Commission forwards 788 San Antonio Road 8‑story proposal to design review amid tension over parking and TDM assumptions

The Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission voted 3–2 on April 8 to recommend that staff forward a conceptual rezoning and design package for 788 San Antonio Road to the Architectural Review Board for additional review.

The proposal from Grub Properties would rezone the site to a planned community district and build an eight‑story mixed‑use building with 167 rental units, about 1,400 square feet of ground‑floor retail, and 28 low‑income below‑market units (20% of the total). The applicant proposes roughly 74 vehicle parking stalls on two above‑grade levels, 167 bicycle parking spaces (1:1), and a set of mobility measures including seven dedicated car‑share vehicles. Project exceptions under the housing incentive program include an 89‑foot building height (typical limit 50 ft), higher lot coverage (~67%) and a floor‑area ratio around 3.7.

Developer Megan Watson said the project team substantially revised the project after a May 2025 pre‑screening, adding upper‑level stepbacks, a 70‑foot courtyard and a rooftop terrace to break up massing along San Antonio Road. “We completely redesigned the exterior…and expanded our rooftop terrace,” Watson said, adding that the design eliminated curb cuts along San Antonio to improve the pedestrian realm. The applicant cited a recent Grub project in Oakland (412 Madison) with similar reduced parking as operational precedent and argued the development could be viable with strong last‑mile connections and micromobility options.

But commissioners and neighbors pressed hard on parking and transportation. Joan Laraby, who lives across the street, warned that San Antonio Road is congested, that bus service is limited, and that fewer than half the units having assigned parking would push cars into nearby streets. “San Antonio Road only has four lanes, no bike lanes, no bus service…It stopped right outside next to our driveway,” she told the commission. Multiple commissioners characterized the project as a possible pilot for lower‑parking development but said the project’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) numbers require closer scrutiny. Staff and the applicant acknowledged some discrepancies in the TDM memo and agreed to provide clarifications; a TDM consultant was not present at the meeting.

Labor speakers urged the commission to treat workforce protections as public benefits. Representatives from the North Coast State Carpenters Union asked the commission to require hiring of responsible contractors, area‑standard wages, health care, retirement security and apprenticeship utilization as conditions of future approvals.

After extended questioning — on construction type (five levels of wood framing over three levels of concrete), stepbacks adjacent to the neighboring 808 San Antonio project, and assumptions behind projected trip reductions — the commission voted to send the project to the Architectural Review Board for design review. The vote was recorded as: Chair Aiken — yes; Commissioner Hecman — yes; Commissioner Peterson — yes; Commissioner G — no; Vice Chair Chang — no; Commissioners James and Templeton were absent.

Next steps: the project will proceed to the Architectural Review Board for design review and then return to the Planning & Transportation Commission with ARB recommendations and a formal ordinance package for any PC rezoning before ultimately going to City Council. Commissioners asked staff to tighten TDM documentation, confirm bike‑parking counts and consider requiring stronger on‑site or programmatic commitments (for example, workforce standards or an easement for street space) before final entitlements are requested.