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
The purpose of the Area Plan is to develop an integrated land use and transportation approach to guide new development in the 275.3-acre plan area along and adjacent to San Antonio Road.
The Area Plan objectives include increased housing production, transportation and mobility improvements, outdoor space, commercial and retail nodes, infrastructure, and sustainability measures. The creation of this plan implements policies and programs of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the 2023-2031 Housing Element (Housing Element). The Area Plan will establish policies, development standards, design guidelines, and identify the necessary public infrastructure to accelerate the envisioned growth and development. The Area Plan builds on other planning efforts, including the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the 2022 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, the Housing Element, the 2025 Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan, and the 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan update (currently in process).
BACKGROUND
The City Council designated the Bayshore Alma San Antonio (BASA) Area as a Priority Development Area (PDA) on September 18, 2023.1 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.
The approximately 275.3-acre San Antonio Road Area Plan project boundary includes a majority of the larger BASA PDA boundary and has 53 identified Housing Element Opportunity Sites that account for roughly 1,500 housing units per standards set in the Housing Element. The Area Plan will also be impacted by existing and proposed development in the surrounding area, including across the border in Mountain View. Currently, the plan area prioritizes vehicular traffic and lacks sufficient pedestrian and bicycle facilities and transit options. This, combined with speeds often exceeding the posted limit, raise safety concerns. In order to meet the goals of increasing housing production and improving multi-modal connections (as well as the City’s sustainability goals) an overarching integrated land use/circulation approach is necessary, with a key goal of creating easy and safe connections.
The Area Plan contract and budget were approved by Council in March 2025,2 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.
The land use and mobility alternatives were presented to the CAG and TAG in January and February, 2026, and the following advisory bodies in March 2026:
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) In addition, a community workshop was held on March 5, 2026, and an online survey ran from late February through March 2026. The feedback from these advisory bodies and the public will be summarized in the presentation to Council.
ANALYSIS
The development of land use and mobility alternatives is a critical step toward creation of an area plan. These alternatives explore differing priorities and tradeoffs, including housing and commercial mix, housing densities, building heights, outdoor spaces, retail, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Once preferred alternatives are selected, the Area Plan will have its high- level concepts in place which will be further developed in the draft plan. The Area Plan will ultimately include more granular policies and development standards will be developed in phases three and four of the project. Attachment A to this report describes how the project team developed the plan alternatives, and provides detailed information about each, including differences between alternatives and tradeoffs between choices. Pages 12-16 describe the overall design strategy, and Page 25 provides an explanation of how to view various alternatives that are located within the same sub area. Attachment B provides additional financial analysis as well as potential funding mechanisms. 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)
The Area Plan will also consider land use alternatives in other areas which have more limited development potential, listed below. The project team has created a series of options (or alternatives) to consider, described in more detail in Attachment A on pages 69-73. 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.
Stability Areas (redevelopment not anticipated)
There are also sub-areas within and adjacent to the plan area which are considered highly unlikely to redevelop due to factors such as lot size, ownership, and/or historic designation. See Sub Area Alternatives map on page 18 of Attachment A.
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.
During the previous study session held with the City Council on October 6, 2025, individual members indicated support for robust bike and pedestrian facilities, additional outdoor/ community spaces, concern about equitable development, including school access, housing on the south side of San Antonio and how families would connect to the rest of Palo Alto, retail development, and addressing the jobs/housing imbalance within the City. These concepts are addressed in some of the alternatives provided. Additionally, some land use concepts proposed such as small block sizes and paseos also improve walkability/bikability, which will enhance proposed mobility improvements.
Mobility
The Area Plan will identify mobility strategies which support the land use alternatives. The Area Plan will reimagine the San Antonio Road corridor in order to accommodate multiple travel modes and support access to adjacent land uses. Key mobility concepts include pedestrian-first design, the creation of low-stress biking routes, first/last mile connections, parking and demand management, and smart corridor technology. These topics are explored in pages 84-93 of Attachment A.
Mobility recommendations will be developed to coordinate with regional and state transportation investments, including access to the San Antonio Caltrain Station and planned improvements at the U.S. 101 interchange. The Area Plan will also evaluate opportunities to improve transit operations and reliability, vehicle circulation (including goods movement where applicable), and active transportation connectivity within and through the plan area. While mobility improvements will apply across the entire plan area, Attachment A presents multiple concepts for two focus locations described below.
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.
These concepts will inform a toolkit of cross-sections, intersection treatments, and operational strategies that may be applied, as feasible, to other segments of the corridor and to connecting streets.
Financial Analysis
Attachment B provides additional context for some of these alternatives by describing the current and projected financial feasibility of housing and office products in the plan area; the range of costs to provide public parks, paseos, and open spaces envisioned in the Maxar Site and CTI Sub-Area Plan Alternatives; the ability of housing and office development in the plan alternatives to fund parks based on current City requirements; and policy tools for ensuring the 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.
Preliminary analysis of the financial feasibility (from a developer's perspective) reveals the projected success of development prototypes representing ownership townhomes, five-story midrise multifamily rental housing, eight-story multifamily rental housing, a five-story office building, and an eight-story office building.
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.
Based on the ranges of park spaces and residential and commercial buildout included in the Area Plan alternatives for the Maxar Site and CTI Sub-Area, the City of Palo Alto's existing Parks Impact Fee revenues and Parkland Dedication requirements are expected to provide sufficient resources to acquire and construct the alternatives' public parks (inclusive of paseos and open spaces) for smaller park scenarios. However, Maxar Site scenarios that include 4.5 acres of parks fall an estimated $20 to $25 million short of full funding under existing City requirements.
Only the low-end residential only buildout of the CTI Sub-Area fell short of generating sufficient revenue based on today's fees and projected costs to provide high-end outdoor facilities, and this scenario would still generate enough funds to support some level of outdoor spaces.
Requested Council Feedback
City staff is requesting feedback on the following topics, detailed in Attachment A:
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
Several of the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan policies relate directly to the Area Plan. Policies L-1.10, L-2.2, L-2.3, L-2.4, L-2.6, L-2.11, L-2.12, and L-3.4 relate to growth management, sustainable communities, and neighborhood character. Policies L-4.5, L-4.16, and L-5.4 relate to commercial centers and employment districts. Policies L-6.6 and L-6.7 relate to the design of buildings and public space. Policies L-8.6, L-9.3, L-9.6, and L-9.7 relate to parks, streets, and public spaces. Additionally, the 2023-2031 Housing Element includes Program 6.6(C) calling for the City to prepare an area plan for the San Antonio Road Corridor and increase housing opportunities. The Housing Element also identifies 53 Housing Opportunity Sites within the plan area and emphasizes increasing housing in close proximity to the San Antonio Caltrain station.
The City has also adopted a Housing Incentive Program (HIP) in 2019, which was updated in 2025, as a local alternative to encourage multi-family and mixed-use residential development.
HIP currently covers significant parts of the plan area.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The Area Plan budget was approved by the Council on March 10, 2025, with an amount not to exceed $1,979,902.7 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
Community engagement is central to the success of this planning effort, alongside the technical, design, and subject matter expertise informing the work. A robust engagement strategy has been developed, which includes a dedicated webpage, social media and email announcements, formation of the CAG and Technical Advisory Group (TAG), stakeholder interviews, community workshops, surveys, meetings with the City Council and advisory commissions, committees, and boards, and pop-ups including tabling at City events and Farmers Markets.
CAG meetings were held on August 19, 2025, January 29, 2026, and February 26, 2026, with up to three additional CAG meetings planned through 2028. The project team has also met with the TAG beginning in August, 2025. Community workshops were held on October 23, 2025, and March 5, 2026, with one additional community workshop planned in the next phase of the project. Surveys for the project have also run on the project webpage in October 2025 and 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
The actions recommended in this report are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262: A project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions that has not been approved, adopted, or funded would not have significant impact on the environment. The City will prepare an environmental analysis for the San Antonio Road Area Plan when more project specifics have been identified.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: San Antonio Road Area Plan Land Use and Transportation Alternatives Attachment B: San Antonio Road Area Plan Alternatives Financial Memo APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director