Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 808 San Antonio topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ARB continues 808 San Antonio rezoning after detailed review of massing, automated parking and street frontage
Summary
Board reviewed an 8‑story rezoning application for 808 San Antonio (174 units, 35 BMR units) including a proposal for an automated below‑grade parking lift and on‑site trash/loading within the building footprint. ARB raised concerns about street activation, ground‑floor program, fire apparatus access in the special setback and facade treatment; the board voted to continue the item to a date uncertain (4–0).
The Palo Alto Architectural Review Board on May 7 conducted a study session on a proposed rezoning and planned community/home‑zone (PC/PHZ) application for 808 San Antonio Road, an eight‑story residential building proposing 174 units, including 35 below‑market‑rate units. Senior planner Joey Dinh briefed the board on the project’s principal features: an 88‑foot‑6‑inch maximum parapet height, a floor area ratio of approximately 4.7, and 202 parking stalls provided by an automated below‑grade lift system.
Dinh said the proposal maintains a 24‑foot special setback along the San Antonio frontage to preserve space for future multimodal improvements under the San Antonio Road area plan and that the development team is preparing an addendum to a prior program EIR covering corridor projects. He asked the ARB for feedback on massing, stepbacks, street frontage treatment, parking operations and upper‑level terraces intended to break down perceived bulk.
The applicant’s design principal (London Architecture) described major program changes from an earlier, lower‑rise proposal: removal of ground‑floor retail to accommodate on‑site trash and loading operations within a building envelope; automated parking to reduce the parking footprint; and added terraces and stepbacks aimed at improving light to the interior courtyard. The team presented a roughly two‑minute AutoMotion vendor video illustrating automated pallet storage and a claimed retrieval time of about 90 seconds.
Public commenters raised legal and neighborhood concerns. Herb Borock urged the board to note that the “planned home zone” terminology used in outreach differs from formal zoning code language and warned the rezoning approach could be vulnerable to legal challenge. A nearby resident urged stronger landscaping and cautioned about traffic and air quality along San Antonio Road.
Board discussion focused on three technical clusters: (1) safety and emergency access in light of the 24‑foot frontage setback and how fire apparatus would operate (staff noted ongoing consultation with the Fire Department and potential alternative means and measures); (2) operational questions about the automated parking system, including vendor experience, retrieval times and how peak demand will be handled; and (3) ground‑floor activation and program tradeoffs — several members said losing retail reduces street activation and suggested reconsidering whether a gym or a community room should face San Antonio to provide public‑oriented uses rather than private units.
Given the number of unresolved technical and design issues, a board member moved, and another seconded, to continue the item to a date uncertain. Roll call produced four yes votes (Rosenberg, Hirsch, Vice Chair Adcock and Chair Chen); the motion carried 4–0. Staff and the applicant will return with refinements addressing fire access, facade detailing, ground‑floor programing and further information on the automated parking operations.
