HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2509-5194CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, October 06, 2025
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
3.San Antonio Road Area Plan: Provide Feedback on Existing Conditions Analysis and Land
Use and Mobility Priorities. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15262.
Public Comment, Staff Presentation
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: STUDY SESSION
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: October 6, 2025
Report #:2509-5194
TITLE
San Antonio Road Area Plan: Provide Feedback on Existing Conditions Analysis and Land Use
and Mobility Priorities. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15262.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council review the San Antonio Road Area Plan Existing Conditions
Assessment Summary and provide preliminary feedback to staff on considerations discussed in
this report in advance of developing land use and mobility alternatives.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The draft Existing Conditions Analysis Summary Report (Attachment A) outlines key findings on
current conditions in the Plan Area and their interaction with existing regulations, highlighting
development opportunities and challenges. The Executive Summary of Attachment A presents
these findings. This study session provides an opportunity to brief the City Council on the report
and advisory body feedback, and solicit initial input on project considerations to guide the next
phase – developing land use and transportation alternatives.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The San Antonio Road Area Plan will guide development in the 275.3-acre corridor with an
integrated land use and transportation strategy. Its objectives include expanding housing,
improving mobility, providing open space, strengthening commercial nodes, upgrading
infrastructure, and advancing sustainability. The plan will set policies, standards, and guidelines
to implement the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element, while building on related
efforts such as the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, Safe Streets for All Action Plan, and
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update.
BACKGROUND
1 PDAs are locally created to support regional
goals set forth by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC), as described in Plan Bay Area. Plan Bay Area outlines the
Bay Area’s Regional Growth Framework, Regional Transportation Plan, and Sustainable
Community Strategies through 2050 and beyond. Key goals of PDAs include encouraging and
guiding growth around transit and connecting housing to jobs and areas of interest.
2 A
Community Survey is being conducted in the month of October, and the first Community
Workshop will be held on October 23, 2025.
Determining how much additional housing capacity the Plan Area should include
Improving connectivity to transit, community amenities, and retail
Improving safety for those traveling along and across San Antonio Avenue and Alma
Street
1 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13026
2 The Existing Conditions Assessment was presented to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee on
September 9, 2025; Planning and Transportation Commission on September 10, 2025; Architectural Review Board
on September 18, 2025; and the City/School Transportation Safety Committee on September 25, 2025.
Improving vehicle traffic flow for existing and future users, including understanding
origin and destination of drivers
Exploring methods of preserving existing retail and employment after redevelopment
Developing options for adding green space and retail space, especially those which
would reduce vehicle trips
Planning for how much parking is needed within the Plan Area
Preparing for impacts to RVs parked within the Plan Area
Mitigating for flood zones and future sea level rise
Cooperating with Mountain View and major property owners adjacent to the Plan Area
Engaging with school districts on individual school capacity and safe routes for schools
Representing impacts of the Area Plan on the City as a whole
ANALYSIS
The Existing Conditions Assessment is a key deliverable in the first phase of the project.
Preliminary findings, included in Attachment A, are based on technical analysis, regulatory
review, and literature review, including existing City and regional planning documents.
The report considers the following topic areas:
Land Use: Existing built environment, applicable State laws, zoning regulations found in
the Palo Alto Municipal Code, land use designations found in the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan, and amenities such as schools, parks, community centers, and retail in and around
the plan area.
Housing, Growth, and Displacement: Existing housing stock, pipeline development
projects, City planning documents, and housing affordability.
Transportation: Automobile, bicycle, pedestrian, and mass transit networks in the
proximate Plan Area, as well as safety concerns related to those networks.
Market Analysis: Housing market, retail market, and employment market.
Hazards, Public Safety, and Historic Resources: Flooding, geologic, and fire hazards,
emergency response, and historic context of the built environment.
Parks, Outdoor Spaces, and Public Facilities: Existing amenities within and adjacent to
the Plan Area.
Air Quality, Noise, and Vibration: Existing conditions and local and regional thresholds
for impacts.
Infrastructure: City owned utility facilities in the Plan Area.
Climate and Resilience: Local and regional policies and data.
Council Feedback Requested
Based on the findings identified in the draft Existing Conditions Analysis Summary Report
(Attachment A), there are several notable assets and opportunities for consideration in
developing the Area Plan. Staff believes that updating land use designations, development
standards, and improving active transportation routes and connections to the San Antonio
Caltrain Station are key to the Plan’s success. In order to develop complete neighborhoods, the
Area Plan will also address open space/parks, retail, transit, and utilities.
Next Steps
A Community Survey is being conducted in the month of October, and the first community
workshop is scheduled for October 23, 2025. The discussion with the community will include
exercises that will identify community needs in the Plan Area and the types of improvements
most desired by the public. The community survey running during the month of October will
allow additional feedback on specific questions from community members who are unable to
attend the workshop.
The direction received from the City Council, and feedback from advisory bodies and the
community will inform the scope of the land use and mobility alternatives. These alternatives
will be shared with the community and the advisory bodies in the first half of 2026 and are
planned for review by City Council in June 2026, before work on the final plan elements and the
environmental review begin.
Several 2030 Comprehensive Plan policies directly support the Area Plan:
Growth & Community: Policies L-1.10, L-2.2–2.4, L-2.6, L-2.11–2.12, and L-3.4 address
growth management, sustainable communities, and neighborhood character.
Commerce & Employment: Policies L-4.5, L-4.16, and L-5.4 guide commercial centers
and employment districts.
Design & Public Realm: Policies L-6.6–6.7 focus on building and public space design.
Parks & Streets: Policies L-8.6, L-9.3, L-9.6, and L-9.7 support parks, streets, and public
spaces.
The 2023–2031 Housing Element reinforces these goals, with Program 6.6(C) directing
preparation of the San Antonio Road Corridor plan and identifying 53 Housing Opportunity
Sites, emphasizing housing near the Caltrain station. The Housing Incentive Program (HIP),
adopted in 2019 and updated in 2025, further promotes multi-family and mixed-use
development across much of the Plan Area.
The Area Plan budget was approved by the Council on March 10, 2025, with an amount not to
exceed $1,979,902.3 There are no additional costs associated with this action item.
Community Engagement is the key to the success of the planning effort. The project team has
created a robust community engagement strategy, which includes a dedicated webpage, social
media and email announcements, formation of the Community Advisory Group (CAG) and
Technical Advisory Group (TAG), stakeholder interviews, community workshops, surveys,
3 CMR 2501-4703 was approved on March 10, 2025 and can be viewed here:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=7153&meetingTemplateType=2&comp
iledMeetingDocumentId=13423
meetings with the City Council and advisory commissions, committees, and boards, and pop-
ups including tabling at City events and Farmers Markets. Given the proximity of the Plan Area
to Mountain View, the City hosted Mountain View’s Community Development Director and key
planning, transportation, and public works staff for an initial discussion of the plan, and the two
cities’ long range planning teams meet once a month to share information about the plan and
adjacent areas.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
SEPTEMBER 4, 2025 DRAFT
San Antonio Road Area Plan
Existing Conditions Analysis
Summary Report
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
About the Project .............................................................................................................. 1
How This Document Is Organized ..................................................................................... 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 3
Location and Context ........................................................................................................ 3
Existing Uses and Character .............................................................................................. 3
Housing Market Conditions............................................................................................... 4
Housing Initiatives ............................................................................................................ 4
Housing Affordability ........................................................................................................ 5
Existing Employment and Businesses ................................................................................ 5
Climate Resilience and Environmental Hazards ................................................................ 6
Potential Impacts on Services from Population Growth .................................................... 6
I. LAND USE AND ZONING ............................................................................................ 7
Existing Uses and Built Character ...................................................................................... 7
Regulatory Context and City Initiatives ............................................................................. 8
Pipeline Projects ............................................................................................................... 9
Outdoor Space and Placemaking Opportunities ............................................................. 10
Key Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 11
2. HOUSING, GROWTH, AND DISPLACEMENT RISK ...................................................... 13
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 13
Existing Housing Characteristics ...................................................................................... 13
Residential Displacement Risk ........................................................................................ 14
Housing Need and Policy ................................................................................................ 16
Key Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 19
3. TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY .......................................................................... 20
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 20
Road Network ................................................................................................................. 20
Bicycle Network .............................................................................................................. 23
Pedestrian Network ........................................................................................................ 25
Transit Services ............................................................................................................... 26
Safety .............................................................................................................................. 26
Key Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 28
4. MARKET AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 30
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 30
Housing Market Conditions............................................................................................. 31
Retail Market Conditions and Trends .............................................................................. 32
Employment Profile and Trends ...................................................................................... 33
Key Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 34
5. HAZARDS, PUBLIC SAFETY, AND HISTORIC RESOURCES ........................................... 36
Hazards ........................................................................................................................... 36
Public Safety ................................................................................................................... 37
Historic Resources .......................................................................................................... 38
Key Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 38
6. PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND PUBLIC FACILITIES .......................................................... 39
Schools............................................................................................................................ 39
Parks and Recreational Facilities ..................................................................................... 40
Key Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 40
7. NOISE AND AIR QUALITY ......................................................................................... 41
Noise and Vibration ........................................................................................................ 41
Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 42
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 42
8. INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................................... 43
Storm Drain Infrastructure .............................................................................................. 43
Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure ......................................................................................... 44
Domestic and Recycled Water Infrastructure ................................................................. 44
Natural Gas and Electricity Infrastructure ....................................................................... 45
Key Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 45
9. CLIMATE AND RESILIENCE ....................................................................................... 46
Policies Regarding Climate Hazard Planning ................................................................... 46
Baseline Conditions and Projections ............................................................................... 46
Key Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 48
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Plan Area And Surrounding Context .................................................................. 2
Figure 2. Crash Severity In The Plan Area, 2015-2024 ...................................................... 3
Figure 3. Plan Area Zoning, Hip And Focus Area Boundaries ............................................ 4
Figure 4. Open Space Access In The Plan Area ................................................................. 5
Figure 1.1. Existing Uses, Built Form And Character Areas ............................................... 7
Figure 1.2. Zoning, Focus Areas And Hip Boundaries ....................................................... 8
Figure 1.3. Plan Area Pipeline Projects ............................................................................. 9
Figure 1.4. Open Space Access ....................................................................................... 10
Figure 1.5. Critical Areas Of Safety And Mobility Focus .................................................. 10
Figure 1.6. Development Opportunities ......................................................................... 12
Figure 2.1. Plan Area Census Block Groups .................................................................... 13
Figure 2.2. Household Income, 2019-2023 ..................................................................... 15
Figure 2.3. 5th And 6th Cycle Rhna Goals And Progress, 2025 ....................................... 17
Figure 3.1. Roadway Classification ................................................................................. 20
Figure 3.2. Pm Peak Hour Traffic Volumes By Intersection............................................. 21
Figure 3.3. Existing Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................... 23
Figure 3.4. Bicycle Level Of Traffic Stress ....................................................................... 24
Figure 3.5. Pedestrian Facilities ...................................................................................... 25
Figure 3.6. Crash Severity ............................................................................................... 27
Figure 4.1. Plan Area Census Block Groups .................................................................... 30
Figure 4.2. Household Types, 2019-2023 ....................................................................... 30
Figure 5.1. Fema Special Flood Hazard Area In The Plan Area ........................................ 36
Figure 6.1. School Districts In The Plan Area .................................................................. 39
Figure 8.1. 2015 Storm Drain Master Plan Priority Projects ........................................... 43
Figure 9.1. Slr Exposure Projections ............................................................................... 47
Figure 9.2. Existing And Projected Groundwater Depth ................................................. 47
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1.1. Plan Area Pipeline Projects .................................................................................... 9
Table 2.1. Housing Units by Building Type .............................................................................. 14
Table 2.2. Housing Element Units from Opportunity Sites .......................................................... 17
Table 3.1. Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Speed Surveys ...................................................... 22
Table 4.1. Permitted Housing Units by Building Type, 2018-2024 ................................................ 31
Table 4.2. Percent Change in Employment in Plan Area, 2012-2022. ............................................ 33
Table 9.1. Summary of Hazard Projections ............................................................................. 46
INTRODUCTION
This is a draft report summarizing the existing conditions within and around the boundaries of the San Antonio
Road Area Plan. Please note that some sections of this analysis are in progress as of the publication of this draft,
and analysis will continue as part of the Area Plan’s compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
About the Project
The San Antonio Road Area Plan (Area Plan) is a multi-year initiative by the City of Palo Alto to reimagine land use,
transportation, and community development for an area of 275 acres encompassing the roadway and private
properties on both sides of San Antonio Road, one of the City’s and region’s key transportation corridors. This
area, referred to in this document as the Plan Area, is located along the south-eastern edge of Palo Alto, adjacent
to its boundary with Mountain View, and covers most of the Bayshore Alma San Antonio (BASA) Priority
Development Area (PDA) boundary.
Initiated in March 2025, the Area Plan will have five phases and is anticipated to be completed by 2028. It will
build on recent City efforts including the 2023-2031 Housing Element, which established “Focus Areas” for the
Plan Area, the Housing Incentive Program (HIP), the 2025 Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan, and the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update (in progress). The Area Plan will include a land use program;
development standards; policies for transportation, housing, and environmental sustainability among other
topics; implementation recommendations; and financing strategies. Community input will be critical to shaping
the Area Plan outcomes. The project includes robust engagement including community workshops, pop-up
events, surveys, advisory groups, and public meetings. Key goals of the Area Plan include:
• Create a more livable community. Promote compact, mixed-use development with housing options at all
income levels, local businesses, and well-designed public spaces.
• Improve mobility and safety. Enhance streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and transit connections for easier and
safer travel and crossings, and improved access to the San Antonio Caltrain Station.
• Support sustainability. Integrate green infrastructure, reduce emissions, and ensure resilience to climate
change.
• Enhance economic vitality. Attract new businesses and strengthen Palo Alto’s economy while preserving
cherished local establishments and community character.
San Antonio Road is an important regional arterial connecting US-101 (Bayshore Freeway) in the east to Alma
Street/Central Expressway in the west, and beyond to El Camino Real and Foothill Expressway. It serves as an
important truck route and facilitates access to key employment centers. Within the Plan Area, major crossings
along San Antonio Road include US-101, East Charleston Road, Middlefield Road, and Alma Street/Central
Expressway. The San Antonio Station of the Caltrain commuter rail line is located near the south-western corner
of the Plan Area. Adjacent to the Plan Area are residential neighborhoods in Palo Alto and Mountain View.
At present, the Plan Area has a mix of industrial, office, service commercial, and residential uses, with some
properties transforming from commercial or industrial uses to residential and mixed use. There are only a few
retail stores and no parks or other community spaces. While there are several community amenities in the
vicinity, including parks, schools, grocery stores, and institutions (refer Figure 1); access to these destinations is
difficult at present because of inadequate pedestrian and bicycle safety and connectivity. Substantial placemaking
efforts, including urban design, public realm, and safety improvements such as Complete Streets, are required to
provide safer, more convenient transportation options. These improvements can enhance the attractiveness of
the Plan Area for current and future residents, and help meet the City’s housing, sustainability, and mobility goals.
Figure 1. Plan Area and Surrounding Context
How This Document Is Organized
This Summary Report presents key findings from analysis carried out by the project team to assess existing
conditions within the Plan Area. Serving as an introduction to the project, it offers a concise overview of current
conditions and key findings, organized by topic. For the purposes of this document, true cardinal directions are
not used, but rather descriptors consistent with northbound/southbound as used for Highway 101: San Francisco
is north, San Jose is south, and the San Francisco Bay is east.
Source: Raimi + Associates, Google Earth
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Location and Context
San Antonio Road is an important transportation corridor for Palo Alto and the surrounding region. The Area Plan
includes approximately 275 acres on either side of a 1.8-mile segment of San Antonio Road. Located along the
boundary of Palo Alto and Mountain View, the Plan Area is influenced by development trends and movement
patterns in both cities. Connections to US-101 (Bayshore Freeway), Alma Street/Central Expressway, and
proximity to the San Antonio Caltrain station influence the area as well.
Existing Uses and Character
The Plan Area has a diverse mix of industrial, office,
service commercial, and residential uses; and some
properties are starting to transform from
commercial or industrial uses to mixed-use. At
present, the built character varies across the Plan
Area, and the land use pattern is fragmented. The
Plan Area itself lacks community spaces such as
parks, and has only a few retail establishments, but
in its vicinity, there are a number of community
destinations such as parks, schools, grocery stores,
institutions, and other uses. Connectivity to these
amenities is, however, limited at present because of
inadequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Substantial placemaking efforts, including urban
design, public realm, and safety improvements such
as Complete Streets, are required to provide safer,
more convenient transportation options. These
improvements can help meet the City’s housing,
mobility, and sustainability goals, and enhance the
accessibility and usability of the Plan Area for
current and future residents.
Mobility
The current condition of San Antonio Road
prioritizes vehicles and is less accommodating for
pedestrians and cyclists. Limited bicycle
infrastructure, known gaps in the pedestrian
network, such as the absence of continuous
sidewalks and unprotected crossings, as well as the
lack of shade, restrict bicycle and pedestrian travel
to major neighborhood destinations. Transit is
Figure 2. Crash Severity in the Plan Area, 2015-2024Source: Raimi + Associates, City of Palo
l
available within the Plan Area; however, bus service is limited and there is poor connectivity to the San Antonio
Caltrain Station, despite its proximity. Comprehensive improvements to ensure multimodal connectivity and
safety may be necessary to provide sustainable travel options for Plan Area residents, workers, and visitors as its
population increases. These improvements will be designed to reduce traffic congestion as mixed-use
development increases.
Safety is one of the key issues that need to be addressed in the Plan Area. Vehicle speeds along San Antonio Road
often exceed posted limits, associated with a significant share of collisions. Figure 2 shows key locations and
severity of collisions within the Plan Area. Investments in street, bicycle, and sidewalk infrastructure will improve
safety and strengthen connections both within the Plan Area, to San Antonio Caltrain Station, and to other
destinations in Palo Alto and Mountain View.
Housing Market Conditions
Although few housing projects have been built in the
Plan Area since the 1990s, it has attracted
development interest in recent years, and several
pipeline projects could yield up to 750 housing units
if completed as proposed. This would be a significant
increase over the 802 residential units that currently
exist in the Plan Area. There is strong demand for
housing in Palo Alto, and the Plan Area may attract
mid-rise multifamily projects, which align with the
City’s regulatory and policy priorities for higher-
density development. As the area evolves,
development standards will be needed to guide
compatibility between adjacent uses, and transitions
in built form and scale. Because all pipeline projects
are located on privately owned land, they remain
subject to market volatility and other development
uncertainties. Successful implementation may
depend on targeted incentives that encourage the
provision of community amenities as part of private
development.
Housing Initiatives
The City of Palo Alto’s 2023–2031 Housing Element
identifies 53 opportunity sites in the Plan Area,
representing 1,559 new housing units, and
designated the GM- and ROLM-zoned districts as
Focus Areas to stimulate housing production. In
addition, the City’s Housing Incentive Program (HIP) applies to a portion of the Plan Area, as shown in Figure 3.
Together, these initiatives have already expanded development capacity along San Antonio Road. Given strong
demand for housing in Palo Alto, and the available housing development opportunities within the Plan Area, the
area is well-positioned to capture demand for additional housing units associated with projected household and
employment growth.
Figure 3. Plan Area Zoning, HIP and Focus Area
Source: Raimi + Associates, City of Palo
Housing Affordability
The Plan Area currently contains about 250 deed-restricted affordable housing units across four properties, as
well as a small number of “naturally affordable” rental housing units (that have lower rents than City averages but
are not deed-restricted). While homeowners and residents of deed-restricted units face lower displacement risk,
renters in market-rate units may be more vulnerable to displacement as the Plan Area redevelops. With many
sites identified for future housing, the Plan Area is well positioned to support lower-income households through
inclusionary requirements, affordable housing fees, and, when funding is available, new or preserved deed-
restricted affordable housing projects. The addition of housing in the Plan Area that is affordable at a range of
income levels can help meet the needs of current and future residents and workers in Palo Alto.
Existing Employment and
Businesses
According to U.S. Census data, as of 2022, the Plan
Area accounted for about four percent of the City’s
total jobs, but nearly 40 percent of its jobs in the
Manufacturing sector. Small office and light
industrial spaces, particularly near Commercial
Street and Industrial Avenue, provide flexible,
relatively affordable options for local businesses. As
these spaces redevelop for housing or higher-
intensity employment uses, existing small-scale
businesses may be at risk of displacement, especially
given the limited supply of comparable spaces
elsewhere in Palo Alto.
Community Amenities
The Plan Area includes some religious institutions
and community spaces, including the Oshman
Family Jewish Community Center, and is adjacent to
the Cubberley Community Center and Baylands
Nature Preserve. However, the Plan Area itself has
no parks or open spaces and is limited in retail nodes
or other “third places” for community gathering. As
the Plan Area adds more residents, such spaces will
need to be included. A portion of the Plan Area is
also “park deficient” by being more than a 10-
minute walk away from an open space nearby, as
shown in Figure 4.
While there are limited retail uses within the Plan Area at present, there are a few valued local businesses. Retail
offerings in the vicinity, including on El Camino Real and Mountain View’s San Antonio Center, can meet many
day-to-day shopping needs. As the Plan Area redevelops, it is more likely to serve as a secondary retail location
Figure 4. Open Space Access in the Plan Area
Source: Raimi + Associates, City of Palo Alto GIS
that is better suited to neighborhood-serving restaurants, coffee shops, drugstores, and personal services. Retail
demand is projected to grow gradually and may require a larger resident base before supporting significant new
retail amenities, such as a new grocery store. The Area Plan will need to incorporate a vision and policies to
encourage concentration of future retail at key locations with high visibility and access, such as the intersections
of San Antonio Road with Middlefield Road and East Charleston Road.
Climate Resilience and Environmental Hazards
The Plan Area has some susceptibility to environmental challenges, including flooding, sea-level rise, urban heat
events, and ground liquefication from seismic events. The portion of the Plan Area east of East Charleston Road is
subject to a one percent annual chance flood and sea-level rise, while the rest of it faces a 0.2 percent annual
chance of flooding. New development will need to meet base flood elevation standards and incorporate resilience
measures. Air quality is another concern, particularly near US-101 and during regional wildfire events.
Potential Impacts on Services from Population Growth
Growth will place additional demands on public services and infrastructure. Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
may require more staff, new equipment, and fire station upgrades. Overall school enrollment is down across all
three school districts that service the Plan Area (Palo Alto Unified School District, Mountain View-Whisman School
District, and Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District), indicating their capacity to absorb new
students. The City owns and provides stormwater, wastewater, domestic water, recycled water, natural gas, and
electrical utilities. Additional development could require upgrades to all these utilities, including installation of
larger water mains to produce necessary fire flow and service levels.
I. LAND USE AND ZONING
Existing Uses and Built Character
The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan assigns a mix of residential and non-residential land use designations
to the Plan Area. The San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor is an important employment center and has a variety
of light industrial, research, and office
uses. Within the Plan Area, these uses are
concentrated mainly east of East
Charleston Road, transitioning to a mix of
commercial and residential uses west of
East Charleston, with some research and
office uses west of Middlefield Road.
Residential units within the Plan Area are
primarily low-rise multifamily buildings.
Existing building heights in the Plan Area
are predominantly one to two stories,
with a few buildings exceeding four
stories, such as those in the Taube Koret
Campus, and two hotels along San
Antonio Road. Floor Area Ratios (FARs)
range from 0.5 to 1.0, with a few buildings
such as the AC Hotel reaching a higher
FAR of 2.8. A built form analysis of the
Plan Area identified distinct character
areas, each with a unique mix of uses and
built form characteristics, as shown in
Figure 1.1. Across the Plan Area, parcel
sizes, building types, and development
patterns vary considerably, with little
consistency in setbacks, building
orientation, or scale transitions. By
contrast, the character areas are more
cohesive, with similar parcel sizes,
building scale and land uses.
Several developments along San Antonio
Road, such as the Greenhouse
Community, were designed to be inward
facing, with limited interaction between
building edges and adjacent streets or
sidewalks. Such inactive frontages
discourage pedestrian activity and
placemaking and may need to be
addressed as part of future development.
Figure 1.1. Existing Uses, Built Form and Character Areas
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Raimi and Associates, 2025.
Regulatory Context and City Initiatives
Zoning districts within the Plan Area, as shown in Figure 1.2, allow a mix of residential, commercial, office, and
light industrial uses. Development standards regulate the scale and form of buildings in each district. Most zoning
districts in the Plan Area allow multifamily housing at various densities. The Plan Area also has a few Planned
Communities with site-specific development standards.
Recent regulatory changes have
focused on encouraging more housing
City-wide, and the Plan Area in
particular. The City’s 2023-2031
Housing Element identified 53 housing
opportunity sites within the Plan Area,
with a combined capacity for 1,559 new
housing units at various income levels.
It also designated the GM and ROLM
zoning districts —areas that allow
manufacturing, office, and research
uses—within and adjoining the Plan
Area as “Focus Areas”, allowing
housing. The City’s Housing Incentive
Program (HIP) that applies to a section
of the Plan Area east of Middlefield
Road, was also expanded to include the
GM and ROLM Focus Areas, as well as
multifamily residential zoning districts
(RM-20, RM-30, and RM-40). In
addition, Program 6.6C of the 2023-
2031 Housing Element directs the City
to prepare a plan for the San Antonio
Road corridor, including the GM and
ROLM Focus Areas.
These initiatives aim to promote
multifamily housing through
development incentives such as
increased density, higher Floor Area
Ratios (FARs), and reduced parking
requirements.
In addition, a 24-foot Special Setback
applies to portions of Charleston Road,
Middlefield Road, and San Antonio
Road. Originally designated for future
road widening, this setback presents an
opportunity for public realm
improvements as part of future
development.
1.2. Zoning, Focus Areas and HIP Boundaries
Source: Raimi + Associates, City of Palo Alto GIS
Pipeline Projects
The Plan Area has attracted recent
development activity and there are
several projects at various stages of
proposal review and entitlement.
These include mid-rise residential and
mixed-use projects located along San
Antonio Road between East Charleston
Road and Middlefield Road (in the HIP
district), and along Fabian Way.
Figure 1.3 shows the large number of
2023-2031 Housing Element sites in
the Plan Area, along with key projects
currently in the development pipeline
(also listed in Table 1.1). In total, these
could yield more than 750 housing
units should all the development occur
as proposed. To be feasible in Palo
Alto’s housing market, future
development is anticipated to be larger
and taller than what exists currently; as
indicated by recent development
proposals that typically feature five- to
seven-story residential and mixed-use
buildings with FARs of 3.0 or more, and
parking ratios of fewer than two
parking spaces per unit.
Pipeline Project Lot Area Density, No. of Units FAR, Height Pkg Ratio Commercial Status
1. 3950 Fabian Way 1.51 ac None (school project) 0.5, 2 stories 0.12 None (school) Entitled
2. 3997 Fabian way 2.16 ac 135 du/ac, 295 units 3.19, 7 stories 1 to 1.5 None Pending approval
3. 824 San Antonio Rd. 0.45 ac 56 du/ac, 28 units 1.99, 4 stories 0.57 2,948 sf Entitled
4. 800,808 San Antonio Rd. 0.88 ac 85 du/ac, 75 units 3.0, 5 stories 1.97 None Entitled
5. 788 San Antonio Rd. 0.99 ac 169 du/ac, 168 units 3.31, 8 stories 0.43 None Building Permits
Issued
6. 762 San Antonio Rd. 1.78 ac 112 du/ac, 197 units 3.33, 7 stories 1.24 None Pending approval
Figure 1.3. Plan Area Pipeline Projects
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Raimi and Associates
Table 1.1. Plan Area Pipeline Projects
Source: City of Palo Alto
Outdoor Space and Placemaking Opportunities
Palo Alto has approximately 4,000 acres of open space (outdoor space), including the Baylands Nature Preserve,
larger regional parks such as Mitchell Park (21 acres), smaller neighborhood parks such as Ramos Park (4 acres),
community gardens, and other types of parks and recreation amenities. However, the Plan Area itself has no
parks or other spaces for recreation or community gathering within it. Figure 1.4 shows parks and open spaces in
the vicinity of the Plan Area, and pedestrian “walksheds” around each for 5-minute (approximately ¼ mile) and
10-minute (approximately ½ mile) walk distances. While most parts are within a 10-minute walkshed to
neighboring parks, a significant portion is “park deficient” with inadequate access, meaning no parks are located
within a 10-minute walking distance. Creating new open spaces, such as parks, as part of future development will
be a key focus of the Area Plan. Placemaking and public realm improvements will also be important not only to
improve safety and connectivity, but also to create distinct character districts along San Antonio Road that relate
to the existing uses and functions of each segment. Figure 1.5 highlights potential focus areas for urban design
improvements, as well as key streets and intersections where multimodal safety and connectivity improvements
will be most critical.
Figure 1.4. Outdoor Space Access . Critical Areas of Safety and Mobility Focus
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Raimi and Associates Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Raimi and Associates
Key Findings and Conclusions
Key findings from the existing conditions analysis are summarized below.
DESIGN OPPORTUNITIES
• Location and Access. San Antonio Road is an important transportation corridor for Palo Alto and the
surrounding region. The Plan Area has good auto access from US-101, and being located adjacent to the San
Antonio Caltrain station offers the potential for enhanced transit connectivity if pedestrian and bicycle
access to the station is improved. Located along the boundary between Palo Alto and Mountain View, the
Plan Area is influenced by development trends and movement patterns in both cities and benefits from
employment opportunities, as well as access to community and open space amenities, in both cities.
• Existing Uses and Built Character. The Plan Area has a diverse mix of industrial, office, service commercial,
and residential uses. While land use and built form patterns are currently fragmented, and San Antonio Road
functions primarily as a circulation corridor; the Plan Area has distinct “character areas” with the potential to
evolve into mixed-use neighborhoods. Several properties in the Plan Area are already transitioning from
commercial and industrial uses to residential and mixed-use development.
• Development Trends. The Plan Area has attracted development interest in recent years and has several
proposed projects in the pipeline that could produce more than 750 housing units, should all these projects
be built as proposed.
• Housing Initiatives. The City of Palo Alto’s 2023-2031 Housing Element identified 53 opportunity sites in the
Plan Area, designated the GM- and ROLM-zoned districts within the Plan Area as Focus Areas, and directed
the City through Program 6.6C to develop a plan for this area to stimulate housing production. Additionally,
the City’s Housing Incentive Program (HIP) applies to a portion of the Plan Area. These housing-focused
initiatives substantially increase the development capacity along San Antonio Road.
SITE CHALLENGES
• Inconsistent Character. Inconsistent land uses and built character in the Plan Area that exist currently are
not supportive of the Plan Area’s envisioned transition to a mixed-use area with additional housing.
Substantial placemaking efforts, along with urban design and public realm improvements, may be needed to
support future development and population growth.
• Inadequate Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Facilities. The current condition of streets and sidewalks is not
friendly or accommodating for pedestrians and bicyclists, and transit connectivity is inadequate.
Comprehensive improvements are needed to ensure multimodal connectivity and safety to serve future
residents, workers and visitors, and to meet the City’s mobility, sustainability, and housing goals.
• Limited Community Amenities. The Plan Area itself has no parks, open spaces, or other “third places” for
community gathering. A portion of the Plan Area is also “park deficient” by being more than a 10-minute
walk (half a mile) from nearby open spaces. Additionally, the Plan Area has no defined retail nodes or similar
community destinations. Creating such “third places” may be considered as part of the Area Plan.
• Compatibility in Built Form and Uses. As the area transforms over time, incompatibility between adjacent
land uses, as well as building height and massing transitions, must be addressed through updated
development standards.
• Market Conditions. All pipeline projects are located on privately-owned properties and subject to housing
market volatility and other development uncertainties. Successful implementation will require development
incentives to encourage the provision of community amenities in private development projects.
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
The Plan Area’s characteristics and anticipated projects indicate a valuable opportunity to guide large-scale
development in targeted locations within the Plan Area. Future development can be leveraged to create mixed-
use neighborhoods with safe and convenient access to transportation, employment, community services, and
recreation. To achieve this, placemaking
will be an important design tool, and will
likely include a combination of
streetscape improvements to promote
safety and walkability, as well as design
enhancements to create a distinct
identity for this neighborhood with a
strong sense of place. Figure 1.6 maps
key development opportunities within
the Plan Area by identifying areas with
the highest probability of transformation
— the potential “opportunity areas”
with projects that are in the
development pipeline, Housing Element
opportunity sites, and areas eligible for
the Housing Incentive Program (HIP).
An example of a potential opportunity
area is the E Charleston Commercial/
Industrial character area (area around
Commercial Street and Industrial
Avenue), which has good visibility and
auto access from East Charleston and
San Antonio Roads, and includes several
small-scale office and light industrial
uses. It also has a large concentration of
Housing Element sites within it, signaling
an increase in population in the coming
years. However, this area is also “park
deficient.” These characteristics suggest
potential priorities to consider as part of
future development: the need for
connectivity improvements, measures
to prevent displacement of
neighborhood-serving uses, and an
opportunity to create a new open
space, potentially coupled with
neighborhood-serving retail and
amenities.
Figure 1.6. Development Opportunities
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Raimi and Associates
2. HOUSING, GROWTH, AND DISPLACEMENT
RISK
Introduction
This section looks at current housing characteristics, potential
residential displacement risks, and relevant City housing
policies impacting the Area Plan. The findings of these analyses
will help inform the City of Palo Alto’s efforts to increase
affordable and market-rate housing production in the Plan
Area, preserve existing affordable housing (including both
deed-restricted affordable housing as well as market-rate
housing that is not deed-restricted yet relatively affordable),
and protect households vulnerable to displacement.
Data and findings in this section describe conditions within the
“Plan Area Census Block Groups,” a set of Census block groups
with existing housing that encompass the Plan Area, as shown
in Figure 2.1. Since detailed U.S. Census data is only available
for specific predetermined geographies, the selected block
groups best cover the Plan Area while providing sufficient
information for analysis. The analyses only cover the most
recent available Census data since the block group boundaries
differ from previous years.
Existing Housing Characteristics
The Plan Area has approximately 750 existing housing units, most of which are located on San Antonio Road west
of East Charleston Road. This number represents approximately three percent of the City’s total housing stock.
These include two large concentrations of housing—Greenhouse Community (228 units) and Palo Alto Gardens
(156 units)—that together make up just under half of the Plan Area’s existing housing. Three condominium
communities, each with between 30 and 50 housing units, and a cluster of small apartment buildings (totaling
approximately 40 units) on Byron Street are also located on or just off San Antonio Road. Housing along Alma
Street contributes approximately 100 units to the Plan Area’s total, mostly as attached single-family housing units
(as defined by the U.S. Census, whose classifications of housing types may differ from other sources such as the
California Building Code and Palo Alto Municipal Code).
HOUSING TYPES
The Plan Area’s housing mix includes a significantly higher share of multifamily and attached single-family housing
than in Palo Alto overall. These attached housing products provide housing comparably more affordable than
detached single-family homes. As shown in Table 2.1, 39 percent of the Plan Area’s housing units are attached
single-family homes (such as townhomes), compared to six percent Citywide. Small multifamily buildings with
fewer than 20 housing units account for 54 percent of all housing in the Plan Area, compared to 16 percent
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Strategic Economics, 2025.
Figure 1.1. Plan Area Census Block Groups
Citywide. The majority of housing in the Plan Area consists of two- to three-story buildings dating to the 1970s, as
most of the Plan Area was built-out from the 1950s through the 1980s. With two exceptions, the development of
new housing projects largely ceased in the Plan Area after 1990. Based on recent zoning changes and recent
patterns of redevelopment of industrial and commercial uses, the Plan Area is now positioned to accommodate
significant new mid-rise housing development.
Table 2.1. Housing Units by Building Type
Plan Area Palo Alto Mountain View
Single-Family (Detached) 4 0% 16,298 56% 10,516 27%
Single-Family (Attached) 312 39% 1,671 6% 5,378 14%
Multiple Units (2 Units) 0 0% 330 1% 694 2%
Multiple Units (2-19 Units) 430 54% 4,794 16% 8,607 22%
Multiple Units (20+ Units) 56 7% 5,911 20% 12,340 32%
Mobile Home 0 0% 100 0% 1,235 3%
Total
(% may not sum due to rounding) 802 100% 29,104 100% 38,770 100%
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Plan Area has 252 deed-restricted affordable housing units that constitute over 30 percent of the Plan Area’s
existing housing and equate to 15 percent of Palo Alto’s total deed-restricted affordable housing inventory. Of the
Plan Area’s 252 affordable units, 80 consist of senior housing for residents 65 and older.
Residential Displacement Risk
Maintaining household income diversity and affordability in the Plan Area requires not only strategies to produce
and preserve affordable housing, but also to protect lower-income residents from potential displacement risks.
Variables such as household tenure, income, and education help determine households’ displacement risk. The
U.S. Census data representing the “Plan Area Census Block Groups” (Figure 2.1) was used for this analysis, and the
conclusions drawn from the data were compared to findings from the Urban Displacement Project, a research
project affiliated with the University of California at Berkeley, which models displacement risk at the Census tract
level.
HOUSING TENURE
The Plan Area Census Block Groups include 766 renter-occupied housing units, 364 of which were built before
1960 and may be relatively affordable due to their age. Renter households do not constitute a relatively high
share of occupied housing units in the Plan Area Census Block Groups, at 42.6 percent of occupied housing units,
compared to 45.8 percent Citywide. However, the Plan Area’s more than 350 households occupy older rental
housing units that may be relatively more affordable. Unlike ownership housing with fixed-rate mortgages and
limited allowable property tax increases, renter households in Palo Alto are vulnerable to significant rent
increases. Palo Alto lacks a rent control program, although some limits under the State’s California Tenant
Protection Act apply to all cities which lack local rent control regulations. The Act limits annual rent increases for
Source: U.S. Census, Strategic Economics, 2025.
most rental housing units to five percent plus the change in the regional Consumer Price Index, or 10 percent
total (whichever is lower).
HOUSING COST BURDEN
Cost-burdened households (those paying more than 30 percent of total household income toward housing
expenses) are especially concentrated among lower-income renter households in Palo Alto. Although
corresponding data is not available for the Plan Area, the 2023-2031 Housing Element indicated that 17 percent
of the City’s renters and 15 percent of its homeowners were defined as cost-burdened as of 2018, and renters
were more likely to experience cost burdens compared to homeowners. Nearly 65 percent of Palo Alto’s
extremely low-income renter households were cost-burdened, with 42 percent paying more than half their
income toward housing expenses. As shown in Figure 2.2, nearly 30 percent of households living in the Plan Area
Census Block Groups earn household incomes of less than $100,000 per year and 13 percent of households earn
less than $50,000 per year. Although some of these households may be served by existing deed-restricted
affordable housing in the Plan Area, there are only 250 deed-restricted units in the Plan Area and approximately
525 households earning less than $100,000 in the Block Groups. For reference, a single-person household earning
$111,700 qualifies as low-income based on Santa Clara County’s area median income limits used for affordable
housing development.
Figure 2.2. Household Income, 2019-2023
HOUSEHOLD INCOME TRENDS
Median household income in the Plan Area Census Block Groups is $200,001, which is lower than that for Palo
Alto as a whole ($220,408) but higher than that for Mountain View ($179,917). Between 2011 and 2021, median
household incomes rose at a faster rate in Palo Alto (81 percent) and Mountain View (85 percent) than the
regional increase of 74 percent for Santa Clara County and 77 percent for San Mateo County. Increasing
household incomes in Palo Alto are driven by growth of very high-income households and declines in lower- and
middle-income households—leading to increased displacement risk as lower-income households compete for
housing with higher-income households. The number of these high-income households grew by 33 percent from
2000 to 2022 during a period when total households only grew by three percent. At the same time, households
earning $60,000 to $100,000 declined by 66 percent, the largest loss among income groups.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Plan Area
(Block
Groups)
Palo Alto Mountain
View
Santa
Clara
County
San Mateo
County
More than $200,000
$100,000-$199,999
$50,000 - $99,999
Less than $50,000
Source: U.S. Census, Strategic Economics, 2025.
URBAN DISPLACEMENT PROJECT ANALYSIS
The Urban Displacement Project is a research lab and collaborative of four universities—including the University
of California at Berkeley—that estimates displacement risk at the Census tract level. The Urban Displacement
Project did not identify displacement risk for very low-income and low-income residents for any of the Census
tracts in the Plan Area. However, this analysis does not address past exclusion, which is a form of displacement
that impacts low-income renters’ ability to afford to live in a community. High housing costs, high household
incomes, and high levels of educational attainment in Palo Alto make it especially difficult for lower-income
households to afford market-rate rents and sales prices. The U.S. Census data that informs the Urban
Displacement Project is also focused on housed residents and therefore does not account for unhoused residents
in the Plan Area subject to displacement if, for example, regulatory changes force people living in vehicles to
relocate. Furthermore, regardless of aggregated data findings, the risk of displacement can remain a concern at
the level of the individual resident or household.
NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) refers to unsubsidized market-rate (and often rental) housing that
is especially affordable to lower-income residents based on 30 percent of their annual household incomes. The
relatively lower rents found in NOAH units are usually related to building age, condition, or location. NOAH
properties are a means for lower-income residents to be able to live in otherwise unaffordable communities.
Although the Plan Area’s overall diversity of housing types provides relative affordability compared to single-
family homes, few unsubsidized properties affordable to lower-income residents exist in the Plan Area overall.
However, approximately 40 units of multifamily rental housing on Byron Street potentially represent NOAH
properties. The Plan Area also includes two examples of preservation of long-term affordability: Ferne
Apartments, built in 1963, was converted into deed-restricted affordable housing in 1981 and is currently
managed by the nonprofit Alta Housing. MidPen Housing acquired Palo Alto Gardens in 1999 after residents
organized to protect the property from significant rent increases as market-rate property.
Housing Need and Policy
RHNA PROGRESS
The City of Palo Alto’s housing production goals are identified through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA), a State-wide process which breaks down housing production goals into income categories for eight-year
cycles. The City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element plans for the production of 6,086 housing units between 2023 and
2031. The distribution of units across income groups reflects adopted City policy regarding Palo Alto’s overall
housing needs during the current RHNA cycle. Palo Alto succeeded in meeting its previous RHNA cycle’s
production goal in the above moderate-income category but fell short of production goals for all other lower-
income groups. During the fifth RHNA cycle covering 2015 to 2023, the estimated need was highest for housing
affordable to very low-income households. However, only 100 units meeting these affordability needs were
proposed and approved, permitted, or built. Similarly, low- and moderate-income housing production fell short of
the fifth cycle RHNA goals. Palo Alto’s current RHNA goals consist primarily of housing affordable to above
moderate-income households and very low-income households.
The likely housing need by affordability level based on the mix of jobs and occupations found in Palo Alto closely
aligns with current RHNA goals—reinforcing the need to produce housing that is affordable at a variety of income
levels. The Plan Area also includes a significant share of jobs paying wages that would likely require deed-
restricted affordable housing for the worker household to reside in Palo Alto. For example, within the Plan Area
itself, U.S. Census data from the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data set indicates that
approximately 16 percent of “primary” jobs (i.e., the highest-paying job held by a worker) in 2022 paid less than
$40,000 annually.
Figure 2.3. 5th and 6th Cycle RHNA Goals and Progress, 2025
ROLE OF PLAN AREA IN MEETING HOUSING GOALS
The Plan Area was allocated 25 percent of the Citywide Opportunity Sites inventory capacity in the current RHNA
cycle, while the area currently includes just 2.8 percent of Citywide housing units. Table 2.2 shows the 2023-2031
Housing Element sites inventory by income category. The Opportunity Sites inventory anticipates further housing
production through redevelopment of existing older commercial and light industrial buildings, and most
designated sites are concentrated east of Middlefield Road and west of US-101. No sites are located west of
Middlefield Road, where many of the Plan Area’s existing housing units are located.
Table 2.2. Housing Element Units from Opportunity Sites
Lower-Income
(0-80% AMI)
Moderate-Income
(80-120% AMI)
Above Moderate-Income
(120%+ AMI) All Units
Plan Area 614 25% 332 33% 613 23% 1,559 26%
Other 1,838 75% 681 67% 2,008 77% 4,527 74%
Total 2,452 100% 1,013 100% 2,621 100% 6,086 100%
Source: U.S. Census, Strategic Economics, 2025.
Source: U.S. Census, Strategic Economics, 2025.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PLAN AREA
The City of Palo Alto has existing tools and policies for affordable housing production, the preservation of
affordable housing, and protection of tenants. Tools focused on affordable housing production are most relevant
to the Plan Area, given the number of sites identified as future Housing Opportunity Sites. The following are most
relevant to the Plan Area:
• The City of Palo Alto’s Housing Incentive Program (HIP) provides incentives for housing development in the
Plan Area that are coupled with contributions to affordable housing production.
• The City also ensures that the overall supply of housing in the Plan Area will be sustained through its “no net
loss” policy in which future redevelopment of existing housing stock must include at least as many units as
are proposed for demolition.
• Other requirements linking affordable housing production or revenue contributions to new development
will be especially relevant for ensuring the Plan Area remains a mixed-income community.
• The City must consider the tradeoffs between immediately delivering affordable housing units in the Plan
Area via an emphasis on inclusionary requirements (currently in place for ownership housing developments
and via the HIP) versus providing fee resources (including via current impact fees applied to rental housing
developments) for City contributions to more deeply affordable 100 percent affordable projects.
• The Plan Area presents opportunities to leverage the City’s existing affordable housing resources to support
the development of 100 percent affordable housing projects if the City can acquire sites or partner with
developers seeking master plan development agreements for large properties.
• The Plan Area’s ability to compete for outside affordable housing funding varies by location. The California
Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
define the Plan Area as representing “highest resource” and “high resource” areas. This designation
improves the Plan Area’s ability to score and compete for critical funding sources such as Low-Income
Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and other State resources. However, most large, underutilized sites best
positioned for cost-efficient housing development in the Plan Area are located outside the half-mile radius
of robust transit access at the Caltrain station, which reduces the area’s ability to compete for funding
sources tied to transit and reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
• The City’s support for the Homekey Palo Alto project (at 1237 North San Antonio Road), currently under
construction, helps achieve the City’s homelessness services and alternative housing program goals. The
project is an example of leveraging City funds to provide diverse housing options in the Plan Area.
Key Findings and Conclusions
The findings of these analyses will help inform the City of Palo Alto’s efforts to increase affordable and market-
rate housing production in the Plan Area, preserve existing affordable housing, and protect households vulnerable
to displacement. Key conclusions are summarized below.
• Few new housing projects have been built in the Plan Area since the 1980s. Housing in the Plan Area largely
consists of two- to three-story condominium and rental multifamily buildings built from the 1950s through
the 1980s, except for assisted living housing built at the Taube Koret Campus in 2010 and affordable housing
units at the Alta Torre senior affordable housing project. The Plan Area’s 802 housing units constitute
approximately 2.8 percent of Palo Alto’s 29,104 units.
• The Plan Area’s existing housing helps in meeting Palo Alto’s affordable housing needs, with approximately
250 deed-restricted affordable housing units at four properties.
• A limited quantity of relatively affordable market-rate rental housing—known as “naturally-occurring
affordable housing,” or “NOAH”—exists within the Plan Area at properties along Byron Street. NOAH units
can potentially represent future opportunities for conversion to deed-restricted affordable housing as part
of a strategy to preserve existing relatively affordable housing. An example of this occurred in the Plan Area
at Palo Alto Gardens in 1999.
• Although modeling by the UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project does not indicate a significant risk of
displacement for low-income renter households in and near the Plan Area, City tenant protection policies
can play a role in supporting the nearly 40 percent of households that are renters in and near the Plan Area.
• The addition of housing in the Plan Area that is affordable to households with diverse income levels can help
meet the needs of workers at jobs in Palo Alto and the Plan Area itself. Wages associated with the industry
sector mix of jobs in Palo Alto suggest that 35 percent of worker households may qualify as low- or very low-
income and would benefit from deed-restricted affordable housing in the City. This share is similar to the
assigned RHNA targets the City is seeking to achieve as part of its current Housing Element of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan.
• Within the Plan Area, U.S. Census data indicates that approximately 16 percent of “primary” jobs (i.e., the
highest-paying job held by a worker) in 2022 paid less than $40,000 annually.
• Given the number and magnitude of sites identified as future Housing Opportunity Sites within it, the Plan
Area is especially well-positioned to expand its role in meeting the housing needs of lower-income
households. This can be achieved through application of inclusionary housing policies and affordable
housing fee payments in conjunction with future housing development, and through production of deed-
restricted 100 percent affordable housing developments.
3. TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY
Introduction
The transportation network studied for the Plan Area consists of roadways, pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities,
and transit facilities, as well as the suggested walk and roll routes from the City’s Safe Routes to School Program.
Road Network
Roads within the Plan Area and its
vicinity can be categorized into three
classifications: arterial, collector, and
local, shown in Figure 3.1. Posted speed
limits within the Plan Area range from
25 to 45 miles per hour (mph). The Plan
Area includes a network of designated
truck routes including US-101
(Bayshore Freeway), San Antonio Road,
Alma Street, Fabian Way, and East and
West Bayshore Roads. San Antonio
Road is classified as a critical east-west
arterial and truck route providing
access to key employment centers, and
has a speed limit of 35 mph. There are
six signalized intersections within the
Plan Area, and major crossings include
Alma Street, Middlefield Road, East
Charleston Road, and US-101. From
Alma Street to East Charleston Road,
the roadway features a divided four-
lane cross-section, that transitions to a
three-lane undivided cross-section east
of East Charleston Road, and narrows
to a two-lane cross-section as it
approaches and crosses US-101.
TRAFFIC COUNTS
Vehicle, truck, bicyclist, and pedestrian
counts were collected at 25
intersections for the weekday AM
(7:00–10:00 AM) and PM (4:00–7:00
PM) peak periods. The data was
collected on three separate weekdays:
Thursday May 15, Wednesday May 21,
Figure 3.1. Roadway Classification
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Kittelson and Associates, 2025.
and Tuesday May 27, 2025. It is worth noting that one of the count days (May 15, 2026) coincided with Bike-to-
Work Day, which may have influenced bicyclist volumes. For each intersection, the peak hour was determined
based on the highest observed total vehicle volume within the respective time window. PM peak hour volumes
were higher at each intersection. Figure 3.2 summarizes PM peak hour volumes at each intersection.
Figure 3.2. PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes by Intersection
Source: Kittelson and Associates, 2025.
TRAFFIC SPEEDS
Table 3.1 shows Average Daily Traffic (ADT) data collected over a 72-hour period along San Antonio Road
between Alma Street and Casey Avenue, including vehicle speeds and volumes. The highest observed 85th
percentile speed was on the segment between East Charleston Road and US-101, indicating an increase as
vehicles approach the highway. The lowest speeds are recorded on the segment between Bayshore Road and
Casey Avenue, aligned with the change in cross-section to two undivided lanes in this segment. A notable
percentage of high-speed vehicles was observed along San Antonio Road. On the segment between East
Charleston Road and US-101, around one-third of vehicles exceed 40 mph where the posted speed limit is 35
mph. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes remain within a similar range along Alma Street to US-101, with
eastbound volumes ranging from 10,410 to 11,916 and generally higher westbound volumes between 11,559 and
17,593.
Table 3.1. Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Speed Surveys
Roadway Segment Vehicles > 40mph (%) ADT
Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound
Charleston Road and US-101
Road and East Charleston Road
and Middlefield Road
Road and Casey Avenue
Source: Kittelson and Associates, 2025.
Bicycle Network
The City of Palo Alto has developed a
robust bike network with a mix of
bicycle boulevards, bike lanes,
separated bikeways, and trails; but
the Plan Area lacks a fully connected
bicycle network.
There are currently no continuous
bicycle facilities on San Antonio
Road. A bike route is present
between Middlefield Road and
Charleston Road. Fabian Way has a
bike lane from East Bayshore Road,
which discontinues near the
intersection with East Charleston
Road. The only continuous north-
south bikeways are found on East
Charleston Road, which includes
both standard and buffered bike
lanes on both sides of the roadway.
Middlefield Road provides a short
segment of bike lane south of San
Antonio Road on the west side of the
roadway.
The pedestrian and bicycle bridge
that crosses US-101 provides a
grade-separated facility that enables
uninterrupted crossing for people
walking, biking, and rolling across the
highway barrier. Overall, the limited
presence of bike facilities, combined
with high vehicle speeds and
volumes, contributes to conditions
that are not conducive to bicycle
travel. Figure 3.3 illustrates the
existing bicycle facilities.
. Existing Bicycle Facilities
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Kittelson and Associates, 2025.
BICYCLE LEVEL OF COMFORT
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is an evaluation that quantifies the amount of discomfort that people feel
when bicycling based on attributes such as vehicle speed, vehicle volume, number of lanes, bicycle lane blockage,
presence of on-street parking, and ease of intersection crossing. There are four LTS ratings (LTS 1 through LTS 4).
The higher the LTS, the higher the
expected discomfort for the rider
traveling along the facility. Figure 3.4
illustrates the Segment Bicycle LTS
analysis from the City of Palo Alto’s
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Plan (BPTP) Update (in progress).
Based on the BPTP Update, the Plan
Area exhibits generally high levels of
bicycle traffic stress. While most
minor streets are classified as LTS 1
(low traffic stress), most major
corridors are rated LTS 3 or LTS 4. The
most stressful segments in the Plan
Area are located along Alma Street
and San Antonio Road (both LTS 4),
Middlefield Road, East Charleston
Road, Fabian Way, and Bayshore
Road (all LTS 3).
Among the intersections in the Plan
Area, six are signalized and are
assigned LTS 1, as traffic signals
provide dedicated crossing time for
cyclists. The other low-stress
intersections are typically along
residential streets with lower speeds
and minimal vehicular activity. Many
high-stress intersections are found
along Alma Street, San Antonio Road,
Middlefield Road, East Charleston
Road, and Fabian Way, consistent
with the high-stress classifications of
these corridors. San Antonio Road
features 12 intersections in the Plan
Area, of which five are rated LTS 4
and one is rated LTS 3.
Figure 3.4. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Kittelson and Associates, 2025.
MAJOR BARRIERS
The BPTP Update identified three
primary linear barriers within and
connecting to the Plan Area: US-101,
the Caltrain rail corridor, and the
waterway near Fabian Way and
Bayshore Road. The most critical
connectivity gap lies between Adobe
Creek and Embarcadero Road
pedestrian and bicycle bridges, which
limits access to the Adobe Creek Loop
Trail and adjacent destinations. Within
the Plan Area, the San Antonio
Caltrain Station provides a pedestrian
and bicycle crossing over the rail
corridor, improving connectivity
across this barrier. Barriers near
transit also occur at San Antonio Road,
where the absence of continuous
sidewalks along certain segments
limits direct pedestrian and bicyclist
access to transit.
Pedestrian
Network
Figure 3.5 shows pedestrian facilities
in the Plan Area. Sidewalks are largely
continuous, with most streets in the
Plan Area providing sidewalks
approximately four to five feet wide
on both sides of the roadway. While
this width meets minimum standards
in many residential contexts, it may be
inadequate for higher pedestrian
volumes, accessibility needs, or areas
with high levels of adjacent traffic. In
some areas, sidewalks are separated
from the roadway by landscaped strips
and tree coverage, which help buffer pedestrians from vehicle traffic. However, notable gaps exist in certain
locations. The Plan Area’s six signalized intersections are equipped with standard marked crosswalks, ADA ramps,
and pedestrian-activated countdown signal heads, with each intersection providing at least one crosswalk and
corresponding pedestrian signal. The Plan Area features pedestrian safety treatments such as mid-block crossings,
a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) and refuge islands. Within the Plan Area, San Antonio Road does not
provide continuous pedestrian or bicycle crossings over US-101.
Figure 3.5. Pedestrian Facilities
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Kittelson and Associates, 2025.
Transit Services
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates bus services within Palo Alto. Key features of
existing transit services in the Plan Area include:
• There are currently five bus stops located along San Antonio Road, four bus stops along Fabian Way, and
two bus stops along East Charleston Road. None of the associated services are classified as high frequency.
• VTA Route 21 travels twice an hour from the Stanford Shopping Center to the Santa Clara Transit Center via
the Mountain View Transit Center. The route runs along San Antonio Road between Alma Street and
Middlefield Road, with stops at Middlefield Road and at Nita Road and San Antonio Court.
• VTA Route 288 is a school-day-only tripper route with one daily service to and from Gunn High School. It
operates along East Charleston Road and Fabian Way, before continuing west on Meadow Drive and
Arastradero Road toward Gunn High School.
• ACE Orange Route provides four daily commuter shuttle service between Meadow Drive and Meadow Circle,
east of the Plan Area, and the Great America ACE/Amtrak Station, including stops at Fabian Way and East
Meadow Drive, Fabian Way and East Charleston Road, and San Antonio Road and Casey Avenue within the
Plan Area.
• MVgo Routes D and C operate along San Antonio Road, connecting Mountain View employment centers
with Caltrain and light rail stations. However, these routes do not stop within Palo Alto.
• Palo Alto Link, an on-demand rideshare service, also provides point-to-point service to popular destinations
throughout the City.
• Located just outside the Plan Area boundary, the San Antonio Caltrain Station, a regional commuter rail
system operated by the Peninsula Joint Powers Board, provides service at 15- or 30-minute headways
(depending on peak or off-peak times) between San Francisco and San Jose, with additional service as far as
Gilroy. Caltrain recently completed electrification of its right-of-way between San Francisco and San Jose,
improving service frequency and speeds. A large portion of the plan area is located within a half mile walk,
and the entire plan area is within a 2-mile bicycle ride, of San Antonio Caltrain station.
• Future plans for California’s High-Speed Rail include a proposed four-track segment through Palo Alto for
high-speed train service alongside Caltrain.
Safety
An assessment of reported crashes was conducted using the latest 10 years of the University of California,
Berkeley's Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) data (2015 to 2024). A total of 143 crashes occurred in
the Plan Area over the past 10 years, including two fatal and three severe injury crashes. One fatal crash occurred
at the intersection of Commercial Street and Charleston Road, and another near the intersection of San Antonio
Road and Nita Avenue. Throughout the 10-year review period, a total of five pedestrian and 15 bicycle crashes
were reported in the Plan Area. Among the pedestrian crashes, one crash was fatal, and one resulted in a severe
injury. For bicycle-involved crashes, one crash resulted in a severe injury, and 11 crashes involved visible injuries.
No bicycle crashes were fatal.
Most collisions occurred along key access points and intersections along San Antonio Road including Charleston
Street, Middlefield Road, and Alma Street. Approximately 30 percent of the reported crashes occurred along
Fabian Way. Primary collision factors among fatal crashes were unsafe speeds and pedestrian right-of-way
violations. For severe injury crashes, the leading factors were unsafe speed, driving or cycling under the influence
(DUI), and traffic signal and sign violations.
HIGH-INJURY LOCATIONS
The Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety Action
Plan identified a High-Injury Network (HIN)
composed of corridors with a
disproportionate share of fatalities and
severe injuries between 2018 and 2022.
These corridors were prioritized for safety
interventions as part of the City’s
commitment to Vision Zero and the Safe
System Approach. The SS4A Safety Action
Plan includes San Antonio Road from Alma
Street to East Charleston Road, Middlefield
Road from San Antonio Road to Lytton
Avenue, and East Charleston Road from San
Antonio Road to Los Palos Avenue.
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS
The local Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
Partnership between the City, the Palo Alto
Unified School District (PAUSD), and the Palo
Alto Council of PTAs (PTAC) works to reduce
risk to students in routes to and from school
and encourages more families to choose
alternatives to driving solo more often.
Within the Plan Area, the Palo Alto SRTS
program has identified suggested walking
routes on San Antonio Road and Middlefield
Road, while Fabian Way and East Charleston
Road include segments designated for both
walking and biking. Greendell School, a
public PAUSD site, is located near these
suggested routes and is included in the City’s
SRTS Walk and Roll Map program. Other
private schools in the Plan Area are located
near suggested corridors; however, these
schools are not formally evaluated by the SRTS program. Private institutions may choose to reference existing
Walk and Roll Maps and develop their own recommended routes.
PARKING
Both on-street and off-street parking is permitted throughout the Plan Area. San Antonio Road has a total of 145
on-street parking spaces, Fabian Way has 135 total spaces, and most residential streets also allow on-street
parking. In the Plan Area, bicycle parking appears to be insufficient overall, with limited availability near public
Figure 3.6. Crash Severity
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, Kittelson and Associates, 2025.
spaces, intersections, and key pedestrian corridors. The distribution of bicycle racks is concentrated in the eastern
portion of the corridor near dense commercial areas, while significant gaps exist along the western segment of
San Antonio Road.
Key Findings and Conclusions
Key findings, challenges and opportunities for transportation and mobility are identified in the following list.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS
• The Plan Area includes key destinations within a walking, biking or rolling distance, such as Ramos Park,
Cubberley Community Center, San Antonio Caltrain Station, and nine public and private schools.
• Existing bicycle facilities are limited along San Antonio Road, with only a short bike route present between
Middlefield Road and East Charleston Road.
• Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis identifies segments on San Antonio Road, Alma Street, and
Middlefield Road that are particularly uncomfortable and have the highest LTS rating of 4.
• There are gaps in the existing pedestrian network where the absence of continuous sidewalks limits direct
access to key destinations. Existing pedestrian facilities are present along most segments of San Antonio
Road, but key gaps exist near the Bayshore Freeway interchange and between Nita Avenue and Alma Street.
TRANSIT SERVICES
• VTA Route 21 provides public transit access at 30-minute headways along a short segment of San Antonio
Road between Alma Street and Middlefield Road, with the highest weekday ridership activity observed at
the Middlefield Road stop. No other active bus routes currently operate within the Plan Area.
• A large portion of the plan area is also within a half-mile walk, and the entire plan area is within a 2-mile
bicycle ride, of San Antonio Caltrain station, which provides regional transit access between San Francisco
and San Jose.
SAFETY
• The City’s Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program identifies suggested walking routes on San Antonio and
Middlefield Roads, and shared walking/biking routes on Fabian Way and Charleston Road. Public schools like
Greendell are formally included, while private schools may reference the City’s Walk and Roll Maps to
develop their own routes.
• Vehicle volumes are highest at the intersection of San Antonio Road and Middlefield Road with 3,741 cars
observed between 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM and 4,391 observed between 4:55 PM and 5:55 PM. A total of 88
trucks were counted at this location during the weekday AM peak hour and 40 trucks were counted during
the weekday PM peak hour, or 2.3 percent and 0.9 percent respectively.
• Truck volumes are generally higher during the morning and are consistently higher near US-101 ramps,
where trucks made up 95 of the 2,411 vehicles, or 3.9 percent of the vehicle traffic at that location during
the weekday AM peak hour (which occurred between 8:05 AM and 9:05 AM).
• Speed surveys show that 85th percentile speeds exceed the posted 35 mph limit on multiple segments of
San Antonio Road, particularly between East Charleston Road and US-101, where nearly one-third of
vehicles travel above 40 mph.
• San Antonio Road has a total of 145 on-street parking spaces. Bicycle parking is limited and unevenly
distributed, particularly along the western portion of San Antonio Road.
• Over the last 10 years, 143 crashes were reported in the Plan Area, including two fatal and three severe
injury crashes. 14 percent of reported crashes involved pedestrians or bicyclists. The most common primary
collision factor was unsafe speed, accounting for 34 percent of the reported crashes and many of the fatal
and severe injury crashes.
• The City of Palo Alto’s Safe Streets for All Safety Action Plan (2025) identifies San Antonio Road, from Alma
Street to East Charleston Road, as part of the City’s High Injury Network based on its crash history and
collision severity.
• The City of Palo Alto’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update (in progress) and City of Palo Alto
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2012) propose redesigning San Antonio Road as part of the San
Antonio Road Area Plan to accommodate anticipated housing growth along and near the corridor as well as
continued development and improvement of the San Antonio Caltrain Station as an important
transportation node for the City.
• City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update (in progress) recommends the
following improvements:
o Class I shared use path along San Antonio Road from East Charleston Road to Terminal Boulevard,
o Class IV separated bikeways on San Antonio Road between Alma Street and East Charleston Road, on
Charleston Road within City limits, and on Alma Street from Meadow Drive to San Antonio Avenue,
o Class IIb buffered bikeway on Fabian Way from Meadow Drive to East Charleston Road, and
o Class IIIb bicycle boulevard on Mackay Drive, continuing along Shasta Drive and Nelson Drive.
The existing conditions assessment for the San Antonio Road corridor identifies several critical challenges that
limit safe and equitable multimodal access to key destinations. The issues include the lack of continuous and
protected bicycle infrastructure along San Antonio Road, which is classified as high stress (LTS 4) and creates a
major barrier to travel. Sidewalk gaps, minimal landscaping buffers, and long crossings and block lengths further
hinder pedestrian comfort and accessibility. Driver speeding is prevalent, with 85th percentile speeds exceeding
posted limits on multiple segments, and crash data reveal a history of severe and fatal collisions involving
pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists. Transit service is minimal, with only two active VTA routes (route 21 and
ACE Orange Mountain View Shuttle) and no operating school or shuttle services. Finally, the shortage and poor
distribution of public bike parking undermines the potential for short local bike trips and first/last mile
connectivity.
4. MARKET AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Introduction
The primary relevant local market for the Plan Area includes
the cities of Palo Alto and Mountain View, with the regional
area consisting of Santa Clara County and San Mateo County.
Figure 4.1 shows the census block groups used for the Plan
Area analysis of demographic and household trends. Since
detailed U.S. Census data is only available for specific
predetermined geographies, the selected block groups best
cover the Plan Area while providing information for analysis.
DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSEHOLD TRENDS
The Plan Area Census Block Groups have a higher presence of
families with children, slightly lower median household
income, and a more diverse population than Palo Alto.
• Population. As of 2021, the Plan Area Census Block
Groups had 4,975 people (7 percent of Palo Alto’s
population), in 1,798 households (7 percent of Palo
Alto’s households).
• Median Household Income. The Plan Area Census Block
Groups’ median income of $200,001 is lower than that of
Palo Alto ($220,408) and higher than Mountain View
($179,917). Median household income in Palo Alto
increased by 81 percent from 2011 to 2021, driven by increases in high-income households, and losses of
middle- and lower-income households.
• Household Characteristics. Average household sizes in Mountain View and Palo Alto are much smaller than
in Santa Clara County and San Mateo County overall. Figure 4.2 shows details of household types.
• Race and Ethnicity. Palo Alto and Mountain View are less racially and ethnically diverse than Santa Clara
County and San Mateo County overall. Compared to Palo Alto, the ratio of Non-Hispanic Black residents to
the total population is higher for the Plan Area at 11 percent, compared to 2 percent for the City.
38%33%27%33%31%
37%
35%
27%
37%38%
17%25%
33%
22%24%
9%7%13%8%8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Plan Area
Census
Block
Groups
Palo Alto Mountain
View
Santa Clara
County
San Mateo
County
Other Non-Family Household
Householder Living Alone
Families without Children
Families with Children
Figure 4.2.
-2023
Source: U.S. Census, American
Community Survey, 5-year Estimate,
2019-2023; Strategic Economics, 2025.
Figure 4.1. Plan Area Census Block Groups
Source: U.S. Census, Strategic Economics, 2025.
Housing Market Conditions
EXISTING HOUSING SUPPLY
Analysis of the Plan Area’s existing housing supply including Key Findings is described in Section 2, “Housing,
Growth, and Displacement Risk” of this report.
HOUSING MARKET POTENTIAL AND TRENDS
Palo Alto home sales prices are significantly higher than those for neighboring cities and the County. In 2025, the
median single-family home value in Palo Alto was $3.69 million, 76 percent higher than Mountain View ($2.09
million), 94 percent higher than Santa Clara County ($1.73 million), and 99 percent higher than San Mateo County
($1.61 million). Between 2015 and 2025, single-family home values increased by 43 percent in Palo Alto and 62
percent in Mountain View. Condominiums are relatively more affordable but still significantly more expensive
than surrounding areas. Palo Alto’s average effective rents per square foot increased by nearly 18 percent from
2015 to 2025, similar to Mountain View. High absorption and low vacancy rates for multifamily rental housing in
Palo Alto and Mountain View indicate strong demand for this product type. Recent developments have been
trending towards multifamily housing as well, as shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Permitted Housing Units by Building Type, 2018-2024
Number Percent
Single-
Family ADU Multi-
family Total Single-
Family ADU Multi-
family
Local Market Area 813 825 5,177 6,815 12% 12% 76%
Palo Alto 15 574 363 952 2% 60% 38%
Mountain View 798 251 4,814 5,863 14% 4% 82%
Regional Market Area 8,533 10,393 46,233 65,159 13% 16% 71%
Santa Clara County 7,209 7,294 36,611 51,114 14% 14% 72%
San Mateo County 1,324 3,099 9,622 14,045 9% 22% 69%
Source. California Department of Housing and Community Development Annual Progress Reports, Table A2, 2018-2024; Strategic Economics, 2025.
The Plan Area benefits from a variety of indicators that suggest strong ongoing demand for new housing: high-
performing housing markets in Palo Alto and Mountain View, demographic trends suggesting demand from senior
and working-age adult households; and recent developer interest, with pipeline projects potentially adding 750
new housing units to the Plan Area. Regional forecasts anticipate housing growth translating to an average of 974
housing units per year for Palo Alto and Mountain View combined. Given this strong demand, available
development opportunities, and its access to jobs, the Plan Area is well-positioned to capture projected demand
for additional housing units.
The Plan Area is most likely to attract development of mid-rise multifamily rental housing products, which are
most compatible with the Plan Area’s existing built environment of light industrial sites positioned for
redevelopment, patterns of development in nearby areas of Mountain View at similar sites, and the City of Palo
Alto’s regulatory and policy priorities focused on promoting higher-density development in the Plan Area.
Developers interviewed shared that ideal sites for cost-efficient mid-rise housing development are rectangular or
square, allow multiple access points, are at least one to two acres in size, are relatively underutilized (typically
vacant or with light industrial uses), and located near existing or future transportation access and retail amenities.
Retail Market Conditions and Trends
EXISTING RETAIL
The Plan Area currently has a small retail inventory consisting of approximately 69,000 square feet of retail space
concentrated around the intersections of San Antonio Road at East Charleston Road and Middlefield Road. This
includes 38,000 square feet of automobile-oriented retail and one car dealership (28,000 square feet) that is
currently for sale. Other uses include small stores and quick-serve restaurants. The Plan Area is within the service
radius of regional retail centers such as Stanford Shopping Center and Town & Country Village in Palo Alto, San
Antonio Center in Mountain View, and retail centers near El Camino Real. Other retail centers in the vicinity
include the Rengstorff Center and two grocery-anchored neighborhood shopping centers along Middlefield Road
in Palo Alto and Mountain View. The Plan Area is reasonably well covered by the trade areas of existing food
stores, including two supermarkets (Joya Supermarket and Piazza’s Fine Foods), a specialty food store
(Crossroads), Costco in Mountain View, and multiple grocery stores west of the Plan Area at and near San Antonio
Center. These existing retail uses can serve the Plan Area’s near-term needs. The eastern portion of the Plan Area
has lower access to grocery stores than other parts.
The City of Palo Alto has a policy priority to preserve existing retail, which is enacted through the Retail
Preservation Ordinance (RPO). The RPO generally requires replacement of existing ground floor retail. However,
specific requirements vary by location in the City and project type. Under State Law, the RPO does not apply at
sites included in Palo Alto’s 2023-2031 Housing Element sites inventory, and the replacement requirement is
limited to 1,500 square feet for housing projects with densities of 30 or more dwelling units per acre.
RETAIL MARKET POTENTIAL AND TRENDS
The analysis for potential retail development in the Plan Area is based on current market conditions and
competitive retail supply in the surrounding trade area, interviews with local retail brokers, and examining
pipeline projects. As the Plan Area adds more households, it is best positioned to attract neighborhood-serving
retail that typically has a service radius of one to three miles. These can include dining, personal services, and
potentially future grocery stores and drug stores, with each new household generating a demand for
approximately 34 square feet of new retail space. Local retail brokers interviewed noted that the most desirable
retail locations in the Plan Area are at the intersections of Middlefield Road and San Antonio Road, and East
Charleston Road and San Antonio Road, due to visibility from large quantities of through traffic and accessibility
from existing residents and new residents at proposed housing projects.
Future retail development in the Plan Area is anticipated to follow recent trends in the area, that consist of small
quantities of ground floor retail in mixed-use development projects or expansions and modernizations of existing
major shopping centers.
Employment Profile and Trends
EMPLOYMENT IN THE PLAN AREA
Most jobs in the Plan Area today are in the manufacturing sector, accounting for 43 percent of total Plan Area
employment, with Maxar as a major employer. As of 2022, the Plan Area had 40 percent of Palo Alto’s
Manufacturing sector jobs, and 36 percent of the City’s construction jobs. Between 2012 to 2022, the Plan Area
lost a large number of manufacturing jobs and gained jobs in other sectors, with health care as the largest sector.
Employment trends are shown in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2. Percent Change in Employment in Plan Area, 2012-2022.
Industry 2012 2022 Change (Number) Change (%)
Manufacturing 3,788 2,043 -1745 -46%
Other 764 722 -42 -5%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical
Services 481 640 159 33%
Health Care and Social Assistance 184 564 380 207%
Retail Trade 184 360 176 96%
Construction 209 315 106 51%
Information 130 52 -78 -60%
Total 5,740 4,696 -1044 -18%
Source. U.S. Census, LEHD OnTheMap, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2025.
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
Jobs in the Plan Area today include a larger share of opportunities for workers with lower levels of educational
attainment compared to jobs in Palo Alto overall. The Information and Professional, Scientific and Technical
Services industry sectors are associated with very high average wages, but also high education, training, and skill
requirements. In contrast, the Manufacturing and Construction industry sectors typically include a larger share of
middle-skill, middle-wage jobs. Development of new housing in the Plan Area is likely to primarily occur at
properties with these types of existing employment, such as the small office and light industrial spaces near
Commercial Street and Industrial Avenue.
Key Findings and Conclusions
HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS FINDINGS
• Robust demand for a variety of housing products exists in the Plan Area and surrounding market area, as
indicated by relatively high sales prices for ownership housing, relatively high achievable rents, and low
residential vacancy rates.
• Given strong demand for housing in Palo Alto and the available housing development opportunities
within the Plan Area, the area is well-positioned to capture demand for additional housing units
associated with projected household and employment growth, as forecasted by the Association of Bay
Area Governments for Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties.
• Despite demand for a range of housing products in Palo Alto—including lower-density ownership housing
such as luxury townhomes—the Plan Area is most likely to attract development of mid-rise multifamily
housing products. These products are most compatible with the City of Palo Alto’s regulatory and policy
priorities focused on promoting higher density development in the Plan Area.
• Recent housing development proposals in the Plan Area demonstrate developer interest in mid-rise,
relatively higher-density housing products. Housing development proposals in and near the Plan Area
primarily consist of buildings that are most often seven to eight stories tall and with densities ranging
from 110 to 170 dwelling units per acre.
• The likelihood and timing of housing development on specific sites in the Plan Area will depend on site
characteristics, existing uses, and location. Ideal sites for cost-efficient mid-rise housing development are
rectangular or square, allow multiple access points, are at least one to two acres in size, are relatively
underutilized (typically vacant or with light industrial uses), and located near existing or future
transportation access and retail amenities. Developers can assemble smaller sites to create a site with
these characteristics, but parcel assembly takes time and adds development risk.
• Improvements to local amenities, the pedestrian environment, and multimodal transportation options
can support the attractiveness of the Plan Area for future residents and potentially accelerate housing
development activity.
RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS FINDINGS
• Existing retail offerings (with “retail” inclusive of shopping, dining, services, and entertainment) are
limited within the Plan Area. However, much of the area is located within a half mile of existing
neighborhood and community shopping centers that can meet many day-to-day shopping needs for
existing residents and residents of any early future housing developments.
• The best performing retail locations near the Plan Area are primarily closer to El Camino Real, with retail
brokers noting that the Plan Area itself is more likely to serve as a secondary retail location that is better
suited to supporting neighborhood-serving retail—such as dining, personal services, and potentially
future grocery stores and drug stores—rather than major regional shopping destinations. The San
Antonio Center adjacent to the Plan Area functions as a larger regional retail center that can serve
current and future households in the Plan Area.
• Over time, additions of new residents in the Plan Area will generate demand for additional local retail
space to accommodate dining, services, and day-to-day shopping needs. The total magnitude of
supportable retail space will vary depending on the projected buildout of housing units in the Plan Area.
• Given the likely incremental process of housing development in the Plan Area, retail demand is likely to grow
gradually and take time to achieve a critical mass of residents to support significant new retail amenities
such as a new grocery store. Existing nearby retail amenities will largely meet demand from early residential
growth, and early retail opportunities within the Plan Area will primarily consist of dining and personal
services.
• New retail space is likely to best perform in Plan Area locations that are near areas of future housing growth,
visible and readily accessible from higher-traffic streets, and allow for a concentration of retail tenants. Real
estate brokers interviewed for this study noted that the intersection of Middlefield Road and San Antonio
Road is likely to be a desirable retail location within the Plan Area due to visibility from large quantities of
pass-through traffic and accessibility from existing residents and new residents at proposed housing projects
to the east. Locations along East Charleston Road and San Antonio Road near the intersection of these
streets also benefit from visibility and access.
• Given the gradual pace of housing buildout to achieve a critical mass of residents to support larger
quantities of new retail space, the San Antonio Road Area Plan will need to incorporate a vision and policies
to ensure development of retail space at preferred future retail concentrations.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FINDINGS
• Although the Plan Area constitutes a relatively small share of jobs in Palo Alto overall, the area includes a
notable concentration of manufacturing jobs. The U.S. Census estimates that the Plan Area included
approximately 4.3 percent of jobs in Palo Alto as of 2022, but nearly 40 percent of jobs classified in the
Manufacturing industry sector. The Plan Area includes major employers such as Maxar along Fabian Way
and a limited quantity of Google offices east of US-101.
• The diverse small office and light industrial spaces in the Plan Area—especially near Commercial Street and
Industrial Avenue—accommodate a wide variety of small businesses seeking flexible and relatively
affordable space within Palo Alto. Tenant lease data indicates that at least two thirds of businesses in the
Plan Area have 50 or fewer employees.
• Redevelopment of existing smaller light industrial and flex buildings in the Plan Area for housing and other
uses creates a displacement risk for businesses in these spaces. Relocation within Palo Alto and even
neighboring communities is challenging due to the limited and declining inventory of similar spaces due to
their redevelopment for higher-intensity employment and housing uses.
• The addition of housing in the Plan Area that is affordable to households with diverse income levels can help
meet the needs of workers at jobs in Palo Alto and the Plan Area itself. Analysis of wages associated with the
industry sector mix of jobs in Palo Alto found that 35 percent of worker households may qualify as low- or
very low-income and likely require deed-restricted affordable housing to be able to live in Palo Alto. Within
the Plan Area itself, U.S. Census data indicates that approximately 16 percent of “primary” jobs (i.e., the
highest-paying job held by a worker) in 2022 paid less than $40,000 annually.
5. HAZARDS, PUBLIC SAFETY, AND HISTORIC
RESOURCES
Note: Some of the topics discussed in this section (such as sea level rise) overlap with topics discussed in Sections 8
and 9. Since these topics are relevant for each of these subject areas, they have been included in each section.
Hazards
Environmental hazards studied as part of the
analysis to date include sea level rise and
wildfire. The study of seismic hazards and soil
and groundwater contamination is currently
in process, and additional content will be
provided when the studies are completed.
SEA LEVEL RISE
A portion of the Plan Area is located in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Zone AE, a Special Flood Hazard
Area (SFHA) designation with a one percent
(100-year flood) or greater annual chance of
flooding in any given year. Within the Plan
Area, the AE Zone covers a large area
generally from East Charleston Road to the
San Francisco Bay, shown in Figure 5.1. The
remainder of the Plan Area is located in SFHA
Zone X, with a 0.2% (500-year event) annual
chance of flood. The City of Palo Alto
completed a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability
Assessment in 2022 which documents
potential sea level rise (SLR) hazards to City
and community assets from increments
between 12 to 84 inches of SLR. Portions of
the Plan Area north and east of East
Charleston Road are predicted to be
inundated under a 36-inch SLR scenario
during an average tide. Areas north of the
Plan Area could experience overtopping by
Bay waters.
WILDFIRE
The Plan Area is not located in a Fire Hazard
Severity Zone (FHSZ) as defined by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE).
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, David J Powers & Associates, 2025.
Figure 5.1. FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area in the Plan Area
SEISMIC HAZARDS
As detailed in the 2024 Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Bay Area is located in a
geologically active area. The impact of an earthquake on buildings and infrastructure largely depends on ground
shaking, the distance from the earthquake’s source, and the potential for liquefaction. Liquefaction generally
occurs in soft, unconsolidated sedimentary soils with a shallow water table. The City of Palo Alto’s Safety Element
identifies areas near the Bay and along creeks as having very high liquefaction susceptibility levels, and the entire
Plan Area has at least a moderate liquefaction susceptibility level. Additional analysis of the seismic hazard within
the Plan Area is underway.
SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
The portion of the Plan Area between East Charleston Road and US-101 has long been a light industrial and
manufacturing area, which increases the possibility of soil and/or groundwater contamination. Sites with known
or suspected contamination could require remediation prior to any new development. The California Department
of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has identified seven properties within the Plan Area with known or suspected
contamination issues. The following addresses within the Plan Area are listed on the DTSC EnviroStor tool: 821
San Antonio Road, 844 East Charleston Road, 899 East Charleston Road, 3825 Fabian Way, 3839 Fabian Way, 890
Commercial Street, and 936 Industrial Avenue. 1275 North San Antonio Road (a City-owned parcel) is the site of
the former Los Altos Treatment Plant, and required some remediation efforts prior to developing the HomeKey
project. Additional analysis of these sites and the Plan Area is underway.
Public Safety
Police and fire services are essential components of a well-functioning and resilient community. Growth within
the Plan Area may increase calls for service and place additional demands on personnel, equipment, and
emergency access.
POLICE
Law enforcement protection services in Palo Alto are provided by the Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) that
employs a total of 141 positions (2025). The 2030 Comprehensive Plan EIR found that the existing police station is
inadequate to accommodate growth under the General Plan. The PAPD is currently constructing a new Public
Safety Building (PSB) at 250 Sherman Avenue which will serve as the new headquarters of the Police Department,
911 Emergency Dispatch Center, the Emergency Operations Center, the Office of Emergency Services, and the
administration needs of the Fire Department. The new PSB building is scheduled to open in Fall 2025. With the
new police station, police services are anticipated to be adequate to accommodate current and future needs of
the City.
FIRE
The Palo Alto Fire Department’s (PAFD’s) service area covers the jurisdictional boundaries of Palo Alto in addition
to some of the unincorporated land surrounding the City limit, much of which is occupied by Stanford University.
The PAFD staffs six full-time fire stations (Stations 1 through 6) and one seasonal fire station (Station 8), located
strategically throughout the City. In addition to the PAFD’s primary service area, the City has entered into mutual
aid and automatic aid agreements with the City of Mountain View, the City of Menlo Park, CAL FIRE, the Santa
Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD), and the Woodside Fire Protection District. The City has set a service goal
at responding to all fire emergencies in 8 minutes or less 90% of the time. For medical emergencies, the goal is 8
minutes or less 90% of the time and ambulance response, 12 minutes or less 90% of the time. Emergency medical
services (EMS) in the PAFD service area are expected to increase incrementally with both the increase in
population and the aging of the population. To meet increased demand, the PAFD is launching a new EMS
ambulance program to enhance staffing and resource availability for the increase in EMS ambulance transports
during peak hours. The City is also in the process of replacing Fire Station 4, the closest station to the Plan Area,
which is estimated to be completed in 2027.
Historic Resources
The City’s Historic Preservation Program began in 1979, with subsequent Local Inventory updates in 2001 and
2023. Any individual or group may propose designating a historic structure, site, or district to the Inventory
according to the procedure found in the Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 16.49.040).
Properties nominated for designation are recommended by the Historic Resources Board and decided upon by
the City Council. In addition to the City’s Historic Inventory, there are number of Palo Alto properties and four
historic districts that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including the Greenmeadow
Historic District immediately adjacent to the Plan Area. The California Office of Historic Preservation recognizes
the Greenmeadow Historic district, as well as Native American shell mounds in the vicinity and two sites in the
Plan Area: 844 East Charleston Road as the site where Dr. Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation
invented the first integrated circuit that could be produced commercially in 1959 and the Secundino Robles
Adobe Site north-east of the San Antonio Road and Alma Street intersection. As of this report, there are no
properties located within the Plan Area listed on the NRHP or on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Most existing
structures within the Plan Area were constructed between approximately 1940 and 1980. Evaluation of the
properties in the Plan Area for significant historical, archeological, and/or architectural value is in process.
Key Findings and Conclusions
The following environmental issues would need to be addressed as part of future development in the Plan Area.
Please note that some sections of this analysis are in progress as of the publication of this draft report, and
analysis will continue as part of the Area Plan’s compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
• A large area within the Plan Area is designated as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).
• Adapting to sea level rise would need to be addressed in the areas east of East Charleston Road.
• Increased demand for EMS services may require increased EMS staffing and/or new apparatus and fire
station improvements to support new development.
6. PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND PUBLIC
FACILITIES
Schools
The Plan Area is served by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), Mountain View-Whisman School District
(MVWSD), and Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District, as shown in Figure 6.1. The PAUSD operates
13 elementary schools, three middle schools, and three high schools (including Middle College at Foothill College)
within their service area. There is available capacity for more students at all PAUSD schools. Projections forecast a
decline in enrollment district-wide across a 10-year period based upon historical enrollment trends and projected
new development.
The MVWSD operates one
preschool, nine K-5 elementary
schools, and two 6-8 middle
schools. There is capacity for
additional enrollment in all the
MVWSD schools.
The Mountain View-Los Altos Union
High School District operates two
high schools within its boundaries.
The portions of the Plan Area
within the district’s boundaries are
served by Los Altos High School,
which is also currently enrolled at
below its capacity.
6.1. School Districts in the Plan Area
Source: City of Palo Alto GIS, David J Powers & Associates, 2025.
Parks and Recreational Facilities
The City of Palo Alto owns and operates 32 parks and four open space preserves. There are also a variety of other
facilities in Palo Alto and the vicinity which are not City-owned and which serve some of the same demand for
City-owned and operated facilities. These include PAUSD-owned land used for recreation, Stanford University
open space and recreation lands, privately owned recreational facilities, land managed by conservation groups,
and State and regional parks in the vicinity of Palo Alto. There are also open space preserves that serve larger
service areas and contain a broad range of facilities, including picnic grounds, hiking and biking trails, wildlife
watching and camping.
In addition, the City of Palo Alto Recreation Services Division offers youth and adult sports, teen and middle
school activities, after-school programs, a variety of classes for all ages, and a wide range of special events.
Recreation facilities include the Cubberley, Lucie Stern, and Mitchell Park Community Centers; the Children’s
Theater and Community Theater; Rinconada Pool; Junior Museum and Zoo; Baylands Golf Course; Art Center;
Baylands Nature Interpretive Center; and the Skateboard Park at Greer Park.
The nearest parks and open spaces to the Plan Area include Henry W. Seale Park, Ramos Park, Mitchell Park,
Monroe Park, Del Medio Park (Mountain View), Wyandotte Park (Mountain View), Thaddeus Park (Mountain
View), Monta Loma School Field (Mountain View), Heritage Park (Mountain View), Baylands Nature Preserve,
Shoreline at Mountain View Park (Mountain View). Under Comprehensive Plan Policy C-28, the City’s desired
ratios are two acres of neighborhood parks plus two acres of district parks per 1,000 residents (four acres total)
and a parkland dedication requirement of five acres of neighborhood park, district park, recreational facilities, and
open space for every 1,000 residents.
The City of Palo Alto operates five community libraries, all of which were renovated between 2006 and 2015 and
are considered to be in good condition. The Mitchell Park library is nearest to the Plan Area.
Key Findings and Conclusions
In terms of parks and public facilities, the Plan Area would need to consider the following as part of future
development:
• Overall school enrollment is down across all three school districts that service the Plan Area (Palo Alto
Unified School District, Mountain View-Whisman School District and Mountain View-Los Altos Union High
School District).
• The City has a policy to reach two acres of neighborhood parks plus two acres of district parks per 1,000
residents (four acres total per 1,000 residents) and a parkland dedication requirement of five acres of
neighborhood park, district park, recreational facilities, and open space for every 1,000 residents.
7. NOISE AND AIR QUALITY
Noise and Vibration
The analysis for noise and vibration for the Plan Area includes a description of the fundamentals of environmental
noise and ground-borne vibration, summarizes applicable regulatory criteria, and discusses the existing noise
environment. It also identifies constraints for potential noise-sensitive uses and provides guidance to attain noise
and land use compatibility. A noise measurement survey was completed to establish existing noise levels from
substantial sources in the Plan Area, including both long- and short-term measurements at several locations.
SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE
Primary sources of noise in the Plan Area include:
• Major ground transportation corridors such as US-101, Central Expressway/Alma Street, San Antonio Road,
and Middlefield Road.
• Minor ground transportation corridors, such as small arterial roadways and collector streets, produce noise
levels that contribute to ambient conditions on a localized basis.
• The Union Pacific Railroad, located west of Central Expressway/Alma Street, provides a thoroughfare for
freight and passenger (Caltrain) trains that produce noise and vibration during pass-by events.
• Palo Alto Airport lies approximately 1.7 miles north-east of the Plan Area, and Moffett Federal Airfield lies
approximately 2.2 miles south-east of the Plan Area, producing intermittent noise due to aircraft overflights.
• Noise sources located on private property such as mechanical equipment, including fans, blowers, chillers,
compressors, boilers, pumps, and air conditioning systems that may run continuously, and other intermittent
sources of noise, including emergency generators, horns, and loading activities.
Sensitive land uses within and around the Plan Area include residences, hotels, religious institutions, schools,
medical facilities, and libraries. Residential development is sensitive to community noise, both outdoors and
indoors. Single-family residential development, schools, libraries, hospitals, convalescent homes, and places of
worship are considered the most noise-sensitive land uses. High-density/mixed-use residential, commercial, and
industrial development is considered less noise-sensitive because uses are primarily indoors and can be mitigated
with building design and construction.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
• Locate sensitive land uses in noise and vibration environments that are compatible with the proposed uses.
The possibility of sensitive development encroaching on existing noise sources could result in some land use
conflicts, requiring careful consideration during the planning process.
• Ensure that new noise-generating land uses do not substantially increase ambient noise levels at adjacent
sensitive land uses.
• Ensure that increase in traffic does not substantially increase ambient noise levels at sensitive land uses.
• Mitigate construction noise and construction vibration to the extent possible to not adversely affect
adjacent sensitive land uses.
Air Quality
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) publishes California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Air Quality Guidelines and provides tools and recommendations to develop plans that are consistent with Clean
Air Plan goals. Air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis for the Plan Area found the following
issues:
• Meeting Ambient Air Quality Standards. The region is considered to be in non-attainment for the criteria
air pollutants ozone (O3) and particulate matter (respirable particulate matter [PM10] and fine particulate
matter [PM2.5]). Criteria air pollutant levels have generally decreased over the last 25 years, as regional
emissions of pollutants and precursor pollutants have decreased. An increase in episodes of wildfire smoke
in recent years, however, has caused spikes in the number of days that air quality standards have been
exceeded. While overall trends for air pollutants remain downward over the last 25 years, the trend in
annual PM2.5 concentrations has only slightly decreased; however, the levels are at or below standards. A
large number of exceedances occurred in the years 2017 through 2020 due to episodes of wildfire smoke.
• Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). The Plan Area is less burdened with TACs than 50 percent of the State (a
CalEnviroScreen range of 5 to 50 percentile). The Air District considers 70 percentile or higher as
overburdened. While efforts to control TAC emissions have been quite effective, some areas are still
exposed to levels that exceed the Air District’s recommended thresholds. Common sources of TAC exposure
include large volumes of truck traffic, construction activity, diesel generators, and gasoline stations. Air
monitoring data published by the Air District for benzene shows dramatic decreases in ambient
concentrations at all Bay Area stations.
Conclusions
For the Plan Area to grow while maintaining air quality, the following challenges will need to be resolved:
• Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The Air District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that land
use plans demonstrate the growth in vehicle travel (measured as trips or VMT) at a lower rate than the
population growth rate. This could be accomplished through land uses and policies that encourage non-
motorized travel and shorter commute distances.
• Compliance with Clean Air Plan Measures and Air District Recommendations. Planned land uses will need
to be in conformity with Clean Air Plan measures, including periodic updates by the Air District to ensure
progress in attaining and maintaining ambient air quality standards.
• Reducing Unhealthy Exposure to TAC and Air Pollutants. The effects of TACs on the public is typically
evaluated through health risk assessments (HRAs) that predict excess cancer risk, non-cancer health hazards,
and exposure to PM2.5. The Plan Area is affected by a large number of TAC sources. The primary sources
that drive overall exposures are busy roadways, diesel locomotives using Caltrain, and stationary sources
permitted by the Air District. The Air District provides screening tools to assess the risks that these sources
pose to the Area. Refined modeling can be conducted at a project level to further assess these impacts and
predict future exposures as controls to reduce TACs become more effective.
8. INFRASTRUCTURE
Note: Some of the topics discussed in this section (such as sea level rise) overlap with topics discussed in Sections 5
and 9. Since these topics are relevant for each of these subject areas, they have been included in each section.
Storm Drain Infrastructure
Storm drainage facilities in and around the Plan Area are owned and maintained by the City of Palo Alto. Per the
2015 City of Palo Alto Storm Drain Master Plan, the Plan Area is located within the Adobe Creek Watershed and
surface water drains north towards Adobe Creek and towards the San Francisco Bay. Local stormwater
infrastructure is located in the rights-of-way of San Antonio Road, East Charleston Road, Fabian Way, and along
Adobe Creek, which runs on the north side of the Plan Area. The Master Plan found that portions of the storm
drain system are currently under
capacity, and identified high priority
system upgrades for East and West
Bayshore Road, East Meadow Drive,
East Meadow Circle, East Charleston
Road and Adobe Creek, and Fabian
Way, as shown in Figure 8.1.
FLOODING
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM) indicate a range of flood hazard
risk levels for parcels within the Plan
Area. As discussed in Section 5, the
Plan Area between East Charleston
Road and the San Francisco Bay falls
within Zone AE, a Special Flood Hazard
Area (SFHA) subject to inundation by a
one percent annual chance flood,
known as the base flood with an
elevation of 10.5. The rest of the Plan
Area falls within Flood Zone X with a
lower probability of flooding. The Plan
Area periodically experiences flooding
during large storm events at the area
bound by East Bayshore Road and
Adobe Creek, West Bayshore Road
and Adobe Creek, East Meadow Circle
and Fabian Drive upstream of the
Adobe Pump Station. The flooding
experienced is generally due to flap
gates unable to open when the water
level in the creek exceeds the height
of the gate at the outfall. In 2024
Public Works Engineering completed Source: City of Palo Alto’s 2015 Storm Drain Master Plan, Schaaf & Wheeler, 2015.
Figure 8.1. 2015 Storm Drain Master Plan Priority Projects
the necessary improvements along East Meadow Circle and East Meadow Drive and eliminated the flooding
potential that would otherwise occur when the gravity fed line was unable to discharge into the creek. Public
Works Engineering is working on a separate construction contract to install two small pump stations and storm
drainpipe upgrades on both East and West Bayshore Road to eliminate the street flooding that occurs near Adobe
Creek. These projects will be completed by December 2026.
Future development projects should anticipate implementation measures to protect from flooding and sea level
rise, and to reduce impact on existing drainage infrastructure.
Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure
The City of Palo Alto owns and maintains the wastewater system. Local wastewater is collected and conveyed to
sewer mains on all public roads and public utility easements on private property, with the trunk main located at
the north-east side of the Plan Area. All wastewater is then conveyed to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality
Control Plant for treatment and discharge or reuse as recycled water. The 2004 Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan – Capacity Assessment by MWH Americas evaluated the capacity of the existing wastewater system
and identified areas with limited capacities and need for system improvements and rehabilitation. According to
the 2023 Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, all the identified projects have been completed. The City is planning
to complete a new Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Study which will include an updated capacity assessment and
recommendations for Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). Future development projects should anticipate
implementing system upgrades that align with identified deficiencies in the future Master Plan Study.
Additionally, there are several sewer mains within the Plan Area smaller than eight inches that should be replaced
with larger pipe sizes as part of future development.
Domestic and Recycled Water Infrastructure
The City of Palo Alto owns and maintains the water distribution system. The Plan Area is adequately served, with
water mains in the rights-of-way of Fabian Drive, San Antonio Road, East Charleston Road, Middlefield Road, Alma
Street, and East and West Bayshore Road. Future development with a change in land use should anticipate
implementing system upgrades, with review on a project-by-project basis. Some of the smaller existing water
mains may need to be upsized to meet localized fire flow requirements, depending on actual building heights,
locations, densities, and construction types.
Currently, only the areas east of US-101 and Greer Park are serviced with recycled water. The City has also
identified future expansions of the recycled water distribution system within City extents but outside of the Plan
Area. Given the proximity of the Plan Area to the existing recycled water system, the City may consider expanding
the recycled water distribution system within the Plan Area to offset future water demand and usage. New
recycled water pipelines would need to be extended across US-101 to serve the majority of the Plan Area.
Distribution pipelines would also need to be built within the street rights-of-way to serve individual properties,
and new buildings in the Plan Area would need to be dual plumbed for both domestic and recycled water use.
Further study is required to evaluate the feasibility of expanding the existing recycled water distribution system
into the Plan Area.
Natural Gas and Electricity Infrastructure
The City of Palo Alto provides natural gas and electricity. Multiple gas mains serve the Plan Area that are located
within the rights-of-way of every public street as well as on several private roads and properties. With current
policies encouraging new development to be designed as “all electric,” the demand for natural gas is expected to
decrease. Existing electrical and fiber optic lines adequately serve the Plan Area. Existing electrical utilities consist
of both underground and overhead lines. It should be anticipated that existing overhead electrical lines will be
converted to underground lines in conjunction with future development. It should also be anticipated that future
development will increase electrical demand. Undergrounding existing overhead electrical lines could represent
an opportunity to upgrade the network in anticipation of potential increases in electrical demand.
Key Findings and Conclusions
• The City of Palo Alto owns and provides stormwater, wastewater, domestic water, recycled water, natural
gas, and electrical utilities.
• Stormwater. Stormwater drains north towards Adobe Creek and the San Francisco Bay via catch basins and
pipes in public rights-of-way. The Adobe Pump Station is located within the Plan Area, and outfalls into
Adobe Creek. The 2015 Storm Drain Master Plan identified seven high priority improvement projects in the
vicinity of the Plan Area to alleviate flooding caused by large storm events. Two of these projects are
complete, three are under construction and two others will be completed by 2032.
• Flooding. The portion of Plan Area that falls within FEMA Flood Zone AE is subject to inundation by a one
percent annual chance flood, also known as the base flood with an elevation of 10.5. The remaining portion
of the Plan Area that falls within FEMA Flood Zone X, has a 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding. Future
developments in the Plan Area will have to account for the base flood elevation and implement measures to
protect new buildings from flooding and sea level rise in accordance with Building Codes. For example,
under FEMA regulations, basement levels are not permitted beneath residential buildings within FEMA Flood
Zones.
• Wastewater. Local wastewater is collected and conveyed via sewer mains in public rights-of-way and public
utility easements on private property, then conveyed to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
for treatment and discharged into the San Francisco Bay, or reused as reclaimed water. According to the
2023 Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, all improvement projects identified in the 2004 Wastewater Master
Plan have been completed. Future development projects should anticipate implementing system upgrades
that align with identified deficiencies in any future Master Plan studies.
• Domestic Water. The area is served by water mains in all public rights-of-way and public utility easements
on private property. Some smaller water mains may need to be upsized with future development in order to
meet localized fire flow requirements.
• Recycled Water. The only recycled water line in the vicinity of the Plan Area runs along East Bayshore Road.
Given its proximity to existing lines, the City may consider expanding the recycled water distribution system
within the Plan Area to offset future water demand and usage.
• Natural Gas. With current policies encouraging the transition of new developments to be designed as “all
electric,” a decrease in demand for natural gas is expected.
• Electricity. Existing electrical utilities consist of both underground and overhead lines. In conjunction with
future development and anticipated increase in demand for electricity, there can be opportunities to
underground existing overhead electrical lines when upgrading the electrical network.
Source: Cal-Adapt, Raimi + Associates
9. CLIMATE AND RESILIENCE
Note: Some of the topics discussed in this section (such as sea level rise) overlap with topics discussed in Sections 5
and 8. Since these topics relevant for each of these subject areas, they have been included in each section.
Policies Regarding Climate Hazard Planning
Hazards related to climate change studied for the Plan Area include sea level rise (SLR), shallow groundwater rise,
flooding, changes to precipitation and drought, extreme heat, and wildfire. Plan Area-specific information
regarding impacts from climate change is referenced from the Santa Clara County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
and Palo Alto Annex (2024), the Palo Alto Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, and data from Cal-Adapt.
The Safety Element of the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan addresses natural and human-caused hazards. It
contains a Natural Hazards policy framework that includes general safety measures and measures to address
flood and fire risk. In 2023-24, Santa Clara County led the update of the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan (SCC MJHMP) with 15 participating jurisdictions and three special districts. As a
participating jurisdiction, Palo Alto adopted its own Annex to the SCC MJHMP with more City-specific information.
The ratings in the Annex are from an emergency management lens so they do not consider how climate change
will increase the probability and impacts of each hazard in the future. Rather, it considers climate change as a
hazard on its own. The City of Palo Alto’s 2022 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) aims to reduce
carbon emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2030. Though the
S/CAP’s main purpose is climate action (greenhouse gas mitigation) one of its “Key Issues” is “Climate Adaptation
and Sea Level Rise”. The S/CAP has two goals and eight actions related to climate adaptation, and also has goals
and associated actions to “minimize the impacts of wildland fire hazards,” but they are not as directly relevant to
the Plan Area because it is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
Future development in the Plan Area will also be affected by new SLR planning processes. SB 272 (2023) requires
that all local governments in the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
(BCDC) adopt a subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan that complies with the requirements of the BCDC Regional
Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP) by January 2034. Palo Alto is in BCDC’s jurisdiction and can adopt a plan on its
own or be part of a plan with other entities.
Baseline Conditions and Projections
Climate projections from the Cal-Adapt database and other reports completed by the City are summarized in
Table 9.1.
Table 9.1. Summary of Hazard Projections
Climate Hazard Trend
Sea level rise More areas potentially exposed to inundation and flooding
Shallow groundwater rise Higher groundwater levels and more areas where groundwater comes above the
surface of the ground (emergent groundwater)
Flooding Flooding may exceed mapped FEMA floodplains
SEA LEVEL RISE
The Bayward portion of the Plan Area up to East
Charleston Road may only experience temporary
flooding during a 100-year storm tide under
current conditions and for up to 24 inches of SLR.
However, the SLR Vulnerability Assessment found
that the average high tide with 36 inches of SLR is
a tipping point when many areas of the City
become vulnerable to permanent inundation
(Figure 9.1). With SLR at 36 inches and above, and
without further shoreline protections, the
Bayward portion of the Plan Area up to East
Charleston Road may experience permanent
inundation with the average high tide, and the
extent of temporary flooding will extend further
inland.
SHALLOW GROUNDWATER RISE
Currently, the existing depth of groundwater
surface within the Plan Area ranges from more
than 10 feet farthest away from the Bay (inland
from Mackay Drive), to less than zero feet in the
area that is part of the Baylands Nature Preserve
(Figure 9.2). However, groundwater within the
Plan Area is projected to rise as SLR occurs. In
general, areas close to the Bay shoreline (and
former wetland areas) are more likely to
experience emergent groundwater flooding. The
area of emergent groundwater expands inland
with higher SLR scenarios.
LIQUEFACTION
Elevation of the groundwater table can affect
liquefaction hazards during large earthquakes.
Nearly all the Plan Area has only “Moderate”
liquefaction susceptibility. However, a portion of
the Plan Area across US-101 close to tidal marshes
has “Very High” susceptibility.
Precipitation and drought Longer dry spells and more extreme storms
Extreme heat Higher average and maximum temperatures, more heatwaves with longer duration,
more warm nights
Wildfire More wildfire smoke
Figure 9.1. SLR Exposure Projections
Source: City of Palo Alto SLR Vulnerability Assessment, 2024; Raimi + Associates, 2025.
Figure 9.2. Existing and Projected Groundwater Depth
Source: City of Palo Alto SLR Vulnerability Assessment, 2024; Raimi + Associates, 2025.
FLOODING
As mentioned previously in Sections 5 and 8 of this report, portions of the Plan Area are in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone AE, which designates a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) with a one
percent or greater annual chance of flooding. Within the Plan Area, the AE Flood Zone covers a large area
generally from Middlefield Road to the Bay. The remainder of the Plan Area is designated as Flood Zone X, which
falls inside the 500-year flood zone.
Key Findings and Conclusions
• The Plan Area is projected to experience varying degrees of flooding from Sea Level Rise (SLR). Temporary
flooding may occur under existing conditions and up to 24 inches of SLR. However, 36 inches of SLR is a
tipping point at which permanent flooding could occur in the Bayward portion of the Plan Area up to East
Charleston Road.
• The Bayward portion of the Plan Area up to East Charleston Road is within FEMA Flood Zone AE, which
means it could be flooded by a one percent chance annual flood event. The rest of the Plan Area is within
FEMA Flood Zone X, which means it is at moderate-to-low flood risk.
• Groundwater is projected to rise as sea levels rise. An increase of 36 inches of SLR is the point at which
groundwater may begin emerging above the ground surface in the Plan Area.
• All available indicators of extreme heat (e.g., average daily temperatures, duration of heat waves) are
projected to increase in the Plan Area.
• The Plan Area is not directly in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone, but it may experience more wildfire smoke in the
future, due to an increased likelihood and severity of wildfires in other parts of the City and region.
From:Michal Sadoff
To:Council, City
Subject:Comments about design of survey - San Antonio Road Area Plan
Date:Monday, October 6, 2025 11:55:55 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello City Council. I have a comment on the design of the San Antonio Road Area Plan survey. I filled it out as best I could. However, parts of it were
poorly worded and therefore difficult to fill out. I give two examples below. If this survey is meant for the average citizen, I think these need to be better
explained or not be asked.
For the question "Do you agree or disagree that these are opportunities", the question itself is not clear. What does that mean "opportunities"? Does it mean
"Are these things already working pretty well"? I did not pick any of the possible responses because I did not understand the question.
For the question "Do you Agree or disagree that these are challenges" - these two potential responses might be clear to some -- but not to me. My reaction
is -- What does this mean, and how would I know.
Future development subject to market conditions and other development uncertainties
Potential incompatibility in near-term between existing and new land uses
I appreciate that the city is asking us for our opinions. However the data you are collecting will not be very trustworthy if the survey is not well designed.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michal Ruth Sadoff
On Monday, October 6, 2025 at 10:06:42 AM PDT, pennyellson12@gmail.com <pennyellson12@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Cain, Robert <Robert.Cain@paloalto.gov>
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 10:04 AM
To: Cain, Robert <Robert.Cain@paloalto.gov>
Subject: RE: San Antonio Road Area Plan Project Survey
Hello,
Please share the survey below and this flyer for the October 23 Community Workshop with your networks if you have not done so already. Much appreciated!
ROBERT CAIN
Principal Planner - Long Range Planning
Planning and Development Department
(650) 838-2892 | robert.cain@paloalto.gov
www.paloalto.gov
From: Cain, Robert
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 5:35 PM
To: Cain, Robert <Robert.Cain@paloalto.gov>
Subject: FW: San Antonio Road Area Plan Project Survey
View as Webpage
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast
SAN ANTONIO ROAD AREA PLAN
Update
The San Antonio Road Area Plan is a multi-year initiative to reimagine land use,
transportation, and community planning for a 275-acre area. Community input will help
inform Council decision-making throughout the key milestones of this effort.
Share your feedback on the Area Plan's vision and goals, opportunities and challenges, and
types of changes you'd like to see through a new online survey.
Responses will help the City create options and alternatives for housing, transportation,
commercial development, and outdoor spaces ahead of City Council consideration. Share
your feedback by October 31.
Take the Survey
Project Website Email the Project Team
Planning and Development Services | 250 Hamilton Ave 5th Floor | Palo Alto, CA 94301 US
Constant Contact Data Notice
Virus-free.www.avg.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gmca-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gmca-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gmca-discuss/005b01dc36e3%247c5343e0%2474f9cba0%24%40gmail.com.
From:
To:Council, City
Subject:San Antonio Area Planning
Date:Sunday, October 5, 2025 10:58:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Here is the excerpt from the 9/9/2025 PABAC minutes, the section where Robert Cain explains the
San Antonio Road 24’ setback with a clarity I’d not heard previously when I asked questions about
it.…(The underlined section is my edit.) I have been asking about the setback in public meetings for
over a year in Council, PTC and PABAC meetings because I’d noticed things had been built in the
setback area that likely could not easily be moved.
Ms. Penny Ellson found it heartening to see to see a section in the report on the bicycle,
14 pedestrian, and transit existing conditions and some thoughts about what might
need to be done. 15 Page 8 of the report talks about a 24-foot special setback and Ms.
Penny Ellson wonders if it 16 includes the parcels where the new hotels were built. Ms.
Penny is unable to find the special 17 setback in the final project approval documents.
18 Mr. Robert Cain explained that everything from Middlefield to 101 has a special
setback; 19 however, developers are not required to abide by it under state law, so
developers can choose to 20 not follow the special setback in their project application.
21 Ms. Penny Ellson read that the 24-foot setback applies to portions of Charleston and
Middlefield 22 Roads but it does not specify where those portions are. Ms. Penny Ellson
feels it is critical for the 23 report to include a map showing the exact locations of
special setbacks because that information 24 affects the right-of-way we have to work
with. 25 Mr. Robert Cain apologizes for not being clearer in the report. Mr. Robert Cain’s
understanding 26 is that north of San Antonio has the old setback. Mr. Robert Cain
believes the area between San 27 Antonio Road and the border with Mountain View has
a reduced setback of 10 feet
(The underline is my edit.)
I was unable to submit the survey, because when I hit the submit button, it would not allow
me to submit my responses. This happens to me with most city surveys. It’s a problem. I’d
appreciate it if someone would help me figure out what I need to do to fix it…or if it is a problem
on the city’s end.
Below, please find my preliminary comments on the SARAP CAG walk audit which I submitted to
staff last week.
Penny
From:
Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2025 1:12 PM
To: 'Cain, Robert' <Robert.Cain@paloalto.gov>; 'Frick, Coleman' <Coleman.Frick@paloalto.gov>
Subject: Preliminary Thoughts from Walk Audit.
Coleman, Robert, Mitali,
Thank you for organizing the audit walk. It was useful (albeit overwhelming) to walk through and
discuss the spaces/existing uses to begin to understand and define the problems that will need to be
solved to successfully integrate new high-density housing and other development in this area. It
seems everyone is agreed that the area, in its present form, is unsuitable for residential use. We have
a long way to go to meet project goals:
Create a more livable community
Improve mobility and safety
Support sustainability
Enhance economic vitality
Because you asked, here are some preliminary thoughts after our adventure. I missed a lot of the
discussion due to overwhelming traffic noise, as I’m sure, we all did. I apologize in advance for any
mistakes that are due to that.
Sense of arrival at San Antonio/East Charleston
There is no sense of arrival. As you enter the San Antonio /Charleston intersection from 101, you
pass a very long, uninteresting TK Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL) wall that ends in a utility entrance
for the TKCJL theatre backstage. To your left is a long row of rundown buildings and scrabbly
landscaping, ending with the former West Marine store that is now another non-descript Sciton
annex). Across the street are two aging gas stations, also sporting scrabbly landscaping. All
entrances to TKCJL are gated (though I fully understand why these gates are necessary). To drivers,
south Palo Alto’s gateway appears like a rundown, unwelcoming commercial area where they
shouldn’t expect to see pedestrians and or bikes. Drivers do not moderate their speed enough
between the 101 ramp and this intersection, and speeds are dangerous. People have been injured
and killed here. The future street design needs to communicate, “You are now entering an active,
vibrant residential area. Slow down, watch for pedestrian and bicyclists.” Its design must force
drivers to moderate their speed before they reach the Charleston/San Antonio intersection. There are
studies that show that trees on the median and sides of the roadway (close objects that activate
peripheral vision) are a trigger that causes drivers to release pressure on the accelerator.
Why are two right turn lanes necessary at the WB approach? I have seen some pretty awful close
calls when drivers take these turns too fast simultaneously.
Welcoming facades and landscaping that address the street at ground level are needed. Occasional
benches or seats for walkers to sit down and rest, especially older people, are needed as well as bus
stops (with buses or shuttles to serve them). These could be integrated in landscaping at appropriate
locations. This intersection and its approaches need a thorough redesign, that prioritizes
safety and comfort for all modes and looks like a southern gate to the city. Narrower lane
widths on the approaches, a Dutch intersection, landscaping and a fresh “Welcome to Palo Alto
sign” or better yet, public art would be nice. This loud, fast, high volume intersection doesn’t look at
all like an entrance to a place where people live.
Generally, I avoid this intersection unless I’m biking to the ACE Hardware store or Foster Museum-–
because there’s no way to avoid it for those trips.
Bike Network/Connectivity
When I bike to the shopping center near COSTCO or shops in the shopping center on East
Charleston, I usually take a back route through The Greenhouse site to the
Leghorn/SanAntonio signal which is a slightly less challenging place to cross San Antonio. This
route allows me to take advantage of quieter bike boulevards and off-road routes until I get to the
signalized Leghorn intersection. I ride Leghorn to access shops in this area. I hope we will work
very hard to connect the SARAP area to the citywide bicycle boulevard network at
multiple locations. Here are some locations where I think this is possible:
Charleston connects to Fabian and Fabian connects to East Meadow school routes and the
bike/ped bridge overpass of 101as well as the creek (which has been discussed as a possible
bike route).
The Greenhouse connection (privately owned, but well used by bicyclists who know about it
via word-of-mouth) between Leghorn and Sutherland/Montrose connects to Middlefield at
Cubberley. (Montrose also connects across Charleston to Louis Road and Ross BB school
routes for bicyclists.) Concepts for Cubberley redevelopment currently include a multi-use
path from Middlefield through the campus to Nelson Drive (a Bryant BB extension toward MV.
Also, Cubberley currently has two gated fire lanes at north and south ends of the playing fields
that are well-used bike/ped connections connecting Nelson Drive to Charleston Shopping
Center and Cubberley.
Middlefield bike lanes disappear at major intersections, including San Antonio Road and
Charleston. This needs to be addressed.
Mackay/San Antonio/Nita crossing (needs serious work)
Ferne (which has a back gate to Greendell School and connects to the Nelson Drive Bryant BB
extension)
Briarwood which connects to Ferne and Nelson –and to the San Antonio Caltrain Station via
either Alma/San Antonio Ave and Alma/Mayfield Ave. I have an idea I want to explore with
Charle Coles about feasibility of a grade-separated bike/ped crossing at this latter
intersection.
Note: There are two Charleston bike/ped connections to the BB network from Greendell,
Greenmeadow, Walnut Grove neighborhood routes:
Creekside bridge across Adobe Creek provides connection through the Walnut Grove
neighborhood to a signalized school crossing at Charleston/Carlson.
The Nelson Drive/Charleston intersection connects to a path through Mitchell Park to
East Meadow Drive and BBs that connect to this collector street.
(I would be remiss if I failed to mention that I think filtration will be needed to prevent cars from using
these quiet, neighborhood bike routes as cut-through routes to arterial streets. Waze will help drivers
find the way.)
The Fabian/Charleston intersection works okay for me on a bike, in a car, or walking—I have no idea
how additional traffic of planned high density development may affect the intersection’s operations
and safety going forward. It’s too bad the State legislators didn’t tie State money for transportation
improvements to compliance with housing mandates in their housing bills.
Transit
For now, San Antonio Caltrain Station has a recently improved schedule of trains. Who knows how
long that will last if we don’t get train boardings (fare recovery) up at that station soon?
I see the city is working on improving the Caltrain Station downtown…again. At some point, can we
expect improvements for access to the San Antonio Station where the majority of State-mandated
housing is being placed? What, if anything is being contemplated? What I’ve seen so far, in the
SouthPA Connectivity process was pretty disappointing.
The San Antonio Caltrain Station’s existing access to/from SARAP project sites is extremely poor.
Distance to the train station from most of the upzoned parcels exceeds the ¼- to ½-mile walkable
standard for urban planning. There’s little useful bus transit in the area, zero functional bike infra and
serious safety/comfort problems with bicycle/pedestrian crossings at every intersection people
would have to pass through to get to Caltrain or bus/shuttle stops.
I didn’t hear anything about bus transit or shuttles. Is a new bus or shuttles on the table? There is
little available auto parking at the Caltrain station and new housing will have limited auto
parking, so Shuttles or buses with very frequent headways and schedules that align with
Caltrain schedules will be very important.
A lot of the area’s housing sites are so far from the Caltrain Station, we didn’t have time to include the
Caltrain Station or anything much beyond Middlefield Road in our walk audit schedule. This, for me,
made it clear that the distance from development areas to Caltrain is going to be a problem for foot-
powered people.
I think a grade-separated crossing of Alma (Central Expressway) to the Caltrain Station at Mayfield
Ave. would help. I have an idea about how that might work. I’m scheduled to walk it with Charlie
Coles on Monday, 10/6, 3:00pm.
Given that parking requirements have been reduced, excellent bicycling infra and bus or
walking radius of the Caltrain station (which will be most of the future area residents and
workers). I hope buses or shuttles will have bike racks.
101 Interchange Changes
There wasn’t much said about this, but I think it is important. I heard Sylvia say at the CSTSC meeting
last week that Ria told her that the Rengstorff connection to East Charleston will not be closed. That
is good to know. Let’s please make sure that is verified as current information and documented.
The interchange concepts look like they will improve safety for all users but will likely increase auto
traffic on San Antonio a lot while reducing interchange traffic and increasing capacity on the
commercial segment of East Charleston. VTA, at the meeting I attended, hadn’t yet done traffic
studies. We need these to understand how their project will affect auto traffic (all modes) in the
SARAP area to understand how much road capacity we actually have to work with. I’m also curious
about how much out-of-direction travel will be required of people on foot and on bikes in the
circuitous interchange bike/ped overcrossing ramp. This will matter a lot for HomeKey residents,
commuters to job sites east of 101, and anyone who wants to use the Bay trails for recreation or
transportation.
I’m continually told no traffic studies have been done yet re: existing conditions for any of these
projects. I find that hard to believe, given the scale of what Google and Mountain View and Palo Alto
and VTA are all planning in this area. I hope this information will be made available soon.
Parks and Communal Outdoor Spaces
Comp Plan 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.” There’s
nothing remotely like this in the entire SARAP area. That needs to be addressed. At least 3,000 new
residents living in smaller, high density dwellings without private yards will need easily accessible,
uncrowded outdoor park space close by. For most of them, Mitchell Park, the Bay Trails, Ramos Park
are a very long walk.
There are zero existing outdoor, green communal spaces and parks in the SARAP area. We need to
consider deafening traffic noise and emissions problems as we think about walk/bike infra and
outdoor communal spaces like pocket parks or whatever the city and developers may have in mind.
To do this, we need some good, detailed maps of the whole area that don’t break it up into pieces so
we can see how parcels relate to each other in context of the whole area. Also, we need to know
where the sun is. Tall buildings can block a lot of sun which can make it impossible for plants to
grow. This map should show creek beds, riparian corridors, any existing undeveloped or protected
land with access points, and it should indicate acreage of every parcel, so we understand the amount
of available space and what is likely to be built next to it.
Building rooftops should be considered for things like things like pickle ball courts on noisy office or
industrial building rooftops near the 101. Maybe Mountain View could put some pickleball courts in
their sections. They have a shortage of PB courts that is driving their pickleball players to Palo Alto’s
public courts, creating a demand problem in our community. (MV has far fewer PB courts per capita
than Palo Alto.) Both cities might address the PB court demand problem by creating new courts on
rooftops in already-noisy development areas.
The noise and emissions of the San Antonio corridor are so significant, I think outdoor gathering
spaces and parks need to be separated from the major roads by the buildings to block noise and
emissions. Consider creating small pocket parks behind and between buildings, using paseos to
connect to major street facilities and maybe other neighborhood building “backyards” to support
neighborhood community building. One “backyard” might also be connected by a gate to Wyandotte
to create direct walkability to nearby shops and services in Mountain View, like Midwife & The Baker
bakery and COSTCO’s shopping center stores, child care, pet care businesses, and restaurants in
this area.
Paseos could create a connection to “backyard” communal areas behind buildings. Paseos
could connect these spaces with gates to the major streets as well. Retail might be clustered around
paseo entrances from major streets like San Antonio and Middlefield. Coffee shops and other local
shops like dry cleaners, nail salons, quick groceries that are helpful close to home, could be designed
as walk-through from paseo to San Antonio sidewalks and bike facilities. Maybe a mini-Piazza’s
annex shop for quick grocery trips. Larger shops and restaurants will need parking, so maybe should
be clustered in nearby areas where space for parking that is available.
Paseos could connect to shared outdoor space in between/behind buildings where neighbors can
commune, walk dogs, let children play. Retail could be visible and connected to both San Antonio
Road and the “backyard” space via paseo. Major street entrances to paseos facing San Antonio could
be designed to look grand. “Backyard” entrances into buildings from the paseos could be designed to
be friendly and welcoming to create neighborhood feel. Perhaps paseos could also extend behind
multiple buildings to connect the outdoor spaces of all of them, creating a more expansive array of
neighborhood gathering spaces with a variety of recreational options where residents can connect as
a community. (Consider closed spaces for dogs to play off-leash), clusters of chess board tables,
climbing structures for kids… and benches under shade trees for parents and others to gather.)
To create this “backyard” space, consider taking some space away from on-street “front yards” No
one is going to want to sit next to San Antonio Road or Middlefield, except to rest from walking or to
wait for a bus. The arterial streets in the planning area are loud, horrible places to have a
conversation or relax. San Antonio is particularly bad because of higher traffic volumes, speeds and
its use as a truck route. The new residents will need close outdoor community space integrated with
their homes, not many blocks away.
For a Park, I was thinking about space in the “park deficient area” that is identified in the 9/24/2025
DRAFT Existing Conditions Analysis (p.10). A park might be nestled into this area in the general
vicinity of the Foster Museum and what looked like a couple of childcare facilities I saw there (The
park might be designed with a little nature art, maybe animal sculptures that can be climbed, in the
spirit of the Foster Museum). It would be nice to connect these facilities and housing to the park with
car-free pathways. The new park could offer green space, treed play areas and separate solo seating
and communal seating for groups and picnics and maybe a community garden where people are
invited to also paint or draw. Parks & Recreation Commission will be more knowledgeable about
what kinds of park facility may be needed at this location, but I think connecting a new restful, natural
place near child care, new homes, and the museum would be a nice start. Provide bike/ped
connections between these types of facilities so that people can walk between them easily.
(Perhaps put part of the park across an existing public street ROW dead-ending the street in its
middle for extra park space (land the city already owns, so they’ll have to buy less, creating two quiet
cul de sacs, allowing only bikes and peds in and through the park. The materials we have been given
so far don’t give me a strong enough understanding of the available space and abutting uses to be
more specific. A park should be no smaller than Ramos Park and could be surrounded by the
museum, child care and housing with only bike/ped access to minimize traffic noise intrusion.
Transportation
Project auto parking requirements have been significantly reduced under political pressure from
developers, so public street space should not be given to auto parking. Using public street
space for auto parking would transfer the cost of creating auto parking from private developers to
taxpayers as they take limited setback space that is needed for safe bike/ped facilities for their
preferred uses. Our Comp Plan does not support this. On-street parking removal should
happen before new housing is occupied (otherwise, new residents who move in because there
is on-street parking their extra car will fight to keep that parking). The SARAP team should identify an
appropriate amount to earmark in the 5-year budget planning process for bike/ped and bus/shuttle
facility implementation as soon as possible to ensure this money is set aside in a timely way.
I am concerned to learn that the promised 24’ setback may not be fully available for
bike/ped facilities use at some locations. This is a significant planning problem that must
be elevated and addressed immediately. I’d like to learn the specifics-- how much setback
space is available at what locations and what options can be explored to create continuous bike/ped
facilities the entire length of BOTH sides of San Antonio Road, especially the side of the road that is
receiving most of the new housing. Again, please provide a MAP that shows the exact ROW that is
available the entire length of the corridor for bike facilities. We cannot solve problems we don’t fully
understand. I view this as an urgent problem that needs to be solved early in the process.
Much stronger bike/ped connections from the SARAP area to the San Antonio Caltrain Station,
should be key considerations in South Palo Alto Connectivity planning (though current concepts fall
short). This will require collaboration with Mountain View which is also planning to significantly
densify this area.
The idea of a bike/ped shared use path on the north side of San Antonio is okay, but the suggested 10’
is too narrow for two-way bikes and ped travel in an area of this density. This facility would not, in my
mind, preclude the need for a continuous bike facility on the south side of San Antonio where the vast
majority of the housing will be built. A similar facility would make more sense on the south side of the
road where most of the housing will be built. A one-way facility on the south side will force out-of-
direction bicycle travel. Not ideal.
Connections to the citywide bike network, TKCJL and nearby existing shopping, public schools, parks,
libraries, community center space for this future densified area will be very important because the
road is unlikely to have capacity to carry the volume of cars that will be generated by this growth if
alternatives to driving are not safe, convenient, and readily available out the front door.
I hope the bike/ped facility problems of all the major streets in this area will be addressed in the
Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan, especially connectivity to the citywide bike network and
School Commute Corridor Walk & Roll routes.
Industrial Uses
Some of these uses may be incompatible with housing, childcare, retail or office uses. However,
industrial uses are an essential part of the ecosystem of Palo Alto’s innovative start-up
economy, providing easy access to custom materials for new machines and labs. Be
careful about phasing them out before their time. I know you will be careful about risks
associated with pairing housing with industrial uses.
Retail
Existing local serving retail and other services/amenities are hard to reach from the SARAP area,
except by car. Staff asked, where should retail go? Should it be clustered or distributed along San
Antonio? (See above. Cluster small retail and restaurants that need to be close to homes around
paseos with access points to/from major public streets so people can stop in for quick trips. We
need to greatly improve bike/ped and transit connections to nearby retail. Consider the commercial
parts of Charleston and Middlefield for larger retail. Paseos behind buildings connecting to
“backyards” could provide a comfortable walking route to this shopping from some San Antonio
locations. It’s too bad this decision-making wasn’t part of a comprehensive planning process before
they upzoned specific sites. It looks like housing may land on sites that are prime retail, industrial and
office spaces.
Paying For Improvements
Significant investment is needed before people can move in. There is, as far as I know, no future
money earmarked in the City of Palo Alto budget for improvements identified by the SARAP process
or, for that matter, the Cubberley process (which leans on passage of a city-wide bond measure). We
need to get the SARAP process moving more briskly. Money must be earmarked.
We need to use the SARAP process to educate residents about the problems that need to be solved
and to engage them in creating workable solutions, so they will feel ownership that is required to
mobilize them to advocate for something instead of against something. These transformative
changes are going to be very expensive.
Big Problems we need to address/solve:
Deafening traffic noise, emissions, and safety impacts. Truly awful. It was very difficult to hear
conversation when walking on San Antonio Road and the commercial end of Charleston Road
sidewalks. No one is going to want to go for a stroll with friends on these roads. (I recognize traffic
impacts on the commercial piece of Charleston may improve a little when the 101 interchange
alteration happens. It’s hard to know, given that traffic analysis related 101interchange alterations
and high density development isn’t yet available.
I mentioned that about a year ago I was almost hit by the trailer bed of a large truck while crossing NB
on the east side of Middlefield/San Antonio. I was crossing on a WALK signal and misjudged the time I
had to cross. The light changed, so I decided to wait on the median island. The truck turned left from
the WB left turn lane, its trailer went over the median island. I had to jump behind the utility pole on
the island to escape it. Thank goodness I’m nimble and wasn’t walking with large packages or
children. An ADA compliant median island with much a better refuge island area is needed at this
long crossing.
All buildings will need noise mitigation on the traffic sides of the buildings. Close, quiet
places for outdoor relaxation and play behind buildings should be created.
Not going to lie, I will grieve the loss of our mountain views.
What types of retail/services may be needed and where should they go? Given that we
need to abandon on-street parking to create bike lanes, let’s accept that auto drivers won’t be able
to stop to shop unless internal parking for shopping is created. These shops will depend on foot
traffic. Paseos?
There must be continuous, comfortable and safe bike facilities and bus or shuttle transit
on the entire length of both sides of this corridor. If there is not, the density can’t work. If
there’s going to be under-parked housing there, there has to be a one-way protected bike lane, at
minimum. Can the treed median be moved to take some space from the WB side of the road and give
it to the EB side? A two-way bicycling/pedestrian shared use path of 10’ on one side of the road is
insufficient to serve density of this scale. Also, if the long-term plan is to remove parking to
create bike lanes, parking removal has to happen before the new housing is occupied.
Otherwise, new residents will buy in expecting to retain the street parking spaces, especially because
the proposed projects so far are under-parked. They will fight to keep the street parking. This has to
be addressed in the early development process.
What existing ground floor development should be retained? Businesses that support
start-ups. These are the eco system that supports our local economy. Let’s not be sloppy
about this. Low-cost office space, low-cost space for tooling and other services that
start-ups need close by.
Some Citywide Land Use Context That South Palo Altans think About
San Antonio Area has:
no grid network of streets (compare to north PA’s grid network that makes walking and biking
easier)
very little bus transit and less train service compared to north PA (Yet south PA is getting
almost all of the new housing while the city is making faster headway to improve University Av.
and the downtown train station and the El Camino transit station. Hmmmm.
zero bike/ped grade-separated crossings (as opposed to four existing bike/ped grade
separated crossings in north PA
absolutely horrible bike/ped connections across Alma and Centra Expressway to the nearest
Caltrain station. Deafening noise from high speed, high volume, high emissions arterial truck
route traffic and no bike lanes at all, even on some of the cross streets, like Middlefield. Even
with new bike lanes, it will be an awful place to bike.
Urban blight happens when resources are distributed unevenly. This housing should have been
distributed more evenly, and fairly, throughout the city. Upzoned areas should be closer to the train
station, and this area should be getting a grade-separated bike/ped crossing to the train station. Area
planning should have started when the city was contemplating upzoning, not more than a year after
upzoning was complete. Water over the dam, I know, but the city really should be considering the
optics of how they are treating south PA.
About a third of Palo Alto’s state-mandated new high-density housing has been zoned for this area of
south PA. We’ve just learned that the minimal housing north PA was going to get cannot be built
because property owners of north PA fought it with a lawsuit, and the city lost. Already staff is asking
if there are any places in the San Antonio area where we’d support more housing.
The only way the proposed volume of housing can work is if we have decent bike facilities and
bus/shuttle transit that connect into town and to the San Antonio Caltrain Station from every single
housing project.
Request For a Summary
It was very difficult to hear group discussion over the deafening traffic noise. I think we all missed a lot
of each others’ conversations. That’s unfortunate. I hope a summary is coming on what staff and the
consultants heard.
Penny Ellson (speaking as an individual)
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From:Ted O"Hanlon
To:Megan Watson; Council, City
Subject:For City Council 10/6 hearing
Date:Friday, October 3, 2025 4:32:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Draft for email to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org your edits and changes are welcome!
Subject: Support for San Antonio Road Area Plan (SARAP)
As the owner of 788 San Antonio Road, Grubb Properties we look forward to being an active
participant in the City’s continued planning efforts for the San Antonio Road Area Plan.
Originally, this project helped set the stage for housing along the corridor and we continue to
see 788 San Antonio as a catalyst property for the area’s evolution into a more dynamic,
connected community.
The San Antonio Road Area Plan will provide a collaborative framework to guide this
transformation. Its focus on creating a walkable, multimodal environment with improved
connections and safe crossings is essential. Property owners like us are directly impacted by
these decisions, and we support coordinated guidelines and investments that will strengthen
the corridor as a whole.
We remain committed to being a constructive partner in this process and to advancing projects
that align with the Plan’s vision. With the City’s leadership, we believe the Area Plan will help
realize a vibrant, livable neighborhood that delivers on Palo Alto’s housing and community
goals.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Additional info
Link to Agenda, Study Session Item #3, therein links to Draft Study & Staff report. 6:30pm to
7:30pm estimated
Palo Alto YouTube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto
---
Ted O'Hanlon
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
City Council
Meeting #1
October 6, 2025
Chris Sensenig, Associate Principal, Raimi and Associates
Robert Cain, Principal Planner, Long Range Planning (Project Manager)
Overview
•Key Findings
•Next Steps
•Discussion
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
What will the San Antonio Area Plan have?
•Land use program (derived from land use alternatives)
•Development standards to inform future zoning updates
•Policies for mobility, housing, sustainability, and other topics
•Recommended public realm improvements and priority projects
•Development incentives, implementation strategies, and phasing
What is an Area Plan?
3
An Area Plan is a comprehensive planning and zoning tool for a defined area within a
community. It establishes the vision and guiding principles for the area with community
input; and provides guidance for future development by establishing land uses,
implementation policies and projects, and development standards. It is separate from,
but must be consistent with, the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan.
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
What is the San Antonio Road Area Plan?
4
A City-led initiative to create a 20-year vision with active community input
ENHANCE ECONOMIC VITALITY Attract new businesses, strengthen Palo Alto’s
economy, and preserve valued local businesses.
CREATE A MORE LIVABLE COMMUNITY
Encourage residential and mixed-use development, with
housing at all income levels, and access to well-designed
public spaces and neighborhood services and retail.
IMPROVE MOBILITY AND SAFETY Enhance streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and transit
connections for easier and safer travel for all users.
SUPPORT SUSTAINABILITY Promote development with fewer, shorter commutes,
integrate green infrastructure, increase tree canopy, and
build resilience to climate change.
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Project Area
5
•The Area Plan covers 275.3 acres along Palo Alto’s border with
Mountain View.
•The project area covers most of the Bayshore Alma San Antonio
(BASA) Priority Development Area (PDA) boundary.
•Includes 1.8-mile length of San Antonio Road with major
intersections at US-101, East Charleston, Middlefield and Alma/
Central Expressway.
•Southern part of the Plan Area is within a half-mile of San
Antonio Caltrain station.
•Mix of industrial, office, service commercial and residential uses.
Adjacent neighborhoods in both Palo Alto and Mountain View
are residential.
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 6
Project Timeline
Workshop (Pop-up TBD)
Online Survey
Walk Audit
CAG+TAG Meetings
Council, Commissions, Boards
Policy
Recommendations +
Draft Development
Standards
Engagement
Strategy,
Materials,
Existing Conditions
Report
Final Area
Plan + EIR
Admin.
Draft Area
Plan + EIR
Land Use +
Mobility
Alternatives,
Preferred
Alternative
ARB + CSTSC + PABAC + PTC + CC
Public
Review
Draft Area
Plan + EIR
ARB + PRC + PABAC+PTC+CC ARB + PRC + PABAC+PTC+CC PTC+CC Adoption Hearings
20282025
Phase 1
Project Initiation +
Existing Conditions
Assessment
Phase 2
Vision + Land Use/
Mobility
Alternatives
Phase 3
Analysis + Policy
Recommendations
Phase 4
Draft Area Plan
+ EIR
Phase 5
Plan Adoption +
Implementation
2026 2027
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Existing Conditions Analysis
7
Nine Analysis Memos by topic + Summary
1.Land use and zoning
2.Housing, growth and displacement risk
3.Transportation and mobility
4.Market and economic analysis
5.Hazards, public safety, and historic resources
6.Parks, open space, and public facilities
7.Noise and air quality
8.Infrastructure
9.Climate and resilience
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Location and Context
8
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 9
Built Character + Open Space
NORTH
FABIAN WAY CTI NEIGHBORHOOD
NORTH
BAYSHORE
OFFICE
PARK
SOUTH FABIAN WAY/
TAUBE KORET CAMPUS
GREENHOUSE
COMMUNITY CHARLESTON/ MIDDLEFIELD/
SAN ANTONIO
CORRIDOR
ALMA STREET
CORRIDOR
SAN ANTONIO
ROAD/ AVENUE
CORRIDOR
Character Areas
Built Character
•Diverse mix of industrial,
office, service commercial,
and residential uses.
•Distinct character areas based
on lot sizes, building types,
and built character.
•Individual lots transforming
from industrial/ commercial
to mixed-use.
Open Space
•Access to neighboring parks
but no existing park or
community space.
•Area between Charleston and
US-101 is “park-deficient”,
outside 10-minute walkshed. Access to Parks
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 10
Zoning + Development Activity
Pipeline Projects
Zoning
•2023-2031 Housing Element
identifies 53 opportunity sites in
the Plan Area.
•GM and ROLM-zoned districts
within Plan Area designated as
Focus Areas.
•City’s Housing Incentive Program
(HIP) applies to part of Plan Area.
Pipeline Projects
•Recent development proposals,
typically mid-rise multifamily.
•Potential for 750 new housing units
if all proposed projects get built.
1237 San
Antonio Rd
2400-2470
Charleston
824 San Antonio800,808 San
Antonio Rd
788 San
Antonio Rd
762 San
Antonio Rd
Zoning Map
3997 Fabian Way
3950 Fabian Way
1237 San
Antonio Rd
2400-2470
Charleston
824 San Antonio800,808 San
Antonio Rd
788 San
Antonio Rd
762 San
Antonio Rd
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Tier 1 Overview
•½ Mile from Caltrain Entrance
•Allows up to 65 ft in Height
•Densities of 100 du/a
•¼ Mile from Caltrain Entrance
•Allows up to 75 ft in Height
•Densities of 120 du/a
Impact of SB 79
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 12
Existing Housing, Jobs, and Future Potential
Existing Housing
•802 housing units (about 3% of City’s housing stock),
most dating from the 1970s.
•Building types include 2-3 story multifamily rentals and
condos, and 2-story townhouses.
•30% of Plan Area housing is deed-restricted (252 units,
including 80 senior housing units) and Byron Street areas
has “naturally occurring affordable housing.”
•40% of Plan Area residents are renters.
Existing Jobs and Businesses
•Limited retail within Plan Area but variety of retail and
service amenities within half-mile and one-mile radius.
•Has 4.3% of City jobs, but 40% of all manufacturing jobs,
concentrated in small office and light industrial spaces in
Commercial St/Transport St/Industrial Ave area.
Future Potential
•Strong housing market for both rental and
ownership models.
•Most likely to attract midrise multi-family
housing development.
•Opportunity for housing at a variety of income
levels to meet projected regional growth.
•Potential for local-serving retail, restaurants, and
services near areas of housing growth.
•Prime retail locations with high visibility and
access at intersections of San Antonio with
Middlefield and Charleston.
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Identified priorities include improving connectivity,
pedestrian-bike safety, and station access
•Existing bicycle facilities along San Antonio Road limited, with
only a short segment between Middlefield and Charleston.
•Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis identifies highest
stress rating (LTS-4) for segments on San Antonio Road, Alma
Street, and Middlefield Road.
•Gaps in the existing pedestrian network limit direct access to
key destinations in adjacent neighborhoods and to Caltrain.
Multimodal Connectivity
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Identified safety issues need to be addressed
•A total of 143 collisions in the Plan Area over the past 10 years,
including two fatal and three severe injury collisions.
•Unsafe speeds accounted for 34% of all collisions.
•The Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan’s High-Injury
Network (HIN) corridors (prioritized for safety interventions as
part of Vision Zero) includes San Antonio Road from Alma Street
to Charleston Road, Middlefield Road from San Antonio Road to
Lytton Avenue, and Charleston Road from San Antonio Road to
Los Palos Avenue.
Safety For All Users Fatal
Severe Injury
Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
The Plan Area can have potential impacts from
climate change and natural hazards
•Part of the Plan Area is located in FEMA flood zone AE, a Special
Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) designation.
•Area north and east of Charleston Road has potential to be
inundated during an average tide, under a 36-inch sea level rise
scenario.
•Portions near the Bay and streams are at risk of ground
liquification in a seismic event.
•Plan Area is not located in a California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ).
•Noise and air quality issues will need to be mitigated as part of
future development.
Hazards and Climate Change
Zone AE
Zone X
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 16
Development Opportunities
16
NORTH
BAYSHORE
OFFICE PARK
CHARLESTON/ MIDDLEFIELD/
SAN ANTONIO
CORRIDOR
GOOGLE X CAMPUS(Planned Development)
ALMA
STREET
CORRIDOR
SOUTH
FABIAN WAY
NORTH
FABIAN WAY CTI
NEIGHBORHOOD
Opportunities
•Active development projects
•Indicate market interest in Plan Area
•Areas actively transitioning into residential/mixed-use
•Commercial Street/Transport Street/ Industrial Avenue (CTI) area and
adjacent land in Mountain View has significant properties under single
ownership
•Intersection of San Antonio Road/Middlefield Road has development
potential
•If the Maxar site redevelops in the future, it can be a significant
development since the large site area makes placemaking investments
more feasible.
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 17
Identified Opportunities and Challenges
Opportunities
•Good auto access from US-101
•Proximity to Caltrain
•Diverse mix of existing uses to build on
•Recent development interest
•Zoning initiatives have increased development
potential
•Opportunity to provide housing at a variety of
income levels
•Coordination with the Cubberley Master Plan
•South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity project
Challenges
•Limited pedestrian and bike facilities
•Traffic, pedestrian, and bike safety
•Inadequate access to Caltrain
•Inadequate transit service
•Traffic congestion during peak periods
•Limited existing neighborhood-serving retail and services
•No existing park or other community space
•Future development subject to market conditions and
other development uncertainties
•Potential incompatibility in near term between existing
and new land uses
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 18
Public Meetings
September and October meetings and engagement events:
•September 9: Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC)
•September 10: Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)
•September 18: Architectural Review Board (ARB)
•September 25: City/School Transportation Safety Committee (CSTSC)
•October 6: City Council
•October 16: Pop-Up #1
•October 23: Community Workshop #1
Next Phase:
•Sep 2025 to Jun 2026: Land Use and Mobility Alternatives Questions?
Click the QR code
to find out more
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 19
Feedback from Commissions/Boards/CAG/TAG
Planning and Transportation Commission
•How do you improve vehicle flow and infrastructure as well as bike/ped?
•Aim big on ped/bike infrastructure
•Work with Mountain View on ped/bike improvements
•Address the RV and unhouses situation
•How do you get the affordable units in addition to market rate?
•Are there ways to increase transit in the plan area
•Unlikely to support new office but need to know more.
•Minimum 3:1 residential to office floor area need for balance
•Worry about redevelopment in flood risk areas
•Project can create a new gateway to Palo Alto
•Go big here, there could be 10,000 units or more. Don’t limit height.
•Plan for the next housing element in addition to this one
•Would be open to a series of small open spaces instead of a larger park
•Look at how the Maxar site may change in the long term
•Consider where the children going to attend school, and the capacity at these
schools
•There will need to be recommended walk/roll routes to those schools
•The City launched a public survey to elicit additional feedback
•Survey runs from October 2 to October 31
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 20
Feedback from Commissions/Boards/CAG/TAG
Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee
•Improving connections to Caltrain for cyclists and pedestrians
•Improving cycling infrastructure preferably separated from vehicle traffic
•Reducing crossing times, adding crossings, improving safety
•Creating local-serving retail spaces that are nearby
•Mitigating increased traffic from new development and other nearby projects
such as the VTA 101 interchange improvements
•Need more trees
•Consider future of transportation
•Concern about the RV’s
•How will the growth impact schools?
•Improve access to Caltrain
•Would like to see larger open spaces
•Affordable non-profit space should be included
•How will parking be addressed?
•Has fire service water been analyzed
•Incorporate Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (SCAP)
•Green stormwater requirements may make bike infrastructure more expensive
•Create more shade along ped/bike routes
•How will future infrastructure and open space be funded?
•Staff is aware of the importance of coordinating with other
jurisdictions and has organized regular meetings with
Mountain View staff
•Coordination with Valley Transportation Authority also
underway
•Coordination with school districts (Palo Alto Unified School
District, Mountain View Whisman School District,Mountain
View–Los Altos Union High School District)and Caltrain
forthcoming
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 21
Requested Feedback
Vision
What other
opportunities and
challenges within
the Plan Area
warrant further
consideration?
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Residential Development
The Plan Area was rezoned for the Housing Element Opportunity Sites and the Housing Incentive Program.
•The Project Team will explore further scenarios to increase residential capacity at all income levels, including
modifications to existing development standards.
•The Project Team will explore incentives, such as additional office floor area, for private developers to fulfill
Area Plan goals related to housing and public improvements.
Requested Feedback
Outdoor Space
Palo Alto has a wide variety of public outdoor spaces
and community facilities, but the Plan Area has
no parks or community spaces, particularly in the
Commercial Street/Industrial Avenue area, which is
more than a 10-minute walk from nearby parks.
•The Project Team will explore methods to
locate new outdoor space, including parkland
dedication, land acquisition, and public-
private partnerships.
Retail
As the Plan Area adds residential uses, the lack of
everyday retail and services within the Plan Area, such
as restaurants, cafes, grocery stores, and personal
services, would need to be addressed.
•The Project Team will explore retail models,
evaluating the benefits of clustered or
distributed retail, including optimal locations.
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 23
Requested Feedback
•The Project Team will explore mobility improvements for all
travelers, including redesigning San Antonio Road, creating
bike/ped facilities through neighborhoods, and/or utilizing special
setbacks.
Mobility Priorities
The project team has identified the following key mobility priorities
within the Plan Area:
•Create a safe and convenient pedestrian and bike connection along
San Antonio Road to the Caltrain Station.
•Improve pedestrian and bike facilities across San Antonio Road and along
E Charleston Street and Middlefield Road to connect to community
destinations and open space resources.
•Improve bike connections across US-101 to Baylands nature preserve.
•Enable Safe Routes to School through safety improvements.
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
•Existing Conditions Analysis
•Initial Plan Considerations
o Housing. The plan area will consider scenarios for increased growth including re-evaluation of
housing needs allocation capacity in the plan area.
o Office. Alternatives will explore potential to increase office development to support community
plan objectives.
o Development Standards. Alternatives will generally look at mid-rise construction types up to
85-95 feet range but will evaluate at least one scenario with taller buildings.
o Transportation. Alternatives will explore mobility improvements for all travelers, including
redesigning San Antonio Road and creating bike/ped facilities through neighborhoods.
o Open Space. Through land acquisition or public-private partnerships, plan will seek to create
new opportunities for open space.
o Retail. Retail will be prioritized to be aggregated and co-located with open space and housing
to create community gathering “third places.”
Requested Feedback: Summary
Thank you!