Planning & Transportation Commission - March 25, 2026

Commissioners split over San Antonio plan height and office growth

Palo Alto planning commissioners gave staff sharply divided feedback on the San Antonio Road Area Plan, debating housing capacity, building heights, office growth, park acreage and street design without taking a formal vote. The alternatives cover about 275 acres along nearly two miles of San Antonio Road and project capacity for roughly 3,800 to 7,400 new homes over a 20- to 25-year planning horizon.

Height preferences ranged from a roughly five-story, 60-foot baseline to 90-foot, eight-story development in parts of the corridor. Todd James favored beginning at 60 feet because state density-bonus concessions could push projects higher, while Bart Hechtman supported the 90-foot option in Central San Antonio and generally backed eight-story buildings with lower transitions near less-dense neighborhoods. Allen Akin cautioned that using a lower limit mainly to blunt density-bonus effects could itself be viewed as a constraint on housing production.

Office policy produced another divide. Bryna Chang and Cari Templeton opposed net-new office development, while Forest Peterson suggested an office cap or tying office entitlements to housing delivery because of jobs-housing and traffic concerns. Hechtman supported at least one-for-one replacement of existing office space to help enable mixed-use redevelopment. Staff's CTI-area alternatives range from residential-only redevelopment to a scenario allowing 150,000 to 200,000 square feet of net-new office or research-and-development space.

Many commissioners favored larger, publicly accessible parks rather than small linear spaces, although they differed on where and how much land to reserve. Staff said the CTI area might support about one to three acres of park space, while the 125-acre Maxar site could physically accommodate four or more acres. Commissioners also weighed a near-term San Antonio Road design that could fit within the existing 100.5-foot right of way against more extensive separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities requiring major curb, utility and tree work.

Public commenters warned that growth could compound congestion on San Antonio Road, Middlefield Road, Charleston Road and neighborhood routes. Commissioners also pressed for a reliable connection to the San Antonio Caltrain station; staff said an apparent route through Mountain View crosses private property and cannot currently be treated as an accessible public route.

Staff plans to incorporate the feedback into a City Council study session planned for the first Monday of April. The Council is expected to vote on principal alternatives in June, after which staff would draft policies and zoning for commission review in the fall. Additional hearings are expected near the end of 2026, followed by environmental review and draft-plan work in 2027 and possible adoption in the first half of 2028.

Retail-vitality ordinance wins unanimous recommendation

The commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the City Council approve a retail-vitality ordinance, while sending forward clarifications on parking, use definitions, alcohol rules and ground-floor requirements. Staff is seeking permanent regulations before the current interim ordinance expires at the end of 2026.

The proposal would create a limited-service eating-and-drinking category, allow standalone bars in selected active commercial districts, rename conditional use permits as administrative use permits and expand flexibility for some personal-service, office and health-related uses. It would also revise parts of California Avenue parking and shared-parking rules and reduce transportation-demand-management burdens for some small uses.

Much of the debate focused on whether preventive diagnostic screening should be treated as a personal service, a medical office or a new specially authorized use on retail-protected streets. The owner of 451 University Avenue and a Neco Health representative supported clearer flexibility for a proposed noninvasive screening operation. Hechtman opposed creating a special carveout and suggested the Council set the policy, Chang warned that broad medical-office permissions could displace retail, and Peterson pressed for a precise definition. Staff said classification under existing rules would depend on the actual operation and the involvement of licensed medical professionals.

Commissioners also questioned how bars should be distinguished from restaurants once the current 50% food-receipts threshold is removed, how prior licensing violations should factor into approval and whether existing alcohol-serving restaurants could convert without undue cost. Staff said an existing establishment could seek a lower-fee modification of its permit.

The discussion produced consensus that RP-zone office parking should remain at one space per 250 square feet. Commissioners also asked staff to prevent repeated use of a 1,500-square-foot addition exception to avoid a transportation fee and to revisit cross-references, open-container language, retail-depth wording and other drafting issues before Council consideration.

Council will review Churchill rail-crossing options April 13

The City Council is scheduled to receive options and provide direction April 13 on a possible temporary closure of the at-grade Churchill Avenue rail crossing, planning staff reported. The city is working with Caltrain and the California Public Utilities Commission and participated in a March 17 diagnostic meeting. Commissioner Cari Templeton clarified that concerns about access to lethal means center on the accessible at-grade crossing. The commission took no action.

Separately, Kevin Ji asked the city to investigate reports that signals at the Meadow rail crossing sometimes skip their expected sequence when no train is present, causing backups. Staff said it would refer the issue to traffic engineers.

Primary sources

Watch the meeting on YouTube · Read the official meeting agenda