Palo Alto ARB continues review of 788 San Antonio rezoning after broad concerns over parking, trash and unit layouts

The Palo Alto Architectural Review Board on May 21 continued consideration of a rezoning and design review application for 788 San Antonio Road, an eight‑story mixed‑use project proposing 167 rental units (including 28 below‑market‑rate units) and about 1,400 square feet of ground‑floor retail.

City planning staff and the applicant presented the project as an initial‑stage review. Planner Joey Dinh described the site at San Antonio Road and Leghorn Street and urged feedback on building height and massing, frontage design, privacy and transitions to nearby properties as the city’s San Antonio area plan nears Council consideration in June. The project proposes heights up to 89 feet to the parapet and 94 feet to rooftop equipment, a floor‑area ratio of 3.75 and about 74 parking spaces compared with roughly 184 that city standards would typically require for the parcel’s base zoning.

“This corridor is currently dominated by one‑ and two‑story commercial uses, but that quarter is in the transition process,” Dinh said, framing the review as an early opportunity for the applicant to refine design before returning for formal action.

Edward Kim, the project architect for KTGY representing GRU Properties, said the design uses a recessed central courtyard, upper‑level stepbacks and facade modulation to reduce apparent massing and activate the ground floor with retail and lobby spaces. He said the team is studying a transportation demand management plan to justify fewer parking spaces and has consolidated vehicle access and service functions onto Lakehorn Street rather than San Antonio Road.

Public commenters highlighted different priorities. Steve L. urged the board to support the project’s low‑parking approach as aligned with mobility investments on the San Antonio corridor and the city’s goal to reduce car dependence. “Please, as you move forward, think about the enormous benefits that this project and the San Antonio area plan enhancements will bring to the city,” he said. Another commenter, identified as Herb B., asked the board to consider legal and environmental changes since prior EIR work, citing sea‑level rise and groundwater concerns.

Board members praised the exterior massing and material palette but raised multiple recurring concerns during a lengthy Q&A with staff and the applicant: the large gap between proposed and typical parking counts; the logistics of trash handling and staging on Leghorn Street; how move‑in/move‑out and ride‑share/drop‑off activity will be managed if parallel parking and curbside loading are removed from San Antonio; the use of interior or “borrowed‑light” bedroom layouts without exterior windows; the turning radius and configuration of the garage entry; and privacy and light‑and‑air impacts on the facing 808 San Antonio project.

Several members urged closer coordination with the city’s San Antonio area plan and transportation staff so that drop‑off, loading and bike circulation are resolved before the project returns. Board members also suggested design refinements: adding or relocating elevators to shorten residents’ trash routes, reconsidering certain deep interior unit plans, increasing greenery in pocket planters and podium courtyards, and adjusting façade or balcony details to improve privacy and discourage balcony storage.

Kim said the design team will study those operational and layout issues further. “The project is organized with the intent to support the San Antonio corridor’s planned transition toward a pedestrian‑oriented, mixed‑use environment,” he said.

After discussion, Chair Chen moved to continue the item to a date uncertain so the applicant could address the board’s parking, circulation, trash and unit‑layout concerns; the motion passed unanimously, 5‑0.

Next steps: staff said an addendum to the previously certified environmental impact report (EIR) is being prepared and the applicant will return to ARB with revisions and additional materials for the board’s recommendation before the project proceeds to Planning and then to Council for final action.