Palo Alto ARB weighs land‑use and mobility alternatives for San Antonio Road area plan

PALO ALTO — City planners on March 19 presented the Architectural Review Board (ARB) with phase‑two alternatives for the San Antonio Road area plan, a 20‑year strategy to guide redevelopment and transportation improvements across about 275 acres in South Palo Alto.

Robert Kane, principal planner, told the board the plan’s goals are to “create a 20‑year vision for a 275‑acre area in South Palo Alto, to create a more livable community, improve mobility and safety throughout the corridor, support sustainability goals and enhance economic vitality.” Kane and consultants outlined four land‑use scenarios, options for park placement and three mobility alternatives for San Antonio Road.

Why it matters: the plan would set the city’s preferred mix of housing, retail and office uses and design standards for a large swath of South Palo Alto that is adjacent to a Caltrain station and the 101 interchange. Planners said the area currently contains about 800 housing units and that build‑out scenarios discussed could create capacity far above the current housing‑element cycle; staff and the clerk cited potential additional capacity in the range of roughly 3,800 to 7,400 units across scenarios, depending on what the city ultimately allows and what private developers build.

What staff proposed and asked the board - Subareas and uses: staff divided the plan area into Central San Antonio Road, North and South Fabian, and a CTI (commerce/transport/industrial) subarea. Some alternatives preserve office/R&D in parts of the plan area; others favor primarily residential development, with varying height limits (current 60 feet, options to increase to 90 feet or higher in limited locations). - Maxar site: on the 24.5‑acre Maxar/Alexandria parcel staff presented concept layouts showing higher‑density edges, internal streets and a central park. Consultants and board members discussed whether the city should require or strongly incentivize a sizable neighborhood park (board members suggested roughly 1.5–3 acres) and whether to set a higher minimum density there to ensure a mixed‑use outcome. - Mobility alternatives: staff showed three treatments for San Antonio Road: (1) remove on‑street parking and install street‑level separated bike lanes; (2) retain parking on one side and provide a widened multi‑use path on the other (would require easements/ROW acquisition); (3) move curbs and trees to build two‑way protected bike tracks (most costly and tree‑disruptive). Each approach involves tradeoffs among safety, cost, right‑of‑way acquisition and impacts on existing trees and curbside activity.

Board feedback and concerns Board members broadly supported creating safer, separated bike facilities and greater transit connections to the Caltrain station, but repeatedly raised practical concerns: - Retail viability and deliveries: several board members said long stretches of San Antonio Road are unlikely to sustain ground‑floor retail and urged the city to allow — rather than require — retail in curbside buildings, or require retail only at corners or concentrated nodes. One board member warned that mandatory ground‑floor retail on sites with limited foot traffic often fails economically and complicates building services such as trash staging and deliveries. - Trash, garage access and continuous bike lanes: board members emphasized that frequent driveway and garage cuts, trash staging and delivery stops can interrupt a continuous protected bike lane and recommended the plan consider rear‑service alleys or consolidated service access where feasible. - Heights and transitions: members asked staff to refine transitions between taller blocks and adjacent single‑family neighborhoods (setbacks, step‑backs facing creeks or single‑family lots). Several members supported allowing taller development along 101 while keeping lower heights adjacent to existing homes. - School district and services: board members asked which school district future residents would attend. Staff said district boundaries predate annexations, and children in different parts of the plan area may go to Palo Alto or Mountain View schools; changing districts requires action by the school districts, affected residents and the county. - Easements and trees for bike facilities: staff warned that the most protective bike‑track option would require moving curbs and trees and acquiring easements; the mid‑range option would require easements for wider multi‑use paths, while the lowest‑cost option could be implemented largely in existing right‑of‑way but offers less separation from vehicle traffic.

What developers and ownership patterns mean on the ground Consultants noted the CTI area is made up of many small parcels and will likely redevelop piecemeal unless an investor consolidates lots; the Maxar/Alexandria parcel is a single‑owner, large site that would present a different redevelopment opportunity if sold. Board members urged staff to design incentives and regulatory tools that make large‑scale, connected open spaces and consolidated development feasible while not overconstraining smaller lot owners.

Next steps Staff said the feedback will inform a narrowed set of preferred alternatives and that the team will return with more detailed policy recommendations, draft zoning, development standards and analysis (transportation, environmental and infrastructure) in a subsequent phase. Planners emphasized coordination with VTA on the 101 interchange project and with Mountain View for cross‑jurisdictional connections to Caltrain.

The ARB concluded discussion and adjourned after requesting staff to follow up on park sizing, retail policy language, minimum/maximum density options, rights‑of‑way/easement cost implications for bike facilities and ways to address service access (deliveries and trash) in design standards.