Planning & Transportation Commission - September 10, 2025

Commissioners seek more safety and flood analysis for San Antonio plan

Planning & Transportation commissioners called for deeper analysis of traffic, pedestrian and bicycle safety, flooding and displacement before staff develops land-use and mobility alternatives for the San Antonio Road Area Plan. No formal action or vote was taken. The feedback will inform the second phase of the 20-year plan, which covers roughly 275 acres and 1.88 miles of San Antonio Road. The project began in 2025, has a budget of no more than $1,979,902 and is expected to be completed by early 2028.

Transportation feedback focused on conditions within the plan area and the effects of traffic passing through it. Staff reported 143 collisions in the area over the past decade and said it accounts for almost 5% of fatal and severe-injury crashes citywide. Bryna Chang requested baseline traffic-volume, interchange and origin-destination data, while Allen Akin said that analysis should precede consideration of measures such as turn restrictions, one-way streets or reversible lanes. Doria Summa emphasized coordination with Mountain View at San Antonio and East Charleston roads and better pedestrian and bicycle access to the San Antonio Caltrain station.

Forest Peterson requested more analysis of sea-level-rise, flood and wildfire-related risks, including different planning approaches for flood-prone and non-flood-prone areas. Staff said the area north and east of East Charleston Road is in FEMA Flood Zone AE and discussed a scenario involving 36 inches of sea-level rise over the next 50 to 100 years.

Housing growth also raised questions about affordability, infrastructure and displacement. The plan area now has approximately 800 housing units, including about 252 deed-restricted affordable units, 80 of them for seniors. The Housing Element identifies 53 opportunity sites there, and pipeline proposals could produce at least 750 units. Todd James raised concerns about the future of affordable housing, small businesses and manufacturing jobs, while Chang asked about park deficiencies and school capacity. Akin opposed larger office allowances beyond neighborhood-serving uses because of jobs-housing balance concerns.

Staff said it would present cumulative board and commission feedback to the City Council on Oct. 6, 2025, and hold a community workshop Oct. 23. Additional work is expected on traffic patterns, affordability in pipeline projects, park needs, street space, setbacks and climate constraints before land-use and mobility alternatives are prepared.

Commission leaves all eight south Palo Alto crossing concepts under review

The commission did not select or eliminate any of the eight conceptual bicycle and pedestrian rail crossings presented for south Palo Alto. Commissioners provided initial feedback without a motion or vote, and staff said it planned to return in November 2025 to seek a recommendation of up to two alternatives for City Council consideration and possible advancement to 15% design.

The project seeks up to two additional grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian crossings south of Oregon Expressway and is separate from the rail grade-separation work at Churchill, Meadow and Charleston. Staff screened more than 25 concepts to produce the eight now under review and said every option has right-of-way implications. The Kittelson & Associates contract for the work is capped at $499,491.

Several commissioners opposed concepts that would require new signals on Alma Street, but views differed on which crossings merited further study. Bryna Chang favored Alternative B for its central location and projected demand while acknowledging its expense. Allen Akin said he could not support that alternative because of its complexity, cost and effects on Loma Verde properties, while Todd James favored a Loma Verde crossing. Cari Templeton requested actual numbers of parcels and homes affected by each concept instead of broad impact scores.

Commissioners also questioned the analysis of Alternative H, which would place a two-way separated bicycle facility on the existing San Antonio Road bridge between Nita Avenue in Palo Alto and California Street in Mountain View. Pedestrians would use improved connections to the existing Caltrain station tunnel. Forest Peterson said the accessibility mapping might omit existing walking paths and tunnel connections. Commissioners also disagreed over whether potential crossings near Meadow and Charleston should receive less consideration because of the separate grade-separation project.

At the meeting, staff said an online survey would remain open through Sept. 12, 2025, while community engagement continued. Staff said any concept that advances would still require design refinement, funding, environmental review, interagency coordination, engineering and possible right-of-way acquisition.

Peterson and Ji appointed to transit center interviews

Forest Peterson and Kevin Ji will represent the commission in Urban Land Institute stakeholder interviews about the Palo Alto Transit Center. After both volunteered, Chair Allen Akin appointed them without a formal motion or vote.

The $135,000 initiative is being funded jointly by the city, VTA and Stanford University. Urban Land Institute representatives were scheduled to visit from Oct. 19 through Oct. 24, 2025, conduct stakeholder focus groups Oct. 21 and present findings and recommendations Oct. 24. Up to approximately 100 stakeholders were expected to participate.

Commissioners suggested that the review address transit amenities, access, secure bicycle storage, possible housing and connections to downtown and surrounding areas. They also raised the idea of treating Palo Alto’s three train stations as gateways and examining nearby transit centers in Redwood City and Mountain View. Staff said the study area would focus on the station and bus-transit facilities, with consideration of adjacent MacArthur Park.

Primary sources

Watch the meeting on YouTube · Read the official meeting packet