Item 3 Public Comment — Palo Alto City Council, April 6, 2026

From: Maureen McNally
To: Council, City; Cain, Robert; [email protected] 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 cautious of 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 cautious of 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected]
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 cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
April 5, 2026

To:

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

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
Powered by Mimecast
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: [email protected]
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 cautious of 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: [email protected]
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 cautious of 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 cautious of 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

mix

uses,

reflecting

the

city’s

intent

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

trucking

corridor,

it’s

particularly

important

that

bikers

have

curb-protected

lanes

order

ensure

the

thousands

new

residents

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

enabling

car-lite

lifestyles

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 cautious of 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 cautious of 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.

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
Powered by Mimecast
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 cautious of 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
Powered by Mimecast
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 cautious of 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 improvements in parts of Palo Alto north of Oregon Expressway without recourse to a ballot 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 cautious of 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
[email protected]

--
Esther Lucas
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to you.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
[email protected]
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 cautious of 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 cautious of 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 already dangerous corridor.

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
Powered by Mimecast
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,

Palo Alto City CouncilApril 6, 2026

Palo Alto City Council
April 6, 2026