City Council
Meeting #2
April 6, 2026
Presenter:
Robert Cain,
Principal Planner
www.PaloAlto.gov
Agenda
• Project Update
• Overall Design Strategy
• Requested Feedback
SAN ANTONIO ROAD AREA PLAN
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
PROJECT GOALS
FEASIBLE DESIGN
ALTERNATIVES
ZONING + DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS
AND STRATEGIES
PROJECT OUTCOMES
IMPROVE MOBILITY AND SAFETY
SUPPORT SUSTAINABILITY
ENHANCE ECONOMIC VITALITY
SAN ANTONIO ROAD AREA PLAN 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
SAN ANTONIO ROAD AREA PLAN
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.
SAN ANTONIO ROAD AREA PLAN
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
SAN ANTONIO ROAD AREA PLAN
“Areas of change” are divided into sub-areas for exploring alternatives, that look at different land use mixes, heights, and densities, as well as open space and connectivity. 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 Central San Antonio, South Fabian, North Fabian, CTI (Commercial Street, Transport Street, Industrial Avenue area)
Secondary Sub-Areas
• Limited redevelopment potential in the near term
• These include East Bayshore, West Bayshore, Alma Street “Areas of Stability“
• Includes Greenhouse, Green Meadow, and South San Antonio, 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 SAN ANTONIO ROAD AREA PLAN
• 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)
8 Engagement Activities to Date
SAN ANTONIO ROAD AREA PLAN
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
SAN ANTONIO ROAD AREA PLAN
Area Plan’s scope, direction or timeline
• Feedback received:
o Plan should be implementable, not aspirational (PTC)
o Create neighborhoods which feel a part of Palo Alto, but also unique (PTC, HRC) o Housing needed for all income levels (HRC)
o Bikes separated from vehicles on major streets, routes through neighborhoods (PTC, PRC, ARB, PABAC, CSTSC, Public)
o Need to consider safe routes for schools, San Antonio/Charleston intersection particularly a problem (HRC, ARB, PABAC, CSTSC, Public) o Bike/Ped connections to Caltrain, to Cubberley, shopping/retail, between CTI and North Fabian, CTI to Baylands needed
(PTC, ARB, PABAC, Public)
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 (PTC) o Mixed reaction to housing, increased commercial east of U.S. 101 (PTC, ARB) Overall Plan Direction / Sub Areas
10 Sub Area Alternatives Map
SAN ANTONIO ROAD AREA PLAN
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 (status quo) o 90 ft Option: up to 8-story mid-rise, approximately 135 du/ac (most financially feasible for multi-family apartments)
o High-rise Option: 160 to 250 ft (provides maximum flexibility, challenges) • 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 (PTC, ARB, CAG, Public)
o 5 to 8-story buildings are more in line with Palo Alto (PTC, Public) o High-rise along freeway could be acceptable, consider migratory birds (PTC) o Be mindful of ability to increase height using State law (PTC) o 60’ (PTC) or 90’ (ARB) is a good height for most parcels; 90’ more feasible (PTC) o Set minimum densities higher or will get too many townhouses (ARB) o Taller buildings ok if yield more affordable units, parks, amenities (CAG, Public) o Slightly more support for a variety of residential products (CAG, Public) Residential Density & Building Heights
11 Sub Area Alternatives Map
SAN ANTONIO ROAD AREA PLAN
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 (PTC) o 1:1 replacement of office; instead of limiting sf, limit new jobs (PTC) o Developers should have flexibility to incorporate some office (ARB, CAG, Public) o Max out residential and office development in North Fabian and CTI (ARB) o Office should be limited either by which parcels are allowed the use, sf caps, or sequencing requirements with residential
(PTC, ARB)
o Existing businesses should have a future in/near area (CAG, Public) o Include community services, neighborhood serving retail (ARB, PTC, Public) o Strong concerns about additional (net new) office (PTC, Public) o Office could be allowed if it provides community benefits (Public) Office Development
12 Sub Area Alternatives Map
SAN ANTONIO ROAD AREA PLAN
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 (PTC, PRC, CAG, Public) o Design and programming extremely important (PRC)
o Prefer park in North Fabian to stretch from Fabian to San Antonio (ARB) o Park in CTI should be interior, not on Charleston (PRC, ARB, CAG, Public) o Parks should be for the entire community, not just one development (ARB) o Teens need a “third space” near the new housing, with indoor space, similar to Teen Centers at Mitchell Park and Downtown (YC, PTC)
o Add retail along parks (ARB)
o Parks should be connected, ped/bike bridge over San Antonio (CAG, ARB) o Park in North Fabian will benefit both Noth and South Fabian areas (ARB) o Paseos in this area can reduce block length and create connections between blocks, into Mountain View
(ARB, CAG)
o Paseos are not substitutes for parks. Linear parks difficult to make work (PRC) Park & Outdoor Space
13 Sub Area Alternatives Map
SAN ANTONIO ROAD AREA PLAN
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 (PTC, ARB)
o Housing is the priority, retail should support that goal, family serving (PTC) o Community serving retail and restaurants; daycares, small grocery store, cafes, medical, dental, clothing. Commuters’ needs to/from Caltrain (CAG, Public)
o Ground floor retail creates vitality if well used, could be next ECR (PTC, ARB) o Ground floor retail may be challenging, especially early on. Could require retail- ready until a population threshold is met, then retail required (ARB)
o Retail brings delivery issues, blocking of bike lanes (ARB) o Space for new grocery store in this subarea (PTC)
o Professional services may be good option instead of retail on ground floor (PTC) o Retail should not be focused on daytime workers (ARB) Ground Floor Retail
14 Sub Area Alternatives Map
SAN ANTONIO ROAD AREA PLAN
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 (YC, CAG)
o Need to address traffic, emergency service access (ARB, Public) o Need to add transit (PTC, ARB, PABAC, Public)
o Make bike/ped improvements before new units (PABAC, CSTSC, Public) o Parking needs to be considered (PTC, ARB)
o Consider grade separated crossing of Alma to Caltrain, connection through GoogleX/Mountain View (PTC, PABAC, Public)
o Add two-way cycle track to Alma (PABAC, Public) or improve signage through the “circles” for cyclists (PTC)
o Protect against vehicle intrusion into neighborhoods (PABAC) o Plan for rideshare, driverless, transit, shuttles (ARB) o Maximize tree canopy (ARB, PABAC, PTC, PRC, Public)
Mobility Improvements (General)
15 SAN ANTONIO ROAD AREA PLAN
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 (PTC)
o MSA-3 has the highest support from the public (Public, CAG) o Strong support for 2-way cycle track or mixed use path on north side (PTC, ARB, CAG)
o Mixed reaction to improvements on southside due to the number of curb cuts and limited access to Caltrain on that side of road (ARB)
o Vehicles using driveways need to be deconflicted from cyclists; deliveries, trash pickup, transit stops factored in
(ARB, PABAC)
o Concern about acquiring easements (PTC, ARB)
o Consider Alt MSA-1 on south side, Alt MSA-3 on northside (ARB, PTC) Mobility Improvements (Specific)
16 Alt MSA-3
Alt MSA-2
Alt MSA-1
Existing Condition
SAN ANTONIO ROAD AREA PLAN
• Feedback received:
o Important to add new housing, but not only in plan area (PTC, HRC, Public) Note: City Staff will engage with Council about housing in other areas separately
o Need to coordinate with Mountain View, VTA (PTC, HRC, ARB, PABAC, Public)
o Incentivize affordable housing, ensure broad access to housing (CAG) o Consider affordable senior housing and supportive housing, impacts of displacement (HRC)
o Service providers needed to support new residents (HRC, PABAC) o Need to consider impacts of Mountain View and U.S. 101 projects (PABAC)
o Consider using transfer of development rights (TDRs) to move height/density around the plan area
(PTC, PRC)
o Consider what amenities are needed in the plan are, such as schools, fire stations, libraries, etc.
(CAG)
o Plan should separate people from trucks, account for autonomous vehicles
(CAG)
Additional Feedback Received
17 Sub Area Alternatives Map
Thank you!