HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2603-6127CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Monday, April 06, 2026
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
3.San Antonio Road Area Plan Update and Council Feedback on Draft Land Use and
Transportation Concepts and Alternatives. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15262. Staff Presentation, Public Comment
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: STUDY SESSION
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
Report #: 2603-6127
TITLE
San Antonio Road Area Plan Update and Council Feedback on Draft Land Use and
Transportation Concepts and Alternatives. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section
15262.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council conduct a study session to:
1. Receive an update on the San Antonio Road Area Plan
2. Provide feedback to staff on land use and transportation concepts and alternatives
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The San Antonio Road Area Plan (Area Plan) is a City-led initiative to develop an integrated land
use and transportation vision for the 275.3-acre corridor along San Antonio Road, with the
goals of increasing housing production, improving multi-modal mobility, creating new open
spaces, and supporting commercial vitality. This study session marks a critical milestone: staff is
presenting draft land use and mobility alternatives (Attachment A) and requesting Council
feedback to narrow the range of options before a preferred alternative is selected at the June 8,
2026 Council meeting.
The alternatives explore meaningful tradeoffs across several policy dimensions, including
building heights and residential densities, the role of office development in the CTI sub-area,
bicycle and pedestrian facility design along San Antonio Road and E. Charleston Road, and the
distribution of parks, open space, and ground floor retail across the plan area. Financial analysis
(Attachment B) indicates that the 90-foot mid-rise building type is the most feasible near-term
option for housing, while office development in the CTI sub-area presents an opportunity to
improve project feasibility and fund public benefits, including parks and infrastructure.
Council feedback at this session will inform the alternatives presented in June, when staff will
return to seek formal direction on a preferred alternative. Staff requests Council's initial
reactions on which concepts merit further development and which may warrant setting aside,
so that the June presentation can offer a more focused set of options for decision.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
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 and work began
in April 2025. Phase one of the Area Plan included analysis of the area through literature and
1 September 18, 2023, City Council Meeting:
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=3056&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=0bc4e1ba-
de31-426a-892f-ae4a36969781
2 March 10, 2025, City Council Meeting:
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=5768&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=787bc75f-
1bbd-4311-8628-64aacd028498&cr=1
regulatory review, site visits, collection of new data, stakeholder interviews, workshops,
surveys, and other technical studies to determine the area’s existing conditions, strengths, and
challenges. Staff convened both a Community Advisory Group (CAG) made up of area residents
and stakeholders and a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) made up of City staff and subject
matter experts. One outcome of phase one was the development of a draft Existing Conditions
Analysis Summary Report, which was presented to the City Council; Planning and
Transportation Commission; Architectural Review Board; Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory
Committee; and City/School Transportation Safety Committee in 2025.5 A Community Survey
was conducted in October 2025, and the first Community Workshop was held on October 23,
2025.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (March 3, 2026)
Human Relations Commission (March 12, 2026)
Architectural Review Board (March 19, 2026)
Parks and Recreation Commission (March 24, 2026)
Planning and Transportation Commission (March 25, 2026)
City/School Transportation Safety Committee (March 26, 2026)
ANALYSIS
5 October 6, 2025, City Council Meeting:
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=6489&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto
Land Use
For the land use alternatives, the project team has divided the 275.3-acre plan area into
districts which could be seen as distinct development areas. Some of these areas are
considered not likely to redevelop during the next 25 years, due to factors such as how recently
the current property was developed, institutional uses, and disparate ownership. Other areas
have a higher probability of redevelopment. Page 18 of Attachment A identifies specific
locations of these development areas. The development areas are:
Primary Sub-Areas (High Development Potential)
The primary focus of the land use alternatives is on four high development potential areas
listed below. These areas are considered most likely to change. The project team has created a
series of options (or alternatives) to consider. These are illustrated in Attachment A on pages
20-58.
Central San Antonio — is generally the area along San Antonio Road between East
Charleston Road and Byron Street, excluding the Greenhouse. This area includes several
pipeline residential development projects, additional sites likely to redevelop (such as
the Magnussen Toyota site at 690 San Antonio Road), and only a handful of sites
unlikely to redevelop (such as the two recently constructed hotels at 744 and 750 San
Antonio Road). Many properties contain one- to two-story commercial development.
These are explored in pages 26-30 of Attachment A.
South Fabian — The portion of Fabian Way on either side of Charleston Road, this area
includes the Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life, a private school, and some of the most
recently constructed multi-family housing, none of which is likely to redevelop.
However, there are several low-rise commercial spaces and surface parking lots which
have high development potential. This area contains some pipeline residential
development projects. These are explored in pages 31-35 of Attachment A.
North Fabian — The portion of Fabian Way closest to U.S. 101; this area contains 2-3
story office buildings (including the Maxar Site at 3825 and 3875 Fabian Way) and a
private school. While the school is unlikely to redevelop, the owner of the Maxar Site is
currently seeking a buyer, with residential development likely to be considered as part
of any redevelopment. These are explored in pages 36-43 of Attachment A.
CTI — The area containing Commercial Street, Transport Street, and Industrial Avenue
(CTI), bounded by San Antonio Road, U.S. 101, East Charleston Road, and the City’s
border with Mountain View contains a number of small lot, one- to two-story
commercial buildings. While there are no active development applications in this area,
there is developer interest in consolidating lots in this area. A 10-acre mixed-use
development is currently proposed in Mountain View adjacent to this area, and there is
a unique opportunity to work across jurisdictions in developing a new neighborhood in
this area. These are explored in pages 44-62 of Attachment A.
Secondary Sub-Areas (Limited Development Potential)
East and West Bayshore — The area bounded by East Bayshore Road, San Antonio Road,
and the Baylands Nature Preserve currently contains a number of low-rise office
buildings and the HomeKey transitional housing site. Separated from the rest of the Plan
Area by U.S. 101 and in close proximity to the Bay, this area appears less desirable for
increased residential development. The single parcel along West Bayshore Road
adjacent to the U.S. 101 bike/ped bridge also currently has a commercial office use and
is not well connected to the surrounding community.
Alma — The portion of the plan area along Alma Street contains a small townhouse
development and two faith-based organizations with larger parking lots. While state
laws have made it easier to develop housing on faith-based properties and in proximity
to Caltrain stations, this area is still less likely to redevelop.
(redevelopment not anticipated)
Greenhouse — The Greenhouse (777 San Antonio Road) and the Greenhouse II (765 San
Antonio Road) are a series of individually owned townhomes constructed in the 1970s.
Green Meadow — Green Meadow is one of Palo Alto’s mid-century subdivisions
designed by Joseph Eichler. While it is listed on the National Register, it is not a
designated district on Palo Alto’s Inventory. Green Meadow is outside of the plan area,
but within the Senate Bill 79 (2025) development area.
South San Antonio — South San Antonio is generally the area along San Antonio Road
between Byron Street and Nita Avenue. This area contains individually owned
townhomes, low-rise apartment buildings, and private schools.
Mobility
San Antonio Road (E. Charleston Road to Middlefield Road) – This segment currently
includes an approximately 100+foot public right-of-way (ROW), four travel lanes (two in
each direction), a raised median and on-street parking which transition to turn lanes at
intersections. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. Bicycle travel is
currently accommodated via Class III shared-lane markings (“sharrows”), where people
bicycling and motor vehicles operate in the same travel lane – there are no dedicated
on-street bicycle lanes or separate bicycle facilities along this segment. The alternatives
presented in pages 99-106 of Attachment A provide three concepts to enhance
pedestrian and bicycle facilities while maintaining existing general-purpose vehicle
travel lanes along the City’s east-west truck route.
E. Charleston Road (south of San Antonio Road) – This segment functions as a key
connection to the City of Mountain View, and currently provides pedestrian and bicycle
accommodations along the corridor (e.g., sidewalks and bike lanes). The alternatives
presented on pages 116-119 of Attachment A present two concepts to enhance
pedestrian and bicycle facilities along this segment.
public parks are built within the Maxar Site and CTI Sub-Area. Attachment B also discusses tools
that the City can use to fund and secure land for parks and for improvements included in the
“Mobility Alternatives,” given that much of the required land is currently privately owned.
Under current conditions, the townhome prototype outperforms all other prototypes in
the plan area. Townhomes are relatively inexpensive to build and sell for high prices in
the Palo Alto market, including within the plan area.
Both midrise rental housing and office development are likely to become financially
feasible in the Plan as market conditions improve, though neither prototype currently
achieves a positive residual land value. Feasibility depends on a combination of rent
growth and meaningful improvement in financing conditions. Palo Alto remains one of
the region's most desirable office markets; although the plan area will remain a
secondary location within the city, significant office development potential exists as
achievable rents increase, financing costs decline, and the area benefits from the
creation of an adjacent mixed-use office destination in Mountain View.
Overall Plan Direction. Any concerns or observations regarding the Area Plan's scope,
direction, or timeline.
Sub-Area Classification. Whether the designation of primary, secondary, and stability
areas aligns with Council expectations.
Residential Density and Building Heights. Whether Council has a preference among the
height and density alternatives that drive the 25-year housing projection range of 3,800
to 7,400 units plan-wide. The alternatives turn primarily on building height: 60 ft
allowing up to 5-story mid-rise construction at approximately 90 du/ac, 90 ft allowing up
to 8-story construction at approximately 135 du/ac, and a high-rise option of 160 to 250
ft. The 90 ft mid-rise alternative is identified as the most financially feasible building
type. The high-rise option, while providing maximum flexibility, faces significant near-
term feasibility challenges. Direction on whether any of these height tiers should be
removed from further consideration.
Office Development. Whether there is Council support for two related but distinct
office policy directions in the CTI sub-area. First, the conversion of existing lower-density
R&D and less efficient office space into higher-density Class A office, which improves
development feasibility and can fund public benefits such as parks and infrastructure.
Second, whether there is support for net new office floor area beyond what conversion
alone would produce, up to approximately 175,000 square feet.
Mobility Improvements. Whether Council has a preferred direction among the mobility
alternatives, which range from minimal changes to existing conditions, to a balanced
approach using existing infrastructure with targeted improvements, to more
transformative corridor changes. A key variable is the type of bicycle facility: on-street
bike lanes, sidewalk-level separated bikeways, or multi-use paths.
Mobility Improvements. Whether Council has a preferred direction among the
alternatives for two focus segments. On San Antonio Road between E. Charleston and
Middlefield, options range from separated bikeways within the existing curb footprint to
a more transformative two-way bikeway on both sides requiring curb reconstruction
and tree relocation. On E. Charleston south of San Antonio, options include a 14-foot
multi-use path within an expanded setback or widened bike lanes requiring curb work.
Direction on which options to carry forward or eliminate would help narrow alternatives
ahead of June.
Parks and Outdoor Space. Whether Council has a preference on how open space is
distributed across the plan area, including consolidated versus dispersed configurations,
interior versus roadway-adjacent locations, and co-location with retail and services.
Ground Floor Retail. Whether Council supports limiting ground floor retail requirements
to primary sub-areas, where market conditions are more likely to sustain it, while
allowing but not requiring retail in secondary sub-areas.
Information Needs for June Decision. What additional analysis or information would
help Council select a preferred land use and mobility alternative at the June 8 study
session.
NEXT STEPS
The purpose of this study session is to provide an update to Council on the Area Plan and
receive feedback on specific topic areas. To the extent the Council’s feedback identifies
refinement or areas not supported for continued exploration – a narrower list of options can be
presented to the City Council at its next meeting. In June, staff anticipates returning to the City
Council to select an alternative concept that will then be used for more granular analysis and
policy development, design standards and environmental review.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
7 As of March 1, 2026, $654,515.33 of this budget has been spent. As of this
report, the project is approximately one third of the way through both the schedule and
budget. There are no additional costs associated with this action item.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
7 CMR 2501-4703 was approved on March 10, 2025 and can be viewed here:
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=5768&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=787bc75f-
1bbd-4311-8628-64aacd028498&cr=1
February/March 2026. The project team has also promoted engagement with the project at
Third Thursday, the California Avenue Farmer’s Market, and meetings with citizen interest
groups such as the League of Women Voters.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
Task 4Plan Alternatives
Memorandum
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Table of Contents
•Project Vision
•Plan Alternatives: Objectives, Priorities and Process
•Overall Design Strategy
•Sub Area Alternatives
•Primary Sub Area Alternatives
•Evaluating Trade-Offs
•Secondary Sub Area Alternatives
•Mobility Alternatives
•Mobility Strategies
•San Antonio Road
•E. Charleston Road
•Fabian Way
04
07
12
17
73
84
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 3
•Section Break
•Green Slide
•White Border
•Defines different sections of
the Alternatives memorandum.
Deck Description
•Strategy/Alternative
•White Slide
•Green Border
•Describes design
strategies, policies, and
design alternatives.
•Provides a high-level
overview of concepts,
trade-offs and related
information.
•Additional Information
•White Slide
•Orange Border
•Describes details of design
strategies and alternatives.
•Provides additional
information to inform
decision making.
Project Vision
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 5
Vision Statement (Draft)
The vision for San Antonio Road is of a vibrant mixed-use corridor connecting
walkable neighborhoods where people of all incomes can live, work, and thrive;
where safe streets, transit, and green infrastructure can support shorter
commutes, reliable transit, and climate resilience; and with a dynamic economy
that attracts new businesses while sustaining local shops and services that define
the community.
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Overarching Goals of the Area Plan
6
A City-led initiative to create a 20-year vision with active community input, with results
from 200+ survey respondents included
ENHANCE
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Attract new businesses, strengthen Palo Alto’s
economy, and preserve valued local businesses.
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.
CREATE A MORE
LIVABLE COMMUNITY 78% support/
strongly support
90% support/
strongly support
82% support/
strongly support
73% support/
strongly support
IMPROVE MOBILITY
AND SAFETY
Plan Alternatives:
Objectives, Priorities
and Process
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 Alternatives do?
•Translate what we have heard from the community and decision-makers into physical
interventions that support the project vision.
•Test out land use and mobility design concepts to resolve identified issues in the Plan Area,
shape future development, and explore how to deliver community benefits.
•Inform feasibility analysis to ensure streamlined implementation on project completion.
Alternatives: Objectives
How will the Alternatives impact project outcomes and implementation?
•Inform modifications to existing development standards to regulate future development.
•Establish development incentives to get desired built form and community benefits while
ensuring project feasibility.
•Identify implementation strategies such as public-private partnership projects, mechanisms to
create and maintain open space, etc.
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Housing Priorities
•Develop scenarios to illustrate increased residential capacity at all income levels.
•Re-evaluate housing needs allocation capacity within the Plan Area.
Alternatives: Priorities
Retail Priorities
•Focus on small-scale neighborhood-serving retail (not larger "destination retail").
•Explore retail models that are co-located with open spaces to create "third
places".
Office Priorities
•Explore potential to increase office development to achieve community benefits
like increased open space and more viable neighborhood serving retail.
•Consider strategies to include small-scale office/ flex spaces.
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Outdoor
Space
Priorities
•Explore different sizes, configurations, and types of open spaces (larger
outdoor space vs several smaller outdoor spaces).
•Explore potential locations for aggregating open spaces and retail to create
“third places” for community gathering.
Alternatives: Priorities
Mobility +
Connectivity
Priorities
•Create mobility improvements for all users, focusing on a connected network in
alignment with other City mobility initiatives.
•Primary focus on San Antonio Road and key intersections.
•Improve streetscape character and safety in primary change areas.
•Improve pedestrian-bike access to Caltrain and consider strategies to increase
transit access.
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Establish “areas of stability” and “areas of change” within Plan Area.
Overall Design Strategy and Priorities
Land Use Priorities
•Create new neighborhoods along Fabian
Way and in the CTI area (area along
Commercial St., Transport St., Industrial Ave.)
•Focus open space, amenities in new
neighborhoods
•Create smaller, walkable blocks where
possible
•Infill San Antonio Road with residential
Mobility Priorities
•Improve ped/bike safety and walkability
•Improve streetscape character and
pedestrian experience through
landscaping,tree canopy
•Improve ped/bike experience at
intersections
•Improve connections to Caltrain,
schools, and other amenities
Explore focusing on the identified
Overall Design
Strategy
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 13
Overall Design Strategy
Redevelop/infill existing low-density commercial with
high-density residential to create new neighborhoods
Create new open spaces and "third spaces"
with neighborhood serving retail and amenities
Improve transit service to community destinations and
access to Caltrain
Improve ped/bike experience, safety and connectivity on all
streets and intersections
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Design Strategy: Outdoor Space
Goals
•Improve access to parks, decrease distance to parks to
under a 10-min walk throughout Plan Area
•Improve ped-bike experience linking existing and new open
spaces to new residential areas
•Create new open spaces to serve existing and new
residential neighborhoods (North Fabian and CTI sub areas)
•Co-locate retail and services with new open spaces to
create “third places”
Alternatives explore:
•Location, size, and number of open spaces
•Method of creating open spaces 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 15
ADD NEIGHBORHOOD
SERVING PARK TO
NORTH FABIAN
SUB-AREA
ADD DISTRICT
SERVING PARK TO
CTI SUB-AREA
PROPOSED
NEW PARK IN
MOUNTAIN VIEW
PROPOSED 101
INTERCHANGE
PLAN
IMPROVE ACCESS AND
SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS
CONNECTING TO NEW AND
EXISTING OPEN SPACES
Design Strategy: Outdoor Space
•Add new outdoor spaces as part of new
development in North Fabian and CTI sub-
areas
•Improve ped-bike access to existing parks
and new outdoor spaces
•San Antonio Road becomes a key ped/bike
connection with continuous tree canopy to
create a pleasant experience connecting
new residential areas to amenities and
transit
•Fabian Way becomes a key bike connection
to the Baylands with separated bikeways
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Design Strategy: Connectivity
Focus on Corridors: Primary interventions will focus on the major
street corridors: San Antonio Rd, E. Charleston Rd. and Middlefield Rd.
Where possible, new connections will be made to increase walkability
Block Size: Reduce block size to create more walkable and connected
neighborhoods
Improve connectivity by adding mid-block pedestrian paths/paseos in
the following areas:
•CTI Area: At least one connection from: San Antonio to Commercial; Commercial to
Industrial; Industrial to MV Project
•North Fabian Way:
•One connection from Fabian Way to San Antonio Rd;
•Add pedestrian walkway or new street connecting to Fabian Way per the
Objective Design Standards (at least one ped connection every 300 feet)
•San Antonio Road: Explore connection to Wyandotte Street
•Caltrain access: Improve connections at Nita Avenue and coordinate with Google and
Mountain View to improve connections to Caltrain
Primary Connections
Potential New Connections
MV Proposed Project
Sub Area Alternatives
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Based on anticipated redevelopment potential, “” are divided
into sub-areas for exploring alternatives, that look at different
, as well as and Each area is
studied at a different level of detail depending on specific opportunities and
challenges.
Primary Sub-Areas
•These areas have the greatest potential for redevelopment and can contribute to creating
new neighborhood-serving amenities like outdoor space and retail
•These include
Secondary Sub-Areas
•These areas have limited redevelopment potential in the near term.
•These include
“Areas of Stability“
•These include , areas that are 100%
built-out with low redevelopment potential.
•Parts of Green Meadow and South San Antonio are within SB 79’s impact area that allows
higher density for projects meeting specific criteria. Utilization of SB 79, however, is likely
very low, due to existing conditions in these areas.
Sub Area Alternatives
18
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 19
Methodology for Redevelopment/Growth Projections
Assumptions
•All build-out assumptions, such as density ranges, building prototypes, and replacement ratios for existing commercial uses, are based on
recent pipeline projects and market demand in the Plan Area.
•The assumptions try to show the maximum change/growth potential possible in the Plan Area.
•The build-out scenarios and potential development numbers exclude the "no change" parcels identified within each subarea.
•All office scenarios focus on improving the jobs-housing balance area across the Plan Area.
•Up to 100% of commercial-only parcels were projected to redevelop to understand the full extent of change possible within the plan area
and sub-areas.
•Up to 75 to 100% build-out scenarios have been considered for most alternatives. In CTI, a lower build-out (50-75%) has been considered
for the no-office scenarios, since residential-only projects are less financially viable on smaller individual parcels, which is the prevailing
condition in the CTI subarea.
•Potential new housing development, excluding the Maxar site, is assumed to have mid-rise buildings with densities ranging from 90 du/ac
to 135 du/ac depending on height.
•The Area Plan expects 50,000 to 80,000 sf of new neighborhood-serving retail and commercial services such as restaurants, day care,
grocery stores, pet care, salons, etc. to be developed in the Plan Area within new mixed-use buildings.
•Within the CTI subarea, each alternative scenario assumes that, at a minimum,Palo Alto's jobs/housing policy for new development will
be met. Across the Plan Area as a whole, new residential development will improve the jobs/housing balance.
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Plan Area Development Analysis
Primary Sub-Areas:
Estimated Build-out of Alternatives
•Central San Antonio
+ 1,300 to 2,400 units Residential
- Up to 209,000 sf Non-residential
•South Fabian
+ 600 to 1,100 units Residential
- Up to 177,000 sf Non-residential
•North Fabian
+700 to 1,500 units Residential
- Up to 485,000 sf Non-residential
•CTI
+ 1,000 to 2,000 units Residential
+ 0 to ~900,000 sf New Office/R+D
- Up to 499,000 sf Non-residential
Total Plan Area
Existing Condition:
•802 units Residential
•2,399,400 sf Non-residential
•1,495,965 sf Office/R+D
•903,435 sf Commercial
•New Residential Development
•New Class A Office/R+D (if allowed)
+ 0 to ~900,000 sf *
•Office/R+D
Up to -932,600 sf net loss
•Other non-residential
Up to -437,400 sf net loss
*Individual scenarios predict maximum development potential if 50-100% of sites redevelop, with certain sites excluded due to use,
ownership, or recent redevelopment. Palo Alto’s 2023-2031 Housing Element allocates a total of 1,559 new housing units to the Plan
Area (26% of the citywide total).Even with scenarios which allow the largest amount of new office space, staff anticipates an overall
net decrease in non-residential square footage due to redevelopment for residential and mixed-use projects.
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 21
Analysis of Potential New Office/R+D
Can New Class A Office in CTI Offset the CTI and Maxar Loss?
* Not all existing CTI R&D/office parcels may redevelop concurrently with new Class A office proposals. This modifier provides a planning allowance
that enables redevelopment to proceed without requiring a net office reduction across the CTI area, which may be critical to securing the public
infrastructure and community benefits this area requires.
Total Plan Area
Existing Condition:
•802 units Residential
•2,399,400 sf Non-residential
•1,495,965 sf Office/R+D
•903,435 sf Commercial
•New Residential Development
3,800 to 7,400 units
•CTI area (older office/R+D
demolished) up to -240,000 sf
•Maxar site (replaced by residential) -
485,000 sf
•Other areas up to -207,600 sf
•Total plan-wide loss up to -932,600 sf
This loss occurs regardless of whether new Class A
office is permitted in CTI. The scenarios on the right
address whether new office in CTI can offset the CTI
and Maxar losses.
Scenario 1
600,000 sf new 750,000 sf new
Existing CTI office/R+D demolished -240,000 sf -240,000 sf
New Class A office built in CTI +600,000 sf +750,000 sf
Net change in CTI +360,000 sf +510,000 sf
Maxar office/R+D lost to residential -485,000 sf -485,000 sf
Office floor area modifier*+150,000 sf +150,000 sf
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 22
Palo Alto’s Policy on Jobs -Housing Balance
Analysis of Potential New Office/R+D in CTI Subarea
Current Jobs-Housing Ratio
•The 2023-2031 Housing Element
identifies a ratio of jobs to
employed residents within the City.
•2023 data shows a ratio of jobs
per housing unit
•Regional average is jobs to
housing units.
Primary Sub Area
Alternatives
- Central San Antonio
- South Fabian
- North Fabian
- CTI (Commercial St., Transport St., Industrial Ave.)
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Within each primary sub area, there are a series of choices. These can
relate to general site use (residential, commercial, mixed-use),
residential densities, building heights, ground floor uses, and publicly
accessible outdoor spaces. These can be mixed and matched.
Central San Antonio
•CSA-A1 and CSA-A2 are building height options
•CSA-B1 and CSA-B2 are ground/lower floor use options
South Fabian
•SF-A1 and SF-A2 are building height options
•SF-B1 and SF-B2 are ground/lower floor use options
North Fabian
•M-A1 and M-A2 are land use options (additional considerations included)
•M-B1 and M-B2 are residential density options
•M-C1, M-C2, and M-C3 are building height options
“CTI”
•CTI-A1 through CTI-A4 are outdoor space options
•CTI-B1 through CTI-B4 are building height and land use options
Selecting Alternatives
24
Primary Sub Area AlternativesCentral San Antonio
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Central San Antonio Sub Area
Existing Character
•Low-density commercial
•Two recently completed 5-story hotel
projects
•Several applications for 6-8 story midrise
residential projects
Future Development Potential
•Transition to high-density mixed-use
•8.7 acres of Housing Element Sites
•Approx. 19 acres of potential future
development
•Several active pipeline projects
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Central San Antonio Sub Area
27
Design Approach
The strategy for this area to is continue to allow high-density
residential projects. For larger sites or parcels that may be
aggregated to be over ~3 acres there is a potential to require
some publicly accessible outdoor space and neighborhood
serving retail.
Future Development Potential
•Alt CSA-A1: 60 ft height limit (status quo)
•No change to currently allowed height
•Limits buildings to 5 stories, less feasible building type
•Alt CSA-A2: 90 ft height limit
•Maximizes mid-rise construction
•In line with current development applications
•Improves project feasibility
•Increases housing yield
824 San Antonio
Height: 4 Stories
25 units: 56 du/ac
800+808 San Antonio Rd
Height: 8 Stories
175 units: 200 du/ac
788 San Antonio Rd
Height: 8 Stories
168 units: 169 du/ac
762 San Antonio
Height: 7 Stories
197 units: 111 du/ac
Sub Area Boundary
Pipeline Projects
Housing Element Sites
Parcel Lines
No Change Area
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
824 San Antonio
Height: 4 Stories
25 units: 56 du/ac
800+808 San Antonio Rd
Height: 8 Stories
175 units: 200 du/ac
788 San Antonio Rd
Height: 8 Stories
168 units: 169 du/ac
762 San Antonio
Height: 7 Stories
197 units: 111 du/ac
Central San Antonio Sub Area
28
Other Considerations
•Ground floor retail allowed, not required
•Lower floor land use alternatives
•Alt CSA-B1 - Restrict all commercial office uses
•Alt CSA-B2 - Allow limited commercial office uses on
the ground floor focused on professional services
•Outdoor Space
•Consider small plaza/park requirement on larger sites
(Toyota site)
•Connectivity
•Consider requiring ped/bike path connection to
Wyandotte Street
•Improve intersections and ped/bike facilities
(see mobility section for alternatives)
•Require wider sidewalks
Potential
Connection
Potential
Plaza/Park
Sub Area Boundary
Pipeline Projects
Housing Element Sites
Parcel Lines
No Change Area
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 29
Central San Antonio
ALT CSA-A1
Residential 60 ft height limit
ALT CSA-A2
Residential 90 ft height limit
Build-Out Up to 75%-100%Up to 75%-100%
Assumed
Average Density 90 du/ac 135 du/ac
Residential Units 0 existing units
Up to 1,300 to 1,800 new units
0 existing units
Up to 1,800 to 2,400 new units
Commercial
Uses
449,000 sf existing
up to 209,000 sf loss of
commercial uses
449,000 sf existing
up to 209,000 sf loss of
commercial uses
Total Parcel
Area
21.3 acres
HE Sites*
Parcel Area
8.7 acres
Existing Building Area 449,000 sf
449,000 sf
Land Use Alternatives (includes pipeline projects):
Existing Condition (does not include pipeline projects) :
Sub Area Boundary
Pipeline Projects
Housing Element Sites
Parcel Lines
No Change Area*Palo Alto’s 2023-2031 Housing Element allocates a total of 1,559 new housing units to the Plan Area (26% of the total citywide)
Primary Sub Area AlternativesSouth Fabian Way
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
South Fabian Sub Area
Existing Character
•Mix of low-scale office buildings
•Jewish Community Center/Moldaw Residences
•Apartments and podium townhomes north of JCC
•Insufficient bike facilities
•Narrow sidewalks and insufficient street trees on
Fabian Way south of E. Charleston Rd
Future Development Potential
•6 acres of Housing Element Sites
•Approx. 10 acres of potential future development
•2 pipeline projects include an office-to-private
school conversion and a 7-story mid-rise
residential project
•The area has seen other applications for mid-rise
residential projects
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
South Fabian Sub Area
Design Approach
Due to the small parcel sizes in this sub-area, the
recommended strategy is to allow incremental
redevelopment on a parcel-by-parcel basis.
Height/Density Alternatives
•Alt SF-A1: 60 ft height limit (status quo)
•No change to currently allowed height
•Limits buildings to 5 stories, less feasible building
type
•Alt SF-A2: 90 ft height limit
•Maximizes mid-rise construction
•Improves project feasibility
•Increases housing yield
3950 Fabian Way
Private School Conversion
Height: 2 Stories
3977 Fabian Way
Height: 7 Stories
295 units: 135 du/ac
Sub Area Boundary
Pipeline Projects
Housing Element Sites
Parcel Lines
No Change Area
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
South Fabian Sub Area
Other Considerations
Land Use
•Ground floor retail: allowed, not required
•Lower floor land use alternatives
•Alt SF-B1: Restrict all commercial/office uses
•Alt SF-B2: Allow limited commercial office uses on lower
floors (ground and 2nd floor) focused on professional services
•Require wider sidewalks and street trees
•Improve intersections and ped/bike facilities
(see mobility section for alternatives)
33
3950 Fabian Way
Private School Conversion
Height: 2 Stories
3977 Fabian Way
Height: 7 Stories
295 units: 135 du/ac
Sub Area Boundary
Pipeline Projects
Housing Element Sites
Parcel Lines
No Change Area
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 34
South Fabian Sub Area Alternatives
ALT SF-A1
Residential 60 ft height limit
ALT SF-A2
Residential 90 ft height limit
Build-Out Up to 75%-100%Up to 75%-100%
Assumed Average
Density 90 du/ac 135 du/ac
Residential Units 384 existing units
Up to 600 to 800 new units
384 existing units
Up to 800 to 1,100 new units
Commercial Uses 177,000 sf existing
up to 177,000 sf loss of commercial
177,000 sf existing
up to 177,000 sf loss of commercial
Total Parcel
Area
24.3 acres
HE Sites*
Parcel Area
6 acres
Existing Building Area 754,800 sf
Existing Commercial Area 177,000 sf
Commercial area includes 33,000 sf of private schools,
estimated 120,000 sf of office, and some automotive uses
Land Use Alternatives (includes pipeline projects):
Existing Condition(does not include pipeline projects) :
Sub Area Boundary
Pipeline Projects
Housing Element Sites
Parcel Lines
No Change Area*Palo Alto’s 2023-2031 Housing Element allocates a total of 1,559 new housing units to the Plan Area (26% of the total citywide)
3950 Fabian Way
Private School Conversion
Height: 2 Stories
Primary Sub Area AlternativesNorth Fabian Way
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
North Fabian Sub Area
Existing Character
•Large Maxar industrial facility
•Office buildings that have been
converted into private school facilities
•Inadequate bike facilities and traffic
calming to serve new uses
Future Development Potential
•Transition to high-density mixed-use
•Approx. 35 acres of potential future
development sites
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
North Fabian Sub Area
Land Use Strategies
•Integrate residential uses
•Create new outdoor areas to serve existing and new
residents in the area
•Improve ped/bike access and safety
•Create a plan for the future of the Maxar Site
•Connect to bike path at US-101 interchange, for ped/bike access to CTI and
North Bayshore
•Allow for a mix of residential densities; townhouses and apartment buildings
•Estimated yield: 900 to 1,400 units
•Create publicly accessible parks and outdoor spaces
•Create walkable block structure connecting to Fabian Way
North Fabian:
Maxar Site
(See Alts)
North Fabian:
Other Sites
•Maintain
allowed land
uses
•Allow up to 60
or 90 ft with
rear setback
requirements
37
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
24.5
acres
Maxar Site Alternatives
•Land Use Area
•Alt M-A1: Allow residential throughout site area
•Alt M-A2: Prioritize Flex/Incubator/Research + Development/Office space on eastern section
of Plan Area along US-101
•Approximately 5-6 acres
•Allows for up to 20-acre residential master plan project
Other Considerations
•Urban Design
•Require publicly accessible internal streets
•New ped/bike connection from Fabian Way to proposed US-101 interchange path
•Create new and/or improved intersections along Fabian Way to access new development
•Outdoor Space
•Require new parks and outdoor spaces to be built on-site
•Require new parks and outdoor spaces to be publicly accessible
•Retail
•Require a minimum amount of retail space to serve new residents
•Require a minimum of amount of “retail ready” space (convertible to retail/food + beverage)
•Allow but no minimum retail requirement, allow a 100% residential project
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Maxar Site Alternatives
Minimum Gross Density for Residential Projects
•Alt M-B1: 40 du/ac (status quo - allow some townhouses @ 18-22 du/ac net
density)
•Would allow for approx. 200 for-sale 2-3 story townhouses
•Alt M-B2: 60 du/ac (no building type with less than 30 du/ac net density)
•Would likely push development of more 3-8 story rental apartment buildings
•Would push for-sale component into denser “townhouse over podium” building type
Height
•Alt M-C1: Allow up to 60 feet (status quo)
•Alt M-C2: Allow up to 90 feet (maximize mid-rise constructure type)
•Alt M-C3: Allow high-rises, up to 160-250 feet
•Unlikely to be financially feasible but provides flexibility
•Extra height could be tied to additional outdoor space
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 40
Maxar Site: Potential Site Configurations
5-6 ac
3 ac
1.5 ac2 ac2 ac
1 ac
0.5 ac
0.5 ac
Concept A Concept B Concept C Concept D
•One big park, one small park
•Parks face Fabian Way
•Higher density to the west
•Lower density to the east
•Flex/incubator space along US-101
•One big park, one small park
•Big park faces Fabian Way
•Higher density residential along
San Antonio Rd and US-101 ramp
•Two parks of similar size
•Lower density residential along
San Antonio Rd and US-101 ramp
•One larger park
These site concepts are for and represent potential configurations of land uses based on the strategies and alternatives
presented in previous slides, final designs will be developed through the typical development application and design review process.
Ped-bike
Connection
to San
Antonio
High Density Housing
Retail/Services
Low Density For Sale
Housing
Outdoor Space
Flex/Incubator Space
Legend
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Maxar Site Alternatives Analysis
Maxar Site and Alternatives Summary
•Site area = 24.5 acres
•Parks/outdoor space estimate: 2-5 acres
•Streets estimate: 3.5 - 4.5 acres
•Developable Area: 17-19 acres
•Development @ 40 du/ac:
•24.5 acres @ 40 du/ac = 980 units (gross)
•17-19 acres @ 40 du/ac = 680-760 units (net)
•Development @ 60 du/ac:
•24.5 acres @ 60 du/ac = 1,470 units (gross)
•17-19 acres @ 60 du/ac = 1,020 - 1,140 units (net)
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Maxar Site Alternatives
24.5
acresALT M-B1
Residential 60 ft height limit
ALT M-B2
Residential 90 ft height limit
Build-Out Up to 75%-100%Up to 75%-100%
Assumed Average
Density 40 du/ac 60 du/ac
Residential Units 0 existing units
Up to 700 to 1,000 new units
0 existing units
Up to 1,000 to 1,500 new units
Commercial Uses 683,000 sf existing
up to 485,000 sf loss of commercial
683,000 sf existing
up to 485,000 sf loss of commercial
Total Parcel
Area
34.6 acres
HE Sites*
Parcel Area
0 acres
Existing Building Area 683,000 sf
Existing Commercial Area 683,000 sf
Land Use Alternatives (includes pipeline projects):
Existing Condition (does not include pipeline projects) :
*Palo Alto’s 2023-2031 Housing Element allocates a total of 1,559 new housing units to the Plan Area (26% of the total citywide)
42
Primary Sub Area AlternativesCTI Area
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
CTI Sub Area
44
Existing Character
•Low-density office and
industrial buildings in small
buildings
•Parcel sizes are small
•Single property owner has
aggregated a number of parcels
but they are non-contiguous
Future Development Potential
•Transition to high-density
mixed-use
•7.2 acres of Housing Element
Sites
•Approx. 25.8 acres of potential
future development sites
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
CTI Sub Area Alternatives
Design Approach
The strategy for this area to is create a cohesive and complete
neighborhood over time with new outdoor spaces and
neighborhood-serving retail. Just south of the CTI Sub Area, in
Mountain View, a developer is proposing a project with
488,000 sf of office and 476 units on the shopping center site.
Design Opportunities
•Create new park/plaza/outdoor space for residential uses
•Create opportunity for retail/services/food + beverage
•Connect to MV development
•Improve ped/bike connections to San Antonio
•Improve streets and increase tree canopy Sub Area Boundary
Pipeline Projects
Housing Element Sites
Parcel Lines
MV
Proposed
Project
PROPOSED US-101
INTERCHANGE PLAN
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
SITE
ANALYSIS
46
Fire Access
How do streets
provide for fire
access to mid-rise
buildings?
Flooding
How do projects
integrate with public
realm considering
higher ground floor
than sidewalks?
Ped/Bike
Infrastructure
E. Charleston
facilities inadequate
for higher-density
development
Street Design
Provide for wider
sidewalks and
increased tree
canopy
US-101 Buffer
Provide for
landscape buffer
US-101
Interchange
Plan
Ped/Bike connection
to US-101 interchange:
multi-use path
DEVELOPABLE
AREA
25.8 acres
HE SITES*
7.2 acres
Proposed
Project in MV
•10.4 Acres Total
Parcel Area
•488,100 sf Office
•476 Residential
Units
•28,500 sf of
Commercial
•~1.7 acres of Open
Space
Outdoor Space
Provide publicly access outdoor
space(s) for new development
Total Existing
Building Area :
528,800 sf
*Palo Alto’s 2023-2031 Housing Element allocates a total of 1,559 new housing units to the Plan Area
(26% of the total citywide)
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 47
MV
Proposed
Project
Street connection
to Transport Ave
Neighborhood
connection to open
spaces and retail
Bike
infrastructure
improvements
on E.
Charleston
Road
Connection to
ped/bike
improvements on
US-101 interchange
Mobility
Strategies
Improve intersection
Create a walkable
block structure with
pedestrian pathways
Increase sidewalk
widths and tree
canopy
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Street Design
Goals
•Improve pedestrian experience
•Improve bike safety and comfort on E.
Charleston
•Increase tree canopy
•Create transition area from sidewalk grade
to building ground floor heights (need to
be 3-8 ft above sidewalk level to meet
FEMA standards)
•Design streets to meet Fire Department
aerial access standards to avoid on-site
driveways for firefighting access (to
increase unit yield and development
feasibility)
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
u
r
b
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
u
r
b
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
u
r
b
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
East Charleston Rd
(alternatives described in Mobility Section)
Internal Streets
(additional study needed in plan development)
Existing
Condition
Existing
Condition
Alt 1 Alt 1
Alt 2 Alt 2
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Outdoor Space
Considerations
49
?
•Size and amount of
outdoor space?
•Types of spaces?
•Location priorities?
•Connections to local
ped/bike
improvements?
•Character of new
outdoor space(s)?
?
MV
Project
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Challenges to Creating
New Outdoor Spaces
50
Small Parcels
New outdoor spaces
and pedestrian
connections will
require coordination
across parcels
DEVELOPABLE
AREA
25.8 acres
HE SITES
7.2 acres
Proposed
Project in MV
(1 parcel)
•10.4 Acres Total
Parcel Area
•488,100 sf Office
•476 Units
•28,500 sf of
Commercial
•~1.7 acres of
Open Space
Challenges
•Parcels are small with multiple owners; ownership aggregation is
distributed where it occurs
•Small parcels are less feasible for residential development
•Wider front setbacks are needed to improved sidewalks and
increase tree canopy
Opportunities
•Allow higher value land uses (office) in exchange for creating new
outdoor spaces
•Distribute new outdoor spaces evenly across all parcels (require
front yard “mini parks” on all parcels through requiring larger
setbacks and access easements
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 51
Outdoor Space
Strategies and
Alternatives
KEY ISSUES
•Visibility and Activation
Fronting E. Charleston Road or
along an interior street?
•Amount of Open Space
1-3 acres of parks/plaza plus
pedestrian pathways
•Size and Distribution
•One large park or distributed
open spaces?
•What is the minimum size…
For the largest park?
To be considered a park?
•Concentrated on a few parcels or
distributed as expanded setbacks
on most parcels?
Alt CTI-A4. Linear Parks on Expanded Setbacks
Alt CTI-A2. Internal Park/PlazaAlt CTI-A1. Plaza/Park on E. Charleston Road
Alt CTI-A3. One Large Park
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Potential Outdoor Space Types
52
Small
Park
Mini
Park Plaza
Less than
0.25 acre
Pocket Park Linear Greenway
(widened setback)
0.25 to
0.5 acre
0.25 to
0.75 acre~ 1 acre Size varies
with length
Size varies
with length~ 2 acre
Neighborhood
Park
South Park
San Francisco, CA
Landsby North
Mountain View, CA
Santana Row
San Jose, CA
6th Ave Park
Seattle, WA
Landsby North
Mountain View, CA
Johnson Park
Palo Alto, CA
Mews /
Pedestrian
Pathways
Mission Bay
San Francisco, CA
Strongly
supported by
community
Strongly
supported by
community
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 53
Alt CTI -A1 | Location: Along E. Charleston Rd.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
•High retail visibility and activation
supports retail fronting outdoor space
by maximizing visibility from Charleston
•Better access and connection to
potential bike facility along E.
Charleston Road
•More accessible to a wide range of
users (transit users, cyclists,
pedestrians) instead of just
neighborhood residents
•Adds public space to the public realm
of a major corridor; complements
streetscape investments
•Traffic on E. Charleston could impact
user comfort; noise and pollution from
major street could impact usability of
open space
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 54
Alt CTI -A2 | Location: Interior to Neighborhood
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
•Retail visibility less from E. Charleston,
could impact viability (retail could be
added on street leading to open space
to address this issue)
•Better residential integration serving
as an amenity focused on residents and
more neighborhood oriented
•Reduced noise and safety concerns
supports comfort and safety for passive
recreation and children’s activities
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 55
Alt CTI -A3 | Configuration: Large Central Park
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
•Feasibility. A large outdoor space would
require maximum parcel aggregation and
additional height or higher-value land
uses such as office to “pay” for the
larger, consolidated outdoor space. This
configuration is likely hardest to achieve.
•Size. A 2-acre park may be very difficult
to achieve in one location. If one larger
outdoor space if preferred, the size may
need to be evaluated for feasibility.
•Programming of uses. A larger outdoor
space allows for a wider variety of
program elements, activities, and
increased greenery/ landscaping.
•Reduced noise and safety concerns.
Supports comfort and safety for passive
recreation, children’s activities, as well as
community events.
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 56
Alt CTI -A4 | Configuration: Linear Parks and Plaza
KEY POINTS
•High visibility and activation. Supports
retail fronting outdoor space by
maximizing visibility from E. Charleston
•Integrated over time. Each landowner
on certain streets would dedicate a
widened setback to create parklets.
•Usability. Narrower open space will
limit program options and
planting/landscape density but may
improve retail and street activation.
•Adds public open space to a major
corridor; complements streetscape
investments
•Traffic on E. Charleston could impact
user comfort; noise and pollution could
impact usability of open space
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
•Support relocation of HE sites
adjacent to US-101 to parcels
closer to E. Charleston
•Support parcel aggregation to
implement outdoor space and
connectivity goals
•Explore allowing higher value
office development to improve
residential feasibility and
implement outdoor space and
connectivity goals
Development
Strategies
57
Small Parcel
Sizes
Support parcel
aggregation to make
project more
feasible and
implement open
space goals
HE Sites
Relocate HE sites
away from freeway
Proposed
Mixed-Use Office
and Residential
Project in MV
10.4 Acres
One Parcel:
Former Shopping
Center
DEVELOPABLE
AREA
25.8 acres
HE SITES
7.2 acres
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 58
Land Use
Alternatives (1/2)
Alt CTI-B2:
Allow Residential up to 90 feet
•Estimated growth:
•Allows developers to maximize mid-
rise building type, providing more
flexibility and financial feasibility.
Alt CTI-B1:
Allow Residential up to 60 feet
•Estimated growth:
•Maintain existing height limits
•Limits residential and residential
mixed-use buildings to 5 stories
Alternative Summary
1.Residential up to 60 feet (5
stories); and existing allowed
uses.
2.Residential up to 90 feet (8
stories); and existing allowed
uses
3.Residential and Office up to 90
feet; and existing allowed uses.
(Relocate HE sites)
4.Residential up to 160-250 feet
and Office up to 135 feet; and
existing allowed uses.
(Relocate HE sites)
ResidentialMixed Use with Retail
Housing Element Sites
Potential Open SpacePotential Connection
ResidentialMixed Use with Retail
Housing Element Sites
Potential Open SpacePotential Connection
Land use designation of parcels for illustrative purposes, to be considered in the policy development phase of the Area Plan
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 59
Land Use
Alternatives (2/2)
Alt CTI-B4:
Allow Office and Residential high-rise (160-
250 ft residential/135 ft office)
•Estimated growth: 1500 units; 750,000 sf office/R+D
(Net new 510,000 sf of office/R+D assuming 75% of
parcels redevelop; no more than 175,000 sf net
increase between North Fabian and CTI)
•Jobs/housing balance is met in the CTI Area.
•High-rise building types could reduce office parcel
area and allow for more residential parcel area and
outdoor space.
Alt CTI-B3:
Allow Office and Residential up to 90 feet
(8 story residential/5-story office)
•Estimated growth: 1,200 units; 600,000 sf office/R+D
(Net new 360,000 sf of office/R+D assuming 75% of
parcels redevelop; no more than 25,000 sf net
increase between North Fabian and CTI)
•Jobs/housing balance is met in the CTI Area.
•Restricts office development to 5 stories, allowing
more height for office could reduce office footprint
for same amount of floor area.
Relocate
Housing
Element
Sites.Benefits to allowing office:
•Move HE sites from US-101
adjacent parcels to internal
parcels
•Office development can help
fund land area for parks and
other community benefits
•Office and Residential Mixed-
use will better support retail
and services
•Office development may offset
cost and improve feasibility for
residential projects if developed
by same company
Residential (No Office)Mixed Use with Retail
Housing Element Sites
Potential Open SpacePotential Connection
Office Allowed
Residential (No Office)Mixed Use with Retail
Housing Element Sites
Potential Open SpacePotential Connection
Office Allowed
Relocate
Housing
Element
Sites.
Land use designation of parcels for illustrative purposes, to be considered in the policy development phase of the Area Plan
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 60
Context: School Map
Goals/Strategies
•Create a safe ped/bike connection along
Charleston Rd with Intersection
improvements at San Antonio Rd.
•Create a safe ped/bike route along 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 61
CTI Land Use Alternatives
Scenario Alt CTI-B1
60 ft height limit (No Office)
Alt CTI-B2
90 ft height limit (No Office)
Alt CTI-B3
90 ft height limit (Office Allowed )
Alt CTI-B4
135 ft height limit (Office Allowed )
Estimated
Build-Out Up to 50%-75%Up to 50%-75%Up to 75%-100%Up to 75%-100%
Residential Units Up to 1,000 to 1,500 new units Up to 1,300 to 1,900 new units Up to 1,100 to 1,500 new units Up to 1,500 to 2,000 new units
Office/R+D 0 sf 0 sf
600,000 sf (new)
360,000 sf (net new in CTI)
No more than +25,000 sf
between CTI and Maxar
750,000 sf (new)
510,000 sf (net new in CTI)
No more than +175,000 sf
between CTI and Maxar
Notes
Less build-out is expected since
residential alone is less financially
profitable.
Less build-out is expected since
residential alone is less financially
profitable.
Palo Alto’s job-to-housing ratio policy
can be maintained within the CTI area
up to 750,000 sf of new office if a
minimum of 1,500 units are built.
Palo Alto’s job-to-housing ratio policy
can be maintained within the CTI area
up to 900,000 sf of new office if a
minimum of 1,900 units are built.
Total Parcel
Area
25.8 acres
HE Sites*
Parcel Area
7.2 acres
Existing Building Area 528,800 sf
Existing Commercial Area 528,800 sf
The commercial area includes an estimated 240,000 sf of
office space, 288,800 sf of retail, and light industrial uses.
Land Use Alternatives:
Existing Condition (does not include pipeline projects) :
*Palo Alto’s 2023-2031 Housing Element allocates a total of 1,559 new housing units to the Plan Area (26% of the total citywide)
Evaluating Trade -Offs
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 63
Height/Density Trade -offs
60 ft Height Limit (status quo)90 ft Height Limit 160-250 ft Residential Limit*
Allows up to
(mid-rise "4 over 1" typology)
Allows up to
(mid-rise "5 over 3" typology)
Allows a
(high-rise construction typology)
•“Fits” in better with adjacent lower scale
buildings, more compatible building form
and scale.
•However, any project may use State
Density bonuses to increase density/height
up to 8 stories by providing affordable
units on-site.
•Most feasible building type - maximizes
buildout for mid-rise construction typology.
•Can yield a
•Potentially because
construction and land costs are distributed
across a larger number of units.
•Increases opportunities for
•Provides
by allowing up to three podium
levels, limiting need to go below-grade.
•Provides maximum number of new
housing units (assuming projects are
feasible and get built).
•Provides to developer.
•Potentially less feasible building type in
high-value areas because it limits number
of units.
•Potentially more expensive units because of
higher per unit costs.
•To maximize units, is
likely needed, which further drives up costs
per unit and limits project feasibility.
•Need to regulate built form for scale and
height transitions to adjacent smaller-scale
buildings.
•Less feasible building type (at least in
near-term) because of significant increase
in costs per square foot for high-rise
construction technology. Projects begin to
become feasible around 14 stories in
height (9 to 14-story not very feasible)
Building
Type
Pros
Cons
*final height limit would be set in next stage of Area Plan with Council feedback
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Housing Density + Typical Typologies
64
3-Story
Townhouse
18-22 du/ac
4-Story
Stacked Flats
20-30 du/ac
60 ft (5 story)
Midrise
100-135 du/ac
90 ft (7-8 story)
Midrise
135-200 du/ac
170 ft (16 story)
Zoning range may be
up to 250 feet
High-rise
200-400 du/ac
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 65
Land Use Trade-Offs in CTI
Allowing New Office Along with Residential for New
Mixed-Use Projects
Restricting New Office, Allowing Only
Residential/Residential Mixed-Use
Office is the most desirable use in Palo Alto from a developer
perspective. By allowing a mixed-use project to include office in
addition to residential, the feasibility of a project increases, and
offers an opportunity to negotiate the provision of community
benefits such as outdoor space.
High-density residential and residential mixed-use projects
(residential above ground floor commercial) face
feasibility challenges in high-value markets such as Palo Alto.
Feasibility is further impacted if projects are required to provide
community benefits like outdoor space, new connections on
private property, etc.
Possible outcomes of allowing office:
-Improve project feasibility, ensuring that redevelopment
happens in the near future.
-Deliver residential units sooner as part of redevelopment.
-Provide more space for parks/plazas/outdoor space.
-Provide more space for new connections (using private
property)
-Provide other community benefits such as streetscape
improvements.
Possible outcomes of restricting office:
-Redevelopment would likely take longer.
-Larger residential projects may not develop without a
corresponding higher-value product (office or townhomes).
-Lower feasibility would likely mean smaller-scale development
on scattered parcels without lot consolidation.
-Incremental development without lot consolidation is unlikely
to produce community benefits such as
parks/plazas,infrastructure improvements.
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 66
Statistical Analysis OF Alternatives: 20 -Year Build -Out
EXISTING CHANGE ALTERNATIVES BUILDOUT TOTAL EXISTING + NEW
SUB AREA
EXISTING
COMMERCIAL
BUILDING AREA
EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
COMMERCIAL
NET CHANGE
RESIDENTIAL
NET CHANGE
LOWER DENSITY
(75% to 100% buildout)
90 du/ac
HIGHER DENSITY
(75% to 100% buildout)
135 du/ac
HIGHER DENSITY +
OFFICE RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL
EAST BAYSHORE 414,000 sf 0 units N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 414,000 sf to
517,500 sf
WEST BAYSHORE 35,000 sf 0 units 0 100 to 200 units 100 to 200 units N/A 35,000 sf 100 to 200 units 35,000 sf to 44,000 sf
NORTH FABIAN 683,000 sf 0 units -485,000 sf 700 to 1,500 units 700 to 1,000 units 1,000 to 1,500 units N/A 700 to 1,500 units 198,000 sf to
247,500 sf
SOUTH FABIAN 177,000 sf 384 units -177,000 sf 600 to 1,100 units 600 to 800 units 800 to 1,100 units N/A 1,000 to 1,500 units 0
CTI 528,800 sf 0 units +371,000 sf to
-499,000 sf 1,000 to 2,000 units 1,000 to 1,500 units 1,500 to 2,000 units 2,000 units +
900,000 sf office 1,000 to 2,000 units 0 sf to 900,000 sf
CENTRAL SA 449,000 sf 0 units -209,000 sf 1,300 to 2,400 units 1,300 to 1,800 units 1800 to 2,400 units N/A 1,300 to 2,400 units 240,000 sf to
300,000 sf
SOUTH SA 99,000 sf 125 units 0 0 0 units 0 units N/A 125 units 99,000 sf to
124,000 sf
GREENHOUSE 0 sf 228 units 0 0 0 units 0 units N/A 228 units 0
ALMA 13,600 sf 65 units 0 100 to 200 units 100 to 120 units 120 to 200 units N/A 165 to 265 units 13,600 sf
TOTAL 2,399,400 sf 802 units -500,000 sf to
-1,370,000 sf
3,800 to
7,400 units
3,800 to
5,420 units
5,220 to
7,200 units Up to 935,000 sf 4,600 to 8,200 units 999,600 sf
to 2,146,600 sf
Note: Palo Alto’s 2023-2031 Housing Element allocates a total of 1,559 new housing units to the Plan Area (26% of the total citywide)
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 67
Summary of City’s Housing Initiatives
Recent City initiatives to stimulate housing production
•Housing Element (2023-2031) has identified 53 opportunity sites in the
Plan Area.
•Housing Element allocates 1,559 new housing units to the Plan Area (26%
of total citywide allocation)
•GM and ROLM-zoned districts within Plan Area designated as Focus Areas.
•City’s Housing Incentive Program (HIP) applies to a portion of the Plan
Area.
Secondary Sub Area
Alternatives
- East Bayshore
- West Bayshore
- Alma
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Secondary Opportunity Areas
East Bayshore
•Alt EB-1: Low-density commercial office (status quo)
•Alt EB-2: High-density commercial office
•Alt EB-3: Mixed-use; allow residential (alternative removed)
West Bayshore (HE Site)
•Alt WB-1: Allow residential and keep as HE Site (status quo)
•Alt WB-2: Restrict residential, move the HE site to within
North Fabian or South Fabian Areas
Alma
•SB 79 will allow residential on these parcels up to 65/75 feet
in height with a minimum density of 30 du/ac
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 70
East Bayshore
ALT EB-1
Low-density commercial
office (status quo)
ALT EB-2
High-density
commercial office
Build-Out No change Up to 75%-100%
F.A.R.0.4 FAR Allow Higher FAR
Commercial
Uses
414,000 sf existing
No new commercial
414,000 sf existing
Up to 103,500 sf of net
new commercial
Total Parcel
Area
37.5 acres
HE Sites*
Parcel Area
0 acres
Existing Building Area 414,000 sf
414,000 sf
Land Use Alternatives (includes pipeline projects):
Existing Condition (does not include pipeline projects) :
*Palo Alto’s 2023-2031 Housing Element allocates a total of 1,559 new housing units to the Plan Area
(26% of the total citywide)
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 71
West Bayshore
ALT WB-1
Allow residential and keep
as HE Site (status quo)
ALT WB-2
Restrict residential,
move the HE Site.
Build-Out Up to 75%-100%No Change
Density / Office
F.A.R 90 du/ac 0.4 FAR
Residential Units Up to 100 to 200 new units 0 new units
Commercial
Uses
35,000 sf existing
up to 35,000 sf loss of
commercial
35,000 sf existing
No net new commercial
Total Parcel
Area
2.1 acres
HE Sites*
Parcel Area
2.1 acres
Existing Building Area 35,000 sf
Existing Commercial
Area 35,000 sf
Land Use Alternatives (includes pipeline projects):
Existing Condition(does not include pipeline projects) :
*Palo Alto’s 2023-2031 Housing Element allocates a total of 1,559 new housing units to the Plan Area
(26% of the total citywide)
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
SB 79: Alma and parcels within ½-mile radius of Caltrain
•Typical Lot: Single-family Eichler House
on 8,000 sf lot (5.5 du/ac) with a home
value from $3-4 million
•SB 79 would allow redevelopment of a
parcel up to heights/density outlined
below; 30 du/ac minimum density is
required (6 units on typical parcel size)
•Outside of religious facility sites,
redevelopment under SB 79 is not likely
due to existing home values
•SB 79: ¼ Mile Radius
•Up to 75 ft; 120 du/ac
•SB 79: ½ Mile Radius
•Up to 65 ft; 100 du/ac
¼ Mile Radius
½ Mile Radius
Mobility Alternatives
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Mobility Context – Overview
POOR WALK/BIKE CONNECTIVITY There are disconnected bike lanes, narrow sidewalks,
wide arterials that create barriers to walking and biking.
HIGH TRAFFIC VOLUMES The corridor experiences heavy traffic and truck volumes
with congestion throughout the day.
AUTO-ORIENTED DESIGN The area has wide roads, low-density land use, and
development that prioritizes automobiles.
Despite proximity to bus stops and Caltrain, there is poor
integration with transit, limiting alternatives to driving.
Coordination with Mountain View and Caltrain, as well
as other partners (e.g., Google, private developers) will
be necessary to advance projects across boundaries.
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION NEEDS
LACK OF TRANSIT INTEGRATION
Characteristics of the existing transportation and circulation environment
74
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Mobility Context – What We Heard
•Build on and coordinate with prior and current planning and design efforts
•2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
•South Palo Alto Bike/Ped Connectivity Project
•US-101 Interchange Project
•Fabian Way South Palo Alto Bikeways Demonstration Project
•Prioritize safe connections to schools, parks, retail, and transit
•Improve connections across San Antonio Rd at Nita Ave, Middlefield Rd, and Charleston
Rd
•Enhance connection to San Antonio Caltrain Station
•Create comfortable walking and biking experience along and across San
Antonio Road
•Provide separated bikeway or multi-use path
•Consider increase in vehicle and truck traffic related to new development
in Mountain View and Palo Alto
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Mobility Context – Walking, School Routes
76
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Mobility Context – Biking
77
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Mobility Context – Transit, Parking
78
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Mobility Context – Safety
79
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 80
Special Set Back
•Special setbacks along several streets in
the Plan Area are shown here for
reference.
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 81
2026 BPTP Complete Vision Network
2026 BPTP Recommendations
•Class I shared use path along San Antonio Road from E. Charleston Road to
Terminal Boulevard/Baylands Nature Preserve
•Class IV separated bikeways on
•San Antonio Road between Alma Street and Charleston Road (SB_20)
•Middlefield Road within City limits
•Charleston Road within City limits
•Alma Street from Meadow Drive to San Antonio Avenue
•Fabian Way from Meadow Drive to Charleston Road (SB_23)
•Class IIIb bicycle boulevard on Mackay Drive
•Intersection improvements at Charleston Rd (Int_07) and Middlefield Rd (Int_12)
•San Antonio Road Area is identified as a Pedestrian Priority Area
Mobility Context – Projects, Plans, and Policies
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 82
Mobility Context – Projects, Plans, and Policies
•T-3.5. When constructing or modifying roadways,
plan for use of the roadway by all users
•T-3.6. Consider pedestrians, bicyclists, e-bikes
and motorcycles when designing road surfaces,
curbs, crossings, signage, landscaping and sight
lines
•Create a culture and climate of systemic safety by
addressing the key risk factors and barriers to
safety, including:
•Making design, maintenance and operations
decisions that prioritize safety
•Commit to support areas zoned for
increased density and infill
development with transportation
facilities and improvements to
enable safer multi-modal
transportation for present and future
road users
•T-3.14. Continue to prioritize the
safety of school children in street
modification projects that affect
school travel routes, including
during construction
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 83
Prior and Current Planning and Design Efforts
US 101 Interchange Improvements – San Antonio Road
Fabian Way Protected Bike Lanes
Charleston/San Antonio
Road Intersection Design
Potential future ped/bike
connection
Mobility Strategies
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Reimagine the corridor as a multimodal spine that balances mobility with placemaking
85
Mobility Strategies to Support Land Use Alternatives
PARKING AND DEMAND MANAGEMENT Apply strategies to reduce travel demand and organize
allocation of curb space to improve access and efficiency.
PEDESTRIAN-FIRST DESIGN Prioritize comfortable, accessible, and inviting streets that
encourage walking and biking (while recognizing San Antonio
as a regional corridor and truck route.
LOW-STRESS BIKING ROUTES Provide high quality bikeways that meet the needs of
people of all ages and abilities.
Integrate walking, biking, shuttles, and shared mobility to
create a seamless journey from doorstep to destination.
SMART CORRIDOR TECHNOLOGY Use real-time data, adaptive signals, and digital tools to
optimize traffic flow and enhance multimodal safety.
FIRST/LAST MILE CONNECTIONS
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Create comfortable, accessible, and vibrant environments where walking is the most
convenient and enjoyable mode of travel.
Pedestrian -First Design
short blocks
Implement 2026 BPTP Pedestrian Design Guidelines and increase walkability with short block lengths and paseos
86
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Low -Stress Biking Infrastructure
Provide high-quality bikeways that meet the needs of people of all ages and abilities.
Class IV Separated Bikeway
Protected Intersection
Class I Shared Use Path
Implement 2026 BPTP recommendations and applicable countermeasures from the Safety Action Plan Appendix E
87
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Types of Bikeways
Source: Caltrans, Toward an Active California, State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2017.
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
First/Last Mile Connections - Overview
Integrate walking, biking, shuttles, and shared mobility to create a seamless journey from
doorstep to destination.
Shuttles
Short-distance, fixed-route,
circulator-style trips or flexible,
responsive, and sustainable
transport to bridge the first/last
mile.
Mobility Hubs
A place where multiple transportation
modes are cohesively and conveniently
located to provide an integrated suite of
mobility services and amenities.
Shared Micromobility
Any shared small, low-speed, human- or
electric-powered transportation device,
including bicycles, scooters, electric-assist
bicycles, electric scooters (e-scooters), and
other small, lightweight, wheeled
conveyances.
Wayfinding
Use of signs, maps, and other visual cues to
help people navigate through an area.
Effective wayfinding systems improve
accessibility and user experience.
89
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
First/Last Mile Connections - Mobility Hubs
A place where multiple transportation modes are cohesively and conveniently located to
provide an integrated suite of mobility services and amenities.
Features
Rendering of Mobility Hub
Source: mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/mobility-hubs
•Real-time transit information
•Shuttle service
•Pick-up/drop-off zone
•Electric vehicle charging
•Vehicle parking
•Enhanced crossings
•Low-stress bicycle routes
•Bicycle racks
•Covered bike storage/lockers
•Shared micromobility
•Transit shelter
•San Antonio Rd/Charleston Rd
•San Antonio Rd/Middlefield Rd
•San Antonio Caltrain Station
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Organize allocation of curb space for vehicles, deliveries, and shared mobility to improve
access and efficiency.
Parking and Demand Management - Curbspace
Prioritize and accommodate various curb functions depending on curb needs in different contexts.
Access for Goods
Space for deliveries, used for
short periods of time.
Access for People
Active space for transit
boardings, passenger
loading, and shared mobility
services.
Public Space and Services
Space for use by people and
public services, such as
parklets, landscaped areas,
and fire hydrants.
Storage for Vehicles
Curb lane is intended to be
used for the storage of
vehicles or bicycles for
established time periods, such
that it is unavailable for other
purposes.
Movement
Curb lane is used for the
movement of vehicles or
active transportation modes
and is unavailable for other
purposes.
91
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Implement strategies intended to reduce travel demand, shift trips to more sustainable
modes, and improve the efficiency of the mobility network.
Parking and Demand Management -Transportation
Options
Provide Bicycle Parking and
Repair Stations
Provide designated, secure
and convenient areas for bike
parking and bike
maintenance and repair.
Improve Walking/Biking
Access
Include streetscape
improvements that make it
easy and comfortable to walk
and bike.
Incorporate Shared Vehicle
Services and Bike Fleets
Provide car-share parking and
bike fleets on-site and offer
subsidized car-
share memberships.
Create Supportive Mix of Land
Use
Incorporate a mix of
residential, commercial, and
institutional land uses and
increase the density of uses.
Integrate Communications
and Information
Provide real-time transit
information and wayfinding
signage.
Apply transportation demand management strategies to make sure that new development is designed to make it
easier for tenants, residents, employees, and visitors to get around using sustainable modes.
92
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Smart Corridor Technology
Keep Cycles
Short
Transit Signal
Priority & Leading
Bike/Ped Intervals
& Extended Time
to Cross
Signal
interconnectivity
and coordination
Time to
Intended
Speed
Adjust by
Time of
Day
Real-time
traffic
management
93
Mobility AlternativesSan Antonio Road
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
San Antonio Rd Priorities
A. East of Charleston Rd
o Enhance connection to and across US-101
o Create connection through to Fabian Way
o Coordinate with VTA US-101 Interchange Project and Google
o BPTP Recommendation: Class IV - Separated Bikeways; Class I -
Shared Use Path north of Bayshore Road
o Provide comfortable walking and biking facilities
o Enhance connections across San Antonio Rd
o Maintain capacity for vehicle and truck traffic
o Coordinate with landowners and developers
o BPTP Recommendation: Class IV - Separated Bikeways
o Caltrain Station connection
o Nita Avenue crossing improvements
o San Antonio Avenue enhancements
o Coordinate with Mountain View, Caltrain, and Google
o BPTP Recommendation: Class IV – New Separated Bikeway on San
Antonio Avenue and new Class IV – New Separated Bikeway on San
Antonio Road from overcrossing to Middlefield
A
B
C
95
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
San Antonio Intersection Improvements
D. Charleston Rd Intersection
o Create protected intersection
o Remove side street with diagonal parking, extend pedestrian zone
o Modify lane geometry, consider removing dual left turn lanes to provide
median refuge
o Explore grade separated crossing
o Create protected intersection
o Consolidate existing driveway access
o Modify lane geometry,
o remove westbound right turn lane,
o consider removing dual left turn lanes to provide median refuge
o Explore grade separated crossing
o Extend existing bike lanes through the intersection
o Enhance connection to bike boulevard on Mackay Dr
D
E
F
96
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
A. East of Charleston Rd
97
San Antonio Road with planned US 101 Interchange
Improvements that include bike path over 101
•Class I multi-use path or Class IV
separated bikeway along San Antonio
from Charleston to US-101 interchange
ped/bike overpass
•Ped/bike connection across San Antonio
Road and through to Fabian Way to
access destinations north of CTI Area
Google Streetview images of San Antonio
Road at US 101 SB Off Ramp, facing east
8 – 12 ft
As Space
Allows
Expand sidewalk to
create a 8-12 ft wide
multi-use ped/bike
path on San Antonio Rd
Connect San Antonio
Interchange Bike Path
to Fabian Way and
Transport St
Expand sidewalk to
create a 8-12 ft wide
multi-use ped/bike
path on San Antonio Rd
Planned US 101
Interchange
Improvements
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
D. Potential Grade -Separated
Crossing
98
Would require 9%
ramp or
~ 300 feet for 5%
175 ft
Would require
30-40 feet
setback
Spiral ramp requires
100 ft x 100 ft
dimension, roughly
the size of the gas
station property
Potential two-way
shared-use path
Potential two-way
shared-use path
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 99
•Heart of the Central San Antonio sub area (mixed-use change area)
•Currently designated a high-stress street for biking
•Experiences truck traffic and congestion throughout the day
•2026 BPTP recommends prioritizing intersection improvements at
Charleston Rd and Middlefield Rd
•2026 BPTP recommends Class IV separated bikeways on each side of the
street
B. Charleston Rd to Middlefield Rd - Existing
24’24’
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 100
Context: Charleston Rd to Middlefield Rd - Existing
•Utilities/Infrastructure Challenges
•Potential Pinch-Points
•Unique Situations
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 101
B. Charleston Rd to Middlefield Rd - Alternatives
Existing Condition
24’24’24’24’
24’24’24’24’
Alt MSA-2 Alt MSA-3
Alt MSA-1
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 102
Category Existing ALT MSA-1
Separated Bikeway, Wider Sidewalks
ALT MSA-2
Shared Use Path (north) + Bikeway (south)
ALT MSA-3
Two Way Bikeway Both Sides
Bike Facility Type Class III (shared lane)Class IV Class I shared use path north + Class IV south Class IV two way (both sides)
Curb to Curb Width 76.5 ft 76.5 ft 76.5 ft 55.5 ft (moves curbs, removes existing trees)
ROW Required 100.5 ft (Existing)100.5 ft 110.5 ft 105.5 ft
Additional Easements NA No change 10 ft (7ft on north side)5ft (2.5ft each side)
Bicycle Facility Width NA 7 ft 12 ft two-way shared use path (north)
+ 7 ft bikeway (south)10 ft two-way path (each side)
Sidewalk Width 5 ft 5-8 ft 5-8 ft 8 ft
On-Street Parking 8 ft; No Change Removed (101 spaces)Removed on south side (40 spaces total removed)Removed (101 spaces)
Considerations • No change
•Separated, low stress bicycle and pedestrian
facility
•Improved safety for bicyclists and pedestrians
crossing at intersections
•No curb moves
•Space for placemaking
•High comfort two-way path on north side
•Improved safety for bicyclists and pedestrians
crossing at intersections
•Some parking retained
•Space for placemaking
•Highest comfort for bicycles and pedestrians
•Improved safety for bicyclists and
pedestrians crossing at intersections
•Space for placemaking
Constraints • No change •Intersection turn consolidation
•Removal of parking
•Intersection turn consolidation
•Minor parking impacts
•Large ROW needs (10ft), requires coordination with
properties on west side
•Impact to tree at pinch point near Greenhouse
residences
•Complete reconstruction of curb to curb
required and considerations related
to utilities and stormwater infrastructure
•Removal of parking
•Impact to trees between existing curb and
sidewalk
•Taller buildings require reduced distances
to fire apparatus
Consistent with 2026
BPTP Recommendations NA •Yes •Partially •Yes
B. Charleston Rd to Middlefield Rd – Alternatives Matrix
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
B. Charleston Rd to Middlefield Rd – Alt MSA-1
•Separated bikeway with wide sidewalks and no
parking on both sides
•Meets 2026 BPTP
•Considerations
o Separated and low stress bicycle and pedestrian
facilities on both sides, but does not fully mitigate
traffic conflicts along this truck route
o Curbs and median remain in place
o Widening sidewalks would require 3' right-of-way
within the special setback
o All parking removed
24’24’
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
•Shared use path and parking on north side with
separated bike facility, wider sidewalks, and no
parking on the south side
•Equivalent to 2026 BPTP
o Modifies 2026 BPTP Class IV separated bikeway to high
comfort Class I shared-use path on north side
o Low-stress bicycle facilities on both sides
o Curbs and median remain in place, some parking
retained
o Requires right-of-way or easements within the special
setback (7' north,3' south with sidewalk widening)
B. Charleston Rd to Middlefield Rd – Alt MSA-2
24’24’
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Alt MSA-2: Multi-Use
Path on North Side
Expand
sidewalk to
create 8-12 ft
wide multi-use
ped/bike path
Maintain street
trees
Existing trees
may create
pinch points
10 – 12 ft
As Space
Allows
•Work with adjacent property
owners to expand existing sidewalk
into a two-way multi-use path
•Maintain as many existing trees as
possible
•Pinch-points may be unavoidable
without moving infrastructure or
removing some trees
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
•Exceeds 2026 BPTP with Class IV two-way bikeways on both
sides of the street separated from sidewalks
•Considerations
o High comfort bicycle and pedestrian facilities providing two-
way separated travel for people walking and biking
o Removes parking on both sides
o Impacts tree near Greenhouse residences
o Requires relocation of all existing street trees
o 20 feet on each side of the street for pedestrian and bike
facilities
•Potential Trade-Offs
o Requires reconstruction of curbs to narrow roadway, median
remains
o Requires right-of-way within special setback on both sides
o Requires relocation of significant utilities and infrastructure
B. Charleston Rd to Middlefield Rd – Alt MSA-3
24’24’
24’24’
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
C. West of Middlefield Rd
107
•Enhance connections to the Caltrain Station
•Provide low-stress bikeway on San
Antonio Ave
•Extend and connect bike path to Caltrain
Station
•Create high visibility pedestrian and bike
crossing markings
•Coordinate with Mountain View, Alphabet,
and Caltrain to provide Mobility Hub at/near
the Caltrain Station
•Enhance bike/ped crossings at Nita Ave to
connect to Mackay Dr
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
C. West of Middlefield Rd (+ San Antonio Ave)
108
Convert turn lane to
separated bikeway
along San Antonio
Rd and transition to
San Antonio Ave
at Byron St
Remove left turn
from Byron St to
San Antonio Ave
Provide low-stress
bikeway and lighting
enhancements along
San Antonio Ave from
Byron St to Alma St
•Existing cross-section varies from 30' to 40'
•Implementing separated bikeway (2026 BPTP
recommendation)would require removal of
on-street parking and landscaping strip
•Provide pedestrian-scale lighting
•Provide low-stress bikeway, consider
o Shared use path (Class I)
o Bike boulevard with traffic calming (Class III)
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
San Antonio Rd Connection to Caltrain
109
Enhance connection from
Mackay Dr across San
Antonio Rd to existing bike
lanes on Mayfield Ave
Explore opportunities to
improve connection through
existing underpass
•Partner with Mountain View and Alphabet to
strengthen existing connections to Caltrain
o Enhance connection from Mackay Dr across
San Antonio Rd to Nita Ave/Mayfield Ave
o Explore opportunities to improve connections
through existing underpass
o Simplify San Antonio Ave / Briarwood Way
intersection
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Alma Street and Connection to Caltrain
110
Widen existing sidewalk to
shared use path on west
side of Alma St from San
Antonio Ave to Caltrain
station
Reduce curb radii and add
bike crossing markings
connecting to new shared
use path on west side of
Alma St
Construct separated bikeway
on east side of Alma St
Widen existing sidewalk to
shared use path on west
side of Alma St from San
Antonio Ave to Caltrain
station
Reduce curb radii and add
bike crossing markings
connecting to new shared
use path on west side of
Alma St
Construct separated
bikeway on east side of
Alma St
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 111
Alma Street (existing conditions)
Widen existing sidewalk
to shared use path on
west side of Alma St from
San Antonio Ave to
Caltrain station
Reduce curb radii and add bike
crossing markings connecting
to new shared use path on
west side of Alma St
Construct separated
bikeway on east side of
Alma St
Utilize existing
landscaping strip to
construct separated
bikeway on east side of
Alma St
•2026 BPTP recommends separated bikeway
along Alma St from San Antonio Ave to
Meadow Dr
•Limited driveway conflicts along east side
•Landscaping strip is approx. 15' wide
•Coordinate with Caltrain and Mountain View to
enhance existing connection from San Antonio
Ave to Caltrain station
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 112
Alma Street
•Provide low-stress bikeway on Alma Street
•Create high visibility pedestrian and bike crossing
markings
•Implement signal timing strategies to manage
vehicle speeds along the corridor
•Keep cycles short
•Provide leading intervals for walk/bike
•Time signals to intended speeds
•Adjust timing plans by time of day
•Coordinate with Mountain View, Google, and
Caltrain to provide Mobility Hub at/near the Caltrain
Station
Keep Cycles
Short
Time to
Intended
Speed
Adjust by
Time of
Day
Leading Pedestrian
Intervals
Mobility Improvements E. Charleston Road
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Charleston Road Strategy
114
Fabian to SA SA to MV
SA/Charleston
Intersection
•Improve ped/bike facilities on E. Charleston Road
•Improve intersection safety
•Connect to proposed ped/bike facilities on San Antonio Road
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 115
Intersection : E. Charleston Rd and San Antonio Rd
Goals:
•Improve pedestrian/bike movements
across the intersection
•Integrate preferred alternatives for San
Antonio Road and Charleston Road
•Protected intersection
•Reduce crossing distance
•Reconfigure diagonal parking to ped/bike
facilities
•Grade separated crossing (limited
touchdown area on south side)
Approved Project
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 116
Charleston Rd: San Antonio Road to Mountain View
Proposed Improvements
•Improve neighborhood
connections to Mountain
View
•Improve pedestrian and
bike infrastructure on
Charleston Road
•Connect to proposed US-
101 bikeway interchange
Bike
Infrastructure
Setbacks required
for new bike
infrastructure on
Charleston
Street Design
Provide for
wider sidewalks
and increased
tree canopy
101
Interchange
Plan
B
Ped/bike connection to
US-101 interchange
multiuse path
Neighborhood
connection to
open spaces and
retail
Bike infrastructure
improvements on E.
Charleston Road
Block Size
Create pedestrian
pathways at least
one every 800 feet
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
10 ft.
Setback
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
u
r
b
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
117
Charleston Road South of San Antonio (facing south)
Existing Typical Section
Bike lanes too
narrow Sidewalk too
narrow for high
density
development
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 118
ALT MCH -1: STREET SECTION
E. Charleston Road south of San Antonio (section shown facing south)
Exiting
10 ft.
Setback
Preferred
15 to 17 ft.
Setback
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
u
r
b
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
•Goals:
•Create safe and comfortable
bike connection to and across
San Antonio Road
•Connected new development in
CTI and Mountain View to other
amenities
•Alternative Concept:
•Create 14 feet wide multi-use
path on north side of
E.Charleston Road
•Keep existing curbs
•Expand existing setback by 5 to
7 feet
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 119
ALT MCH -2: STREET SECTION
E. Charleston Road south of San Antonio (section shown facing south)
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Exiting
10 ft.
Setback
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
u
r
b
Preferred
15 to 17 ft.
Setback
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Curb moved
by 6 ft.
•Goals:
•Create safe and comfortable
bike connection to and across
San Antonio Road
•Connected new development in
CTI and Mountain View to other
amenities
•Alternative Concept:
•Increase curb-to-curb
dimension to widen bike lanes
from 5 feet wide to 8 feet wide
•Increase sidewalk width
•Expand existing setback by 5 to
7 feet
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Charleston Rd: Fabian Way to San Antonio Road
•Reconfigure the Fabian Way - San
Antonio Road intersection to
improve safety and circulation
•Calm turning movements with a
raised crosswalk on Fabian Way
•Remove diagonal parking spaces to
support a safer, more efficient
intersection layout
•Create space for placemaking
elements, micromobility parking,
and enhanced bus stop amenities
Alt MCH-B1
Proposed
Section
Existing Section
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 121
Traffic Volumes for E. Charleston to Fabian Way
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Mobility Improvements Fabian Way
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Fabian Way
•Address Fabian Way planned improvements
•Address potential future needs with residential
land use at Maxar Site
•Address pick-up drop-off at JCC and private
schools
•Address potential to add traffic signal at
Federation Way and/or other locations
Future
Residential
Development
JCC Gym/
Afterschool
Program
Federation Way
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
a
y
Potential Ped/Bike Path
Fa
b
i
a
n
W
a
y
Private
School
Private
School
Potential new intersections
Potential new traffic signal
Protected intersection
2991 SHATTUCK AVE, #203 | BERKELEY, CA. 94705 | P: 510.647.5291| STRATEGICECONOMICS.COM
MEMORANDUM
To: Robert Cain, Principal Planner, City of Palo Alto
From: Derek Braun, Principal
T.J. McKiernan, Associate
Date: March 24, 2026
Project: San Antonio Road Area Plan
Subject: Analyses Supporting Consideration of the Plan Alternatives: Development Conditions and
Funding / Delivery Approaches for Parks and Mobility Improvements
Strategic Economics evaluated three topics related to the City of Palo Alto’s consideration of “Plan
Alternatives” for the San Antonio Road Area Plan. Those topics included the following:
1. The financial performance of housing and office development prototypes in the Plan Area that
align with the Plan Alternatives’ visions (and therefore the ability of future development to fund
other improvements included in the Plan Alternatives).
2. Whether the quantity and types of development described in the alternatives for the “Maxar
Site” and “CTI Site” would generate sufficient parkland dedication and Parks Impact Fee
revenues to construct new public parks, paseos, and outdoor spaces (collectively referred to
as “parks” throughout this memorandum).
3. Tools the City of Palo Alto can use to fund and secure land for parks and for improvements
included in the “Mobility Alternatives,” given that much of the required land is currently
privately owned, and significant capital improvement projects may be required.
The Plan Alternatives being considered by the City of Palo Alto include variations in the intensity and
types of uses accommodated in the Plan Area. The Plan Alternatives also include varying quantities of
public parks, paseos, and outdoor space to support the Plan Area’s gradual transformation into a set
of cohesive mixed-use neighborhoods and employment centers. The Plan Alternatives identify the CTI
Sub Area and the Maxar Site (in the North Fabian Sub Area) as being two of the most significant areas
of potential change, with each consisting of approximately 25 acres of potential future development
sites. New paseos in the CTI Sub Area would serve as a new pedestrian and bicycle mobility connection
in addition to providing outdoor space.
The Mobility Alternatives—a sub-component of the Plan Alternatives—cover multimodal transportation
improvements throughout the Plan Area, including for the key segment of San Antonio Road from
Charleston Road to Middlefield Road. The Mobility Alternatives include enhanced walking and biking
facilities designed to improve comfort and align with applicable safety standards. Their
implementation requires varying levels of funding for construction and acquisition of easements or
rights-of-way from private property owners.
March 24, 2026
Following this introduction, the remainder of the memorandum consists of the sections described
below:
• Residential and Office Development Conditions (page 2): Describes residential and office
development “prototypes,” their applicability to the study geographies, and their current and
potential future financial performance under varying market and development conditions.
• Public Parks Costs and Funding (page 9): Defines the land use scenarios analyzed to reflect
the Maxar Site and CTI Sub Area Plan Alternatives. Compares the cost to provide parks in the
scenarios with the contributions of land and funding that would be generated by development
in the scenarios, based on current City of Palo Alto parkland dedication and Park Impact Fee
requirements.
• Park Delivery Tools (page 14): Describes tools the City of Palo Alto can potentially use to
acquire land for parks in the Plan Area, depending on the magnitude and pace of development
proposals.
• Mobility Alternatives Implementation Considerations (page 15): Describes challenges for
delivery of each Mobility Alternative using the segment of San Antonio Road between
Charleston Road and Middlefield Road as an example. Explains the major cost drivers
associated with each Mobility Alternative, and identifies the pros and cons of potential funding
mechanisms and land acquisition tools to implement the Mobility Alternatives.
The Appendix provides additional detailed tables that describe key assumptions, calculations, and
outputs of the analyses.
Residential and Office Development Conditions
This section reviews the results of a preliminary analysis of the financial performance (from a
developer’s perspective) of development prototypes representing residential and commercial
developments that align with the Plan Alternatives’ visions for the Maxar Site and CTI Sub Area. The
analysis examined the relative performance of the development prototypes under both current and
foreseeable future market and economic conditions. The findings are intended to inform consideration
of the mix and scale of uses included in the Plan Alternatives.
Residential prototypes included ownership townhomes, five-story multifamily rental housing, and
eight-story multifamily rental housing (see Figure 1). Commercial prototypes included a five-story office
building and an eight-story office building (see Figure 2). The two townhome prototypes and the two
office prototypes respectively occupy sites of the same size, making the key difference between these
prototypes the density or floor area ratio (FAR) achieved.
The analysis determined the approximate “residual land value” associated with each prototype, which
represents the developer’s ability to pay for land after addressing all other project costs and required
return on investment. Expressing the findings as a residual land value provides a uniform metric for
comparing the performance of different prototypes. Comparison of the residual land value to the
typical value of recently sold properties in the Plan Area also indicates the relative financial feasibility
of the development prototypes. Detailed assumptions and outcomes of the analyses are shown in the
Appendix.
Since a variety of development challenges exist throughout the Bay Area in the current market cycle,
the findings also describe how the performance of the development prototypes may change over time
March 24, 2026
under foreseeable market and economic shifts. This step of the analysis tested the sensitivity of the
results to potential changes in rents and cap rates, a variable that represents a project’s net operating
income relative to its value and serves as an indicator of the strength and perceived risk of the
development market. such as construction costs or land costs, that are also always changing over
time. In reality, every aspect of the development “equation” changes over time, such as variation in
construction costs, financing costs, and land costs. Nonetheless, the results do demonstrate the
potential outcomes of improving market and economic conditions over the next two- to three-year
period.
FIGURE 1: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES
Source: Raimi+Associates, 2026; Strategic Economics, 2026.
FIGURE 2: OFFICE DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES
Source: Raimi+Associates, 2026; Strategic Economics, 2026.
March 24, 2026
Under current market conditions,
the townhome projects both result in residual land values of $311 and $226 per square foot of land.
Under current development conditions, typical garage-parked townhomes support higher residual land
values than the less common podium-parked townhomes that were also analyzed (a version of which
exists at “Altaire” in the Plan Area). The parking podium in the latter prototype increases the achievable
density of townhome-style housing on the site, but the additional value of those housing units is
insufficient to cover the increase in construction costs for building the concrete podium.
The five-story multifamily prototype produced a slightly negative residual
land value, likely due to the prototype’s inclusion of a level of underground parking. The eight-story
multifamily building, which did not contain any underground parking, supported higher residual land
values than the five-story multifamily building, but it still did not perform as well as either of the
townhome prototypes.
Multifamily residential development
slowed in the years after the Covid-19 pandemic as rents failed to keep pace with rapidly rising
construction costs. The effects of these changes remain in place, as high construction costs and
financing costs continue to pose challenges for delivering new multifamily projects.
• The market scenarios compared current and improved cap rates under assumptions of varying
levels of rent growth. The high end of the range of market outcomes achievable in the next two
to three years was based on a 3.75 percent cap rate and twenty percent increase in rents. The
low-end scenario was based on the current estimated cap rate of 5.50 percent and no rent
growth. Figure 4 and Figure 5 show all outcomes in the range of rent and cap rate growth, with
the bottom left corner of the shaded area representing residual land values under current
conditions.
• The five-story and eight-story multifamily rental prototypes produce residual land values
sufficient to purchase and develop land in the Plan Area with a ten percent increase in rents
and marginal decrease in cap rates. The eight-story multifamily prototype outperforms the five-
story prototype, likely due to the former’s less costly parking configuration.
March 24, 2026
FIGURE 3: RESIDUAL LAND VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL PROTOTYPES UNDER CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS
Source: Strategic Economics, 2026.
FIGURE 4: RESIDUAL LAND VALUE OF THE FIVE-STORY MULTIFAMILY PROTOTYPE UNDER A RANGE OF MARKET
CONDITIONS
Source: Strategic Economics, 2026.
$311
$226
$(80)
$17
-$200
-$100
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
3-Story
Townhomes
(Garage Parking)
3-Story
Townhomes
(Podium
Parking)
5-Story
Multifamily
8-Story
Multifamily
Typical Land Values Residual Land Value
-$400.00
-$300.00
-$200.00
-$100.00
$0.00
$100.00
$200.00
$300.00
$400.00
$500.00
0%10%20%
Change in Market Rents
Typical Land Values in Palo Alto
Range of Residual Land Values
Residual Land Value (Improved
Cap Rates)
Residual Land Value (Current
Cap Rates)
March 24, 2026
FIGURE 5: RESIDUAL LAND VALUE OF THE EIGHT-STORY MULTIFAMILY RENTAL PROTOTYPE UNDER A RANGE OF MARKET
CONDITIONS
Source: Strategic Economics, 2026.
As shown in Figure 6, neither
office prototype currently achieves a positive residual land value due to similar factors that are
constraining the short-term performance of the midrise residential development prototypes. In recent
years, market rents for many types of commercial property have fallen or plateaued, while construction
costs and interest rates have risen significantly. As a result, developers and investors are approaching
office development with a higher level of uncertainty than in the recent past, and they require higher
return thresholds for new projects to achieve financial feasibility.
New development proposals—such as Presidio Bay’s proposed redevelopment
of Charleston Plaza shopping center adjacent to the Plan Area—demonstrate ongoing developer
confidence that office development conditions will improve. This is especially true for new, modern
office projects in locations with amenities and housing. The financial analysis described in this
memorandum is based on current conditions in which the Plan Area is a secondary office market
compared to “core” locations such as Downtown Palo Alto, California Avenue, and near Stanford
Research Park.1 However, a large-scale mixed-use office development in the Plan Area can potentially
transform the Plan Area’s market position, improve the area’s ability to command higher office rents,
and reduce perceptions of development risk.
1 These findings generally align with a recent analysis by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. for the City of Palo Alto’s consideration of policy
options to encourage multi-family development in mixed-use districts. Although that analysis incorporated slightly more optimistic base
assumptions, the analysis found significant differences in the financial performance of office development prototypes between the highest-
value submarket areas within the city versus other areas of the city. See the staff report and attachments for Action Item #2 from the March
10, 2026 meeting of the Policy and Services Committee of the City of Palo Alto.
-$400.00
-$200.00
$0.00
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
0%10%20%
Change in Market Rents
Typical Land Values in Palo Alto
Range of Residual Land Values
Residual Land Value (Improved
Cap Rates)
Residual Land Value (Current Cap
Rates)
March 24, 2026
• The tested market scenarios compared current market rents to rents up to twenty percent
higher under “strong” market cap rates of 4.50 percent and “weak” market cap rates of 7.75
percent (derived from market research and developer interviews). These ranges reflect historic
rent growth and the variability of market capitalization rates over the last ten years. Figure 7
and Figure 8 illustrate the performance of both prototypes under a range of possible future
development market conditions.
• The financial performance of the office development prototypes most readily improves in
response to changes in financing costs and perceived development risk. Typical cap rates
adjust in response to changes in financing costs, perceived development risk, and anticipated
future revenues. The market scenario analyses show that the office prototypes exceed land
purchase costs under a hypothetical “strong” market cap rate scenario while maintaining
current rents and construction costs.
• The results of the analysis also demonstrate the value of additional office FAR in the eight-
story office prototype—suggesting greater ability of higher-FAR office products to support
community benefits or other contributions. For example, in a strong market scenario (low cap
rates) with ten percent rent growth, the five-story prototype’s residual land value is
approximately $580 per square foot of land and the eight-story prototype’s residual land value
is approximately $1,060 per square foot of land.
FIGURE 6: RESIDUAL LAND VALUES OF COMMERCIAL PROTOTYPES UNDER CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS
Source: Strategic Economics, 2026.
$(110)
$(42)
-$150
-$100
-$50
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
Five-Story Office Eight-Story Office
Typical Land Values Residual Land Value
March 24, 2026
FIGURE 7: RESIDUAL LAND VALUE OF THE FIVE-STORY OFFICE PROTOTYPE UNDER A RANGE OF MARKET CONDITIONS
Source: Strategic Economics, 2026.
FIGURE 8: RESIDUAL LAND VALUE OF THE EIGHT-STORY OFFICE PROTOTYPE UNDER A RANGE OF MARKET CONDITIONS
Source: Strategic Economics, 2026.
-$500.00
-$300.00
-$100.00
$100.00
$300.00
$500.00
$700.00
0%10%20%
Fo
o
t
Change in Market Rents
Typical Land Values in Palo Alto
Range of Residual Land Values
Residual Land Value (Strong
Market)
Residual Land Value (Weak
Market)
-$200.00
$0.00
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
$1,400.00
0%10%20%
Change in Market Rents
Typical Land Values in Palo Alto
Range of Residual Land Values
Residual Land Value (Improved
Cap Rates)
Residual Land Value (Current Cap
Rates)
March 24, 2026
Public Parks Costs and Funding
The following findings compare the costs and potential development-driven public revenues to
construct parks (inclusive of paseos and outdoor space) at the Maxar Site and CTI Sub Area. The
following content describes development scenarios analyzed for those areas, approximate
development costs to build parks included in the Plan Alternatives for those areas, and estimates
potential resources for park acquisition and construction that would be supported by new development
in the Plan Alternatives.
STUDY GEOGRAPHIES AND DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
Development scenarios for the Maxar Site and CTI Sub Area were prepared based on Plan Alternative
buildout information provided by Raimi + Associates. The scenarios are not indicative of active
planning applications in the City of Palo Alto. They are preliminary buildout scenarios used to evaluate
the feasibility of park development in each subarea.
The Plan Alternatives included 2 to 4.5 acres of park space at the Maxar Site and one to three acres
at the CTI Sub Area. Figure 9 shows the quantities of park space included in each scenario to
determine park land costs and funding contributions. Numbers in the scenario names vary based on
park space in the scenarios, while letters in the scenario names vary based on differences in
development composition.
This analysis only evaluated residential development scenarios at the Maxar Site, although the site
could include a smaller commercial component. The scenarios for the Maxar Site, which is a large
single-owner parcel, include a mix of townhomes and multifamily housing units. All analyses assumed
that townhomes are an ownership housing product while multifamily apartments are a rental housing
product.
The CTI Sub Area includes two scenarios of entirely residential development and two scenarios of
residential and office development.
FIGURE 9: DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS BY GEOGRAPHY AND PARK SPACE
March 24, 2026
PARK DEVELOPMENT COSTS AND POTENTIAL FUNDING ASSOCIATED WITH LOCAL
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
The following findings examine whether the City of Palo Alto’s existing park land dedication and funding
requirements would cover the costs of providing parks included in the Plan Alternatives. The findings
describe costs to provide parks in the Scenarios, identify required park land and funding contributions
from development in the Scenarios, and discuss the adequacy of current parks funding mechanisms.
The analysis used park construction cost estimates (based on the City of Palo Alto’s most recent Park
Impact Fee nexus study), recent property sales, and a construction cost inflation index to calculate the
cost of land acquisition and park construction on the Maxar site and in the CTI subarea.
The notes below Figure 2 describe the sources
and methodology used to prepare these estimates.
As shown in Figure 11, these cost estimates reflect the low- and high-end park
development cost estimates as applied to the varying quantities of park acres included in the Land
Use Alternative and Development Scenarios.
The estimates described in this
memo are intended to inform general policy-level consideration of mechanisms for funding parks
included in the Plan Alternatives. Although these estimates are based on reliable local sources and
data, the actual cost to acquire land and construct a park will always vary based on unique
circumstances.
FIGURE 10: PARK DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATES (2026 DOLLARS)
development cost per acre.
(b) Strategic Economics calculated the low-end park development cost by adjusting the City's previous park development cost estimates (from
2019) for inflation. The adjustment was based on the California Construction Cost Index (published by the California Department of General
Services and based on the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index). Although this index reflects changing construction costs, it is also
used to increase the City’s park impact fees. As such, it is appropriate to use this index to conduct a fee-based estimation of the total cost of
park development. The original estimates appear in the City of Palo Alto’s “Supplement to the Development Impact Fee Justification Study,”
2019.
(c) Strategic Economics calculated the high-end total outdoor space development cost based on land values reflecting the average of five
industrial property sales that occurred in the San Antonio Road Specific Plan Area from 2024 to 2026 (these sales are shown in Figure 14; all
other costs reflect inflation-adjusted costs from the City of Palo Alto’s 2019 park development cost estimates described above.
March 24, 2026
FIGURE 11: ESTIMATED PARK LAND ACQUISITION/CONTRIBUTION VALUE AND PARK DEVELOPMENT COST FOR THE
MAXAR SITE AND CTI SUB AREA
Scenarios
(a)
uniformly assume that the overall average cost of these spaces match the typical cost of developing a park in Palo Alto.
The next step of the analysis compared the estimated park development costs to the total developer
contributions to park space and funding required under current City of Palo Alto requirements. The
main assumptions of each buildout scenario were shown in Figure 9.
• The requirement only applies to residential projects that require a
subdivision or parcel map, which typically includes multiunit ownership housing developments
such as single-family homes, townhomes, and condominiums. Therefore, the requirement
applies to the ownership townhome component of the Maxar site’s development scenarios. As
of 2025, the Parkland Dedication requirement specifies that subdivisions resulting in more
than 50 parcels must provide land at a rate of 531 square feet per unit for single family homes
and 366 square feet per unit for multi-family homes; otherwise, an in-lieu fee may be paid.
• The requires that multifamily developments pay $44.20 per square foot and
commercial projects pay $19,076.43 per 1,000 square feet, as of August 2025. The Park
Impact Fee only applies to projects not subject to the Parkland Dedication requirement. For
purposes of the analysis, the multifamily housing units at the Maxar Site and CTI Sub Area
were assumed to be rental projects that must pay the Park Impact Fee.
Figure
12 compares the cost of providing parks in the scenarios (based on land value and park construction
cost) versus the value of land dedication and Park Impact Fee payments required of development in
the scenarios. As shown, the land and fee contributions in the scenarios with 4.5 acres of parks fall
short of meeting the full cost of developing the parks. The results for all scenarios assumed that the
new housing development is exempt from paying approximately $13.5 million in park impact fees due
to credits for existing commercial development on the site.
March 24, 2026
FIGURE 12: TOTAL MAXAR SITE PARK DEVELOPMENT COST AND REQUIRED DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER
EXISTING CITY POLICIES
(a) The development scenarios under the two-acre park alternative are required to dedicate 3.2 and 2.1 acres of park space, respectively,
given that the 260 and 175 townhomes in these scenarios must dedicate 531 square feet of park space each. Under the Parkland Dedication
policy, they would pay an in-lieu fee for the remaining undedicated park acreage; however, this chart assumes that the two-acre park
contribution fully satisfies the dedication requirement, and no additional in-lieu fee revenue is shown (i.e., only the Park Impact Fee
contributions are shown).
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2025; Strategic Economics, 2026.
As shown in Figure 13, the Park Impact Fees generated under
the one-acre park alternative scenarios for the CTI Sub Area are at least three times higher than the
park development cost due to the small park size compared to the total housing units developed. The
three-acre park alternative scenarios include fewer housing units, decreasing the total Park Impact
Fees collected compared to the one-acre alternative while also requiring three times the cost in land
acquisition and construction to build the park. However, the only CTI Sub Area scenario for which Park
Impact Fees are inadequate to cover the cost of park development is the least intensive “Scenario
4A,” which includes the lowest number of housing units—implicitly corresponding to five-story
multifamily residential development—and three acres of parks and paseos.
The scenarios that fail to
meet park land and funding requirements combine fewer housing units with higher assumed
quantities of park land.
$0M $20M $40M $60M $80M
Total Park Development Cost
Scenario 1A Development Contributions
Scenario 1B Development Contributions
Total Park Development Cost
Scenario 2A Development Contributions
Scenario 2B Development Contributions
Land Cost (Acquisition)Construction Cost Land Cost (Dedication)Park Impact Fee (Residential)
Scenario #1 -2.0 Acre Park
Scenario #2 -4.5 Acre Park
March 24, 2026
FIGURE 13: TOTAL CTI SUB AREA PARK DEVELOPMENT COST AND REQUIRED DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER
EXISTING CITY POLICIES
(a) The development scenarios for the CTI subarea are not bound to the Parkland Dedication requirements.
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2025; Strategic Economics, 2026.
Park Delivery Tools
Although future development in the Plan Area will generate funding to build parks, funding alone does
not guarantee that the City of Palo Alto will be able to acquire land for parks envisioned in the Plan
Alternatives. The Parkland Dedication requirement is the sole tool that ensures development projects
provide land for parks, but the requirement only applies to a very limited subset of large-scale,
typically owner-occupied housing development projects. However, these projects can currently
request to pay an in-lieu fee instead of providing the on-site land dedication.
The following findings describe several significant tools available to the City of Palo Alto for ensuring
or enhancing the ability of the City to obtain land for parks and other public facilities needs included
in the Plan Alternatives. The applicability of each tool varies depending on the development context,
such as whether new development is undertaken by a single large property owner or through smaller
individual projects via an incremental process.
A detailed funding and financing strategy for all major public infrastructure and facilities needs will
later be prepared and included in the San Antonio Road Area Plan.
As described earlier, the City’s two policies that solely focus on generating funding and dedicating land
for parks are the Parkland Dedication requirement and the Park Impact Fee:
$0M $20M $40M $60M $80M $100M
Total Park Development Cost
Scenario 3A Development Contributions
Scenario 3B Development Contributions
Scenario 3C Development Contributions
Scenario 3D Development Contributions
Total Park Development Cost
Scenario 4A Development Contributions
Scenario 4B Development Contributions
Scenario 4C Development Contributions
Scenario 4D Development Contributions
Land Cost (Acquisition)Construction Cost
Park Impact Fee (Residential)Park Impact Fee (Commercial)
Scenario #4 -3.0 Acre Park
Scenario #3 -1.0 Acre Park
March 24, 2026
• Existing Parkland Dedication requirement: The City of Palo Alto’s existing dedication
requirement mandates that housing developments seeking a subdivision or parcel
map for more than 50 parcels must provide land for parks. Smaller projects requiring
subdivision or a parcel map can pay an in-lieu fee instead. This requirement would primarily
apply to large-scale ownership housing projects, such as the townhomes envisioned at
a portion of the Maxar site in the plan alternatives.
• Park Impact Fees: The City’s Park Impact Fees, described earlier, specifically provide funding
for new parks. These fee revenues can be used to acquire land for public parks, but do not
guarantee the City’s ability to acquire any specific property.
An EIFD is a tool that
diverts growth in municipal General Fund property tax revenues (the “tax increment”) from within a
district to help fund infrastructure projects. The tool only indirectly leverages new development
activity to pay for improvements since an EIFD diverts revenues that would otherwise support the
City’s General Fund—the City’s primary operating fund. However, an EIFD enables the City to bond
against future tax increment revenue to immediately construct improvements that may accelerate
development and therefore growth of overall tax revenue.
Examples of these mechanisms include the
following:
• Development Agreements: Development agreements could potentially be required in the
Area Plan for large-scale projects pursued by a master developer that exceed certain size
thresholds. Negotiated agreements create an opportunity to require parkland dedication and
construction, potentially in lieu of otherwise applicable Park Impact Fees. This option may be
preferable for the City than using existing policies as it allows greater flexibility to specify park
requirements and it addresses park dedication requirements, which will likely not apply to
the CTI subarea under the Plan Alternatives development scenarios.
• Community Facilities Districts (CFDs): CFDs create an additional tax levy on properties in a
district. These funds can be used to provide infrastructure improvements within the same
district via bond issuance and repayment over time. Under California state law, this levy can
be calculated based on any type of reasonable property characteristic other than property
value, such as land square footage. The process for initiating the CFD could be initiated by
the City but would require a two-thirds vote of property owners by land area if there are fewer
than 12 registered voters in the district—an easier threshold to meet in a nonresidential area
with one or more interested large property owners. A key benefit of CFDs over other district-
based funding mechanisms is that they can be used for ongoing infrastructure operations
and maintenance in addition to capital costs.
• Reimbursement Agreements: If one developer is required to provide additional infrastructure
capacity or amenities to serve an entire district or area, a reimbursement agreement can be
established to receive payments from later developers who benefit from these early
improvements. Although reimbursement agreements can be established privately and
March 24, 2026
separately from any other funding or park delivery mechanism, these agreements are more
often incorporated into the structure of a CFD.
These mechanisms typically rely on the exchange of a benefit for increased development
rights for commercial properties (as housing is often subject to State or local density bonuses and
protections that limit developer incentives to purchase additional development rights). Examples of
these mechanisms include the following:
• Community Benefits programs: The Area Plan can potentially incorporate a structured
community benefits program in which property owners must set aside land for parks or make
other contributions in exchange for greater development rights. However, community
benefits programs may be less effective for ensuring parkland dedication since smaller
properties would be unable to provide a land dedication.
• Transfer of Development Rights (TDR): Under such a program, property owners could transfer
unused development potential from one property with certain characteristics (the “sending
site” or “originating site”) to another property (the “receiving site”). The transfer enables the
owner of the receiving site to develop additional gross floor area above and beyond what
would otherwise be allowed. The sending site, having transferred away its development
potential, could become a prime location for future parks. The value of the TDR depends on
the relative financial feasibility of development at the base allowed density, financial
feasibility of building types, and market strength. TDR programs for providing parks are
generally most useful when the sending site is already a natural area, so the potential
usefulness of TDR in the already-developed Plan Area is likely limited.
Mobility Alternatives Implementation Considerations
The Plan Alternatives include “Mobility Alternatives” that will require a strategic approach to fund the
envisioned improvements and, in some instances, acquire easements or rights of way from private
property owners.2 The following conceptual assessment is intended to inform community and
decisionmaker deliberations regarding the Mobility Alternatives. The findings describe challenges for
delivery of each Mobility Alternative, explain the major cost drivers associated with each Mobility
Alternative, and identify the pros and cons of potential funding mechanisms and land acquisition
tools to implement the Mobility Alternatives.
The Plan envisions mobility improvements along all major roads and intersections within the Plan
Area. The proposed Mobility Alternatives add walking and biking facilities designed to improve
comfort and align with applicable safety standards. This memo examines the specific Mobility
Alternatives which cover the segment of San Antonio Road from Charleston Road to Middlefield
Road. This is the segment with the greatest range of potential improvements, and the key
characteristics chosen in this segment can be carried forward to other road segments. The
2 For purposes of this memo, “easements” refers to a right of public access through a private property to construct wider sidewalks and/or
cycle tracks. “Right of way” refers to land owned by the City of Palo Alto for transportation needs.
March 24, 2026
alternatives featured in this report are titled MSA-1, MSA-2, and MSA-3, in order of least change to
most change. MSA-1 primarily requires street restriping and more significant changes at the Fabian
Way intersection; MSA-2 envisions creation of a shared-use path on the north side of San Antonio
Road and an on-street bikeway on the south side; and MSA-3 envisions creation of a two-way
separated bikeway and wider sidewalks on both sides of San Antonio Road. Full details are available
in the “Plan Alternatives Memorandum.”
Figure 14 describes the cost drivers, relative magnitude of costs, and other implementation
considerations for the Mobility Alternatives. Generally, any changes to ownership and fixed physical
infrastructure will drive significant costs for purchases of access/land and construction, respectively.
Critical factors for each Mobility Alternative are as follows:
• MSA-1 is the lowest cost intervention since it entails the fewest changes to major
infrastructure and little need for the City of Palo Alto to acquire easements or rights of way
from private property owners. MSA-1 primarily requires relatively low-cost street restriping,
along with one higher-cost change to reconfigure the extant public right of way at Fabian
Way. Sidewalk widening—which would require acquisition of easements or rights of way—is
optional in MSA-1 and can potentially be completed in incremental segments where
easements or rights of way are already available and as street frontages are improved by
future development projects.
• The MSA-2 alternative entails higher costs than MSA-1 due to the need to acquire additional
easements or rights of way for a separate multi-use path on one side of San Antonio Road,
construct the path, and address related infrastructure adjustments and possible tree
removal and replacement in limited locations.
• MSA-3 is likely to entail substantially higher costs than MSA-1 or MSA-2. MSA-3 requires
acquisition of easements or rights of way on both sides of San Antonio Road from numerous
property owners. MSA-3 also requires moving curbs and reconstructing the street, as well as
moving and rebuilding significant public and private sewer and utilities infrastructure in the
existing street right of way, and replanting of existing street trees located between the
sidewalk and curb. In addition to the impacts to City-owned utilities, those infrastructure
adjustments may also require coordination with outside utility operators and reimbursement
of related expenses.
March 24, 2026
FIGURE 14: COST DRIVERS, IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS, AND RELATIVE COST IMPACTS FOR EACH MOBILITY
ALTERNATIVE
change
• Includes reconfiguration
of public right of way at
intersection with Fabian
Way to remove diagonal
parking and create new
ped/bike facilities
• Street restriping
• Optional sidewalk
widening where public
easement or right of way
already exists or can be
obtained (up to 3 feet of
easement and
improvements on each
side)
Same as MSA-1, PLUS:
• Acquisition of additional
7’ or more public
easement or right of way
from western property
owners
• Construction of multi-use
path and related
intersection safety
improvements
• Limited public
infrastructure changes at
“pinch points”
• Removal and replacement
of 1 or more trees
• Includes reconfiguration
of public right of way at
intersection with Fabian
Way to remove diagonal
parking and create new
ped/bike facilities
• Moving curbs, and
significant reconstruction
of the street; related
intersection
improvements
• Need to move numerous
utilities and infrastructure
(e.g., sewers, backflow
preventers, utility boxes)
• Construction of separate
sidewalks and cycle
tracks
• Removal and
replacement of all
existing street trees.
• No change to the median
• Optional sidewalk
widening where public
easement or right of way
already exists or can be
obtained (up to 3 feet of
easement and
improvements on each
side)
•
incremental sidewalk
widening at frontages of
new development
projects
•
public easements or rights
of way at The Greenhouse
• Requires acquisition of
public easement for two
property owners north of
The Greenhouse or for the
pathway to be constructed
at time of redevelopment,
(795, 797, 799, 80 San
Antonio Rd)
•
coordination with existing
property owners on
relocation of
infrastructure serving
their property
• Requires acquisition of
public easements or
rights of way from
properties near major
intersections where
existing curb-to-curb
dimension is limited
• Requires coordination
and agreements with
outside agencies and
companies operating
public utilities and private
services
Source: Raimi+Associates, 2026; Strategic Economics, 2026.
March 24, 2026
Capital improvement
projects for street and mobility improvements in the City of Palo Alto are generally at least partly funded
through the City’s Capital Improvement Fund. That fund receives revenue from citywide sources such
as a base transfer from the General Fund and dedicated Transient Occupancy Tax revenue. Specific
projects may receive funding generated by other local taxes and impact fees. The Capital Improvement
Fund also combines outside federal, state, and local agency sources such as project-specific grants
and Gas Tax revenues. Although the Capital Improvement Fund is a useful tool for constructing the
improvements in the Mobility Alternatives, all City projects compete for this funding. Therefore,
additional revenues generated from within the Plan Area will likely be required.
Significant options include the following:
• Transportation Impact Fee (existing): The City imposes a Transportation Impact Fee on new
development that is used to fund mobility improvements. As with all impact fees subject to the
State of California’s Mitigation Fee Act, the Transportation Impact Fee must be used to mitigate
the impacts of development rather than address existing deficiencies. As of Fiscal Year 2025,
the Citywide fee charges $10,103.99 per net new PM peak hour trip. Although new
development in the Plan Area would generate fee revenues, the improvements in the Mobility
Alternatives would need to compete with all other mobility improvement projects in the City for
funding. Fee revenues are also a “pay as you go” source since they are too volatile to support
issuance of bonds that would provide up-front funding for public improvements.
• Plan Area-Specific Impact Fee: The City of Palo Alto could also establish a new impact fee that
applies within the Plan Area (and any other relevant part of the City) to specifically fund
improvements within the Plan Area. A similar approach was used by the City when it
established the Charleston Arastradero Traffic Impact Fee for targeted mobility and safety
improvements. A Plan Area-specific impact fee would provide a dedicated stream of funding
for implementing the selected Mobility Alternatives. However, the fee would also increase costs
for new development, and the maximum fee amount may be limited by the legal requirement
to prove the “nexus” between the cost of improvements and the impacts of new development
projects.
• Revised Development Standards: Development standards include on-site and off-site
improvements that must be met by new private development projects. Revisions to
development standards in the Plan Area could require reasonable easements and
improvements that help implement the Mobility Alternatives’ improvements. However, new
development standards would be unable to address comprehensive corridor-wide mobility
improvements since project-specific changes would result in a patchwork of conditions. The
development standards also must be reasonably proportionate to the development projects’
impacts.
• Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District: An EIFD, as described in the Park Delivery Tools
findings, would allow the City of Palo to issue bonds for construction of improvements in the
Mobility Alternatives. The bonds would be repaid by incremental growth of property tax revenue
from within the EIFD. The EIFD provides up-front funding for construction of public
March 24, 2026
improvements to support private investment in the Plan Area and grow permanent property
tax revenues. However, the EIFD also temporarily diverts property tax revenue (until bond
payment obligations are met) that would otherwise accrue to the City’s General Fund.
• Community Facilities District: A CFD—described earlier in the Parks Delivery Tools section of
this memo—would ensure that properties within the Plan Area contribute funding for public
improvements through a special assessment. The CFD also supports bond issuance for up-
front construction of improvements. However, passage of a CFD covering much of the San
Antonio Road corridor may be especially difficult. Since the area includes 12 or more registered
voters, the CFD—and its annual special tax assessment—would need to be approved by two-
thirds of registered voters. However, a smaller CFD could potentially be approved in areas of
the corridor in which two-thirds of nonresidential property owners are interested in funding
improvements so they can enhance the value of their properties and support future
development opportunities.
The City of Palo Alto will need to purchase
easements or land from property owners to implement any Mobility Alternative improvements requiring
additional public access (except for new development projects subject to revised standards). These
purchases are typically completed via voluntary negotiations. However, the City can also use eminent
domain to compel property owners to provide land or easements in exchange for compensation.
Regardless, acquiring land or easements will become more expensive and time-consuming as the
number of properties increases.
March 24, 2026
Appendix
FIGURE 15: INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY SALES IN THE PLAN AREA, 2024-2026
March 24, 2026
FIGURE 16: PARK DEVELOPMENT COST AND EXISTING POLICY CONTRIBUTION ASSUMPTIONS AND CALCULATIONS
(4)
(1)(2)(3)(5)(2)(6)(7)
A *
$11,000,000
(B * 531) /
43,560
Lesser of
A or F
G *
$11,000,000
(C * $44.20) +
(D * $19.71) E * $19.71
(1) Each scenario’s multifamily square footage is equal to the number of multifamily rental units identified in Figure 1 multiplied by the average unit size of multifamily developments based on market
research (850 square feet).
(2) The land acquisition cost for the development of parks reflects the high-end value from Figure 10 as most of the properties in the studied subareas have existing improvements.
(3) The Construction Cost category includes Park Construction, Planning & Design, and Administration.
(4) Rates in the “Calculation” row of this section of the Figure refer either to conversions from acres to square feet or to Palo Alto’s existing policy rates, or both.
(5) The parkland dedicated does not exceed the park area specified by the development scenario, even if the Parkland Dedication requirement does exceed the scenario (as in Scenarios 1A and
1B).
(6) The Impact Fee column combines both the multifamily rental impact fee and the commercial impact fee.
(7) The Fee Credit each scenario receives for existing commercial development represents the maximum possible fee credit (i.e., the total replacement of existing structures in both subareas) as
both a conservative estimate of each scenario’s ability to pay for parks improvements and due to a lack of knowledge about the rate of redevelopment in each subarea.
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2025; Raimi and Associates, 2026; Strategic Economics, 2026.
March 24, 2026
FIGURE 17: TOTAL PARK DEVELOPMENT COST AND DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS BY SCENARIO
FIGURE 18: OWNERSHIP TOWNHOME PROTOTYPES' REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS
March 24, 2026
FIGURE 19: OWNERSHIP TOWNHOME PROTOTYPES' COST ASSUMPTIONS
March 24, 2026
FIGURE 20: OWNERSHIP TOWNHOME PROTOTYPES' PRO FORMA RESULTS
FIGURE 21: MULTIFAMILY RENTAL PROTOTYPE REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS
March 24, 2026
FIGURE 22: MULTIFAMILY RENTAL PROTOTYPE COST ASSUMPTIONS
March 24, 2026
FIGURE 23: MULTIFAMILY RENTAL PROTOTYPES' PRO FORMA RESULTS
FIGURE 24: OFFICE PROTOTYPES' REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS
Note: Cap rate and yield on cost assumptions were based on review of applicable overall market cap rates and recent sales transaction data
from CoStar, as well as input gathered in recent interviews with office developers in Palo Alto and nearby jurisdictions in Santa Clara County.
The assumptions incorporate consideration of the Plan Area’s current market positioning as a secondary office market location within Palo
Alto (compared to locations such as Downtown, near Caltrain stations, and in/near Stanford Research Park).
Source: Strategic Economics, 2026.
March 24, 2026
FIGURE 25: OFFICE PROTOTYPES' COST ASSUMPTIONS
March 24, 2026
FIGURE 26: OFFICE PROTOTYPES' PRO FORMA RESULTS
From:Maureen McNally
To:Council, City; Cain, Robert; sanantonioareaplan@paloalto.cov
Cc:Maureen McNally
Subject:San Antonio Rd Development
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 1:37:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,
First, thank you for your attention.
There are a number of areas I wish to comment on. These are not in necessary order of importance. And not
necessarily complete. This is not my area of expertise, however I have lived in the Greenmeadow area for
over 30 years, and plan to live here for another 30 years. It is a beautiful area. I don’t t wish it to be
degraded or spoiled.
1. I understand we need more housing, but not as much as proposed. The proposals just seem way too
much for this area. As you already know, with any additional housing, additional parking must be included
to match.
2. We don’t really need any more office space. I’m not necessarily opposed to some office space in the area
(some exists today), but I want to make sure that the amount of proposed office space is not projected to
increase the number of jobs currently provided in the SARAP area. The purpose of developing housing on
this scale is to rectify the city’s jobs:housing imbalance in response to a State housing mandate. I suspect
that Stanford Research Park (which counts toward Palo Alto’s jobs quota) will be developing more office
space, so I’m thinking about how much office space should be allowed here in the short term.
3. We need a better transportation / traffic plan that can include walking and biking and safety as a
priority. As I said, this is not my expertise, I am not the person to create it. I Understand that cars need to
park somewhere. But try to condense the impact and have parking not on San Antonio Rd itself, and not
overflow parking in the residential neighborhoods.
4. Parks and green space are so very important. I am vehemently opposed to reducing or converting any
current green space. I favor a large park area that can be a multi use area.
5. Schools and services will need to be increased.
6. A vibrant destination area that is also pedestrian friendly, walkable, bike-able with cafes, restaurants
and some retail. Not more office space. See above.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
7. I am definitely opposed to the higher maximum hight limit. I do realize and acknowledge the
economics of higher density building.
8. I would also like to see a more equitable distribution of additional housing throughout Palo Alto.
9. I recognize this is a complex plan. Thanx for considering all of this.
Regards,
Maureen McNally
From:Grace Pariante
To:Council, City
Cc:Ellson, Penny
Subject:Re: Item 3 on the April 6 Agenda - San Antonio Road Area Plan
Date:Monday, April 6, 2026 7:22:37 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello again Mayor Veenker and City Council Members,
Here is what I found while unsuccessfully trying to find traffic data on San Antonio
Road:
The most recent (2016) traffic data report does NOT include data on San Antonio
Road. Why?
From Palo Alto Online, "According to a new report from consultants who are leading
the city’s effort to create a new vision for this area, the commercial corridor between
Alma Street and the U.S. Highway 101 currently contains about 2.7% of Palo Alto’s
housing stock but is responsible for about 5% of traffic collisions that involve
fatalities or serious injuries. Over the past decade, there were 143 collisions
reported in this area, according to a survey by Raimi + Associates, which includes two
fatal crashes and three that involved severe injuries."
I could not find the Rami + Associates survey. Has it been made public? Do you know
how I might access it?
According to the state freeway agreement document, San Antonio between 101 and
Alma is classified as an "arterial" while Oregon is classified as an "expressway".
Perhaps if it were reclassified as an expressway, it could safely manage the
additional traffic. "The word “expressway” as used in this manual has the same
definition as “controlled access highway.” I think that means removing direct access
from homes and businesses on that street. IMHO this would be the minimum
necessary to improve the current traffic dangers and perhaps allow additional cars
and truck to safely travel along this route.
Over the past few months, on 3 different occasions, I found myself traveling north on
101, exiting on Middlefield Road, and unable to turn left on San Antonio Road. I
waited about 20 minutes through many signal turns, moving up 3 cars. I had to
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
abandon that route to Greenmeadow and continue straight to Charleston to turn left. I
then entered Greenmeadow from the far side. How many people will be cutting
through our neighborhood to backtrack to San Antonio? Our neighborhood, with our
small children, a swimming pool, soccer fields, pre-school, and community center!
This is a dangerous situation already, without the addition of more homes.
We need to fix the traffic problem before allowing any new residential zoning. I
am not opposed to the construction of tall buildings along the 101 freeway to address
housing inadequacies. In fact, I am in favor of it especially if they were 100% below
market rate, but not before the infrastructure is there to support it, especially
infrastructure that supports that involves the safety of our community.
You say 100% below market rate is impossible, but Santa Cruz did it
- https://santacruzlocal.org/2026/04/03/279-below-market-rate-apartments-on-tap-in-
santa-cruz/. Food for thought.
Respectfully,
Grace Pariante
PS Unfortunately, I cannot attend tonight's meeting. I will try to zoom in towards the
end, but you will likely be on a different topic :-(
On Thursday, April 2, 2026 at 11:38:12 AM PDT, Grace Pariante <grace_pariante@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mayor Veenker and City Council Members,
As a long time resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood in Palo Alto, I am writing
to express my opposition to rezoning both North Fabian and CTI areas to residential
before addressing the current traffic along the San Antonio Road corridor, especially
at the intersections of Middlefield, Charleston, and Highway 101.
I have attended workshops, filled in surveys, and read documents about the San
Antonio Road Area Plan. At the meetings, many attendees have tried to raise the
issue of traffic. The organizers, on two different occasions, have asked people to
stop, explaining it would be addressed at the end of the meeting. In both cases, after
everyone's energy has dissipated and 25% of the people have gone home, they
present a plan for pedestrians and bike lanes and are asked for opinions on 3 or 4
plans. It shifts the conversation away from cars, trucks, traffic. Intersections are not
discussed at all, even for bikes and pedestrians!
Bike lanes and pedestrian walkways DO NOT nearly adequately address the VERY
BAD traffic that already exists along this corridor. I believe deferring the issue over
and again degrades the trust in the workshop organizers and my city officials.
I challenge you to travel along 101 north at 5:00 PM, exit on Middlefield, and try to
turn left on San Antonio Road. You cannot. It doesn't matter how many lights you
wait. The only option is to continue straight along Middlefield, turn left on Charleston,
and then backtrack. On any weekday, the road and intersections are a mess. The
best bike lanes in the world could not rectify this situation. Now add 3900 to 7000
homes.
To add even half the number of housing units that is being proposed, the 101 and
San Antonio Road intersection needs a cloverleaf that addresses traffic coming from
and going to 101 in north and south directions. Minimally another lane needs to be
added to San Antonio Road, and a parking lot added to the train station. If you do not,
you will destroy my neighborhood, that will take the brunt of the cut through traffic.
How would you feel if you lived here? We have small children, a swimming pool,
soccer fields, a pre-school, and a community center. So many children who could be
struck by a frustrated commuter.
Prove me wrong. Show me the traffic studies that have been completed that show
how traffic will be improved by adding thousands more housing units and a bike lane.
Housing is important, but all in one place without first solving the traffic problem will
be disastrous.
Thank you for considering my objection.
Grace Pariante
4013 Ben Lomond Drive
From:jfpetrilla@gmail.com
To:Lauing, Ed; Council, City; Planning Commission; Cain, Robert
Subject:Comment for San Antonio Road Area Plan Study Session
Date:Sunday, April 5, 2026 10:38:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
April 5, 2026
To:
Ed.Lauing@PaloAlto.gov
City.Council@paloalto.gov
Planning.Commission@paloalto.gov
Robert.Cain@paloalto.gov
From: John Petrilla
777 San Antonio Rd
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Subject: San Antonio Road Area Plan
Dear Mayor Ed Lauing, City Council members, Planning and Transportation Commission members
and Mr. Robert Cain
Please find below comments for your consideration at the April 6, 2026, Palo Alto City Council study
session for the San Antonio Road Area Plan. I’ll limit these comments to the project goal, “IMPROVE
MOBILITY AND SAFETY: Enhance streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and transit connections for easier and
safer travel for all users” as it applies to the section of San Antonio Rd between Middlefield Rd and E.
Charleston Rd in the Central San Antonio sub-area.
Currently the section of San Antonio Rd between Middlefield Rd and E. Charleston Rd provides, in
each direction, two lanes of traffic, one lane of which is a shared bicycle lane, a parking lane which is
also used as a right turn lane and loading zone, a median strip which is also used as a left turn lane,
and a sidewalk and parking strip. This all fits within a 76.5’ curb-to-curb and an overall 100.5’ ROW.
There are three alternatives presented, two of which drop both parking lanes and the other drops
one parking lane. Alternative MSA-3 is the only option that offers the preferred Two Way Bikeway
Both Sides bicycle solution and it requires increasing the ROW from 100.5’ to 105.5’.
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
At present there is no explicit goal regarding mitigation of the existing heavy traffic in this triangle of
San Antonio Rd, Middlefield Rd and E. Charleston Rd. If an objective of “First, do no harm.” is applied
here, just removing the parking lanes would disqualify all three alternatives in that current residents
of the area that depend on that parking would suffer a loss and right turn lanes and loading zones
and perhaps double left turns lanes would disappear which would degrade the traffic flow. Future
transit options would be limited by lack of space for bus or shuttle stops on San Antonio Rd. Please
keep in mind that there are four projects queued up that may bring an additional 550+ residential
units to this section of San Antonio Rd. Further, the priority of comfortable, accessible, and inviting
streets that encourage walking is compromised as who enjoys a walk alongside a traffic jam. Finally,
parking would just overflow into the adjoining neighborhoods, and one would expect that the
addition of 550+ residential units would increase the demand for additional on-street parking.
It’s apparent that too many features are being attempted for the available space. Since it’s unlikely
that the San Antonio Rd ROW will be increased, consider moving the objective of Two Way Bikeways,
at least partly, to a different space, e.g., Montrose Ave. On one end Montrose terminates at a
Middlefield Rd intersection with a traffic signal across from a Cubberly parking lot. On the other end
it terminates at an E. Charleston Rd intersection with a traffic signal a short distance from the Fabian
Way intersection. Crossing Middlefield Rd at Montrose should be much less stressful than crossing
Middlefield at San Antonio Rd and crossing E. Charleston Rd at Montrose and/or Fabian Way should
be much less stressful than crossing E. Charleston at San Antonio Rd. In addition, the connection at
Fabian Way offers a good path to the bay lands bridge over US 101.
A problem with diverting bike traffic around this section of San Antonio Rd between Middlefield and
E. Charleston is how to accommodate the residents, patrons and staff of this section of San Antonio
Rd.
Perhaps a Two Way Bikeway feature isn’t necessary on the west side of San Antonio Rd between
Middlefield and E. Charleston. The Greenhouse sites are the only residential sites on the west side
of San Antonio Rd between Middlefield and E. Charleston and cyclists and pedestrians from the
Greenhouses already use their entry at Sutherland Drive to connect to Montrose Ave and Charleston
Rd or access Cubberley, etc. Other than the Greenhouses, there may be only two parcels (795 and
801 San Antonio Rd) between the Greenhouses and Fabian Way to address. Perhaps the scope of
the upgrade of the Charleston Rd – Fabian Way – San Antonio complex could be expanded to cover
this issue. This leaves only the residents in the new buildings proposed for the east side of San
Antonio Rd to consider for a Two Way Bikeway.
Consider installing a Two Way Bikeway for the east side of San Antonio Rd and leaving the west side
as is. For the existing west side lanes from the median to and including the sidewalk there would be
5’ sidewalk, a 7’ buffer strip, an 8’ parking lane and two 12’ travel lanes, one of which could be a
shared bike lane. This requires 44’. For the new east side lanes there would be 6’ sidewalk, a 3’
buffer strip, a 10’ two-way bikeway, a 3’ buffer strip, and two 11’ travel lanes requiring 44’. The
Leghorn Street – San Antonio Rd intersection with a signal light and in the middle of the proposed
new residential buildings can be used as a San Antonio Rd crossover. Resident cyclists and
pedestrians of this section of San Antonio Rd will have options for getting to the train, to Cubberley,
Gunn, Mitchel Park, Bay Lands etc. Transiting cyclists and pedestrians have options for diverting
around this section. And, some of the valuable on-street parking is preserved.
Thank you for your attention to this message.
Respectfully,
John Petrilla
From:pennyellson12@gmail.com
To:Council, City
Subject:Comments for SARAP Study Session --Item 3, Monday, April 6 CC Meeting
Date:Sunday, April 5, 2026 7:26:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable City Council,
Here are my draft SARAP Comments for April 6 CC Meeting.
Thank you for all you do.
Penny Ellson
Good evening, I’m Penny Ellson, a member of SARAP Community Advisory Group (CAG)
and a Greenmeadow resident. I’m speaking as an individual.
Aggregated development potential of 3,800-7,400 units was revealed only recently. CAG
members were surprised by the scale--a 13-25% increase in existing citywide dwelling
units to this one area of the city. 7,400 units (the upper range of development potential
this plan envisions) exceeds the total state mandate of 6,086 units for all of Palo Alto by
almost 1,000 units and exceeds the Housing Element allotment for this area by 5,200
units. I understand this is a 25-year plan, but it’s massive change to an area that has no
existing infrastructure to support it. How/when will new infrastructure be funded?
Are other parts of the city being studied for similar heights, levels of density in the same
timeframe? Which parts? What is the timeline for their process? If a SARAP plan is
adopted before 2031, will its recommendations supersede the existing Housing
Element/Comp Plan limits? Will it open the gates early for development proposals and
land purchases? The Maxar site (a large parcel inside PAUSD enrollment boundaries)
just went on the market.
Re: Bikes-- At a recent PABAC budget discussion, I asked staff to please add the
proposed San Antonio bike lanes to their list of CIP priorities for the coming 5-years so
that bike lanes will be in place when new San Antonio Road residents move in. Building
bike lanes after travel habits are established will make mode shift much harder to achieve.
Staff’s replied, “Would you be okay with paint?” That may be a little better than nothing for
the short term.
We need the traffic study.— This truck route arterial connects Mountain View, Los Altos,
Palo Alto, Stanford and the research park to the 101, Foothill Expressway, El Camino Real,
Alma, and regional jobs. Combined proposed growth in Mountain View and Palo Alto is
likely to aggravate already serious congestion on a route that carries goods and people,
impacting quality of life and economic vitality. What’s the plan to maintain operations and
safety for many thousands of new and existing residents, regional commuters and trucks?
An impacted San Antonio Road will encourage diversion of traffic onto neighborhood bike
boulevard and school commute routes—which the Comp Plan prohibits. I see nothing in the
current transportation concepts for Greenmeadow and Greendell neighborhoods that would
address these safety impacts. Please direct staff to address this.
SARAP bike ped/facilities extend to Alma, but existing bike/ped facilities into the Caltrain
station to/from Alma are narrow and lack capacity to handle greatly increased bike/ped traffic.
This will be a limiting factor for mode shift if it is not addressed. This task requires
collaboration of Caltrain, Mountain View and Palo Alto. Please direct staff to provide clarity
on solutions, and get beyond, “We are collaborating with partners.”
The uncertain renovation/redevelopment of Cubberley is an important piece to this
puzzle. We need a functional, Cubberley Community Center that is well-connected by all
modes to SARAP areas and existing Palo Alto neighborhoods. SARAP planning should
actively incorporate Cubberley, Charleston Shopping Center and the Mitchell Park
super block as essential community hubs in its design. The average Palo Alto citizen does
not understand the scale of housing growth that is coming. Include projections for growth in
citywide population and demand for community services in Cubberley ballot measure
language.
The budget shows a deficit and money earmarked for SARAP mitigations. How will all
of this be funded?
Regarding retail--There was PTC discussion about not requiring retail along San Antonio
Road. This could undermine ground level vibrancy that is essential for walkable environments
of this urban scale. Also, certain services need to be immediately available to people as they
commute to and from work, school, and other daily trips on foot and on bikes. Why is the city
contemplating upzoning Summerwinds, the only decent garden store in the city? This will
create incentive for the landowner to sell. Please don’t.
Regarding office space and jobs-- I’m not opposed to office space, but I want to know that
the amount and type of office space is not projected to increase the current number of jobs in
the SARAP area, exacerbating the city’s jobs:housing imbalance. Please direct staff to
provide jobs numbers related to office spaces and types being planned.
Please require provision of mitigations using legally binding tools, such as a Nexus Study,
particularly for parks, traffic impacts, bike/ped facilities, and transit. Please cap heights at
60’-85’, and allow these heights only in locations where higher density can be well-supported
by infrastructure.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From:slevy@ccsce.com
To:Council, City
Cc:Cain, Robert; Armer, Jennifer; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:my thoughts on Area Plan recommendations
Date:Saturday, April 4, 2026 10:51:57 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Hi Mayor Veenker and council members,
1) please clarify to the public that new housing of any substantial amount is 4 or more
years away.
We have 4 proposals with more than 150 units and of these only 788 has given a timeline of
at best late 2030.
2) following up on this please ask staff what mobility improvements can be made on San
Antonio in the near and medium term
As part of this ask staff to evaluate plans for and timing of a zipcar location nearby
3) Re height limits
I support the 90 foot alternative in the central San Antonio area at least on the south side,
in the CTI area and in the south Fabian Way area where we have
recent proposals and developer (for example, PBV) interest
Perhaps lower height limits might be appropriate in other parts of the area though we have
no applications to evaluate what is feasible
4) I support proceeding on the 1,500 unit goal for the RHNA permit period, recognizing that
building will come after permits have been applied for
But I am skeptical of the demand for or need for 4-7.000 units over the longer term and
prefer we support more housing in the north we I live and where housing would be close to
jobs, shopping, services including medical and near public and Stanford shuttle availability.
The same is true for portions of the area around Cal Ave.
Re office
I know this historically has been contentious but I support what I remember commissioner
Akin said about considering office in the CTI area where PBV has made previous suggestions
I also support trying to regain the office jobs we have lost since the peak as they provide
both tax revenues and customers for local businesses. I do not think there is any immediate
danger of exceeding our previous peak except if SRP gets hot again and to me that would
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
be a positive not a negative.
Thank you for your positive decisions recently re housing and I look forward to Monday's
meeting.
Steve
From:Jeremy Levine, Palo Alto Forward
To:Council, City
Subject:Public Comment: Agenda Item 3, More Housing and Multi-Mobility Options in the San Antonio Road Area Plan
Date:Friday, April 3, 2026 3:56:09 PM
Attachments:2026.4.3 Public Comment Agenda Item 3 City Council San Antonio Road Area Plan.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Good afternoon Palo Alto City Council,
Please see the attached public comment on behalf of Palo Alto Forward regarding agenda item
3, the San Antonio Area Plan. Since our prior letter to PTC, we've updated our asks to:
Allow at least 8 stories and 90 feet of height in the area
Allow at least replacement office to encourage redevelopment of existing office sites
with housing
Support MSA-3 with Class IV bikeways to maximize road safety and accessibility
Our letter includes more details. I'm happy to discuss further with any member of council--you
can set up a call with me at calendly.com/paloaltoforward or let me know times that work
better for you.
Have a lovely weekend,
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Levine (he • him)
Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward
(650) 485-0127
April 3, 2026
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Agenda Item 3, San Antonio Road Area Plan Land Use and Transportation
Alternatives
To the Palo Alto City Council,
Palo Alto Forward exists to support additional housing and multi-mobility options in our city. To
that end, we have supported efforts by the city to plan for additional homes and additional street
features in the San Antonio Road Area Plan.
The San Antonio Area Plan provides a unique opportunity to realize the goals of Palo Alto’s
housing element, which anticipates the majority of future housing development will occur on
sites near the corridor. Several projects have already been proposed on sites on which housing
is planned for in the city's housing element (all of which have been 6-8 story multi-family
housing, not townhomes–suggesting that multi-family housing is substantially more financially
feasible than the staff report indicates).
In order to promote the most holistically affordable, walkable future neighborhoods, please
support the following features in the San Antonio Road Area Plan:
●Allow at least 8 stories and 90 feet of height in all zones. Flexibility will bring the
most new homes to Palo Alto at a range of levels of affordability. Feasibility analyses by
the city suggest 8-story development is most feasible in the current market (though
proposals currently in the city pipeline like the 17-story Mollie Stone’s project illustrate
how height can promote more homes–while also maximizing the number of low-income
homes and preserving community-serving uses like grocery stores). Palo Alto Forward
supports the option proposed by staff to allow as much as 250 feet in the Area Plan,
particularly on large sites like the Maxar site that provide once-in-a-generation
opportunities to create walkable communities. However, we recognize 8 stories may
better reflect community preferences while still delivering meaningful housing
opportunities.
●Allow replacement office development on sites with existing office buildings.
Owners of office property will be more likely to redevelop their sites if they have a
guarantee that they can at least replace the existing office. Walkable communities blend
housing, commercial, and office development to create complete neighborhoods. In
other cities, such as Redwood City, new office developments have brought investments
in affordable housing; in San Mateo, the Hillsdale redevelopment project has combined
over 1,800 homes with office and retail to envision a new walkable community. San
Antonio has many parcels that could accommodate a mix of uses, reflecting the city’s
intent to create holistic neighborhoods while overall promoting housing affordability.
● Support Alt MSA-3 with Class IV bikeways on either side to promote maximum
safety for bikers, pedestrians, and drivers. Since San Antonio is a trucking corridor,
it’s particularly important that bikers have curb-protected lanes in order to ensure the
thousands of new residents in the area have safe multi-modal transportation options.
Combining walkability with completely curb- and landscaping-separated infrastructure
will help accommodate future growth and further the city’s climate goals by enabling
car-lite lifestyles in the neighborhood.
Combined, these approaches will best support the strongest neighborhoods and help meet Palo
Alto’s housing goals.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jeremy Levine
Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward
From:Meri Gruber
To:Council, City
Subject:SARAP - How was the scale of the alternatives set?
Date:Thursday, April 2, 2026 1:44:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I supported the housing element's vision for the SARAP corridor of roughly 1,400–2,000
units.
According to the packet and minutes of the October 6, 2025 City Council study session, staff
described 1,559 units as the baseline, with mid- and high-growth scenarios to follow.
However, the alternatives presented to the Planning Commission on March 25, 2026 start at
3,800 units. These alternatives start at more than double the baseline, and reach 7,400 units at
the high end. 7,400 units exceed Palo Alto's entire citywide housing obligation and undermine
the required fair distribution of housing.
Can you help me understand what criteria or process was used to establish 3,800 units as the
floor for the alternatives and why the high-end exceeds the entire housing obligation? Where
is that decision documented in the public record?
I ask because I want SARAP to succeed as a genuine new neighborhood — well-connected,
well-served, and built at a scale the corridor can realistically support. I realize SARAP has a
long planning horizon but the alternatives selected now will drive how well or how
poorly this area is developed.
Thank you for your service to the community.
Best regards,
Meri Gruber
Palo Alto
From:Leigh Rowe
To:Council, City
Subject:Item 3 April 6 Agenda
Date:Thursday, April 2, 2026 12:09:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Wow, these buildings are way too tall. Six stories max!
From:Grace Pariante
To:Council, City
Subject:Item 3 on the April 6 Agenda - San Antonio Road Area Plan
Date:Thursday, April 2, 2026 11:38:56 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Mayor Veenker and City Council Members,
As a long time resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood in Palo Alto, I am writing
to express my opposition to rezoning both North Fabian and CTI areas to residential
before addressing the current traffic along the San Antonio Road corridor, especially
at the intersections of Middlefield, Charleston, and Highway 101.
I have attended workshops, filled in surveys, and read documents about the San
Antonio Road Area Plan. At the meetings, many attendees have tried to raise the
issue of traffic. The organizers, on two different occasions, have asked people to
stop, explaining it would be addressed at the end of the meeting. In both cases, after
everyone's energy has dissipated and 25% of the people have gone home, they
present a plan for pedestrians and bike lanes and are asked for opinions on 3 or 4
plans. It shifts the conversation away from cars, traffic, even intersections which are
not discussed at all, even for bikes and pedestrians!
Bike lanes and pedestrian walkways DO NOT nearly adequately address the VERY
BAD traffic that already exists along this corridor. Car and truck traffic is never
discussed. I believe deferring the issue over and again degrades the trust in the
workshop organizers and my city officials.
I challenge you to travel along 101 north at 5:00 PM, exit on Middlefield, and try to
turn left on San Antonio Road. You cannot. It doesn't matter how many lights you
wait. The only option is to continue straight along Middlefield, turn left on Charleston,
and then backtrack. On any weekday, the road and intersections are a mess. The
best bike lanes in the world could not rectify this situation. Now add 3900 to 7000
homes.
To add even half the number of housing units that is being proposed, the 101 and
San Antonio Road intersection needs a cloverleaf that addresses traffic coming from
and going to 101 in north and south directions. Minimally another lane needs to be
added to San Antonio Road, and a parking lot added to the train station. If you do not,
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
you will destroy my neighborhood, that will take the brunt of the cut through traffic.
How would you feel if you lived here? We have small children, a swimming pool,
soccer fields, a pre-school, and a community center. So many children who could be
struck by a frustrated commuter.
Prove me wrong. Show me the traffic studies that have been completed that show
how traffic will be improved by adding thousands more housing units and a bike lane.
Housing is important, but all in one place without first solving the traffic problem will
be disastrous.
Thank you for considering my objection.
Grace Pariante
4013 Ben Lomond Drive
From:Sandra Bergquist
To:Council, City
Subject:Oppose San Antonio Over Development 60ft Max
Date:Thursday, April 2, 2026 11:30:17 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I am a South Palo Alto resident and I strongly oppose building heights above 60ft in the San Antonio
Road Area Plan. The proposed density of up ton 7,400 units will overwhelm infrastructure, worsen traffic
on an already dangerous corridor, and permanently destroy our neighborhood's character. I urge Council
to cap heights at 60ft, require parking, and distribute growth equitably across all of Palo Alto.
S Bergquist
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to your company.
Mark Safe Report
From:Phyllis Brown
To:Council, City
Subject:Agenda item 3 for the April 6 City Council meeting
Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 6:14:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Mayor Veenker and City Council Members,
I write to provide citizen feedback on the San Antonio Road Area Plan packet provided for
the April 6 City Council meeting. I attended the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting
on March 24 and zoomed into the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting on
March 25 to learn as much as I could to supplement what I learned at the SARAP
Community Workshop on March 5. I find the 163 page staff report with two attachments
embedded rather hard to navigate, but I have read it. My comments fall into four categories:
density of housing
I am in favor of developing more housing, especially affordable housing, in Palo Alto.
However, adding up to 7,400 new units to one small section of the southernmost part of
Palo Alto would not be advantageous to the CIty as a whole and would be devastating for
those of us who live near the SARAP. The impact on our schools and on traffic would be
unmanageable. Most of the high-quality resources for Palo Alto residents are in the
northern parts of the city. Since Cubberley has still not been renovated, the southern parts
of the city are sorely underresourced. New housing should be distributed thoughtfully
throughout the city and near resources already available. To manage the density, it will be
important to limit heights to 60 feet in most of the sections of the SARAP, with possible
higher apartment buildings in the CTI sections since it is close to Mountain View's taller
existing and new housing projects. But don't go for maximum housing!
traffic
Traffic on San Antonio, Charleston, and Middlefield is already a big problem. I have read
that these streets are the most dangerous ones in Palo Alto. Adding up to 7,400 new units
and moving all access to Highway 101 to the San Antonio interchange likely will result in
gridlock. If the new units are limited to 3,800, bus routes are added, and pedestrian and
bicycle mobility is made safer, then the lovely land use and mobility alternatives and
strategies described in the report can benefit the whole city. Palo Alto has to factor in the
effects of new and proposed housing developments in Mountain View when thinking about
the traffic implications of development in the SARAP.
Cubberley
Renovating Cubberley will be essential to the success of the SARAP. The new housing should
have its own new retail and other resources, as is the case in Mountain View's dense housing
along San Antonio Road. But Cubberley should be easily and safely accessible to the new
neighbors and it needs to be renovated to provide services comparable to those offered in north
Palo Alto. Taxes levied via a ballot measure are not the best way to raise funds to purchase the
land from the school district. Palo Alto Public Improvement Corporation COPs have funded
measure. Relying on citizen approval of an increase in our sales tax tells me Palo Alto
leaders are not committed to purchasing the land and making the improvements residents
need now and will need more as the new housing is built.
mobility alternatives and strategies
Palo Alto must fund and implement elements of the SARAP that Palo Alto has control over
as soon as possible. I don't see evidence of that in the City budget. I do see signs of
building projects already in motion in locations that lack safe options for driving, biking, and
walking. I would like to see evidence that Palo Alto is ready to fund renovation of Cubberley
and implement strategies for mobility and safety beginning this year. Our current students
and all the new ones who will have homes in south Palo Alto need safe routes to school.
Phyllis Brown
From:Esther Lucas
To:Council, City
Subject:Item 3 on April 6th Meeting Agenda - San Antonio Road Plan
Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 5:30:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Veenker and City Council Members,
I watched the session (I believe it was the planning commission) wheretwo of
my neighbors spoke during the comments period. Their comments reflected my
thoughts. I would like to see the emphasis on housing, lower building heights,
some retail but not office space, and larger parks.
The one thing that I would like to see addressed that I think is overlooked (or,
maybe I just missed it) has to do with the absence of public transit options. I
value the emphasis on walking and biking which I believe is addressed pretty
well. However, with so much new housing I expect there will be families with
children. How will the children be assigned to Palo Alto public schools and how
will they get there? Biking and walking may not be options, especially for
younger students if, as has happened in the past, the closest schools are full. Is
the City working on this in cooperation with the school district? And what
about seniors, people with mobility issues or without cars or reliable
transportation who are not able to walk or bike to reasonably priced grocery
shopping options (and particularly carrying purchases home)? Perhaps this is
not the concern of the planners, however I am mentioning it because I think it
should at least be brought to their attention.
I know it may be late in the process to be commenting, but I would appreciate it
if the concerns expressed here could be added to the conversation.
Sincerely,
Esther Lucas
495 El Capitan Place
estherlucas67@gmail.com
--
Esther Lucas
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
estherlucas67@gmail.com
From:Barbara Platt
To:Council, City
Cc:Cain, Robert; San Antonio Area Plan
Subject:Oppose San Antonio Over Development -60 ft max
Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 4:35:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello
I live in South Palo Alto and strongly oppose building height over 60 feet regarding the San
Antonio Road area plan
The Proposed density of 7400 units will overwhelm current infrastructure, create worsening
traffic on an already very dangerous corner and will permanently destroy the character our
neighborhood
I strongly urge the Council to cap height at 60 feet or less and require minimum parking as
well as distributed growth equitably across all of Palo Alto
Thank you for your kind attention
Barbara Platt
490 El Capitan place
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From:Yang
To:Council, City; San Antonio Area Plan
Subject:Oppose San Antonio Over-development — 60 ft Max
Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 1:25:19 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council
My name is Yang from Greenmeadows, my family has lived here for 5 years.
As a deeply concerned resident, I am writing to voice my grave opposition to the
current scope of the San Antonio Road Area Plan. While I fully recognize the need
for additional housing, the proposed density and height levels represent an
unsustainable 19x increase over existing homes that will permanently alter the
character and safety of our community.
I urge the Council to adopt the following protections for our neighborhood:
Strict Height Limits: I strongly oppose any proposal above 60 feet (5
stories). We must reject the 95-foot allowance under SB 79 and ensure new
developments are consistent with the existing San Antonio Village.
Infrastructure Before Occupancy: Our streets, transit systems, parks, and
schools are already strained. No building permits should be issued until the
necessary infrastructure to support this 26% population surge is fully funded
and built.
Parking Requirements: To prevent overflow into surrounding residential
neighborhoods, the City must mandate a minimum of one parking space per
unit. I have already witnessed the parking issue around the Mitchell Park
Place housing complex. It's hard to imagine how dire the situation would be
for the San Antonio plan, which is >100x in scale.
Safety and Traffic Concerns: The San Antonio corridor has seen 143 crashes
and 2 fatalities in the last decade. Adding up to 7,400 units will overwhelm
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.
This is a personal email address.
Mark Safe Report
Equitable Distribution: South Palo Alto cannot be expected to absorb 100%
of the city’s growth while Downtown and North Palo Alto see minimum
residential growth. It is unfair that this burden is so unequitably distributed.
Binding Community Benefits: We cannot rely on "promises." Community
benefits, including affordable housing ratios, must be made legal conditions of
approval that cannot be cut after the project is greenlit.
The scale of this plan—concentrating 26% of the city's population growth onto just
1.7% of its land—is unprecedented and irresponsible. I ask that these comments be
entered into the public record for the study session on April 6th.
Sincerely,
City Council
Meeting #2
April 6, 2026
Presenter:
Robert Cain,
Principal Planner
www.PaloAlto.gov
Agenda
•Project Update
•Overall Design Strategy
•Requested Feedback
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Project Area and Goals
3
•275.3 acres along Palo Alto’s border with Mountain View
•1.8-mile length of San Antonio Road
•Contains a mix of industrial, office, service commercial, and
residential uses.
•Adjacent neighborhoods in both Palo Alto and Mountain View
are residential.
•Southern part within a half-mile of San Antonio Caltrain station.
CREATE A MORE LIVABLE COMMUNITY
PR
O
J
E
C
T
G
O
A
L
S
FEASIBLE DESIGN
ALTERNATIVES
ZONING + DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS
AND STRATEGIES
PR
O
J
E
C
T
O
U
T
C
O
M
E
S
IMPROVE MOBILITY AND SAFETY
SUPPORT SUSTAINABILITY
ENHANCE ECONOMIC VITALITY
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 4
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 + HRC + CSTSC +
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
ARB + PRC + HRC + CSTSC +
PABAC + PTC + CC
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Study Session Goals and Context
5
•Staff will focus on key Plan areas requiring Council feedback
before Phase 3; additional aspects will be covered in later
phases.
•Housing unit ranges reflect projected capacity under high
redevelopment; the lower end reflects what current Zoning and
Comp Plan allow.
•The Plan complements other City initiatives, including housing,
bikeways, grade separation, and the Cubberley Community
Center redevelopment.
•While the Plan Area includes Housing Element sites, the Plan
targets a 20-25 year horizon, not the current Housing Element
Cycle.
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N 6
Overall Design Strategy
Redevelop/infill existing low-density commercial with
high-density residential to create new neighborhoods
Create new open spaces and "third spaces"
with neighborhood serving retail and amenities
Improve transit service to community destinations and
access to Caltrain
Improve ped/bike experience, safety and connectivity on all
streets and intersections
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
“” are divided into sub-areas for exploring alternatives,
that look at different , as well as
and Each area is studied at a different level of
detail depending on specific opportunities and challenges.
Primary Sub-Areas
•Greatest potential for redevelopment and can contribute to creating new
neighborhood-serving amenities like outdoor space and retail
•These include (Commercial
Street, Transport Street, Industrial Avenue area)
Secondary Sub-Areas
•Limited redevelopment potential in the near term
•These include
“Areas of Stability“
•Includes , areas that are
100% built-out with low redevelopment potential.
•Parts of Green Meadow and South San Antonio are within SB 79’s impact area
that allows higher density for projects meeting specific criteria. Utilization of SB
79, however, is likely very low, due to existing conditions in these areas.
Sub Area Alternatives
7
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
•3 CAG and 3 TAG meetings
•2 community workshops
•2 online surveys (201, 469 responses)
•2 walk audits
•2 pop-ups
•Stakeholder interviews
•Meetings with community groups
•Meetings with City Council, Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC), Parks and
Recreation Commission (PRC), Human
Relations Commission (HRC), Architectural
Review Board (ARB), Pedestrian and Bicycle
Advisory Committee (PABAC), City/School
Transportation Safety Committee (CSTSC),
Youth Council (YC)
Engagement Activities to Date
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
1.Overall Plan Direction
2.Sub Area Classification
3.Residential Density and Building Heights
(General & Key Locations)
4.Office Development
5.Parks and Outdoor Space
(General & Key Intersections)
6.Ground Floor Retail
7.Mobility Improvements
(General & Specific Segments)
Requested Feedback
9
Sub Area Alternatives Map
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Area Plan’s scope, direction or timeline
•Feedback received:
o Plan should be implementable, not aspirational
o Create neighborhoods which feel a part of Palo Alto, but also unique
o Housing needed for all income levels
o Bikes separated from vehicles on major streets, routes through neighborhoods
o Need to consider safe routes for schools, San Antonio/Charleston intersection
particularly a problem
o Bike/Ped connections to Caltrain, to Cubberley, shopping/retail, between CTI
and North Fabian, CTI to Baylands needed
Sub Area Classification
o Primary, secondary, and stability areas approach and designation
•Feedback received:
o General approach works well, South Fabian boundary could be modified
o Mixed reaction to housing, increased commercial east of U.S. 101
Overall Plan Direction / Sub Areas
10
Sub Area Alternatives Map
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Plan Alternatives
o Height and density (3,800 to 7,400 units plan-wide over 25 years):
o 60 ft Option: up to 5-story mid-rise, approximately 90 du/ac
o 90 ft Option: up to 8-story mid-rise, approximately 135 du/ac
o High-rise Option: 160 to 250 ft
•Feedback received:
o Height should transition from lower near single-family homes, low-rise town
homes, Adobe Creek to higher near arterial roads, freeway, other tall
developments in Mountain View
o 5 to 8-story buildings are more in line with Palo Alto
o High-rise along freeway could be acceptable, consider migratory birds
o Be mindful of ability to increase height using State law
o 60’ or 90’ is a good height for most parcels; 90’ more feasible
o Set minimum densities higher or will get too many townhouses
o Taller buildings ok if yield more affordable units, parks, amenities
o Slightly more support for a variety of residential products
Residential Density & Building Heights
11
Sub Area Alternatives Map
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Net reduction in commercial across the Plan Area
o Most office/R&D changes concentrated at Maxar site (loss) and CTI subarea
o R&D and low-density office conversions to Class A expected; no net office increase
between Maxar and CTI
o Alternative adds 150,000 sq ft of net new office in CTI
o New CTI office development improves feasibility and supports public benefits (parks,
infrastructure)
•Feedback received:
o Palo Alto office space is aging, should refresh
o 1:1 replacement of office; instead of limiting sf, limit new jobs
o Developers should have flexibility to incorporate some office
o Max out residential and office development in North Fabian and CTI
o Office should be limited either by which parcels are allowed the use, sf caps, or
sequencing requirements with residential
o Existing businesses should have a future in/near area
o Include community services, neighborhood serving retail
o Strong concerns about additional (net new) office
o Office could be allowed if it provides community benefits
Office Development
12
Sub Area Alternatives Map
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Distributed across the plan area, including consolidated versus
dispersed configurations, interior versus roadway-adjacent
locations, and co-location with retail and services.
•Feedback received:
o Few large parks preferrable to many small parks
o Design and programming extremely important
o Prefer park in North Fabian to stretch from Fabian to San Antonio
o Park in CTI should be interior, not on Charleston
o Parks should be for the entire community, not just one development
o Teens need a “third space” near the new housing, with indoor space, similar to
Teen Centers at Mitchell Park and Downtown
o Add retail along parks
o Parks should be connected, ped/bike bridge over San Antonio
o Park in North Fabian will benefit both Noth and South Fabian areas
o Paseos in this area can reduce block length and create connections between
blocks, into Mountain View
o Paseos are not substitutes for parks. Linear parks difficult to make work
Park & Outdoor Space
13
Sub Area Alternatives Map
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Limit ground floor retail requirements to primary sub-areas where
market conditions support it; allow but do not require retail in
secondary sub-areas.
•Feedback received:
o Corners seen as best location for retail; retail node/district is alternative to
distributed retail
o Housing is the priority, retail should support that goal, family serving
o Community serving retail and restaurants; daycares, small grocery store, cafes,
medical, dental, clothing. Commuters’ needs to/from Caltrain
o Ground floor retail creates vitality if well used, could be next ECR
o Ground floor retail may be challenging, especially early on. Could require retail-
ready until a population threshold is met, then retail required
o Retail brings delivery issues, blocking of bike lanes
o Space for new grocery store in this subarea
o Professional services may be good option instead of retail on ground floor
o Retail should not be focused on daytime workers
Ground Floor Retail
14
Sub Area Alternatives Map
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Options span minimal, balanced, or transformative approaches, with bicycle
facility type (on-street lanes, separated bikeways, or multi-use paths) as a
key variable.
•Feedback received:
o Create one or more mobility hubs
o Need to address traffic, emergency service access
o Need to add transit
o Make bike/ped improvements before new units
o Parking needs to be considered
o Consider grade separated crossing of Alma to Caltrain, connection through
GoogleX/Mountain View
o Add two-way cycle track to Alma or improve signage through the
“circles” for cyclists
o Protect against vehicle intrusion into neighborhoods
o Plan for rideshare, driverless, transit, shuttles
o Maximize tree canopy
Mobility Improvements (General)
15
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
Mobility Improvements (Specific Segments)
o San Antonio Road between E. Charleston and Middlefield, options range from
separated bikeways within the existing curb footprint to a more
transformative two-way bikeway on both sides requiring curb reconstruction
and tree relocation.
o E. Charleston south of San Antonio, options include a 14-foot multi-use path
within an expanded setback or widened bike lanes requiring curb work.
•Feedback received:
o MSA-1 could be interim fix
o MSA-3 has the highest support from the public
o Strong support for 2-way cycle track or mixed use path on north side
o Mixed reaction to improvements on southside due to the number of
curb cuts and limited access to Caltrain on that side of road
o Vehicles using driveways need to be deconflicted from cyclists;
deliveries, trash pickup, transit stops factored in
o Concern about acquiring easements
o Consider Alt MSA-1 on south side, Alt MSA-3 on northside
Mobility Improvements (Specific)
16
Alt MSA-3
Alt MSA-2
Alt MSA-1
Existing Condition
S A N A N T O N I O R O A D A R E A P L A N
•Feedback received:
o Important to add new housing, but not only in plan area
o Need to coordinate with Mountain View, VTA
o Incentivize affordable housing, ensure broad access to housing
o Consider affordable senior housing and supportive housing, impacts of
displacement
o Service providers needed to support new residents
o Need to consider impacts of Mountain View and U.S. 101 projects
o Consider using transfer of development rights (TDRs) to move
height/density around the plan area
o Consider what amenities are needed in the plan are, such as schools,
fire stations, libraries, etc.
o Plan should separate people from trucks, account for autonomous
vehicles
Additional Feedback Received
17
Sub Area Alternatives Map
Thank you!