From: Michal Sadoff
To: Council, City
Subject: Comments about design of survey - San Antonio Road Area Plan Date: Monday, October 6, 2025 11:55:55 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i
Hello City Council. I have a comment on the design of the San Antonio Road Area Plan survey. I filled it out as best I could. However, parts of it were poorly worded and therefore difficult to fill out.
I give two examples below.
If this survey is meant for the average citizen, I think these need to be better explained or not be asked.
For the question "Do you agree or disagree that these are opportunities", the question itself is not clear.
What does that mean "opportunities"?
Does it mean
"Are these things already working pretty well"?
I did not pick any of the possible responses because I did not understand the question.
For the question "Do you Agree or disagree that these are challenges" - these two potential responses might be clear to some -- but not to me.
My reaction
is -- What does this mean, and how would I know.
Future development subject to market conditions and other development uncertainties Potential incompatibility in near-term between existing and new land uses I appreciate that the city is asking us for our opinions.
However the data you are collecting will not be very trustworthy if the survey is not well designed.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michal Ruth Sadoff
On Monday, October 6, 2025 at 10:06:42 AM PDT, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Cain, Robert <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 10:04 AM
To: Cain, Robert <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: San Antonio Road Area Plan Project Survey
Hello,
Please share the survey below and this flyer for the October 23 Community Workshop with your networks if you have not done so already.
Much appreciated!
ROBERT CAIN
Principal Planner - Long Range Planning
Planning and Development Department
(650) 838-2892 | [email protected]
www.paloalto.gov
From: Cain, Robert
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 5:35 PM
To: Cain, Robert <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: San Antonio Road Area Plan Project Survey
View as Webpage
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first email to you.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
SAN ANTONIO ROAD AREA PLAN
Update
The San Antonio Road Area Plan is a multi-year initiative to reimagine land use, transportation, and community planning for a 275-acre area. Community input will help inform Council decision-making throughout the key milestones of this effort.
Share your feedback on the Area Plan's vision and goals, opportunities and challenges, and types of changes you'd like to see through a new online survey.
Responses will help the City create options and alternatives for housing, transportation, commercial development, and outdoor spaces ahead of City Council consideration. Share your feedback by October 31.
Take the Survey
Project Website Email the Project Team
Planning and Development Services | 250 Hamilton Ave 5th Floor | Palo Alto, CA 94301 US
Constant Contact Data Notice
Virus-free.www.avg.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gmca-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected] .
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gmca-discuss/005b01dc36e3%247c5343e0%2474f9cba0%24%40gmail.com.
From:
To: Council, City
Subject: San Antonio Area Planning
Date: Sunday, October 5, 2025 10:58:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Here is the excerpt from the 9/9/2025 PABAC minutes, the section where Robert Cain explains the San Antonio Road 24’ setback with a clarity I’d not heard previously when I asked questions about it.…(The underlined section is my edit.)
I have been asking about the setback in public meetings for over a year in Council,
PTC and PABAC meetings because I’d noticed things had been built in the setback area that likely could not easily be moved.
Ms. Penny Ellson found it heartening to see to see a section in the report on the bicycle, 14 pedestrian, and transit existing conditions and some thoughts about what might need to be done. 15 Page 8 of the report talks about a 24-foot special setback and Ms.
Penny Ellson wonders if it 16 includes the parcels where the new hotels were built. Ms.
Penny is unable to find the special 17 setback in the final project approval documents. 18 Mr. Robert Cain explained that everything from Middlefield to 101 has a special setback; 19 however, developers are not required to abide by it under state law, so developers can choose to 20 not follow the special setback in their project application. 21 Ms. Penny Ellson read that the 24-foot setback applies to portions of Charleston and Middlefield 22 Roads but it does not specify where those portions are. Ms. Penny Ellson feels it is critical for the 23 report to include a map showing the exact locations of special setbacks because that information 24 affects the right-of-way we have to work with. 25 Mr. Robert Cain apologizes for not being clearer in the report. Mr. Robert Cain’s understanding 26 is that north of San Antonio has the old setback. Mr. Robert Cain believes the area between San 27 Antonio Road and the border with Mountain View has a reduced setback of 10 feet
(The underline is my edit.)
I was unable to submit the survey,
because when I hit the submit button,
it would not allow
me to submit my responses.
This happens to me with most city surveys.
It’s a problem. I’d
appreciate it if someone would help me figure out what I need to do to fix it…or if it is a problem on the city’s end.
Below, please find my preliminary comments on the SARAP CAG walk audit which I submitted to staff last week.
Penny
From:
Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2025 1:12 PM
To: 'Cain, Robert' <[email protected]>; 'Frick, Coleman' <[email protected]> Subject: Preliminary Thoughts from Walk Audit.
Coleman, Robert, Mitali,
Thank you for organizing the audit walk. It was useful (albeit overwhelming) to walk through and discuss the spaces/existing uses to begin to understand and define the problems that will need to be solved to successfully integrate new high-density housing and other development in this area. It seems everyone is agreed that the area, in its present form, is unsuitable for residential use. We have a long way to go to meet project goals:
Create a more livable community
Improve mobility and safety
Support sustainability
Enhance economic vitality
Because you asked, here are some preliminary thoughts
after our adventure. I missed a lot of the
discussion due to overwhelming traffic noise, as I’m sure, we all did. I apologize in advance for any mistakes that are due to that.
Sense of arrival at San Antonio/East Charleston
There is no sense of arrival. As you enter the San Antonio /Charleston intersection from 101, you pass a very long, uninteresting TK Campus for Jewish Life (TKCJL) wall that ends in a utility entrance for the TKCJL theatre backstage. To your left is a long row of rundown buildings and scrabbly landscaping, ending with the former West Marine store that is now another non-descript Sciton annex). Across the street are two aging gas stations, also sporting scrabbly landscaping. All entrances to TKCJL are gated (though I fully understand why these gates are necessary). To drivers, south Palo Alto’s gateway appears like a rundown, unwelcoming commercial area where they shouldn’t expect to see pedestrians and or bikes. Drivers do not moderate their speed enough between the 101 ramp and this intersection, and speeds are dangerous. People have been injured and killed here. The future street design needs to communicate, “You are now entering an active, vibrant residential area. Slow down, watch for pedestrian and bicyclists .” Its design must force
drivers to moderate their speed before they reach the Charleston/San Antonio intersection. There are studies that show that trees on the median and sides of the roadway (close objects that activate peripheral vision) are a trigger that causes drivers to release pressure on the accelerator.
Why are two
right turn lanes necessary at the WB approach? I have seen some pretty awful close calls when drivers take these turns too fast simultaneously.
Welcoming facades and landscaping that address the street at ground level are needed. Occasional benches or seats for walkers to sit down and rest, especially older people, are needed as well as bus stops (with buses or shuttles to serve them). These could be integrated in landscaping at appropriate locations. This intersection and its approaches need a thorough redesign, that prioritizes safety and comfort for all modes and looks like a southern gate to the city. Narrower lane widths on the approaches, a Dutch intersection, landscaping and a fresh “Welcome to Palo Alto sign” or better yet, public art would be nice. This loud, fast, high volume intersection doesn’t look at all like an entrance to a place where people live
.
Generally, I avoid this intersection unless I’m biking to the ACE Hardware store or Foster Museum-– because there’s no way to avoid it for those trips.
Bike Network/Connectivity
When I bike to the shopping center near COSTCO or shops in the shopping center on East Charleston, I usually take a back route through The Greenhouse site to the Leghorn/SanAntonio signal which is a slightly less challenging place to cross San Antonio. This route allows me to take advantage of quieter bike boulevards and off-road routes until I get to the signalized Leghorn intersection. I ride Leghorn to access shops in this area. I hope we will work very hard to connect the SARAP area to the citywide bicycle boulevard network at multiple locations. Here are some locations where I think this is possible:
Charleston connects to Fabian and Fabian connects to East Meadow school routes and the bike/ped bridge overpass of 101as well as the creek (which has been discussed as a possible bike route).
The Greenhouse connection (privately owned, but well used by bicyclists who know about it via word-of-mouth) between Leghorn and Sutherland/Montrose connects to Middlefield at Cubberley. (Montrose also connects across Charleston to Louis Road and Ross BB school routes for bicyclists.) Concepts for Cubberley redevelopment currently include a multi-use path from Middlefield through the campus to Nelson Drive (a Bryant BB extension toward MV.
Also, Cubberley currently has two gated fire lanes at north and south ends of the playing fields that are well-used bike/ped connections connecting Nelson Drive to Charleston Shopping Center and Cubberley.
Middlefield bike lanes disappear at major intersections, including San Antonio Road and Charleston. This needs to be addressed.
Mackay/San Antonio/Nita crossing (needs serious work)
Ferne (which has a back gate to Greendell School and connects to the Nelson Drive Bryant BB extension)
Briarwood which connects to Ferne and Nelson –and to the San Antonio Caltrain Station via either Alma/San Antonio Ave and Alma/Mayfield Ave. I have an idea I want to explore with Charle Coles about feasibility of a grade-separated bike/ped crossing at this latter intersection.
Note: There are two Charleston bike/ped connections to the BB network from Greendell, Greenmeadow, Walnut Grove neighborhood routes:
Creekside bridge across Adobe Creek provides connection through the Walnut Grove neighborhood to a signalized school crossing at Charleston/Carlson.
The Nelson Drive/Charleston intersection connects to a path through Mitchell Park to East Meadow Drive and BBs that connect to this collector street. (I would be remiss if I failed to mention that I think filtration will be needed to prevent cars from using these quiet, neighborhood bike routes as cut-through routes to arterial streets. Waze will help drivers find the way.)
The Fabian/Charleston intersection works okay for me on a bike, in a car, or walking—I have no idea how additional traffic of planned high density development may affect the intersection’s operations and safety going forward. It’s too bad the State legislators didn’t tie State money for transportation improvements to compliance with housing mandates in their housing bills.
Transit
For now, San Antonio Caltrain Station has a recently improved schedule of trains. Who knows how long that will last if we don’t get train boardings (fare recovery) up at that station soon?
I see the city is working on improving the Caltrain Station downtown…again. At some point, can we expect improvements for access to the San Antonio Station where the majority of State-mandated housing is being placed? What, if anything is being contemplated? What I’ve seen so far, in the SouthPA Connectivity process was pretty disappointing.
The San Antonio Caltrain Station’s existing access to/from SARAP project sites is extremely poor.
Distance to the train station from most of the upzoned parcels exceeds the ¼- to ½-mile walkable standard for urban planning. There’s little useful bus transit in the area, zero functional bike infra and serious safety/comfort problems with bicycle/pedestrian crossings at every intersection people would have to pass through to get to Caltrain or bus/shuttle stops.
I didn’t hear anything about bus transit or shuttles. Is a new bus or shuttles on the table? There is little available auto parking at the Caltrain station and new housing will have limited auto parking, so Shuttles or buses with very frequent headways and schedules that align with Caltrain schedules will be very important.
A lot of the area’s housing sites are so far from the Caltrain Station, we didn’t have time to include the Caltrain Station or anything much beyond Middlefield Road in our walk audit schedule. This, for me, made it clear that the distance from development areas to Caltrain is going to be a problem for foot-
powered people.
I think a grade-separated crossing of Alma (Central Expressway) to the Caltrain Station at Mayfield Ave. would help. I have an idea about how that might work. I’m scheduled to walk it with Charlie Coles on Monday, 10/6, 3:00pm.
Given that parking requirements have been reduced, excellent bicycling infra and bus or shuttle transit will be essential for people who live in housing outside of the ¼- to ½ -mile walking radius of the Caltrain station (which will be most of the future area residents and workers). I hope buses or shuttles will have bike racks.
101 Interchange Changes
There wasn’t much said about this, but I think it is important. I heard Sylvia say at the CSTSC meeting last week that Ria told her that the Rengstorff connection to East Charleston will not be closed. That
is good to know. Let’s please make sure that is verified as current information and documented.
The interchange concepts look like they will improve safety for all users but will likely increase auto traffic on San Antonio a lot while reducing interchange traffic and increasing capacity on the commercial segment of East Charleston. VTA, at the meeting I attended, hadn’t yet done traffic studies. We need these to understand how their project will affect auto traffic (all modes) in the SARAP area to understand how much road capacity we actually have to work with. I’m also curious about how much out-of-direction travel will be required of people on foot and on bikes in the circuitous interchange bike/ped overcrossing ramp. This will matter a lot for HomeKey residents, commuters to job sites east of 101, and anyone who wants to use the Bay trails for recreation or transportation.
I’m continually told no traffic studies have been done yet re: existing conditions for any of these projects. I find that hard to believe, given the scale of what Google and Mountain View and Palo Alto and VTA are all planning in this area. I hope this information will be made available soon.
Parks and Communal Outdoor Spaces
Comp Plan Goal N-1: “Protect, conserve and enhance Palo Alto’s citywide system of open space, including connected and accessible natural and urban habitats, ecosystems and natural resources, providing a source of public health, natural beauty and enjoyment for Palo Alto residents.” There’s nothing remotely like this in the entire SARAP area. That needs to be addressed. At least 3,000 new residents living in smaller, high density dwellings without private yards will need easily accessible, uncrowded outdoor park space close by. For most of them, Mitchell Park, the Bay Trails, Ramos Park are a very long walk.
There are zero
existing outdoor, green communal spaces and parks in the SARAP area. We need to consider deafening traffic noise and emissions problems as we think about walk/bike infra and outdoor communal spaces like pocket parks or whatever the city and developers may have in mind.
To do this, we need some good, detailed maps of the whole area that don’t break it up into pieces so we can see how parcels relate to each other in context of the whole area. Also, we need to know where the sun is. Tall buildings can block a lot of sun which can make it impossible for plants to grow. This map should show creek beds, riparian corridors, any existing undeveloped or protected land with access points, and it should indicate acreage of every parcel, so we understand the amount of available space and what is likely to be built next to it.
Building rooftops should be considered for things like things like pickle ball courts on noisy office or industrial building rooftops near the 101. Maybe Mountain View could put some pickleball courts in their sections. They have a shortage of PB courts that is driving their pickleball players to Palo Alto’s public courts, creating a demand problem in our community. (MV has far fewer PB courts per capita than Palo Alto.) Both cities might address the PB court demand problem by creating new courts on rooftops in already-noisy development areas.
The noise and emissions of the San Antonio corridor are so significant, I think outdoor gathering spaces and parks need to be separated from the major roads by the buildings to block noise and emissions. Consider creating small pocket parks behind and between buildings, using paseos to connect to major street facilities and maybe other neighborhood building “backyards” to support neighborhood community building. One “backyard” might also be connected by a gate to Wyandotte to create direct walkability to nearby shops and services in Mountain View, like Midwife & The Baker bakery and COSTCO’s shopping center stores, child care, pet care businesses, and restaurants in this area.
Paseos could create a connection to “backyard” communal areas behind buildings. Paseos could connect these spaces with gates to the major streets as well. Retail might be clustered around paseo entrances from major streets like San Antonio and Middlefield. Coffee shops and other local shops like dry cleaners, nail salons, quick groceries that are helpful close to home, could be designed as walk-through from paseo to San Antonio sidewalks and bike facilities. Maybe a mini-Piazza’s annex shop for quick grocery trips. Larger shops and restaurants will need parking, so maybe should be clustered in nearby areas where space for parking that is available.
Paseos could connect to shared outdoor space in between/behind buildings where neighbors can commune, walk dogs, let children play. Retail could be visible and connected to both San Antonio Road and the “backyard” space via paseo. Major street entrances to paseos facing San Antonio could be designed to look grand. “Backyard” entrances into buildings from the paseos could be designed to be friendly and welcoming to create neighborhood feel. Perhaps paseos could also extend behind multiple buildings to connect the outdoor spaces of all of them, creating a more expansive array of neighborhood gathering spaces with a variety of recreational options where residents can connect as a community. (Consider closed spaces for dogs to play off-leash), clusters of chess board tables, climbing structures for kids… and benches under shade trees for parents and others to gather.)
To create this “backyard” space, consider taking some space away from on-street “front yards” No one is going to want to sit next to San Antonio Road or Middlefield, except to rest from walking or to wait for a bus. The arterial streets in the planning area are loud, horrible places to have a conversation or relax. San Antonio is particularly bad because of higher traffic volumes, speeds and its use as a truck route. The new residents will need close outdoor community space integrated with
their homes, not many blocks away.
For a Park
, I was thinking about space in the “park deficient area” that is identified in the 9/24/2025 DRAFT Existing Conditions Analysis (p.10). A park might be nestled into this area in the general vicinity of the Foster Museum and what looked like a couple of childcare facilities I saw there (The park might be designed with a little nature art, maybe animal sculptures that can be climbed, in the spirit of the Foster Museum). It would be nice to connect these facilities and housing to the park with car-free pathways. The new park could offer green space, treed play areas and separate solo seating and communal seating for groups and picnics and maybe a community garden where people are invited to also paint or draw. Parks & Recreation Commission will be more knowledgeable about what kinds of park facility may be needed at this location, but I think connecting a new restful, natural place near child care, new homes, and the museum would be a nice start. Provide bike/ped connections between these types of facilities so that people can walk between them easily. (Perhaps put part of the park across an existing public street ROW dead-ending the street in its middle for extra park space (land the city already owns, so they’ll have to buy less, creating two quiet cul de sacs, allowing only bikes and peds in and through the park. The materials we have been given so far don’t give me a strong enough understanding of the available space and abutting uses to be more specific. A park should be no smaller than Ramos Park and could be surrounded by the museum, child care and housing with only bike/ped access to minimize traffic noise intrusion.
Transportation
Project auto parking requirements have been significantly reduced under political pressure from developers, so public street space should not
be given to auto parking. Using public street
space for auto parking would transfer the cost of creating auto parking from private developers to taxpayers as they take limited setback space that is needed for safe bike/ped facilities for their preferred uses. Our Comp Plan does not support this
. On-street parking removal should
happen before new housing is occupied (otherwise, new residents who move in because there is on-street parking their extra car will fight to keep that parking). The SARAP team should identify an appropriate amount to earmark in the 5-year budget planning process for bike/ped and bus/shuttle facility implementation as soon as possible to ensure this money is set aside in a timely way.
I am concerned to learn that the promised 24’ setback may not be fully available for bike/ped facilities use at some locations. This is a significant planning problem that must be elevated and addressed immediately. I’d like to learn the specifics-- how much setback space is available at what locations and what options can be explored to create continuous bike/ped facilities the entire length of BOTH sides of San Antonio Road, especially the side of the road that is receiving most of the new housing. Again, please provide a MAP that shows the exact ROW that is available the entire length of the corridor for bike facilities. We cannot solve problems we don’t fully understand. I view this as an urgent problem that needs to be solved early in the process.
Much stronger bike/ped connections from the SARAP area to the San Antonio Caltrain Station, should be key considerations in South Palo Alto Connectivity planning (though current concepts fall short). This will require collaboration with Mountain View which is also planning to significantly densify this area.
The idea of a bike/ped shared use path on the north side of San Antonio is okay, but the suggested 10’ is too narrow for two-way bikes and ped travel in an area of this density. This facility would not, in my mind, preclude the need for a continuous bike facility on the south side of San Antonio where the vast majority of the housing will be built. A similar facility would make more sense on the south side of the road where most of the housing will be built. A one-way facility on the south side will force out-of- direction bicycle travel. Not ideal.
Connections to the citywide bike network, TKCJL and nearby existing shopping, public schools, parks, libraries, community center space for this future densified area will be very important because the road is unlikely to have capacity to carry the volume of cars that will be generated by this growth if alternatives to driving are not safe, convenient, and readily available out the front door.
I hope the bike/ped facility problems of all the major streets in this area will be addressed in the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan, especially connectivity to the citywide bike network and School Commute Corridor Walk & Roll routes.
Industrial Uses
Some of these uses may be incompatible with housing, childcare, retail or office uses. However, industrial uses are an essential part of the ecosystem of Palo Alto’s innovative start-up economy, providing easy access to custom materials for new machines and labs. Be careful about phasing them out before their time. I know you will be careful about risks associated with pairing housing with industrial uses.
Retail
Existing local serving retail and other services/amenities are hard to reach from the SARAP area, except by car. Staff asked, where should retail go? Should it be clustered or distributed along San Antonio? (See above. Cluster small retail and restaurants that need to be close to homes around paseos with access points to/from major public streets so people can stop in for quick trips. We need to greatly improve bike/ped and transit connections to nearby retail. Consider the commercial parts of Charleston and Middlefield for larger retail. Paseos behind buildings connecting to “backyards” could provide a comfortable walking route to this shopping from some San Antonio locations. It’s too bad this decision-making wasn’t part of a comprehensive planning process before they upzoned specific sites. It looks like housing may land on sites that are prime retail, industrial and office spaces.
Paying For Improvements
Significant investment is needed before people can move in. There is, as far as I know, no future money earmarked in the City of Palo Alto budget for improvements identified by the SARAP process or, for that matter, the Cubberley process (which leans on passage of a city-wide bond measure). We need to get the SARAP process moving more briskly. Money must be earmarked.
We need to use the SARAP process to educate residents about the problems that need to be solved and to engage them in creating workable solutions, so they will feel ownership that is required to mobilize them to advocate for
something instead of against something. These transformative changes are going to be very expensive.
Big Problems we need to address/solve:
Deafening traffic noise, emissions, and safety impacts. Truly awful. It was very difficult to hear conversation when walking on San Antonio Road and the commercial end of Charleston Road sidewalks. No one is going to want to go for a stroll with friends on these roads. (I recognize traffic impacts on the commercial piece of Charleston may improve a little when the 101 interchange alteration happens. It’s hard to know, given that traffic analysis related 101interchange alterations and high density development isn’t yet available.
I mentioned that about a year ago I was almost hit by the trailer bed of a large truck while crossing NB on the east side of Middlefield/San Antonio. I was crossing on a WALK signal and misjudged the time I had to cross. The light changed, so I decided to wait on the median island. The truck turned left from the WB left turn lane, its trailer went over the median island. I had to jump behind the utility pole on the island to escape it. Thank goodness I’m nimble and wasn’t walking with large packages or children. An ADA compliant median island with much a better refuge island area is needed at this long crossing.
All buildings will need noise mitigation on the traffic sides of the buildings. Close, quiet places for outdoor relaxation and play behind buildings should be created.
Not going to lie, I will grieve the loss of our mountain views.
What types of retail/services may be needed and where should they go? Given that we need to abandon on-street parking to create bike lanes, let’s accept that auto drivers won’t be able to stop to shop unless internal parking for shopping is created. These shops will depend on foot traffic. Paseos?
There must be continuous, comfortable and safe bike facilities and bus or shuttle transit on the entire length of both sides of this corridor. If there is not, the density can’t work. If there’s going to be under-parked housing there, there has to be a one-way protected bike lane, at minimum. Can the treed median be moved to take some space from the WB side of the road and give it to the EB side? A two-way bicycling/pedestrian shared use path of 10’ on one side of the road is insufficient to serve density of this scale. Also, if the long-term plan is to remove parking to create bike lanes, parking removal has to happen before the new housing is occupied.
Otherwise, new residents will buy in expecting to retain the street parking spaces, especially because the proposed projects so far are under-parked. They will fight to keep the street parking. This has to be addressed in the early development process.
What existing ground floor development should be retained? Businesses that support start-ups. These are the eco system that supports our local economy. Let’s not be sloppy about this. Low-cost office space, low-cost space for tooling and other services that start-ups need close by.
Some Citywide Land Use Context That South Palo Altans think About San Antonio Area has:
no grid network of streets (compare to north PA’s grid network that makes walking and biking easier)
very little bus transit and less train service compared to north PA (Yet south PA is getting almost all of the new housing while the city is making faster headway to improve University Av. and the downtown train station and the El Camino transit station. Hmmmm. zero bike/ped grade-separated crossings (as opposed to four existing bike/ped grade separated crossings in north PA
absolutely horrible bike/ped connections across Alma and Centra Expressway to the nearest Caltrain station. Deafening noise from high speed, high volume, high emissions arterial truck route traffic and no bike lanes at all, even on some of the cross streets, like Middlefield. Even with new bike lanes, it will be an awful place to bike.
Urban blight happens when resources are distributed unevenly. This housing should have been distributed more evenly, and fairly, throughout the city. Upzoned areas should be closer to the train station, and this area should be getting a grade-separated bike/ped crossing to the train station. Area planning should have started when the city was contemplating upzoning, not more than a year after upzoning was complete. Water over the dam, I know, but the city really should be considering the optics of how they are treating south PA.
About a third of Palo Alto’s state-mandated new high-density housing has been zoned for this area of south PA. We’ve just learned that the minimal housing north PA was going to get cannot be built because property owners of north PA fought it with a lawsuit, and the city lost. Already staff is asking if there are any places in the San Antonio area where we’d support more housing.
The only way the proposed volume of housing can work is if we have decent bike facilities and bus/shuttle transit that connect into town and to the San Antonio Caltrain Station from every single housing project.
Request For a Summary
It was very difficult to hear group discussion over the deafening traffic noise. I think we all missed a lot of each others’ conversations. That’s unfortunate. I hope a summary is coming on what staff and the consultants heard.
Penny Ellson (speaking as an individual)
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From: Ted O"Hanlon
To: Megan Watson; Council, City
Subject: For City Council 10/6 hearing
Date: Friday, October 3, 2025 4:32:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Draft for email to [email protected] your edits and changes are welcome! Subject: Support for San Antonio Road Area Plan (SARAP) As the owner of 788 San Antonio Road, Grubb Properties we look forward to being an active participant in the City’s continued planning efforts for the San Antonio Road Area Plan.
Originally, this project helped set the stage for housing along the corridor and we continue to see 788 San Antonio as a catalyst property for the area’s evolution into a more dynamic, connected community.
The San Antonio Road Area Plan will provide a collaborative framework to guide this transformation. Its focus on creating a walkable, multimodal environment with improved connections and safe crossings is essential. Property owners like us are directly impacted by these decisions, and we support coordinated guidelines and investments that will strengthen the corridor as a whole.
We remain committed to being a constructive partner in this process and to advancing projects that align with the Plan’s vision. With the City’s leadership, we believe the Area Plan will help realize a vibrant, livable neighborhood that delivers on Palo Alto’s housing and community goals.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Additional info
Link
to Agenda, Study Session Item #3, therein links to Draft Study & Staff report. 6:30pm to 7:30pm estimated
Palo Alto YouTube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto
---
Ted O'Hanlon
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.
This is their first mail to some recipients.
Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast