Palo Alto is planning to build four new neighborhoods along a one-mile stretch on the southern edge of the city, on San Antonio Road between Middlefield and 101. To put that in perspective, a typical neighborhood in our city has 1,000–1,500 “residential units”, for a total of about 30,000 units across Palo Alto. The draft plan would add 3,800–7,400 more residential units, or about 20% growth, to one small edge of town (circled in red). These neighborhoods would be far and away the densest in the city.
Palo Alto plans to add four neighborhoods containing 3800–7400 new residential units to a one mile stretch of San Antonio Road on the southeast edge of town. Background image source: Palo Alto Online
Think about this proposal for a second. Consider stacking the equivalent of four Crescent Parks onto the last mile of University west of 101. Or four Duvenecks onto the last mile of Oregon Expressway. Can you imagine the hue and cry? (1) Yet that is what city staff is proposing for San Antonio Road, an essential artery at the south end of the city. So I was curious to see what our Planning and Transportation (PTC) commissioners would say when they met to discuss the proposal on Wednesday, March 25.
People who live and commute along San Antonio Road have seen traffic increase in recent years as Mountain View has added housing and office space at The Village at San Antonio Center, The Dean, Landsby, and more. Congestion has spread from San Antonio to major cross streets on Charleston, Middlefield, and Leghorn. Already some residents in Mountain View say it is “almost impossible” to turn left onto Middlefield from their neighborhood.
Mountain View continues to add development in this area. They are planning half a million square feet of new office space (2) along with almost 500 residential units in Charleston Plaza, where the Best Buy and REI used to be, just east of Palo Alto’s planned development. They are also planning further build-out of the San Antonio Center area, including a high-density development at California Avenue.
The Village at San Antonio Center is one of several high-density developments in the Mountain View portion of San Antonio Road. Image source: Brookfield Properties
On top of this, the county is planning to close the Charleston Road entrance onto 101, by Costco in Mountain View, which means all of the traffic that currently enters 101 there will be going onto San Antonio as well.
So when city staff asked the commissioners what building heights would be appropriate in the San Antonio planning area, you and I might think they would consider traffic concerns on San Antonio Road, which has just two lanes in either direction. Perhaps, just maybe, they would aim for the low end of the proposed 3800–7400 new residential units?
And yet, traffic was barely mentioned. Maybe the commissioners feel it is premature to consider. Maybe the commissioners believe in the great traffic magic wand (“smart corridor technology”). Maybe the commissioners feel that congestion is an inevitable externality of development, so residents and businesses in South Palo Alto will just have to deal with it. Commissioner Bart Hechtman implied as much. “We are going to try to protect our existing low density residential areas, so we’re going to have to make pretty dense the other areas. And so this one and the whole El Camino corridor, that’s where it’s going to happen.” So I guess if you live near those areas, that is your tough luck. Those parts of Palo Alto will be the sacrificial zones for the rest of the city.
We are going to try to protect our existing low density residential areas, so we’re going to have to make pretty dense the other areas. And so this one and the whole El Camino corridor, that’s where it’s going to happen.
PTC Commissioner Bart Hechtman
Both Commissioners Hechtman and Allen Akin advocated for a 90-foot (eight story) height limit on San Antonio Road, rejecting the 60-foot option that was also offered by staff. Both referred to the staff report that said developers would not make a profit if they put in shorter buildings, and advised that we need to get something built. In repeatedly advocating for increased building heights and developer incentives, Commissioner Hechtman called such developments the “new California suburban” and said: “We have to decide through this process whether this plan is going to be aspirational or implementable because there’s a difference and I would like us to eventually get to a plan that is implementable, that has some tether to reality both in terms of land use and economics.” Akin similarly asserted that “If we’re going to get any development in the foreseeable near future we have to target 90-foot height limits,” observing that is what developers are proposing in the area today.
Think about this for a minute. We have already transferred a massive amount of wealth and power from the city to large property owners and developers: wealth in the form of upzoning, and power in the form of development mandates. Yet we are being assured that even that is not enough, that property owners and developers need and deserve more flexibility and incentives.
If we’re going to get any development in the foreseeable near future we have to target 90-foot height limits.
PTC COMMISSIONER ALLEN AKIN
Commissioner Kevin Ji pushed back on this, noting that only a few years ago, developers were saying they could make a profit at five stories. Now it is eight? “I don’t know if it makes the most sense necessarily to work towards what is financially feasible at this specific moment because even before we finish approving the San Antonio road area plan, the financial feasibility of these different sizes may change.” Commissioner Forest Peterson held out hope that artificial intelligence would drive down planning and design risks, and therefore costs, for developers. Well, one can hope.
Commissioner Bryna Chang was the only commissioner who was clearly concerned about traffic. “I haven’t seen anything that convinces me that what is currently almost a parking lot won’t become a complete parking lot with respect to San Antonio and Charleston” she stated, while voicing her objection to 90-foot building heights. She was joined in that objection by Commissioners Ji and Todd James. Both had attended the annual conference of the League of California Cities where they heard worrisome stories about developers using density bonuses to raise heights beyond the city standard. Staff conceded that “We really can’t control height under state density bonus law.” (3)
I haven’t seen anything that convinces me that what is currently almost a parking lot won’t become a complete parking lot with respect to San Antonio and Charleston.
PTC COMMISSIONER BRYNA CHANG
Commissioner Cari Templeton asked about the height of the large JCC building at the corner of Charleston and San Antonio. She mentioned that “I feel like that’s pretty tall. Like when I’ve been to the facility, I think that’s tall enough.” Staff responded that it is about 50 feet, or five stories. Commissioner James likewise felt that five stories was about right. “The new five-story hotels there I think feel very comfortable with the scale of that street.”
Really, there was No Consideration of Traffic?
Well, there was some inordinately detailed discussion about bike lanes. How wide should they be, how separated, on both sides of the street, in both directions? This confused me. Yes, protected bike lanes will help. But in my opinion bikes are a small band-aid on a gaping wound of a traffic problem. Commissioner Akin pointed out: “The most attractive job for you is probably not going to be within bike distance over your career … so I think that argues for a priority to at least maintain the effectiveness of longer distance transportation (access to 101 and Caltrain).” He encouraged staff to raise the visibility of this issue in their report.
One of the reasons that the state has targeted Palo Alto for so much housing is that our jobs-to-housing ratio is too high. Ours is about 4.2 while the regional average is closer to 1.5. (4) So one outcome of this enormously expensive and disruptive development effort must be to take that target off of our backs by reducing that ratio.
Yet most of the commissioners advocated for adding both offices and housing. They took pains to say that we would only add office space for as many jobs as we are removing. There would be no net gain of jobs. Our ratio would still improve. It’s just that while housing would go up, jobs would not go down.
Commissioner Hechtman expressed a fear that if we don’t upgrade our office stock, tech companies will flee. “We have aging office stock and I don’t want Palo Alto to be the place that tech vacates because the only spaces available have become decrepit. I think we have to turn those things over.” He asserted that without this incentive, San Antonio would not be profitable for developers to convert existing offices to housing. “Economically, if we don’t allow office here, you’re not going to get residential any place there is an office because it won’t pay to change.” So even the 90-foot height limit is not enough, according to Hechtman. We have to allow office as well. (5)
If you’re willing to blow your jobs housing imbalance out of the water, what can you get for it? Yeah, you can get things for it.
PTC COMMISSIONER ALLEN AKIN
Other commissioners expressed interest in allowing mixed-use development (both housing and office space) because it would mean more funds for neighborhood services, like parks and retail. When Commissioners Chang and Ji mentioned how much they like the Main Street development in Cupertino, on Vallco Parkway, Akin surmised that it was only possible because of the mix of offices, housing, and hotels there. “The things that you like … may exist because they built a whole heck of a lot of office there. If you’re willing to blow your jobs housing imbalance out of the water, what can you get for it? Yeah, you can get things for it.”
Few if any commissioners argued for decreasing jobs in this area (6), though Chang did point out that there is “brand new office in our city that still has yet to be occupied.”
Note: After this was published, Chang clarified that she is opposed to building any office in this area, and that she is no longer supportive of a Cupertino-like development here because of the jobs:housing ratio that it entails.
Resident Services: Parks, Retail, and Parking
This brings us to the question of services for the new residents, namely park space, retail, and parking. The state has limited the impact fees that we are allowed to assess developers in order to pay for these services. The fees do not cover adequate park space (for example), as I wrote last year. So we are left with some poor choices:
Leave these new neighborhoods under-resourced. This is going to happen regardless. The question is, to what degree.
Add more housing to collect more fees. This doesn’t really address under-resourcing, since there would be more people. But the neighborhood would have more substantial local services.
Add office space rather than housing in some areas to collect more fees.
Let’s look at our options in turn.
If we leave the new neighborhoods severely under-resourced, then we are essentially creating an urban ghetto at this end of town (albeit a shiny, new, and expensive one). New residents will take advantage of schools, parks, childcare, and more in nearby areas, but to some degree they will also have to do without. How much of this are we okay with?
If we increase density in the planning area to collect more fees, the development will in some ways function better. But the increase in density will result in more of the unpriced externalities that remain unaddressed. Perhaps the new residents get some retail and parking, but what happens with the even higher demand on roads and schools? Is this even an improvement?
If instead we add jobs instead of housing, then we are simply setting ourselves up for more housing demand from the state in the future. This option is probably best for South Palo Alto residents, because they can at least hope that housing will go elsewhere. But how much of this “future debt” are city residents okay with?
Principal Planner Robert Cain worried that retail may not work anyway. “We might have some challenges given that we don’t anticipate there will be enough foot traffic along San Antonio or potentially enough parking to really bring people from outside of those buildings to retail in those buildings. Is it still valuable to have the push for retail on the ground floor?”
Hechtman advocated for centralized “major shopping” (groceries) rather than “mom and pop retail along the street”. He wondered if we could build a grocery store at the corner of San Antonio and Middlefield, saying that three corners there are in play and intersections are good for retail. Other commissioners liked this idea, though none were clear on how it would be funded. Some commissioners also hoped for a Vallco-like complex in the area closer to 101.
Regarding parks, Assistant Planning Director Jennifer Armer noted that “We’ve got a lot of open space in the city of Palo Alto. We’re not deficient overall.” Commissioner Templeton similarly suggested that residents in the new neighborhoods can access the Baylands if we make it safe for them to get there. Commissioners Peterson and James pushed back on this. Peterson mentioned that he lives near California Avenue, where there are three well-used parks. James lives near Johnson Park, which provides a big social benefit for the neighborhood and gets “lots of use.” Both see the value of good local parks.
I would like us to eventually get to a plan that is implementable, that has some tether to reality both in terms of land use and economics.
PTC COMMISSIONER BART HECHTMAN
Commissioner Peterson asked about the city’s charter, which requires two acres of local park space and two acres of “district” park space per thousand residents. (7) Cain responded: “If we’re talking about 4,000 new units potentially (at the low end), that’s perhaps 10,000 new residents. I don’t see us adding 40 acres of parkland in the planned area.” Peterson seemed shocked that this new development plan would be doing well to achieve even 10% (4 acres) of the city’s standard.
There wasn’t much discussion about parking, a common externality of these under-parked (in two ways!) developments. Akin observed that several years ago Palo Alto underestimated the number of jobs that downtown development would create, leading to a parking permit program for employees. In this planning area, there is less room for error. Akin urged city staff to get the numbers right this time. He also asked if there will be new public parking and, if so, where will it go and how will we pay for it. Akin had no answers, but encouraged staff to consider the questions. No one asked about childcare, school capacity, or possible redistricting. (8)
Summary
This planning effort is happening quickly in order to ensure that projects that are in the pipeline conform with the standards that the city would like to see. But are people in South Palo Alto aware of the choke point being contemplated at the north end of San Antonio Road? The planners do not live in this area. The commissioners do not live in this area. Only one City Council member lives in the general vicinity. This whole discussion left me wondering who, exactly, is going to bat for the people who live and work in South Palo Alto today, who are not speaking up yet who will be the most affected by the negative externalities imposed by this massive development?
Numerous projects are already in the pipeline in the San Antonio planning area. Image source: City of Palo Alto
Commissioner Chang is not happy with the city’s plan to put so much of its growth in one tiny area. She suggested that “it makes sense to spread it out so that all the impacts aren’t in one place.” But in many cases her plea seemed to fall on ears more attuned to developer profits.
It makes sense to spread it out so that all the impacts aren’t in one place.
PTC COMMISSIONER BRYNA CHANG
The state’s housing mandates are making the city beholden to developer whims, are rewarding the construction of isolating human warehouses over livable neighborhoods, and are accounting for none of the externalities of the massive new developments on existing cities. It is a problem. And it’s not clear to me from this discussion that we have the will or the capability to push back. People who live and/or work in South Palo Alto should start to pay attention. You can find a city survey about the San Antonio Road plan here (survey closes on Sunday); city documentation on the plan here; and a City Council meeting on Monday April 6 here.
Notes
1. For perspective for those near the southern border of Palo Alto, the entire area east of Charleston between Alma and 101 has about 1500 residential units. That includes the Charleston Gardens, Greenhouse I and II, Greendell, Greenmeadow, and Walnut Grove neighborhoods. That represents just one quarter of the planned new development.
2. For perspective, the Fry’s store was about 85,000 square feet and the whole Fry’s site about 130,000. So half a million square feet is about four times that.
3. Commissioner Hechtman clarified that density bonuses do not always result in height increases. A developer may instead choose to reduce setbacks, reduce parking, or eliminate retail, for example. Some height increases can be too costly for developers of residential buildings, such as going to heights that require steel framing (above 90 feet).
4. This figure can be found on slide 22 of the staff presentation (download link here).
5. There was an interesting discussion about the planned development just north on 101 at 2100 Geng Road, which was recently approved for 3-story townhomes. How is that affordable for developers, while even eight stories is not affordable a few blocks farther south? Development is “personal”, said one person (planner? consultant?) sitting with Cain named Chris. “You know, development is often personal. It’s personal to the land owner, the developer…. You have different developers with different objectives, right? Some are willing to come in with no parking, some want the parking. It’s similar with office…. So while the report might say something, development is also very subjective to the land owner and developer.” Perhaps we should be recruiting the friendlier ones. Or suing the more extractive ones?
6. Commissioner Akin made the important observation that preserving jobs does not mean preserving square footage of office space. He noted that businesses today, and especially tech, pack far more workers into office space than they have in the past. The staff report does not account for this, and Akin and the other commissioners urged staff to correct the figures to account for that.
7. A local park is considered to be a park within a 10-minute walk, while a district park is a large (10+ acre) park that might be at more of a distance (e.g., Mitchell, Greer, or Rinconada parks).
8. We have twelve elementary schools in our city. That would suggest 1–2 new elementary schools for this one-mile stretch along San Antonio Road. Is there space? Is there funding?
Comment Guidelines
I hope that your contributions will be an important part of this blog. To keep the discussion productive, please adhere to these guidelines or your comment may be edited or removed.
Avoid disrespectful, disparaging, snide, angry, or ad hominem comments.
Stay fact-based and refer to reputable sources.
Stay on topic.
In general, maintain this as a welcoming space for all readers.
Climate change, despite its outsized impact on the planet, is still an abstract concept to many of us. That needs to change. My hope is that readers of this blog will develop a better understanding of...
More by Sherry Listgarten
