Palo Alto ARB reviews 197‑unit, seven‑story proposal at 762 San Antonio Road; continues to date uncertain

A public hearing Wednesday before the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board examined a proposal to demolish three commercial buildings at 762 San Antonio Road and construct a seven‑story multifamily building with 197 rental apartments, 26 of which the applicant says would be restricted as below‑market‑rate housing.

Senior Planner Emily Callis told the board the project would be reviewed under state “builder’s remedy” provisions and is tied to multiple state actions and local environmental review. “This project meets the qualifications of a builder’s remedy project as defined in Assembly Bill 1893,” Callis said, adding that the city may require only objective standards that would apply where the requested density is allowed. Staff recommended the board provide design feedback and continue the hearing to a date uncertain to permit completion of CEQA analysis and related addenda to the previously certified environmental impact report.

Why it matters: The proposal is one of the remaining projects using the state builder’s‑remedy pathway, which limits local discretion over zoning and objective standards and can reduce the number or depth of local affordable units required. The board’s review focused on whether the project meets applicable objective design standards, the list of waivers the applicant seeks, and design changes that would maintain the applicant’s stated density while improving pedestrian experience, landscaping and building circulation.

Key facts - Proposal: demolish three existing commercial buildings and build a seven‑story multifamily rental building with 197 units (studio–three‑bedroom mix). The applicant describes 26 units (13%) as deed‑restricted for households at 50–80% AMI. - Zoning/authority: staff framed review under California Government Code section 65589.5(d)(5) (builder’s remedy) and referenced Assembly Bill 1893 and a Senate Bill 330 pre‑application the applicant filed on 2024‑01‑09. Staff also noted an addendum to a previously certified EIR for the Housing Incentive Program expansion and the related 788 San Antonio mixed‑use project is being prepared. - Parking: 252 above‑ground parking spaces distributed on two above‑grade parking levels; the San Antonio Road entrance serves one level and the Leghorn Street entrance serves the other. - Amenities and site layout: two outdoor amenity areas (Third and Seventh floors), a ground‑floor storefront/active frontage along San Antonio Road, a pool and spa on the Third Floor, and tenant‑facing amenities such as a work‑from‑home lounge. Most units include private balconies. - Applicant and team: Matt Hengehold (owner/operator of Hengehold Trucks), Acclaim Companies (developer representative Gary Johnson), Studio T Squared (architect Chris Lee), and RHAA Landscape Architects (Manuela King).

Board action and next steps The ARB voted to continue the item to a date uncertain to allow city staff to finish CEQA analysis and for the applicant to respond to board feedback. Chair Rosenberg made the motion, Board Member Hirsch seconded it, and the vote was recorded 5–0 (Adcock: yes; Todorant: yes; Hirsch: yes; Vice Chair Chen: yes; Chair Rosenberg: yes). Because this project is being processed under the state builder’s‑remedy and density‑bonus frameworks, staff said the final development entitlements and any requested waivers will likely go to City Council for the ultimate decision.

Discussion highlights Board members and public commenters discussed multiple technical and design issues; the transcript records the following recurring topics and concerns: - Waivers and state constraints: Staff explained that under the builder’s‑remedy and state density‑bonus rules the city may be limited to requiring compliance only with objective standards applicable to a site that allows the requested density; the applicant has requested several waivers (packet identifies roughly six to seven). The applicant and staff said the waivers are being justified by density limits and by the financial feasibility of the project. - Affordable‑housing count and AMI band: There was confusion early in the hearing about the number of below‑market‑rate units. Senior Planner Emily Callis and the applicant later stated the project would provide 26 restricted units (13%). Callis clarified the affordability band described in the staff report is 50–80% area median income; the staff report earlier misstated a 60% figure. - Landscaping and roof amenity waivers: The applicant seeks a waiver for a Seventh‑Floor planting requirement (20% required vs. 7% proposed). The board asked whether that terrace could support more planting; the applicant and landscape architect said the terrace is small and includes seating and circulation needs, but they agreed to investigate increasing planting and irrigation/hose or sprinkler options for artificial‑turf maintenance in the dog run. - Long internal circulation: Multiple board members raised concerns about unit access and circulation, noting a roughly 400‑foot distance from some elevator cores to far units. Commenters proposed adding or relocating vertical circulation (stairs/elevators) or adding an exterior connection to shorten internal travel paths. The applicant said the design team would study circulation changes. - Parking and garage configuration: The project proposes two above‑grade, unconnected parking levels with separate points of entry (San Antonio and Leghorn). The board questioned whether the levels should be connected internally, how parking assignments will work for residents, and how loading/deliveries and trash pickups (proposed at Leghorn) will be managed; the applicant said parking is assigned and explained coordination with Mountain View for trash pickup because a portion of Leghorn Street right‑of‑way lies in that city. - Materials, massing and street experience: The board asked the applicant to simplify the exterior palette, increase perceived human scale, and reduce the visual bulk where possible through stepbacks, parapet adjustments or material choices. Several members asked for an additional rendering of the long, east‑facing facade that abuts lower‑scale properties in Mountain View to show how massing and material choices will read from that vantage. - Groundwater and parking level decision: The applicant told the board that groundwater is close to the surface at the site and that placing parking above grade avoids below‑grade construction; the project team said groundwater is roughly 5–6 feet below grade and that above‑grade parking supports project feasibility. - Public comments: Two public speakers called in. Winter Dellenbach said she was “extremely distressed about this development,” questioned the lower percentage of inclusionary units under recent state law changes, and asked where a feasibility analysis required by state law could be found. Christopher Brosnan supported more trees and raised concerns about artificial turf dog runs and local groundwater impacts.

What the board asked the applicant to do Board members asked the applicant to: (1) study building circulation and the possibility of adding or better locating stairs/elevators to reduce long internal walks; (2) revisit the Seventh‑Floor terrace planting percentage and the potential to add more podium‑level landscaping; (3) re‑examine balconies for privacy and size where possible; (4) simplify and clarify the materials palette and provide a dedicated rendering of the east (Mountain View‑facing) elevation; and (5) confirm technical details including stepback depths, stepback calculations used in waiver requests, and any setback/recess measurements that affect the waiver calculations.

Ending note Senior Planner Emily Callis closed the staff presentation by reiterating the recommendation that the ARB provide feedback and continue the hearing so staff can complete the CEQA addendum. The board voted 5–0 to continue the item to a date uncertain; staff said the applicant will return with responses to the board’s comments and the CEQA analysis for further review before the project proceeds to City Council.