs along the western edge of Palo Alto. It is a crucial
transportation corridor for the San Francisco Peninsula and the broader Bay Area,
connecting communities from San Jose in the south to San Francisco in the north.
The Highway 101 and San Antonio Road intersection is a transportation hub where
various modes of transportation converge. In addition to vehicular traffic, it also
provides access to public transit options, including bus services and shuttle routes.
The intersection of Highway 101 and San Antonio Road provides access to neighboring
communities such as Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Los Altos. It’s a gateway to Silicon
Valley and other areas in the South Bay.
Subregional Nodes
The intersection of Alma Street and San Antonio Road is a sub-regional node located
within the project area. It provides access to major destinations in the area, including
Stanford University, Stanford Shopping Center, and the San Antonio Shopping Center.
107
Existing Conditions Report | Urban Design
Figure 9 - Buildings and roads in commercial segments
The intersection features several commercial establishments, including restaurants,
convenience stores, and service stations. These businesses cater to both local residents
and commuters passing through the area.
Neighborhood Nodes
The intersection of Middlefield Road / San Antonio Road and East Charleston Road / San
Antonio Road are neighborhood nodes located inside the project site. The intersections
serve as vital links between several neighborhoods and commercial areas, as well as
access points for commuters and residents traveling through Palo Alto. The intersections
are easily accessible by car, public transportation, and bicycles. They contribute to the
overall connectivity of the city.
Gateways
A gateway refers to a key entrance or transition
point into an area that provides a sense of arrival.
Palo Alto has tried to strengthen community
identity by ensuring clear and memorable
entrances into the city. A gateway into the City of
Palo Alto and the San Antonio Corridor is located
on San Antonio one-tenth of a mile north of
the intersection at East Charleston Road. A sign
located at this gateway serves as a visual landmark
representing the entrance to the corridor. The
corridor’s second gateway is located at the south
end of the project site at the intersection of Alma
Street and San Antonio Road.
Streetscape
The San Antonio Corridor is recognized as a primarily employment-focused district.
It is broadly characterized by one- to four-story buildings separated by parking lots
and with interspersed landscaping and greenery. Due to its identity as an employment
district, architectural styles along the corridor are utilitarian and industrial in style with
arterial streets mainly serving offices and industrial buildings. Building styles do vary
in appearance with different facades and colors, but are similar in position on the street
with little transparency. Hatemi Mosque at the northern end of the site, and Albert and
Janet Schultz Cultural Arts Hall, at the intersection of Charleston Road and San Antonio
Road, are two religious-based organization buildings that present as architecturally
unique for the corridor. On-street parking is also very prevalent on-site, with paved
sidewalks existing on one or both sides of the street. A typical street section of San
Antonio Road is provided below, highlighting the vehicle-oriented nature of the site.
108
Existing Conditions Report | Urban Design
Figure 10: Gateway into Palo AltoFigure 10 - Gateway into Palo Alto
109
Existing Conditions Report | Urban Design
Figure 11 - San Antonio Road
Figure 12 - Lack of light Figure 14 - Parking lots with greenery common between buildings
Figure 13 - Lack of transparency
Figure 15 - Jewish Center Figure 17 - Hatemi MoqueFigure 16 - Jewish Center architecturally interesting elements
Urban Greenery, Pedestrian Experience, & Wayfinding
Known for its robust urban forest, Palo Alto’s Land Use and Community Design
Element states that maintaining a consistent and full urban forest is key to setting a
coherent tone and providing human scale to the street. On-site, trees line the corridor
on either side adding greenery and providing shade. Along with street trees, many of
the buildings have a degree of landscaping linking them to the street, along with a
pavement. While the sidewalk is well-maintained along the main corridor, small arterial
streets have less consistent sidewalks with signs of aging. Utility boxes are also visible
and exposed throughout the site with many areas lacking attractive streetscaping. The
San Antonio Road Corridor is effective in its wayfinding as street signs are consistent
throughout the site and make the area easily-navigable yet not visually interesting
for pedestrians. Several vacant buildings and larger empty parking lots occupy the
streetscape detracting from a pedestrian-oriented vibrant feel. Due the area’s purpose
as an employment district, its appearance is utilitarian in nature, but pockets of
architectural interest are apparent and greenery adds character to the site.
110
Existing Conditions Report | Urban Design
Figure 18 - Urban Forest
Urban Form
Land Uses
In the 2030 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use and Community Design
Element designates several land uses to the project site: single- and multi-family
residential, light industrial, mixed-use, office park, and service commercial. The Plan
lays a framework for urban form in the site based on these designations.
111
Existing Conditions Report | Urban Design
Figure 20 - Visible utility boxesFigure 19 - Sidewalk condition
Figure 21 - Vacant lots Figure 22 - Wayfinding
• The Single-family land use applies to residential neighborhoods. This designation
is primarily characterized by detached single-family homes. There is typically one
dwelling unit on each lot, although net density ranges from one to seven units per
acre. Accessory dwelling units and duplexes are permitted with a maximum density
of 14 units per acre.
• Multi-family residential allows for a varying number of permitted housing units,
depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets/public transit and
shopping, and environmental problems. The net density ranges from 8 to 40 units
per acre.
• Light industrial consists of wholesale and storage warehouses with compatible
residential and mixed-use projects. Additionally, in specific locations, higher density
multi-family housing is permitted. FAR ranges up to 0.5.
• Mixed-use enables multiple functions, either within the same building or adjacent
to one another. This promotes live, work, play and shopping activities in close
proximity. Permitted devlopment uses are Live/Work, Retail/Office, Residential/Retail
and Residential/Office. FAR ranges up to 1.15 with the exception of devlopment
along transit corridors or near multimodal centers; this permitted FAR is up to 2.0-
3.0.
• Office park development is typically buffered from adjacent residential uses.
Depending on the site, maximum FAR ranges from 0.3 to 0.5.
• Service commercial facilities are reliant on customers traveling by vehicle and
provide citywide and regional services. In specific locations, higher-density multi-
family housing is permitted. FAR ranges up to 0.4.
Gateway
The Land Use and Community Design Element also categorizes San Antonio Road as a
gateway. The Plan defines a gateway as “a point along a roadway at which a motorist or
pedestrian gains a sense of having entered the City or a particular part of the City. This
impression can be imparted through such things as signs, monuments, landscaping, a
change in development character or a natural feature such as a creek.” Furthering this
definition, the Land Use and Community Design Element states, “community identity
is strengthened when the entrances to the city are clear and memorable. Well-designed
gateways are defined by natural and urban landmarks that complement the character
and identity of the neighborhood.”
Goal L-9 in The Plan addresses city gateways by:
Policy L-9.7: Strengthen the identity of important community-wide gateways.
Program L9.7.1: Enhance gateway sites with special landscaping, art, public spaces
and/or public buildings. Emphasize creek bridges and riparian settings.
112
Existing Conditions Report | Urban Design
Zoning
The San Antonio Road Corridor contains four different zoning districts: General
Manufacturing (GM), Planned Community (PC), Service Commercial (CS), and Low
Density Residential Multi-Family (RM-20). These districts all contain relevant
development standards which have influenced the project area’s existing urban form.
The following table depicts the height and setback development standards per each
zone within the project boundary:
Zoning Height Setback
General Manufacturing (GM)Max. 35-50 ft Min. 20 ft along frontage
Planned Community (PC)N/A, Max. 35-50 ft within 150 ft of PC district N/A
Service Commercial (CS)Max. 35-50 ft Front yard 10 ft
Low Density Residential Multi-Family (RM-20)Max. 30 ft Min. front yard 20 ft
Existing Typologies
Existing buildings in the project site vary from one to five stories, corresponding
with use. Lower density residential and businesses are typically shorter, whereas
high-density residential and industrial uses tend to have a greater number of stories.
The urban form is largely characterized by modern, modest architecture. This is
influenced by the great amount of industrial building uses, such as car dealerships
and gas stations. Larger buildings, such as high-density housing and hotels, follow a
more contemporary architecture. The greatest exception to this modern architectural
character is the Hatemi Mosque.
113
Existing Conditions Report | Urban Design
Table 1 - Height and setback standards
Urban Form Gallery
114
Existing Conditions Report | Urban Design
Figure 23 - The Hatemi Mosque has ornate building form, religious function, and site which contains landscaping and a plaza. This contrasts the typical industrial uses and forms fronted by surface parking areas.
Figure 24 - Two story, industrial-use buildings fronted by surface parking. This typology and architectural style is typical of urban form within the San Antonio Road Corridor.
Figure 25 - Multi-story housing at the Oshman Family Jewish Community Center.
Figure 26 - Typical urban form along office building typologies.
Figure 27 - Urban form of contemporary hotels. Figure 28 - Urban form of contemporary housing units.
Walkability
Physical Form
As one travels from south to north, some parts of the San Antonio Road Corridor are
more walkable than others. The southern portion of the corridor closest to Alma Street
is strictly accessible by vehicle or bike. A sidewalk begins near Mckay Drive; however,
San Antonio Road is still a busy boulevard in this area. The sidewalk continues on
the San Antonio portion of US Highway 101 but is unprotected. The sidewalk is not
consistent on both sides of the street throughout the corridor. Sidewalk area is often
adjacent to surface parking. The result is that vehicles sandwich pedestrians on both
sides: parked vehicles are on one side, driving vehicles on the other. The majority of
the sidewalk is in poor condition—cracked, warped, and narrow. Although landscaping
exists adjacent to sidewalks in some areas, other areas are bordered by dirt rather
than landscaping. Alternatively, in other parts of the corridor, the sidewalk is directly
adjacent to buildings. There are a total of eight crosswalks which cross San Antonio
Road within the project area, which is a limited quantity in relation to the nearly two-
mile stretch of road. The existing corridor form on San Antonio Road caters primarily to
vehicles, which hinders pedestrian accessibility.
Amenities
Pedestrian amenities along San Antonio Road are limited. There is minimal urban
furniture; only a few benches total. This is the result of the narrow sidewalk which is
often bordered by surface parking or adjacent building fronts. Thus, the capacity for
urban furniture is low. Public transit access is also minimal along the San Antonio Road
Corridor: there are three bus stops within the site. Regarding proximity to essential
needs, the project area contains multiple housing developments and single-family
housing. Regarding businesses which cater to everyday needs, Crossroads Specialty
Foods is located in the project area. Costco, Safeway, Target, Trader Joes, and Walmart
are all proximate to the site. Except for Trader Joes, each of these businesses has a
pharmacy.
115
Existing Conditions Report | Urban Design
Walkability Gallery
116
Existing Conditions Report | Urban Design
Figure 29 - Sidewalk adjacency to landscaping. Landscaping varies greatly in quality along the San Antonio Road Corridor.
Key Terms
• Street Corridor - a community’s primary public realm. Urban designers call them
“street corridors” because, like hallways in a building, they are formed by the
buildings on each side.
• Project Area - The boundary in which the scope of work is located in.
• Node - A point along a roadway at which a motorist or pedestrian gains a sense of
having entered the City or a particular part of the City.
• Gateway - An entrance or gathering place which acts as a transition between
different spaces as well as a nexus for the people who inhabit and frequent these
places
• Streetscape - A broad term to mean everything that makes up a scene on a
street,including roads, buildings, sidewalks, and greenery.
• Wayfinding - The ways in which people orient themselves in physical space and navigate
from place to place, especially in relation to signage and urban fabric of a given place.
• Urban forest - Tree populations in urban settings, including parks, street trees,
landscaped boulevards, gardens, river and coastal promenades, greenways, river
corridors, wetlands, and nature preserves.
117
Existing Conditions Report | Urban Design
Figure 30 - In certain stretches of the corridor, there is no sidewalk.
Figure 32 - Sidewalk adjacency to surface parking. This is typical for the corridor.
Figure 31 - Non-existent sidewalk
Sources
City of Palo Alto. (2017). City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. City of Palo Alto.
https://w ww.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/4/planning-amp-
development-services/3.-comprehensive-plan/comprehensive-plan/full-
comp-plan-2030_with-dec19_22-amendments.pdf
City of Palo Alto. (2021). Land Use and Community Design. City of Palo Alto. https://
www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/planning-amp-development-
services/3.-comprehensive-plan/comprehensive-plan/2030-comp-plan-2-land-
use-june-21.pdf
City of Salt Lake City Utah. (n.d.). Existing Conditions Report. City of Salt Lake City.
https://www.slc.gov/transportation/wp-content/uploads/
sites/11/2022/10/600700N-Existing-Conditions-FINAL.pdf
Lorenz, E. (2010, February 2). Palo Alto neighborhoods. Palo Alto Online |. https://www.
paloaltoonline.com/news/2010/02/02/palo-alto-neighborhoods
118
Existing Conditions Report | Urban Design
Education, Culture,
and History
120
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
Introduction
The Education, Culture, and History section of this document will provide a well-
rounded view of the community, highlighting the distinctive characteristics and
identity of Palo Alto and its residents. While the rest of this document meticulously
details every attribute that makes up the physical identity of the city, this section will
detail the cultural identity. Palo Alto has a unique relationship to higher education
and a deep history of technological advancements that have shaped both the economy
and the layout of the city. Palo Alto is made up of diverse peoples, populations, and
religious bodies that have cultivated a community with a variety of experiences and
cultural heritage. This section aims to complete the overall portrait of Palo Alto.
Major Findings
The demographic composition of the three educational institutions situated within
the San Antonio Road Corridor exhibits a notable degree of cultural diversity. These
findings are:
• Fairmeadow Elementary School, designated for the San Antonio Road Corridor,
showcases a diverse student body with 43.9 percent of Asian descent, 30.6 percent
identifying as White, 13.7 percent of Latino heritage, 9.8 percent representing mixed
racial backgrounds, 0.7 percent identifying as Black or African American, and 0.7
percent as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.
• Jane Lanthrope Stanford Middle School, the middle school within the corridor,
mirrors this cultural diversity, with 45.8 percent of students identifying as Asian, 26.1
percent as White, 12.3 percent as Latino, 11.7 percent as of mixed race, 1.8 percent as
Black or African American, and 1.3 percent as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.
• Henry M. Gunn High School, serving as the flagship institution for the San Antonio
Corridor, comprises a student body that consists of 44.8 percent of Asian heritage,
30.7 percent of White ethnicity, 11.7 percent of Latino descent, 9.9 percent of mixed
racial backgrounds, 1.4 percent identifying as Black or African American, and 0.9
percent as Filipino.
• The San Antonio Corridor, geographically adjacent to Mountain View and in close
proximity to Los Altos, encompasses a triad of school districts, catering to students
from both Los Altos and Mountain View. Notably, K-8 students residing in Mountain
View receive their primary education within the jurisdiction of the Mountain View
Whisman School District, while their counterparts from Los Altos attend schools
within the purview of the Los Altos School District. Importantly, students from both
121
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
Mountain View and Los Altos converge upon high schools under the aegis of the
Mountain View-Los Altos High School District. This consolidated district comprises
three high schools: Los Altos High, Mountain View High, and Alta Vista High, which
specializes as a continuation school, offering alternative educational pathways.
• The project area is situated in a culturally vibrant section of Palo Alto, characterized
by a significant Asian American presence, including individuals of Chinese, Indian,
and Korean descent. Cultural education centers, such as the Palo Alto Chinese
School, are in close proximity to the project area, and provide opportunities
for students and families to learn cultural heritage and promote cross-cultural
understanding.
• The region is home to a variety of cultural institutions that play a role in artistic
expression, cultural appreciation, and community engagement. Some of these
include the Palo Alto Art Center, the Foster Museum, and Shoreline Amphitheatre.
These spaces are dedicated to fostering artistic and musical expression, and draw in
visitors and families to their events. The Foster Museum is dedicated to celebrating
artist-explorer Tony Foster’s watercolor works and is within the project area.
• In addition to cultural diversity, Palo Alto features a multitude of religious
organizations and institutions around the project site. The Taube Koret Campus
for Jewish Life is one of the larger community centers on the project area, scaling
8.5 acres of amenities, senior living facilities, and parking. Community events,
Jewish festivals, art exhibitions, and educational programs are held on the campus,
contributing to a rich and diverse cultural environment in Palo Alto.
• Mitchell Park and the Mitchell Park Branch Library stand as prominent landmarks
near the project area. Mitchell Park boasts 21.4 acres of open space, tennis courts,
youth facilities, and walking trails, while Mitchell Park Branch Library features
41,000 square feet encompassing the community meeting spaces, shelves of books,
and a wide array of resources and amenities that cater to residents of all ages and
interests. As the largest public park and library in the city, they serve as a central hub
for community engagement and enrichment.
• Palo Alto owes its existence to the founding of Stanford University in 1884. The
university, with free tuition, attracted students and contributed to the region’s
development. The Stanfords initially sought to establish a college town by engaging
Mayfield but faced rejection due to uncertainty. Instead, they purchased land north
of Mayfield, named it Palo Alto, and fostered its growth as a “dry town.” Over time,
Palo Alto thrived, while Mayfield declined and eventually merged with Palo Alto in
1925, ceasing to exist as its own entity.
• In the early 21st century, both Stanford University and Palo Alto experienced
substantial growth. After the war, Palo Alto went through a remarkable boom,
driven by the establishment of the Stanford Industrial Park, the Stanford Shopping
122
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
Center, and the Stanford Medical Center’s relocation. The population more than
doubled, reaching 55,000 by 1960. The city solidified its position as a hub for science
and technology, notably with the contributions of Hewlett and Packard, Fairchild
Semiconductor, and the development of Silicon Valley. Despite ongoing challenges,
Palo Alto continues to thrive in the heart of Silicon Valley.
• The project area used to be zoned as a residential area, but in 1951, the Palo Alto
City Council decided to change that. They annexed San Antonio Road and made
amendments to the zoning laws in 1952. This change transformed the area from
residential to a hub of light industrial activity. In 1952, the Palo Alto City Council
played a pivotal role in shaping the current character of the site as a thriving light
industrial area. Their decisions back then not only laid the foundation for the site’s
industrial development but also serve as the driving force behind the current efforts
by the City of Palo Alto to revisit and modify the zoning regulations.
Education
Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD)
The educational institutions within Palo Alto are administered by the Palo Alto Unified
School District (PAUSD), an autonomous special-purpose local government entity
distinct from the City of Palo Alto. PAUSD’s jurisdiction encompasses all public schools
located within Palo Alto, as well as portions of Los Altos Hills, Portola Valley, and the
Stanford University Campus. Notably, the exclusive exception within Palo Alto, outside
the PAUSD boundary, is the Monroe Park neighborhood, whose residents attend schools
located in Los Altos.
PAUSD plays a pivotal role in fulfilling the educational requirements of its students,
providing a comprehensive array of academic offerings, as well as facilitating access
to extracurricular activities and programs, including those related to athletics and the
arts.
Students within the San Antonio Road Corridor attend Fairmeadow Elementary School,
Jane Lathrop Stanford (JLS) Middle School, and Henry M. Gunn High School. Notably,
Greendell School, a preschool and special education institution catering to special
needs and preschool is the only school from the Palo Alto Unified School District
directly located within the project area.
The schools within the San Antonio Road Corridor are conveniently situated near
the local neighborhoods they serve. Fairmeadow Elementary, the nearest of these
institutions, is a mere three-six minute drive away, and a short 15 to 25-minute walk
123
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
from the project area. Adjacent to Fairmeadow Elementary School, Jane Lathrop
Stanford Middle School can be reached within a three to six-minute drive or a 15 to
25-minute walk.
Henry M. Gunn High School is conveniently accessible by a ten to fifteen-minute drive
or a 15 to 20-minute bike ride to the campus. The schools in which students live in the
Thi placement of PAUSD schools in the San Antonio Road Corridor ensures accessibility
for students and parents, contributing to a seamless educational experience.
Students from the San Antonio Corridor attend schools with diverse student
populations. Fairmeadow Elementary School, Jane Lathrop Stanford (JLS) Middle
School, and Henry M. Gunn High School has a mix of Asian, White, Hispanic and Latino,
and mixed race students, resulting in a varied cultural background among the student
body. Tables 1, 2, and 3 show the 2021 to 2022 student population demographics and
the breakdowns of students per grade level for Fairmeadow Elementary School, Jane
Lathrop Stanford (JLS) Middle School, and Henry M. Gunn High School.
124
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
Fairmeadow Elementary School 2021-22 Student Enrollment by Student Group
Student Group Percent of Total Enrollment
Female 46.3
Male 53.7
American Indian or Alaskan Native 0.0
Asian 43.9
Black or African American 0.7
Filipino 0.5
Hispanic or Latino 13.7
Native Hawiian or Pacific Islander 0.7
Two or More Races 9.8
White 30.6
English Learners 21.3
Foster Youth 0.0
Homeless 1.0
Migrant 0.0
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 11.3
Students with Disabilities 10.5
Fairmeadow Elementary School 2021-22 Student Enrollment by Grade Level
Grade Level Number of Students
Kindergarten 58
Grade 1 66
Grade 2 66
Grade 3 79
Grade 4 67
Grade 5 72
Totall Enrollment 408
Table 1 - Fairmeadow Elementary school student population and demographics. From the School Accountability Report Card.
Table 2 - Fairmeadow Elementary school student population and demographics. From the School Accountability Report Card.
125
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
Jane Lanthrop Stanford Middle School 2021-22 Student Enrollment by Student
Group
Student Group Percent of Total Enrollment
Female 45.4
Male 54.5
American Indian or Alaskan Native 0.0
Asian 45.8
Black or African American 1.8
Filipino 0.9
Hispanic or Latino 12.3
Native Hawiian or Pacific Islander 1.3
Two or More Races 11.7
White 26.1
English Learners 6.9
Foster Youth 0.1
Homeless 0.6
Migrant 0.0
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 10.9
Students with Disabilities 10.2
Jane Lanthrop Stanford Middle School 2021-22 Student Enrollment by Grade
Level
Grade Level Number of Students
Grade 6 337
Grade 7 315
Grade 8 344
Totall Enrollment 996
Table 3- Jane Lanthrop Stanford Middle School student population and demographics. From the School Accountability Report Card.
Table 4 - Jane Lanthrop Stanford Middle School student population and demographics. From the School Accountability Report Card.
126
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
Henry M. Gunn High School 2021-22 Student Enrollment by Grade Level
Grade Level Number of Students
Grade 9 428
Grade 10 468
Grade 11 491
Grade 12 481
Total Enrollment 1,868
Henry M. Gunn High School 2021-22 Student Enrollment by Student Group
Student Group Percent of Total Enrollment
Female 45.7
Male 54.3
American Indian or Alaskan Native 0.1
Asian 44.8
Black or African American 1.4
Filipino 0.9
Hispanic or Latino 11.7
Native Hawiian or Pacific Islander 0.4
Two or More Races 9.9
White 30.7
English Learners 2.7
Foster Youth 0.0
Homeless 0.3
Migrant 0.0
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 9.9
Students with Disabilities 7.9
Table 6 - Jane Lanthrop Stanford Middle School student population and demographics. From the School Accountability Report Card.
Table 5 - Henry M. Gunn High School student population and demographics. From the School Accountability Report Card.
127
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
According to The California Department of Education and The Paly Voice, Palo Alto
Unified School District’s student population has declined by 15 percent since 2015. The
California Department of Education’s Data shows that in the 2014 to 2015 school year,
the student population was at a total of 12,527 students. The 2022 to 2023 school year
had a student population of 10,318 students. This information can be seen in Table 7
below.
Palo Alto Unified School District Student Population 2014-15 to 2022-23.
Academic Year Total Enrollment
2022 - 23 10,318
2021 - 22 10,509
2020 - 21 10,754
2019 - 20 11,745
2018 - 19 11,992
2017 - 18 12,249
2016 - 17 12,287
2015 - 16 12,485
2014 - 15 12,527
Table 7 - Palo Alto Unified School District Student Population 2014-2015 to 2022-2023 Gathered from the California Department of Education.
128
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
Proximity to Surrounding Cities and Districts
The San Antonio Road Corridor in Palo Alto is situated near Mountain View and Los
Altos. In this region, there are three distinct school districts, both in Mountain View
and Los Altos: the Los Altos School District, the Mountain View Whisman School
District, and the Mountain View-Los Altos High School District.
Elementary and middle schools in Mountain View and Los Altos operate independently
under the administration of the Los Altos School District and the Mountain View
Whisman School District, each serving its respective city. High school education,
however, is a collaborative effort between the two cities through the Mountain View-
Los Altos High School District (MVLA). MVLA oversees three high schools: Mountain
View High School, Los Altos High School, and Alta Vista High School. Mountain View
High School caters to the Mountain View community, Los Altos High School serves the
City of Los Altos, and Alta Vista High School provides educational opportunities for
students from both Mountain View and Los Altos.
It is noteworthy that the San Antonio Road Corridor is currently not within the
jurisdiction of any Mountain View or Los Altos school district. However, it’s worth
mentioning that the anticipated housing growth in the area may result in changes
to district boundary lines. The nearest high school to the corridor is Los Altos High
School, approximately a seven-minute drive away, making it closer in proximity than
Henry M. Gunn High School, which students from the corridor attend. The two closest
middle schools are Egan Middle School in Los Altos and Crittenden Middle School
in Mountain View, both reachable within a five to seven-minute drive from the San
Antonio Corridor. Additionally, Monta Loma Elementary School, the nearest elementary
school, is accessible within a two to five-minute drive. Notably, the San Antonio Road
Corridor is closer to the schools in Mountain View and Los Altos compared to the Palo
Alto schools attended by students in the area.
Furthermore, it’s observed that the three school districts in Mountain View and Los
Altos have smaller student populations compared to Palo Alto. The Palo Alto Unified
School District, the Los Altos School District, and the Mountain View Whisman School
District have all experienced declines in student population, while the Mountain
View-Los Altos High School District has seen an increase in student enrollment. This
demographic trend is depicted in Figures five, six, and seven, which illustrate student
populations from the 2014-2015 academic year through 2022-2023.
129
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
Los Altos School District Student Population 2014-15 to 2022-23.
Academic Year Total Enrollment
2022 - 23 3,355
2021 - 22 3,347
2020 - 21 3,576
2019 - 20 3,999
2018 - 19 4,246
2017 - 18 4,403
2016 - 17 4,527
2015 - 16 4,638
2014 - 15 4,675
Mountain View Whisman School District Student Population 2014-15 to 2022-23.
Academic Year Total Enrollment
2022 - 23 4,522
2021 - 22 4,522
2020 - 21 4,753
2019 - 20 5,082
2018 - 19 5,110
2017 - 18 5,132
2016 - 17 5,125
2015 - 16 5,084
2014 - 15 5,065
Table 8 - Los Altos School District Population 2014 - 2015 to 2022 - 2023. California Department of Education.
Table 9 - Mountain View Whisman School District Population 2014 - 2015 to 2022 - 2023. California Department of Education.
130
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District Student Population 2014-15
to 2022-23.
Academic Year Total Enrollment
2022 - 23 4,448
2021 - 22 4,539
2020 - 21 4,536
2019 - 20 4,548
2018 - 19 4,394
2017 - 18 4,304
2016 - 17 4,101
2015 - 16 4,028
2014 - 15 3,881
Table 10 - Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District Population 2014 - 2015 to 2022 - 2023. California Department of Education.
131
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
Private / Charter Schools
The city of Palo Alto has 33 private schools located within the city limits ranging from
preschool to high school. The San Antonio Road Corridor has four private schools
within the project area. The private schools located within the project area are Kehillah
Jewish High School, Imagination Lab school (TK-8th grade), Athena Academy (first to
eighth grade for dyslexic children), and Gideon Hausner Jewish Day School. These vary
in learning concepts, age range, religion, and overall learning objectives.
Community Colleges
The San Antonio Road Corridor and the City of Palo Alto currently don’t have any
Community Colleges or Junior Colleges. Residents from this area generally attend
Foothill College in Los Altos Hills, which is approximately a 13-minute drive away, or
Cañada College in Redwood City, also about a 13-minute drive from the San Antonio
Corridor. Both junior colleges pull from residents all around the County of Santa Clara.
Foothill College is the larger of the two junior colleges, with a student population of
13,483 as of 2022. Cañada College, on the other hand, has an approximate student
population of 5,619 as of the 2021-2022 academic year.
Stanford University
Stanford University is globally recognized for its leading role in research and its status
as a prestigious higher education institution. It is celebrated for its commitment
to academic excellence and its significant contributions to various fields, spanning
technology, science, humanities, and social sciences. Established by the Stanford
Family, the university has had a profound and long standing impact on Palo Alto, even
preceding the city’s establishment. Located approximately a 15-minute drive from
the San Antonio Road Corridor, Stanford not only serves as a substantial economic
influence but has also shaped the local educational landscape.
According to Stanford News, “Stanford University and Palo Alto Unified School District
(PAUSD) have reached a conditional agreement on community benefits that will be
provided to the school district as part of a possible development agreement for the
university’s proposed General Use Permit. The estimated value of the community
benefits package is $138.4 million over 40 years. The agreement is the result of
facilitated discussions between PAUSD and Stanford, and will expand the over century-
long partnership between the two educational organizations”(April 15th, 2019).
Stanford has promised to create an innovative space for students and faculty to provide
improvements to current PAUSD school sites.
132
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
Culture
Cultural Institutions
Cultural institutions in a city help foster community, cultural connection, and promote
diversity in any city or town. Within Palo Alto, there are various cultural institutions
within and near the project area alongside San Antonio Road Corridor.
Some notable cultural institutions in the area include:
• Palo Alto Art Center: Established in 1971, the Palo Alto Art Center is a nonprofit
community founded and community driven space focused on making art accessible
and welcoming the neighborhood to engage in art practices. The institution engages
over 150,000 people each year through a variety of programs as an extension of
the City of Palo Alto’s Division of Arts and Sciences, Department of Community
Services.
• Cantor Art Museum: Located at Stanford University, the Cantor Art Museum is
an essential cultural resource for the region. Founded in 1891 with the university,
the museum expanded and was renamed in 1999, thanks to lead donors Iris and
B. Gerald Cantor. The Cantor Collection, spanning 5,000 years, boasts over 38,000
works of art from around the globe.
• Foster Museum: The Foster Museum is a private non-profit museum dedicated to
artist Tony Foster’s watercolor wilderness Journeys. Before its opening in 2016, the
building served as an ambulance garage for the Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital.
It underwent a conversion into a LEED Silver certified structure. It now serves as an
exhibition of nature and wilderness works for the public.
• Shoreline Amphitheatre: The Shoreline Amphitheatre is a prominent cultural
and entertainment organization in the area. Established in 1986, the Shoreline
Amphitheatre was built upon a landfill as part of the Shoreline Park Project in
cooperation with the City of Mountain View and local promoter Bill Graham. It
hosts a wide array of concerts, live performances, and cultural events, for up to
22,000 people.
Demographics
The most prominent demographic within the City of Palo Alto is White, followed by
Asian and Hispanic or Latino. According to 2022 census data, the complete breakdown
is as follows:
133
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
Figure 1 - Geographic distribution of AAPI population across the Bay Area. From the Bay Area Equity Atlas.
Figure 2 - Geographic distribution of Chinese population across the Bay Area. From the Bay Area Equity Atlas.
Demographics Breakdown by Race
Race Percentage
White alone 52.5%
Asian alone 35.1%
Hispanic or Latino 7.0%
Black or African American 2.1%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.1%
American Indian and Alaska Native 0.3%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 50%
Two or More Races 7.2%
Table 11 - Demographic Breakdown by Race in Palo Alto, 2022 Census Data
Within the broader category of “Asian”, there are various ethnic subgroups that exist
in Palo Alto and add to its tapestry of diversity. Figure 1 illustrates the geographic
distribution of Asian communities across the Bay Area. Figures 2, 3, and 4 depicts some
of the prominent Asian subgroups within Palo Alto. According to the Bay Area Equity
Atlas, there is a prevalent concentration of Asian communities alongside the San
Antonio Corridor. The greatest Asian demographic in the area are Chinese residents,
following with Indian and Korean.
134
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
Religious Organizations
There are various religious organizations within and in proximity to the project area
alongside San Antonio Road Corridor. These religious organizations function as pillars
of spiritual and cultural activity, serving as focal points for individuals with diverse
backgrounds and belief systems.
Some of the religious organizations in the vicinity of the project area include:
• Hatemi Mosque: Located within the project site on the northern side of San Antonio
Road, the Hatemi Mosque is Palo Alto’s first freestanding mosque. The Hatemi
Mosque project received approval from the city’s Architectural Review Board in
2008 and construction began in December 2011. Although the physical structure of
the mosque had already been in place since 2014, it was not officially inaugurated
until March 7, 2015, following Syedna Aali Qadr Mufaddal Saifuddin’s visit from
India to bless the mosque.
• VIVE Church: Located in the project site on Leghorn Street, VIVE Church is a
non-denominational Christian church serving the Palo Alto and Mountain View
community. Established in 2014, the church is one of ten physical locations globally
and has grown to include an online community spanning over 20 countries.
• The Church in Palo Alto: Located alongside E Charleston Road, the Church in Palo
Alto is a Christian church that serves the local Christian community. It was founded
in 2000 by a group of Christian families who were seeking a church that would
provide a biblical foundation and a strong sense of community. The church quickly
grew, and in 2002, it moved to its current location on Charleston Road.
Figure 3 - Geographic distribution of Indian population across the Bay Area. From the Bay Area Equity Atlas.
Figure 4 - Geographic distribution of Korean population across the Bay Area. From the Bay Area Equity Atlas.
135
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
• Abundant Life Christian Fellowship: Abundant Life Christian Fellowship is a
non-denominational Christian church located in the project area within the
Oshman Family Jewish Community Center (JCC). Founded in 1982, the church has
established a congregation of over 1,000 people.
Additional Churches Nearby the San Antonio Road Corridor include:
• Lord’s Grace Christian Church
• Palo Alto Church of Christ
• New Life Church
• Current Silicon Valley Church
• Palo Alto First Christian Church
• New Vine Community Church
• Keddem Congregation
• Congregation Etz Chayim
• Congregation Emek Beracha
• Congregation Kol Emeth
• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life
The Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life is one of the largest projects organized by the
Bay Area Jewish community that sits on the site on the intersection at San Antonio
Road and E Charleston Road. Built in 2009, the 8.5-acre community is home to the
Oshman Family Jewish Community Center, Moldaw Family Residences, underground
parking amenities, and several other Jewish organizations. The urban campus provides
several amenities and acts as a central hub for the Jewish community in Palo Alto,
creating an urban feel for the senior citizens who reside on the site. Community events,
Jewish festivals, art exhibitions, and educational programs are held on the campus,
contributing to a rich and diverse cultural environment in Palo Alto.
Moldaw Family Residences on the Campus is a senior living and retirement facility
located on the Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life. The community was established
in 2009, and features 193 living units. In addition to housing, the facility also offers
independent living, assisted living, and memory care.
Oshman Family Jewish Community Center
The Oshman Family Jewish Community Center, commonly known as the Oshman
Family JCC, is a prominent community center that resides on the Taube Koret Campus
for Jewish Life. It serves as a core center for Jewish heritage, cultural events, and
136
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
education, and offers a wide range of services and programs for people of all ages. The
center is dedicated to creating a welcoming and inclusive environment for everyone in
the Palo Alto community, offering numerous amenities such as a fitness center, indoor/
outdoor pools, education centers and childcare services.
From 1999 to 2002, as school enrollments were on the rise, the JCC had to reassess
its location and ultimately relocated to the Cubberley/Greendell campus. During
this period, the idea of creating a multi-generational campus with senior residences
emerged, leading to the successful $140 million Capital Campaign to build the Taube
Koret Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL) on the former Sun Microsystems headquarters
site in Palo Alto. Construction began in 2007, and completed in 2009.
Parks and Facilities
Palo Alto is a vibrant community known for its greenscapes and abundance of trees
throughout the city, a nod to the Stanford Tree, the official mascot of Stanford
University. Parks and open spaces are nestled throughout the urban landscape, inviting
families, youth, and residents to walk, exercise, and play.
There are several public parks and facilities within proximity or around the site,
including:
• Cubberley Community Center (0.2mi from project site)
• Mitchell Park (1 mile from project site)
• Mitchell Park Branch Library
• Mitchell Park Community Center
Mitchell Park is the largest public park in Palo Alto, boasting 21.4 acres of amenities,
including youth soccer fields, sevenw tennis courts, walking and biking paths, public
art, and picnic areas. It is close to Fairmeadow Elementary School and Jane Lathrop
Stanford Middle School, fostering a sense of community engagement and provides
student access to outdoor activities and resources. The library is also a core pillar of
education, featuring over 140,000 items with books in different languages, conference
rooms, meeting and study spaces, and state-of-the-art technology to promote lifelong
learning and access to information.
137
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
History
Prehistory
The original inhabitants of the lands later known as Palo Alto, were a group of
indigenous peoples called the Ohlone. The Ohlone thrived in this area thanks to its
temperate climate and abundant natural resources. They enjoyed a high quality of
life, making use of the bay and marshes to harvest shellfish and fowl, while the valley
floor offered small game and acorns from the countless oak trees. Nearby waterways,
including San Francisquito Creek, provided fish and a variety of fruits and berries along
the streambanks. In the foothills, larger game like deer and grizzly bears could be
hunted.
Post-Contact History
The transition from prehistory to recorded history occurred with the expedition of Don
Gaspar de Portola in 1769. His exploration of the area marked the first documented
encounter with this land. During his expedition, he and his men camped alongside El
Palo Alto, which translates to “the tall stick,” a significant tree that remains a symbol
for both Palo Alto and Stanford University to this day. This historical landmark serves
as a tangible link to the area’s deep past, connecting the contemporary city and
university to their ancient origins.
New settlers were drawn to the region due to the enticing Spanish, and later Mexican,
land grant opportunities. These land grants laid the foundation for what would become
the city of Palo Alto. For instance, the Soto/Greer family established their residence
on Rancho Rinconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito, which covered a substantial
portion of present-day Old Palo Alto. Additional ranchos, like Rancho La Purisima
Concepcion, acquired by Juana Briones during the mid-1840s, encompassed land that
now constitutes a part of modern-day Palo Alto.
Early Establishment Period
After the tragic passing of their only son, Leland Stanford Junior, the grieving Stanfords
decided to establish a university in his memory in 1884. In 1891, following several years
of construction, Leland Stanford Junior University opened its doors to 465 students.
This initiative attracted ambitious, economically disadvantaged students to the region.
138
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
Despite owning several substantial vineyards in California, the Stanfords aimed to limit
university students’ access to alcohol. They also wanted a college town that would
support the new university, and began looking at their options. Initially, they contacted
Mayfield (and Menlo Park), with the condition of closing the town’s 13 saloons and
lone brewery in exchange for increased business from incoming university students.
However, Mayfield’s residents rejected the proposal, possibly due to uncertainties about
the university’s success.
As an alternative, the Stanfords, with the help of Timothy Hopkins, bought 700 acres
of farmland north of Mayfield and eventually settled on the name “Palo Alto.” Palo
Alto was a “dry town” where liquor sales were restricted. Within a few years, Palo Alto
flourished. In 1894, the town’s residents were confident enough to incorporate, and city
leaders took steps like establishing civic control over the water supply, a municipal gas
system, and an electric power plant.
Meanwhile, Mayfield remained a blue-collar town with a thriving alcohol industry.
However, Stanford University’s establishment attracted newcomers to Palo Alto, and
Mayfield faced a decline due to changing demographics. In the early 20th century,
Mayfield shut down its saloons, but it couldn’t rival Palo Alto’s growth and success. In
1925, Mayfield residents voted to merge with Palo Alto, and as a result, Mayfield ceased
to exist, with its downtown area renamed as California Avenue.
Modern History
Red Lining
Palo Alto experienced significant population growth in the early 20th century,
expanding from around 1,500 residents in 1900 to 6,000 by 1920. However, during
this period, the town implemented discriminatory practices against Black and Asian
populations. The Chamber of Commerce passed a resolution aiming to segregate
incoming minority residents into a specific district. Realtors in the area implemented
these policies using techniques like block-busting, white-only deed restrictions, and
refusing to insure mortgages in non-white neighborhoods. These actions pushed
minority buyers into East Palo Alto, which was incorporated as a city in 1983 and
initially had a 60% Black population, in stark contrast to Palo Alto’s 2.3% Black
population. While East Palo Alto’s racial makeup has shifted towards a predominantly
Hispanic or Latinx population, the legacy of racial discrimination through segregational
real estate practices and unequal housing opportunities persists, reflecting the ongoing
impact of redlining in Palo Alto.
139
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
20th Century Economic Growth
In the early 20th century, both Stanford University and Palo Alto experienced
significant growth. The town’s expansion included the extension of the streetcar line
along University Avenue, stretching to Oregon Avenue south of Embarcadero Road.
Despite the economic challenges of the 1930s, the town fared relatively well, thanks
in part to the presence of the university. Professors and staff continued their teaching
and research, supporting local businesses with their modest incomes. Lucie Stern,
an heiress to the Levi Strauss fortune, played a significant role in funding various
community projects, such as the Community Theatre, Children’s Theatre, Children’s
Library, and the Sea Scout Building before World War II.
During this time, Palo Alto solidified its position as a hub for science and technology
as graduates of Stanford University began developing their own companies. For
instance, William Hewlett and David Packard graduated with degrees in electrical
engineering from Stanford University in 1935 and subsequently founded the company
Hewlett-Packard, more commonly known as HP. The company was began in a one-
car garage near Stanford. During this time, they developed their first successful HP
computer products, which laid the foundation for Silicon Valley, the world’s first high-
technology region. Other ventures in Palo Alto have contributed significantly to the
development of technology, including the Federal Telegraph Company’s research in
radio communications and television and Varian Medical Systems’ contributions to
radiosurgery and x-ray tube technology.
Following World War II, Stanford University faced financial challenges. However, with
a significant land endowment at their disposal, Frederick Terman, who served as both
the Provost of Stanford University and the Dean of Engineering, proposed the concept
of establishing a research and development-focused business park to the City of Palo
Alto. Terman, known for his encouragement of students to launch their electronics
companies in the region, aimed to retain talent within California. This visionary park
was designed not only to provide income for the university but also to bolster the local
tax revenue. In collaboration with the City of Palo Alto, Stanford University officially
established the Stanford Research Park (SRP) in 1951. The SRP contained over 150
businesses, including Hewlett-Packard, Tesla Motors, TIBCO, and VMware, it has
historically been home to notable enterprises like Steve Jobs’s NeXT Computer, Xerox
PARC, and Facebook. The Stanford Research Park was a driving force in Silicon Valley
and the very heart of the tech hub.
Despite the many major companies popping up throughout the city, Palo Alto’s early
economy was not made up entirely of tech companies. The Stanford Shopping Center,
along with the relocation of the Stanford Medical Center from San Francisco in 1959,
served as pivotal drivers of economic expansion for Palo Alto.
140
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
Thousands of new homes were built to accommodate the growing population, which
more than doubled from 25,000 to 55,000 by 1960. Despite the ongoing challenges of
accommodating a rapidly expanding population and numerous businesses, Palo Alto
continues to thrive in the heart of Silicon Valley.
Fairchild Semiconductor
Another notable tech company that established itself in Palo Alto was Fairchild
Semiconductor, circa 1957. Fairchild invented one of the first commercially producible
integrated circuits. They capitalized on the national urgency to advance aerospace
electronics, leading to the rapid development and acceptance of a new kind of silicon
transistor. This venture outfitted an R&D facility in Palo Alto, where they developed
new processes and equipment. Palo Alto became a key location for their innovation
efforts, and Fairchild’s rapid growth in revenue and impact on the local community can
be compared to that of Google 40 years later. The founding of Fairchild Semiconductor
and other prominent tech companies helped established the site as the birthplace of
innovation that has shaped modern technology and propelled Silicon Valley into a
global tech hub.
Historic Context: Site
Zoning
The project site’s historical landscape differs significantly from the industrial buildings
and office parks we see today. Originally, the San Antonio corridor area was zoned
for residential use, with sparse development and lots of open space. However, the
transformation began in 1951, when the Palo Alto City Council decided to establish
Interim Zoning Regulations in the San Antonio Road Annexation. Subsequently, on
March 10, 1952, the Council approved an amendment to Ordinance No. 1320. This
amendment changed the zoning from “R-3” to “M-1” (light industrial) and “L-M-S” to
“M-2” (commercial, manufacturing, and industrial) in the area northeast of Charleston
Road and San Antonio Road. This shift essentially converted the region from
undeveloped residential into Palo-Alto’s hub of light industrial activity.
In November 2006, 901 San Antonio Ave underwent a significant zoning change,
transitioning from a General Manufacturing District (GM) to a Planned Community
(PC) to accommodate the Jewish Community Center project. By 2007, a series of zoning
transitions occurred in and around the project site, converting areas from Medium
and High-Density Multiple-Family Residence Districts to Service Commercial and
Neighborhood Commercial zones. It appears that the city authorities recognized an
opportunity for improved economic sustainability by permitting increased industrial
activity within the region.
175
0
18
0
0
18
5
0
19
0
0
19
5
0
20
0
0
Mu
w
e
k
m
a
O
h
l
o
n
e
T
r
i
b
e
Do
n
G
a
s
p
a
r
d
e
P
o
r
t
o
l
a
ex
p
l
o
r
e
d
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
i
n
176
9
St
a
n
f
o
r
d
U
n
i
v
e
r
i
s
t
y
1
8
9
1
Ma
y
fi
e
l
d
m
e
r
g
e
s
w
i
t
h
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
i
n
1
9
2
5
HP
F
o
u
n
d
e
d
1
9
3
9
St
a
n
f
o
r
d
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
P
a
r
k
1
9
5
1
Fa
i
r
c
h
i
l
d
S
e
m
i
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
o
r
19
5
7
18
4
0
s
R
a
n
c
h
o
s
P
e
r
i
o
d
JC
C
2
0
0
9
Fig
u
r
e
5
:
T
i
m
e
l
i
n
e
o
f
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
Ev
e
n
t
s
i
n
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
’
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
Fig
u
r
e
5
-
T
i
m
e
l
i
n
e
o
f
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
e
v
e
n
t
s
i
n
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
’
s
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
142
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
Sources
(n.d.). Palo Alto History. Org. Retrieved December 4, 2023, from https://www.
paloaltohistory.org/
(n.d.). Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District - Home. Retrieved
December 4, 2023, from https://www.mvla.net/
\/. (2023, June 16). YouTube. Retrieved December 4, 2023, from https://dq.cde.ca.gov/
dataquest/dqcensus/EnrCharterYears.aspx?cds=4369518&agglevel=district&ye
ar=2022-23&ro=y
Baker, N., & Schmidt, J. (2023, April 10). Palo Alto: The city that’s helped define
America, capitalism and the world. ABC. Retrieved December 4, 2023, from
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-11/the-history-of-palo-alto/102185864
Canada College. (n.d.). Cañada College. Retrieved December 4, 2023, from https://
canadacollege.edu/
Chapter 18.20 OFFICE, RESEARCH, AND MANUFACTURING (MOR, ROLM, RP and GM)
DISTRICTS. (n.d.). American
Legal Publishing. Retrieved December 4, 2023, from https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/
codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-78729
The City of East Palo Alto. (n.d.). History of East Palo Alto. City of East Palo Alto.
Retrieved December 4, 2023, from https://www.cityofepa.org/community/page/
history-east-palo-alto
The City of Palo Alto. (2022, February 28). History of Palo Alto – City of Palo Alto, CA.
City of Palo Alto. Retrieved December 4, 2023, from https://www.cityofpaloalto.
org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Preservation/
History-of-Palo-Alto
The City of Palo Alto. (2023, June 16). \/. YouTube. Retrieved December 4, 2023,
from https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/planning-amp-
development-services/file-migration/current-planning/forms-and-guidelines/
zone-map-2021.pdf
The City of Palo Alto. (2023, June 16). \/. YouTube. Retrieved December 4, 2023, from
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/city-clerk/ordinances/
ordinance-master-lists/1951-1960-ordinance-master-list.pdf
143
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
Fairmeadow Elementary. (n.d.). 2021-2022 School Accountability Report Card.
Fairmeadow Elementary. Retrieved December 4, 2023, from https://resources.
finalsite.net/images/v1692229989/pausdorg/xznyxwkgrhnehlssz3tj/2022_School_
Accountability_Report_Card_Fairmeadow_Elementary_School_230717.pdf
Gebel, M. (2019, September 26). What Silicon Valley Looked Like During Early Days
of Tech Boom: PHOTOS. Business Insider. Retrieved December 4, 2023, from
https://www.businessinsider.com/silicon-valley-during-early-days-of-tech-
boom-photos-2019-5#in-1968-former-fairchild-semiconductor-employees-
gordon-moore-and-robert-noyce-left-new-york-for-santa-clara-california-to-
start-intel-at-the-time-the-company-was-f
Grimes, B., & Chen, J. (2023, May 26). Elective teachers concerned about PAUSD
enrollment dropping. The Paly Voice. Retrieved December 4, 2023, from https://
palyvoice.com/172763/features/elective-teachers-concerned-about-pausd-
enrollment-dropping/
Hall, M. (2023, December 1). Sun Microsystems, Inc. | American Tech Company,
Computer Systems & Software. Britannica. Retrieved December 4, 2023, from
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sun-Microsystems-Inc
Henry M. Gunn High School. (2022, March 1). 2021-2022 School Accountability
Report Card. Henry M. Gunn High School. Retrieved December 4, 2023,
from https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1687308409/pausdorg/
zbch4mvrgkuabkfdqelx/2022_School_Accountability_Report_Card_Henry_M_
Gunn_High_School_20230608.pdf
Laws, D. (2017, September 19). Fairchild Semiconductor: The 60th Anniversary of a
Silicon Valley Legend - CHM. Computer History Museum. Retrieved December 4,
2023, from https://computerhistory.org/blog/fairchild-semiconductor-the-60th-
anniversary-of-a-silicon-valley-legend/
Los Alto School District. (n.d.). Our Schools. Los Altos School District. Retrieved
December 4, 2023, from https://www.lasdschools.org/District/Portal/our-schools
Muña, E., Henderson, J., & Huang, M. (2022, February 8). February 8, 2022: The Asian
and Pacific Islander Population in the Bay Area is Large and Diverse and is
Fueling Growth in the Region. Bay Area Equity Atlas. Retrieved December 4,
2023, from https://bayareaequityatlas.org/BayArea-API-diversity
144
Existing Conditions Report | Education, Culture, and History
Palo Alto History. (n.d.). Palo Alto History. Retrieved December 4, 2023, from https://
www.paloaltohistory.org/discrimination-in-palo-alto.php
Palo Alto’s history of redlining – The Campanile. (2020, October 12). The Campanile.
Retrieved December 4, 2023, from https://thecampanile.org/22686/
uncategorized/palo-altos-history-of-redlining/
Palo Alto Unified School District. (n.d.). Palo Alto Unified School District: Home.
Retrieved December 4, 2023, from https://www.pausd.org/
Palo Alto Unified School District. (2019, April 15). Palo Alto Unified School District
and Stanford reach conditional agreement on community benefits | Stanford
News. Stanford News. Retrieved December 4, 2023, from https://news.stanford.
edu/2019/04/15/palo-alto-unified-school-district-stanford-reach-conditional-
agreement-community-benefits/
Russo, C. (2020, June 28). Un-forgetting the segregationist history of Palo Alto (and
Daly City, and San Francisco, and…). | Palo Alto Online |. Retrieved December
4, 2023, from https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/06/28/un-forgetting-the-
segregationist-history-of-palo-alto-and-daly-city-and-san-francisco-and
Takei, G., Eisenger, J., & Scott, S. (n.d.). 2021-2022 School Accountability Report
Card. Jane Lathrop Stanford (JLS) Middle School. Retrieved December 4,
2023, from https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1692229989/pausdorg/
dv3vwv643vedm3q8k5mi/2022_School_Accountability_Report_Card_Jane_
Lathrop_Stanford_Middle_School_230717.pdf
City of Palo Alto, San Antonio
Road Corridor Concept Plan
Alternatives Report
2
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Land Use Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................................... 6
Alternative 1............................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Alternative 2............................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Alternative 3.......................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Transportation Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................... 13
Alma Stret to Middlefield Road ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Middlefield Road to East Charleston Road .............................................................................................................. 19
East Charleston Road to Terminal Boulevard ........................................................................................................ 24
Alternatives Evaluation......................................................................................................................................................... 28
Land Use.................................................................................................................................................................................. 28
Transportation ..................................................................................................................................................................... 30
3
Introduction
The City of Palo Alto must plan for creating 6,086 dwellings in the next eight years to fulfill its
Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The City’s plan encompasses a range of strategies. These
include easing density restrictions in existing multifamily districts, exploring construction on
city-owned parking lots, collaborating with Stanford on housing developments, and encouraging
accessory dwelling units. The City has also identified a strategy to rezone manufacturing and
light-industrial zones around San Antonio Road and Fabian Way to facilitate the redevelopment
of existing commercial buildings with 1,185 housing units. Along with the facilitation new
housing units, the City is seeking to improve current transportation conditions around San
Antonio Road and Fabian Way by connecting varied land uses and promoting multi-modal
access.
The San Antonio Road Corridor, spanning approximately 260 acres, is situated at the easternmost
edge of Palo Alto, bordering Mountain View. It is located close to major technology companies
in Silicon Valley, such as Google, Facebook, and Apple, and has fueled significant residential
and commercial development. Accessibility through major highways, including Highway 101
and El Camino Real, further positions the corridor as a vital link to neighboring cities, airports,
and the broader Bay Area.
The corridor centers San Antonio Road, one of Palo Alto’s main arterial road that connects
Highway 101 to SR 82, making it a high-volume traffic and trucking route through the city. Other
arterial roads within the project boundary also support heavy traffic traveling through and along
the corridor. Alma Street was the most traveled arterial road, with 28,895 vehicles total along the
section between East Charleston Road. The project is in close proximity to the San Antonio
Caltrain Station which connects people to employment centers and leisure activities in
surrounding cities. There are several bus routes serving the corridor including the VTA Route 21,
VTA Route 40, and the ACE Orange Shuttle. Despite these public transportation services,
ridership is substantially low citywide and was further exacerbated by the COVID -19 pandemic.
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are minimal with a lack of bike lanes and sidewalks throughout
the corridor.
The project boundary for San Antonio has multiple land use designations.
Research/Office/Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) and General Manufacturing (GM) zones
constitute 57 percent of the project area, primarily in the north half. ROLM zones permit specific
office, research, and manufacturing activities within a park setting, aiming for larger spaces with
access to natural light and air. The ROLM district targets areas designated for research and office
park use in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
Residential zones, constituting 15 percent of the project area, are concentrated in the southern
half, south of East Charleston Road. Single Family Residential (R -1) aims to establish standalone
homes with an emphasis on natural surroundings and open spaces. The various zones allow for
4
accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, and accessory structures or buildings.
Two-Family Residential (R-2) permits a second dwelling unit, with regulations in place to
maintain the single-family character. Low-Density Multiple-Family Residential (RM-20) acts as
a transitional zone, while Medium-Density Multiple-Family Residential (RM-30) aims to create
neighborhoods for multiple-family housing.
The City envisions transitioning the San Antonio Corridor from industrial land uses to create new
housing opportunities with improved transportation conditions. Comprehensive planning is
deemed essential to ensure future residents have access to necessary amenities and services,
fostering the development of a new residential neighborhood. This includes identifying gaps,
such as the need for parks, safer bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and access to neighborhood
schools. The City's recently adopted Sustainability goals empower the integration of land use and
transportation planning, with the overarching objective of expanding a city segment while
concurrently reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). This ambitious undertaking reflects the
city's commitment to sustainable and well-planned urban development.
Project Area Hazards
Students produced an Existing Conditions Report for the project area to understand the strengths
and weaknesses that already exist along the corridor. Environmental concerns proved to be a key
weakness. The San Antonio Corridor has seven relevant environmental hazard scenarios that
were considered in the land use alternative evaluation. Development alternatives were impacted
by FEMA flood zone AE (100-year flood), high liquefaction susceptibility level, hazardous
material sites with land use restrictions, sea level rise scenarios for 24 inches and 55 inches, and
noise contours at 65 dBA and 70 dBA. The environmental hazard map , depicted in Figure 1,
identifies a hazard value from zero to eight for each parcel calculated based on the number and
severity of hazards on the parcel. The lower risk hazards, SLR 55 inches, and noise 65 dBA were
given one point, and all higher risk hazards were given two points with total values expressing
the relative environmental hazard risk. Flooding, sea level rise, and liquefac tion are concentrated
on the northern end of the site closest to the San Francisco Bay. Relevant noise contours are
adjacent to Highway 101.
Due to these identified hazards, all land use alternatives in this document try to minimize the
number of homes and residents in hazard-prone areas. It is not uncommon for buildings to be
constructed along a highway or in a sea-level rise risk area, but avoiding this could avoid major
challenges in the future.
5
Figure 1: Environmental Hazard Map
6
Land Use Alternatives
The land use alternatives include a baseline with no-change scenario, a 1,200-unit scenario, and a
2,000-unit scenario. The 1,200-unit alternative addresses the 1,185 units that the City identified
in their strategy to rezone manufacturing and light-industrial zones around San Antonio Road
and Fabian Way to facilitate redevelopment. The 2,000-unit alternative accommodates more
units with relatively little change to the proposed land use and zoning changes. The City has
6,086 units to accommodate so increasing housing beyond the 1,185 units may be useful for the
City goals.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 serves as a baseline scenario in alignment with the current 2030 Comprehensive
Plan. It represents a no-change scenario, wherein no proposed density adjustments or alterations
to existing land use designations (as indicated in Table 1) are considered. The current land use
designations, illustrated in Figure 2, remain unchanged in this scenario. It is assumed in
Alternative 1 that all ongoing pipeline projects will be executed as planned.
Table 1 - Description of Land Use Designations
7
Land Use
Designations
Allowed
Density/FA
R
Single-Family
Residential
Residential neighborhoods are characterized by detached
single-family homes, typically with one dwelling unit on
each lot.
1-7 du/ac
1-14 du/ac*
Multi-Family
Residential
Residential neighborhoods are characterized by three or
more dwelling units, which may be in the same building
or separate buildings on the same site.
8-40 du/ac
8-90 du/ac
Mixed-Use It is intended to promote pedestrian-oriented places that
layer compatible land uses, public amenities, and utilities
together at various scales and intensities.
1.15 FAR
Service
Commercial
Facilities providing citywide and regional services and
relying on customers arriving by car. Typical uses include
auto services and dealerships, motels, lumberyards,
appliance stores, and restaurants, including fast service
types.
0.4 FAR
Neighborhood
Commercial
Includes shopping centers with off-street parking or a
cluster of street-front stores that serve the immediate
neighborhood. Typical uses include supermarkets,
bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber shops,
restaurants, self-serve laundries, dry cleaners, and
hardware stores.
0.4 FAR
Light Industrial Wholesale and storage warehouses and the manufacturing,
processing, repairing, and packaging of goods.
0.5 FAR
Research/
Office Park
Office, research, and manufacturing establishments whose
operations are buffered from adjacent residential uses.
0.3-0.5 FAR
*On parcels where second units or duplexes occur
8
Figure 2: Existing Land Use Designations
9
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 aims to achieve an additional 1,200 housing units in the San Antonio Road
corridor. This plan incorporates a significant increase in mixed-use and multi-family
development. The alternative proposes land use changes from light industrial to mixed-use,
service commercial to mixed-use, light industrial to multi-family, and service commercial to
multifamily. The alternative includes an additional 840 units of mixed-use housing (24 dwelling
units per acre) and 442 units of multi-family housing (50 dwelling units per acre), as depicted in
Figure 3.
This alternative responds to the growing demand for diverse housing options and urban
amenities. The proposed land use changes, such as transforming areas from light industrial to
mixed-use and service commercial to multi-family, signal a shift towards a more vibrant and
integrated community. The solution optimizes land utilization and creates a more sustainable,
walkable, and socially connected urban environment. By diversifying housing types an d
promoting medium-density development, Alternative 2 envisions a corridor that not only
accommodates increased housing demand but also establishes a resilient and dynamic
community.
10
Figure 3: 1,200 Housing Unit Scenario
11
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 is geared toward adding 2,000 dwelling units with an emphasis on workforce
housing. This alternative proposes adding 1,575 units as mixed-use (38 dwelling units per acre)
and adding 427 units as multi-family (77 dwelling units per acre), as depicted in Figure 4. Like
Alternative 2, this alternative also proposes changing the land used in several areas. All Service
Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial land uses would be changed to Mixed -Use. About
half of all the Light Industrial land uses in the project area will also be changed to Mixed-Use
with a small portion solely being Multi-Family.
Alternative 3 would help provide a portion of the workforce housing that Google and other
companies need in this area. Google employs more than 34,000 people in the Bay Area alone.
20,000 of those employees work in Mountain View, with 1,000 more working in Palo Alto. To
minimize employee commute times, Google envisions the construction of approximately 13,000
housing units across the South Bay Area. Palo Alto and the San Antonio Road Corridor can be a
focal point for the needed workforce housing along with the overall need for more housing
throughout the Bay Area and the state.
12
Figure 4: 2,000 Housing Unit Scenario
13
Transportation Alternatives
The San Antonio Road Corridor is encompassed by Terminal Boulevard to the north and Alma
Street to the south and includes Fabian Way. Transportation on the corridor primarily consists of
vehicular traffic and trucking with Class-II and Class -III bike lanes and sidewalks throughout.
With a projected increase in housing in the corridor, the current infrastructure is not sufficient to
maintain a potentially high volume of vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Safety for pedestrians and
bicyclists using San Antonio Road is at risk with trucking and other traffic and a lack of bike
lanes. In addition, access to the nearby Google campus and the Baylands is disconnected from
the project area with few connections across US 101.
To discuss transportation alternatives, the San Antonio Road Corridor is broken into three
sections - Alma Street to Middlefield Road, Middlefield Road to East Charleston Road, and East
Charleston Road to Terminal Boulevard. These sections are further divided into three types of
alternatives - existing conditions, a low-cost alternative, and a high-cost alternative. The existing
conditions alternative reflects the corridor as it exists today without any changes, while the other
two scenarios imagine different facilities stratified by estimated cost. These three alternatives
give the City the flexibility to choose pedestrian and bicycle improvements based on anticipated
need and available resources. In some cases, the existing conditions or low-cost alternative will
meet the City’s goals for the corridor, while in others the high-cost alternative may be more
appropriate. The City may also benefit from different alternatives when seeking funding to
implement corridor safety improvements.
All transportation alternatives are illustrated in a map of the San Antonio Road Corridor (Figure
5). However, because of the large scale of the project site, it is difficult to see all the alternatives
on one map. Therefore, dividing the corridor into three sections improves the readability of the
illustrations, making it easier for people to conceptualize the proposed alternatives. Each of the
three corridor sections presents three types of alternatives. Existing conditions are the alternative
type where there are no changes made to the current street designs and intersections. The low -
cost alternative is the more cost-effective option to implement. This can include the restriping of
traffic lanes or adding street furniture. The high-cost alternative involves more expensive
implementation measures such as repaving streets and safer bicycle lane buffers.
14
Figure 5: Transportation Alternatives Section Map
15
Alma Street to Middlefield Road
Existing Conditions
The existing portion of Alma Street to Middlefield Road. From the interchange heading
northbound, two travel lanes extend towards the intersection with Middlefield Road, with
merging lanes on and off the road. From Nita Avenue to the intersection, there are non -
continuous sections of street parking available. San Antonio Road widens at the intersection to
incorporate two turn lanes towards Middlefield Road. Traveling southbound, San Antonio Road
consists of two travel lanes, with a third turning lane into B yron Street and Nita Avenue. South
of Byron, the frontage road of San Antonio Avenue runs along the main Road. There is one
vehicle underpass between the southernmost portion of San Antonio Road and the Alphabet
office park. There is no bike infrastructure in this section. Pedestrian crossings exist at the
intersection of San Antonio Road and Middlefield Road, and the intersection of Nita Avenue and
San Antonio Road.
Low-Cost Alternative
This section of the San Antonio Road corridor extends from the crosswalk across Alma to the
San Antonio Caltrain station to the intersection with Middlefield Road. Along the northbound
side of San Antonio Avenue, a two-lane cycle track will run alongside the median between the
Avenue and Road. The cycle track will have a total width of eleven feet and will be protected by
flexible bollards. The intent of having a northbound cycle track is to reduce conflict points with
cyclists and vehicles moving in and out of their driveways. At the point where San Antonio
Avenue ends, at the intersection with Byron Street, the cycle track will continue along the turn
lane with further bollard protection. Figure 6 depicts the low-cost street section.
Figure 6: Low-Cost alternative section, facing south.
High-Cost Alternative
16
The high-cost alternative will retain the two-lane cycle track, with further protection provided
from raised curbs and planters providing further protection. A second Class -II protected cycle
lane along northbound San Antonio Road will provide an alternative for cyclists to access
locations on the east side of the road. Another pedestrian improvement will be the addition of a
midblock pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Ferne Avenue, San Antonio Avenue, and San
Antonio Road (Figure 7). This crossing will ideally be signalized with a HAWK crossing.
At the south end of San Antonio Avenue, at the intersection of Briarwood Way, some
intersection redesigns would improve pedestrian and cyclist safety when crossing under San
Antonio Road (Figure 8). The triangular buffer will be removed, allowing for the proposed cycle
track to continue through the intersection. In doing this, the right-turn lane onto San Antonio
Road will be removed, but the intersection will remain open to allow for appropriate turning. The
Section 1 map provides an overview of the changes in the context of the corridor (Figure 9).
Figure 7: High-Cost alternative section, facing south.
17
Figure 8: San Antonio Avenue and Briarwood Road intersection.
18
Figure 9: Section 1 overview
19
Middlefield Road to East Charleston Road
Existing Conditions
At the southern end of the section, there are five lanes at the intersection of Middlefield Road
and San Antonio Road, with three turn lanes and two travel lanes. Between the intersections of
Middlefield and East Charleston, San Antonio maintains two travel lanes in each direction. In
addition, on-street parking is available along both sides. At the intersection of San Antonio Road
and Leghorn Street, northbound and southbound San Antonio Road have four turn lanes. Bike
infrastructure consists of a sharrow along each direction of travel. Pedestrian crossings are at the
intersection of San Antonio Road and East Charleston, Leghorn, and Middlefield. In the
northernmost part of San Antonio Road there is a single southbound lane for parking purposes
that merges back onto the main right-of-way.
Low-Cost Alternative
The second section of the San Antonio Road corridor extends from Middlefield Road to East
Charleston Road. This section is in between the corridor’s two major intersections and includes a
street frontage designated for parking. The low -cost alternative for this section is to transform the
current frontage that is dedicated to vehicular parking into a continuation of the bollard -separated
cycle track presented in the previous section. The cycle track will provide Palo Alto cyclists with
enhanced safety and comfort. At the same time, they travel up and down the corridor without
major conflict with cars and trucks driving along San Antonio Road. In addition to the cycle
track, the remaining frontage space will be converted into a parklet designed to attract
pedestrians and vibrant street activities into the public space. With amenities such as outdoor
seating spaces, plantings, and bicycle parking, the parklet will benefit surrounding businesses
while also serving as a core community space for the San Antonio Road corridor. The pairing of
the parklet and the cycle track creates an attractive and welcoming entrance into the corridor for
pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. See Figure 10 for an illustration of the low-cost street section.
Figure 10: Low-Cost alternative, facing south.
High-Cost Alternative
20
The high-cost alternative for this section will keep the same cycle track proposed as the low -cost
alternative. However, concrete or vegetated buffers will replace the flexible bollards that separate
the cycle track from vehicular traffic (Figure 11). This will increase user safety by providing a
physical buffer that can stop most vehicles with a more visually appealing separation. A linear
park will be constructed instead of a parklet in the remaining frontage area. The park will include
a vegetated pathway and outdoor seating to encourage movement and relaxation. In addition,
bioretention basins and low-impact development will be incorporated into the park design to
address flooding and runoff concerns. With more people drawn to the park, the use of the cycle
track as an alternative mode of transportation will be more successfully promoted. A protected
bike lane going northbound on San Antonio Road is another proposal for this section. This bike
lane provides an alternative to the two-lane cycle track along San Antonio Road so that cyclists
will not have such difficulty biking to the surrounding area.
The linear park will only extend to the end of the street frontage section to make use of the
existing space there. However, the cycle track will continue along the entire section from
Middlefield Road to East Charleston Road. The continuation of this track will replace the
existing parking lane that is parallel to the traffic lanes. The existing parking lane transitions into
a right-turn lane at the Middlefield Road intersection. For this proposal, the right turn lane will
be designated for the cycle track and the traffic lane going straight will be converted into a right
turn and straight lane (Figure 12). The proposed Middlefield Road intersection changes can be
seen in the birds’ eye view map in Figure 13. The Section 2 map provides an overview of the
changes in the context of the corridor (Figure 14).
21
Figure 11: High-Cost alternative, facing south.
Figure 12: Street section of Middlefield Road facing north.
22
Figure 13: Middlefield Road and San Antonio Road intersection.
23
Figure 14: Section 2 overview.
24
East Charleston Road to Terminal Boulevard
Existing Conditions
Two travel lanes in either direction continue after the intersection of East Charleston and San
Antonio Road. At the intersection, the southbound lane widens to incorporate three more turn
lanes. Along the northbound lanes, there are merging lanes accessing and exiting the light
industrial/office park area. San Antonio Road passes over Highway 101 with a partial cloverleaf
interchange. There are low-quality pedestrian crossings across the interchange. At the north end
of San Antonio lies the entrance to the Baylands Nature Preserve Trail. At Fabian Way, there are
two travel lanes in the north and southbound directions. Four mid-block pedestrian crossings
exist between East Charleston Road and East Meadow Drive. This portion of Fabian Way
includes a Class-II bike lane in either direction. A multimodal pedestrian bicycle bridge crosses
Highway 101 just outside of the project site.
Low-Cost Alternative
The third section of the San Antonio Road project area extends from East Charleston Road to
Terminal Boulevard, which is the northernmost street before the Baylands. This section also
includes Fabian Way and adjacent land area and extends to Industrial Avenue. The Low-Cost
Alternative for this section continues the two-way cycle track presented for the other sections. At
the San Antonio Road and East Charleston Road intersection, the cycle track will end and merge
into the existing Class-II bike lanes on East Charleston Road. These bike lanes run in each
direction of the road and off-site. The cycle track will then pick up on the west side of Fabian
Way and continue to Federation Way. From there, the cycle track will move west toward Adobe
Creek, where it will run on the existing pathway until reaching the pedestrian bridge that crosses
West Bayshore Drive and US 101. This alternative proposes no bike lanes on San Antonio Road
north of East Charleston Road.
A benefit of this alternative is that it presents the option of revitalizing Adobe Creek to better
incorporate the cycle track with other pedestrian-friendly elements. The existing bikeway is wide
enough for pedestrians and has a bike-friendly infrastructure but lacks the aesthetics needed to
entice people to use it. The cycle track would make use of the existing multi-modal bridge that
connects to Adobe Creek Loop Trail, therefore not requiring additional expansion and saving
funding for other uses. In addition, having the cycle track along Adobe Creek as opposed to
along Fabian Way increases safety for cyclists by reducing interaction with vehicles. However,
having the cycle track discontinued along East Charleston Road is a potential consequence.
Cyclists would have to switch from cycle track to standard bike lane to cycle track to continue
their ride, which poses some safety concerns when crossing a busy roadway. This alternative
assumes that changes to building footprints and zoning proposed in the Land Use Alternative
portion of this document are used.
High-Cost Alternative
25
The high-cost alternative for this section proposes the same cycle track infrastructure that the
low-cost alternative proposed. However, this two-way cycle track will be accompanied by
another stretch of cycle track that branches off from East Charleston R oad, up Industrial Avenue,
and connects directly to the Google campus across US 101 via a new pedestrian bridge. This
pedestrian bridge will be multi-modal and allow for the cycle track and pedestrian right-of-way
to be maintained. The cycle track will utilize part of Industrial Avenue through a development
proposed in the Land Use Alternative portion of this document and will provide additional
connections for new residents and businesses. Like the low cost, this cycle track increases cyclist
safety by minimizing conflict with vehicles and provides a safe passage over the freeway. The
construction of a new pedestrian bridge is what puts this alternative at a high cost and there must
be communication with Caltrans.
To make the cycle track and Class-II bike lanes function properly, the intersection of San
Antonio Road and East Charleston Road must become a protected intersection. San Antonio
Road, facing south at this intersection, will remove a left turn lane in favor of widening the
sidewalk and parkway (Figure 15). This will allow all four corners to align straight, resulting in
smoother travel for pedestrians and bicyclists. A protected intersection will provide safer
crossing for bicyclists and pedestrians with enhanced pedestrian signals, curb extensions, and
clear striping and signage. Protected intersections aim to slow down vehicle turns while
increasing yield to pedestrians and bicyclists. In addition, curb extensions and corner islands
reduce the distance for pedestrians to cross the road. The cycle track will have its cross button
and entrance that seamlessly merges with the standard East Charleston Road bike lanes, allowing
for easy travel throughout the corridor. San Antonio Road is a trucking road, so this protected
intersection would make it difficult for potentially large trucks and buses to make turns in the
minimal space provided. Figure 16 depicts the proposed protected intersection. The Section 3
map provides an overview of the changes in the context of the corridor (Figure 17).
Figure 15: Low-Cost alternative, facing north.
26
Figure 16: East Charleston Road and San Antonio Road intersection.
27
Figure 17: Section 3 overview.
28
Alternatives Evaluation
This studio used ArcGIS Urban to compute a series of comparable metrics related to housing,
land use, and the environment. These metrics are meant to help provide an easy means of
comparison between the different land use alternatives. The transportation alternatives are
compared through cost estimates for the proposed infrastructure.
Land Use
Table 2: Land Use Metrics
METRIC EXISTING
CONDITIONS
ALTERNATIVE #1
(1200 UNITS)
ALTERNVATIVE
#2 (2000 UNITS)
Population 9,578 10,589 10,667
Energy Use 4.64M kWh/d 4.63M kWh/d 4.63M kWh/d
CO2 Emissions 4.64M lb./d 3.31M lb./d 3.31M lb./d
Wastewater 3.09 gal/d 3.19M gal/d 3.19M gal/d
Daily Trips 1.35M/d 1.44M/d 1.43M/d
Daily Trips
Daily trips measure the number of motor vehicle trips based on a 24-hour basis. The daily trip
calculation was estimated based on the equation daily trips=(net space area x trips per area) +
(population x daily trips per person) + (households x daily trips per household) + (jobs x daily
trips per job). There was a .10M/d trip increase between the existing conditions and the first
alternative due to an increase in population and households. There is a minimal difference
between alternative 1 and alternative 2; however, there is are a .01M/d decrease in daily trips in
the second alternative because of the decrease in jobs in the area. The transportation analysis
reveals an increase in daily trips from existing conditions to the proposed alternatives, which is
driven by population household growth, and employment.
Population
The population metric calculates the holding capacity for the project area. The population
metrics for the different alternatives were determined using the net land use area and a square-
foot per person factor. The net land use area refers to the total area of the site. The difference
between the three alternatives is determined by the change in net land use area.
The area per person for residential multi-family is 405 sq ft. The more multi-family residential
units there are, the smaller the net area per person, leading to a larger population. For instance,
the 2,000-unit alternative has more multi-family units compared to the 1,200-unit and existing
conditions alternatives, resulting in a larger population for the 2,000-unit alternative.
CO2 Emissions
29
Carbon dioxide emissions measure the amount of carbon dioxide generated in pounds per day by
the jobs and population in the project area. CO2 emissions are calculated based on the combined
population and jobs emissions. Jobs are multiplied by emissions per job and population is
multiplied by emissions per person.
The existing conditions generate 1.33 M lb./d more CO2 emissions than the two proposed
alternatives. In both alternatives the number of jobs on site decreases and the population
increases with the transition of commercial and light industrial land uses to housing. The
decrease in job related CO2 emissions is greater than the increase in population related CO2
emissions therefore the total CO2 emissions for the alternatives is lower than the existing
conditions. The two alternatives have the same CO2 emission generation estimates based on
rounding despite differences in the jobs and population calculations for each alternative.
Energy Use
Energy use is measured in kilowatt hours per day based on jobs and population for the project
area. The energy use total is calculated based on the combined population and jobs energy use.
Jobs are multiplied by energy use per job and population is multiplied by energy use per person.
Each job type has a different energy use.
The existing conditions use 0.1 M kWh/d more energy than the two proposed alternatives. In the
proposed alternatives there is an increase in population and a decrease in jobs because of the
proposed land use changes. There is an increase in housing and decrease in commercial and light
industrial land use in both alternatives. The total energy use decreases in the alternatives because
the decrease in job related energy use is greater than the increase in population related energy
use. The two alternatives have the same total energy use estimates based on rounding despite
differences in the jobs and population calculations for each alternative.
Wastewater
The wastewater metric measures the amount of waste produced per day by the and jobs in the
area. For each of the three land use alternatives the amount of wastewater produced was
calculated to understand the impact of each scenario. This metric used the following calculations
to determine wastewater produced: population multiplied by wastewater per person, plus jobs
multiplied by wastewater per job. Different job types have different wastewater production
factors.
Alternative 1 and alternative 2 both produce .010 gal/d more than the existing conditions
scenario. In the proposed alternatives there is an increase in the number of housing units.
Alternative 1 adds 1,200 housing units and alternative 2 adds 2,000 housing units. This increase
in the number of housing units results in a small increase in the amount of wastewater produced.
Alternative 1 and alternative 2 produce the same amount of wastewater per day at 3.19M gal/d
and the existing conditions produce 3.09 gal/d.
30
Transportation
Table 3: Transportation Cost Metrics
METRIC LOW-COST HIGH-COST
Cycle Track $1,136,520 $9,905,280
Pedestrian Bridge - $26,000,000
HAWK Signals - $116,000
Protected Intersection - $650,000
Linear Park - $860,000
Street Restriping $58,000 $58,000
Total $1,194,520 $37,589,280
Low-cost
The Cycle Track cost valuation was gathered using the costs of the San Pablo Bicycle and
Pedestrian Corridor study. The high-cost and low-cost estimates were generated based on the
cost per foot. The low-cost estimate of the cycle track will be $123 per foot for 1.75 miles. The
low cost consists of installing bollards as a measure of dividing the street from the cycle track.
High-cost
The Cycle Track cost valuation was gathered using the costs of the San Pablo Bicycle and
Pedestrian Corridor study. The high-cost and low-cost estimates were generated based on the
cost per foot. The high-cost estimate is considered to be $1,072 per linear foot which includes a
curb-separated cycle track stretching 1.75 miles. The pedestrian bridge estimate reflects the cost
of the Highway 101 Pedestrian & Bike Bridge Project that was completed in 2021. That cost was
$22.8 million. Assuming the same bridge design and construction methods are used, the cost of
the new bridge, adjusted for inflation, is $26 million. HAWK signals cost an average of $58,000
per unit, according to the Federal Highway Administration, bringing its total cost to $116,000.
The $650,000 cost of the protected intersection construction is based on estimates listed in the
2020 Berkeley Pedestrian Plan. In addition, the cost to construct a linear park is roughly $50 per
square foot. This estimates the approximately 17,200 square foot linear park to cost $860,000.
Community Outreach Summary 1/24
City of Palo Alto
San Antonio Road
Corridor Plan
Introduction
Activity 1: Mad-Libs Visioning
Activity 2: Lego Mapping
Key Findings
Appendix
10
16
4
17
Table of Contents
3
Community Outreach Summary
3
Community Outreach Summary
Introduction
Students from the Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo’s City and Regional Planning Department
are working in collaboration with the City of Palo Alto to develop a concept report for
the San Antonio Road corridor, from the Baylands to Alma Street. The goal of the report
is to detail how the area can accommodate 1,185 new homes to help the City achieve
its housing goals. As a part of this effort, Cal Poly students will be hosting community
outreach events. These events serve as opportunities for the community to provide
feedback about the project.
On the evening of January 24th, 2024, Cal
Poly students led a community workshop
at the Mitchell Park Community Center.
The purpose of the workshop was to
engage the community in a shared
visioning process for the corridor and
understand community attitudes toward
growth and development in the area.
This report serves as both a summary of
community engagement and a catalog of
all recorded input provided by participants.
This report serves as a concise overview
of our second outreach initiative held in
January 2024. It encapsulates the engaging
activities, such as Mad-Libs Visioning and
Lego Scenarios, carried out during our
community workshop in Palo Alto and the
San Antonio Road Corridor.
Figure 1: Community members and Cal Poly students listening to the workshop presentation
4
Community Outreach Summary
Ac tivity #1: Ma d-L ib s Activity #1: Mad-Libs
V isi on in g Visioning
The Mad-Libs Visioning activity challenged participants to create a vision statement for
WKHIXWXUHRIWKH6DQ$QWRQLR5RDG&RUULGRU0DG/LEVDUHˋOOLQWKHEODQNZRUGJDPH
where players are prompted to provide a list of words to substitute for blanks in a story
before reading aloud.
)RUPLQXWHVSDUWLFLSDQWVDWHDFKRIWKHQLQHWDEOHVFROODERUDWHGWRˋOOLQWKHHPSW\
VSDFHVZLWKZRUGVDQGSKUDVHVWKDWˋWWKHLUYLVLRQXVLQJDWHPSODWHFUHDWHGE\&DO3RO\
students (see Figure 2). Once complete, each table shared their vision statement with
the other participants. Each table’s vision statement helped guide their decisions in the
Lego Scenarios activity.
The subsequent pages show the results of the Mad Libs Visioning activity. Each page
corresponds to a separate sentence and blank within the Vision Statement. Responses
were collected and arranged with the most commonly repeated words or phrases at the
top.
Figure 2: Mad libs vision statement template
5
Community Outreach Summary
6
Community Outreach Summary
7
Community Outreach Summary
8
Community Outreach Summary
9
Community Outreach Summary
10
Community Outreach Summary
Activity #2: Lego
Scenarios
The Lego Scenarios activity tasked participants with
placing at least 1,200 homes on the project area base map.
Participants could add other uses such as commercial, light
industrial, greenspace, and “Your Big Idea”. Participants
could place bricks anywhere on the map, regardless of
existing buildings, land use, or zoning and could stack bricks
to indicate increased density. Participants could also create
mixed-use stacks by placing different color land use bricks
on top of each other.
Each yellow brick represented ten homes per acre of
residential. Each red brick represented one acre of
commercial space. Each gray brick represented one acre of
light industrial space. Each green brick represented one acre
of parks/open space. Each blue brick represented “Your Big
Idea”, which could be anything from a new school, more
restaurants, a stadium, etc.
The following maps were created as a complication of all
9 group’s results. The maps were separated by the the land
use designation options (housing, commercial, open space,
industrial). The numbers on the map correspond to the
average amount of lego blocks placed in each area. The
average densities provide insight on the uses and densities
comunity members would like to see. See Appendix for the
lego maps created by each group during the workshop.
Figure 4: Instructions for the lego mapping activity handed out to each group.
Figure 3: Aerial view of group 3 lego scenario
11
Community Outreach Summary
The community placed a high concentration of lego blocks designated for housing between East Charleston Road and Highway 101; a medium amount north of highway 101 and at the east of the corridor between 0LGGOHˋHOGDQG(DVW&KDUOHVWRQ5RDG DQGDORZDPRXQWEHWZHHQ$OPD6WUHHWDQG0LGGOHˋHOG5RDGDQGZHVWRIWKHFRUULGRUEHWZHHQ0LGGOHˋHOG5RDGDQG(DVW&KDUOHVWRQ5RDG
12
Community Outreach Summary
The community placed a high concentration of lego blocks designated for commercial / mixed - use space between East Charleston Road and Highway 101; the remainder of the site alternates between low and medium concentrations with the low concentrations residing at the west of the corridor between Alma Street and East Charleston Road, and at the east of the corridor between Gideon +DXVQHU-HZLVK'D\6FKRRODQG0LGGOHˋHOG5RDG
13
Community Outreach Summary
The community placed a high concentration of lego blocks designated for industrial use at the east of the corridor between East Charleston Road and Highway 101 and north of Highway 101. Very few locations were designated elsewhere throughout the site with a low concentration of blocks placed at WKHZHVWRIWKHFRUULGRUEHWZHHQ$OPD6WUHHWDQG0LGGOHˋHOG5RDGDQGZHVWRIWKHFRUULGRUEHWZHHQEast Charleston Road and Highway 101. There were no designations for industrial use at the remainder of the site.
14
Community Outreach Summary
The community placed a high concentration of lego blocks designated for big idea recommendations at the north half of the project site, north of East Charleston Road. Below East Charleston Road, very few big ideas were generated with a low concentration of blocks placed on the southern half of the site.
15
Community Outreach Summary
The community placed a high concentration of lego blocks designated for green space between East Charleston Road and Highway 101; a medium amount at the west of the corridor between Alma Street DQG0LGGOHˋHOG5RDGDQGQRUWKRIKLJKZD\ DQGDORZDPRXQWDWWKHHDVWRIWKHFRUULGRUEHWZHHQ$OPD6WUHHWDQG(DVW&KDUOHVWRQ5RDGDQGZHVWRIWKHFRUULGRUEHWZHHQ0LGGOHˋHOG5RDGDQG(DVWCharleston Road.
16
Community Outreach Summary
Key Findings
• Community members generally supported an increase in housing, favoring mixed-
use developments integrating residential and commercial spaces.
• There was an emphasis on improved connectivity and accessibility, especially for the
San Antonio Road Corridor to connect with other parts of Palo Alto.
• Concerns were expressed about walking and biking and public transit, with a focus
on safe and accessible routes that serve the San Antonio Corridor.
• There was a desire for more green spaces, trees, and parks. This included a variety of
parks, green roofs, and tree-lined streets.
17
Community Outreach Summary
Appendix
Lego Mapping
Table 1 Lego Mapping
Table 2 Lego Mapping
18
Community Outreach Summary
Table 3 Lego Mapping
Table 4 Lego Mapping
19
Community Outreach Summary
Table 5 Lego Mapping
Table 6 Lego Mapping
20
Community Outreach Summary
Table 7 Lego Mapping
Table 8 Lego Mapping
21
Community Outreach Summary
Table 9 Lego Mapping
22
Community Outreach Summary
Appendix
Mad Libs
23
Community Outreach Summary
24
Community Outreach Summary
25
Community Outreach Summary
26
Community Outreach Summary
San Antonio
Road Vision
Agenda
1.Who we are
1.Introduction of Project
1.Concept Plan
1.Community Outreach
b �.
The Corridor
The State of California has mandated
that Palo Alto add 6,086 new housing
opportunities over the next eight years
The City of Palo Alto identified the site
for the addition of 1,185 homes.
Key Deliverables
Land Use Plan Transportation
Plan
Environmental
Considerations
Land Use Plan
Land Use Plan
Proposed Land Use Existing Land Use
Proposed Zoning Existing Zoning
Transportation Plan
Transportation
●Two-Way Cycle Track
●Multi-Modal Infrastructure Improvements
●Intersection Improvements
●Pedestrian and Cyclist Visibility at Mid-
Block Crossings
Transportation
●Two-Way Cycle Track
●Multi-Modal Infrastructure Improvements
●Intersection Improvements
●Pedestrian and Cyclist Visibility at Mid-
Block Crossings
San Antonio Road at Fabian Way
San Antonio Road at San Antonio
Avenue
Environment
●Community Park
●Green Corridor
●Green Neighborhoods
●Adobe Creek Restoration
Environmental
Considerations
Community Park
Green
Corridor
Green
Neighborhood
Community Outreach
Community Workshop -Jan 24th
Vision Statement
In the future, San Antonio Corridor will be a
/i7ix-e j Use (adj) area where residents are
proud of (noun). Residents feel
a+ (adj) when they walk along San
Antonio Road. Residents enjoy spending their
time r3;kiri - S - 4e/ (verb). The character of San
Antonio Corridor is 4o�-� log- ,
COrvCc,fCdi 17, and rrr%l,'r to
and rrff' 03 P44, A/1,, L l; r„.,dc G4,.1. e
O CAL
7 CAL POLY
Open House -Feb 24th
Concept Feedback
Thank you