Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-10-08 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary Minutes1 2 Planning & Transportation Commission Regular Meeting Summary Minutes: October 08, 2025 3 Council Chambers and Hybrid 4 6:00 PM 5 6 CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL 7 8 Chair Akin called the meeting to order. The clerk called roll and declared there was a quorum. 9 10 PUBLIC COMMENT 11 12 Sheryl K. supported making the bulb-out permanent at East Crescent and Southwood. 13 14 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 15 16 None. 17 18 19 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 20 1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments21 22 Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director, provided a slide presentation including upcoming 2025 PTC 23 meeting dates and details and Council dates targeted for PTC-reviewed items. The City 24 Manager's office wanted to remind the Commission about the upcoming religious tolerance 25 training and encouraged the commissioner members to sign up. 26 27 ACTION ITEMS 28 29 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave [21PLN-00341]:30 Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ)31 on Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield32 Rd), to Demolish Existing Buildings and Provide a New Six Story Mixed-Use Building with33 Approximately 1,900 Square Feet of Office, 70 Multi-Family Residential Units, and a Two34 Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. CEQA Status: A Draft Environmental Impact Report35 Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024, and Ending on May 17, 2024.36 The City published a Final EIR in March 2025 and a revised Final EIR in October 2025.37 Zoning District: RM-20 (Multi-Family Residential).38 1 Chair Akin asked if there were any disclosures. There were none. 2 Emily Kallas, Senior Planner, provided a slide presentation including a project overview, 3 background/process, Builder's Remedy application, major changes since December, elevations 4 compared to prior ARB – University, elevations compared to prior ARB – Byron, elevations 5 compared to prior ARB – Middlefield, elevations compared to prior – interior side, key 6 considerations, comprehensive plan amendment, CEQA, and the recommended motion. 7 Commissioner Ji inquired if "neighborhood-serving" is a defined term. Ms. Kallas replied it is in 8 reference to the fact that since it is in a multifamily zone it is surrounded by residential uses. 9 Chair Akin thought there was a definition of "neighborhood-serving" in Title 18. Ms. Kallas 10 stated it is a term that is used in some places in the comprehensive plan. Assistant Director 11 Armer added it is a term used in some of the adopted documents. It is not a use category. 12 Commissioner Ji wanted to know which bulletin is referred to on packet page 15. Ms. Kallas 13 answered it is referenced in the staff report. 14 Ted Korth, Principal at Korth Sunseri Hagey Architects provided a slide presentation including a 15 project overview, PTC motion, aerial views of the site and residential buildings surrounding the 16 site, site plan with existing setback of 10 feet 11 inches, previous and current proposed project, 17 corner shot from Middlefield Road and University Avenue showing landscaping in the 24-foot 18 setback, corner from University and Byron, view from Byron, view on Middlefield Road, prior 19 and current proposals, ground floor site plan, second to sixth floor site plans, adjusted unit plan 20 layout, section showing area that could be retrofitted in the future for City needs on the 21 Middlefield setback, and section showing the tree. 22 Public Comment 23 1. Christopher R. speaking on behalf of 5 (Rosamaria P., Franco P., Joann M., Hal V., Carol 24 V., Sheryl K.) provided a slide presentation expressing concerns due to the proposed loss 25 of the Coast Live Oak Tree canopy, traffic and parking issues, and office space. It was 26 advised to get a contractual agreement from the planner not to go back to the original 27 plan. 28 2. Kay B. speaking on behalf of 5 (Peggy F., Dennis B., Harry B., Aileen H., Patricia P.) 29 discussed allowances and variances granted by the Architectural Review Board that skirt 30 regulations and building codes formerly in place including exceeding the residential 31 density previously zoned, parking reductions and issues, and traffic/safety issues, and 32 issues with where construction vehicles will park during demolition and building. An 33 adequate study is needed analyzing the traffic volume and safety issues on Byron and 34 University, Byron and Hamilton, and Byron. 35 3. Kinsey H. speaking on behalf of 5 (Richard M., Justine F., Joe S., C.S. P., Jin P.) addressed 1 issues with the Builder's Remedy, concerns with the oak tree, and potential traffic issues 2 on Byron. The building proposed is too big, in the wrong place, and the wrong type and 3 will result in a form of slightly extended transitory and temporary housing. 4 4. Carol G. described reasons the number of parking spaces included in the project would 5 meet the demand and urged the Commission to recommend City Council make changes 6 to the configuration of Byron Street traffic, parking, and safety. 7 5. Faith B. asked the Commission to consider the quality of life of the neighborhood by 8 going back to four stories, request more parking, and reconsider balconies. 9 6. Tim P. spoke in support of the proposed development and asked the PTC to move the 10 item to City Council for a vote. 11 7. Stephen L., representative of Palo Alto League of Women Voters, indicated the Leagued 12 asked that the Commission send the project forward to City Council and summarized 13 high points of a letter sent to the Commission by the League. 14 8. Xenia H. agreed with concerns mentioned including the setback requirements need to 15 be met on Byron Street and Middlefield, the daylight plane, and the need for a loading 16 space in front of the main entrance on University Avenue. 17 9. Ali S., Housing Action Coalition, spoke on the Coalition's support of the project and 18 urged the Commission to move the project forward without further delays. 19 10. Zachary A., Pathway for Kids, (Zoom) opined the building was looked at in isolation of 20 the community and there are other sites in Palo Alto that would be more appropriate. 21 Making the entire roof agricultural space and increasing office space would make the 22 building pencil out to 50 percent low-income housing. The project should not move 23 forward until the execution meets the concept. 24 Boyd Smith, Smith Development, pointed out the City arborist is in full support of the approach 25 to the tree, highlighted the project went from a 30 percent to 13 percent reduction in parking, 26 and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority defines the corner of University and 27 Middlefield as a major transit corridor. 28 Commissioner Hechtman inquired about the efforts of an off-street loading spot. Amanda 29 Borden, KSH Architects, showed a graphic describing the off-site trash staging, delivery areas, 30 and move-in loading and unloading areas. 31 Vice Chair Chang had questions about moving the balconies around. Ms. Kallas indicated 32 changes about the balconies was briefly touched on in the presentation. They were reviewed by 33 the Architectural Review Board and is under their purview. Mr. Korth stated the idea was to 34 trim the tree six feet from the face of the building. The balconies would be installed at the end 35 of construction and would not touch the tree. The ARB asked that the two balconies in the 36 center of the site be deleted. A version was tried splitting two one-bedroom units over the 1 center of the tree so the balconies would be outbound of the area where the ARB had 2 questions. It changed the unit count from 70 to 66. Ms. Borden stated the BMR would go from 3 14 to 13. 4 Vice Chair Chang asked about the corners on the sixth floor and bird-safe glass. Mr. Korth 5 stated it is a residential unit with a bedroom and living room in that area. Since there is no 6 vegetation in the foreground, birds would not be confused by the glass. Vice Chair Chang asked 7 if it would be feasible to do bird-safe glass there. Mr. Smith answered that could be explored. 8 Commissioner Ji requested clarification about the unit distribution. Mr. Smith explained the 9 thought was to show the options. If the Commission want to keep the balconies in the tree 10 canopy it would be 70 units. If the Commission preferred to eliminate the balconies, it would be 11 66 units. Commissioner Ji asked about the distribution of different income levels. Unknown 12 speaker pointed out the chart goes from 14 affordable units to 13 and the same number of 1 13 and 2 bedroom units and 1 less studio. 14 Commissioner Ji queried if the utilities and staircases are in the setback in the current version. 15 Ms. Borden confirmed the stair from the six floors above is within the 24-foot setback. 16 Commissioner Templeton wanted a response from the applicant about the need to reapply 17 based on the changes. Mr. Smith responded that according to the attorney, the Builder's 18 Remedy application was applied appropriately and in good standing. 19 Commissioner Templeton had questions for the arborist about the tree. Peter Gollinger, 20 Manager Urban Forestry City of Palo Alto, stated based on aerial imagery available in Google 21 Earth, the tree does not appear to predate development. Images were shown demonstrating 22 how the tree was evaluated for the project. The tree is estimated to be about 100 years old and 23 does not predate development. A historical photo was shown. 24 Commissioner Hechtman had questions about the tree needing to be cut back six feet. Mr. 25 Gollinger understood that it would need to be at least the width of scaffolding to erect the 26 building. The balconies could be installed in the same envelop so no additional tree pruning 27 would be required to install the balconies. There would be minimal ongoing maintenance with 28 the presence of the balconies. It is unlikely that this would dramatically impact the tree beyond 29 what needed to be pruned for the construction. 30 Commissioner Hechtman asked for the opinion of the City Attorney's office whether there is a 31 defect in the Builder's Remedy application. Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney, responded the 32 public commenter identified a potential issue Staff had not previously identified in terms of the 33 difference between the pre-application and the formal application that was filed for the 34 Builder's Remedy project on this site. Because of the tolling agreement, the applicant has the 35 opportunity to correct that defect. 36 Vice Chair Chang questioned if having the asphalt stay or be removed would be better for the 1 tree. Mr. Gollinger explained the existing asphalt should stay in place during construction. 2 There would be less impact on the tree if amenities are placed on top of the existing asphalt 3 and then the asphalt is removed around that area. 4 Commissioner Ji asked about the NFIP documents. Ms. Kallas answered the staff report did not 5 specify a number because there are 11 bulletins and the project needs to be compliant with all 6 of them. Technical bulletin six refers to below-grade parking being allowed mixed-use buildings. 7 Vice Chair Chang hoped to add specifying that the office with the commercial space that is 8 allowed to be redeveloped or kept in a multifamily zone be designated for neighborhood 9 serving uses. Commissioner Ji was in agreement and called out that Municipal Code Section 10 18.16.030 F has a definition for neighborhood serving uses and would like to insert that into the 11 language for the comp plan amendment. 12 Commissioner Hechtman supported moving the comp plan amendment forward if the project is 13 moved forward. The findings for policies L1.1, L1.4, L1.6, L2.2, and L2.6 need to be made 14 generic. The commissioner was hesitant to apply the potential modification suggested by the 15 vice chair and preferred to go on a case-by-case basis. In this instance, if the Commission wants 16 the project to have a particular limited use, that should be made a condition of approval. The 17 EIR came to the Commission in March. There have been changes made to the project and Staff 18 determination from a CEQA standpoint were a de minimis environmental impact and that is 19 supported in the record so it is appropriate to recommend the EIR to City Council. Ms. Kallas 20 agreed it made sense to make it more broad and not specific to this project. 21 Vice Chair Chang stated the logic of the broader language was because of the analysis shown on 22 top of packet page 17 talking about 35 properties where the majority of them have medical 23 office use and are located around downtown but some are also located around Cal Ave. The 24 vice chair also supported addressing the specific situation. 25 Chair Akin was curious as to Commissioner Hechtman's rationale for preferring this go forward 26 as a package. Commissioner Hechtman preferred they leave as a package. If it becomes clear 27 that it is the will of the Commission to not recommend the proposal in any form, the 28 recommendation would be to deny. In that scenario, the commissioner did not know if there 29 would be a need to forward a recommendation on the comp plan. The commissioner asked if 30 the EIR recommendation, the comp plan recommendation, then the project could be voted on 31 sequentially. Chair Akin replied that was an option. The chair saw no reason to object to the 32 conclusions that had been reached with respect to the EIR. 33 Commissioner Templeton wondered what would happen if the tree is damaged. Ms. Kallas 34 indicated one of the conditions of approval is to have a bond on the tree. 35 Vice Chair Chang described concerns with traffic impacts and the importance of the 24-foot 36 setback. The vice chair could not make finding number three because the comp plan has not 37 been fixed to allow the project. There is an overarching issue of SB330 so approving the project 38 would be consistent with the comp plan because the alternative project would be worse. The 1 vice chair would like to add bird safe glad to the sixth floor units and removing the asphalt 2 surrounding the patio improvements under the tree. The applicant's proposal addressing 3 feedback from the ARB regarding balconies is good. 4 Chair Akin observed that the project violates the special requirements for PCs making finding 5 number three difficult to justify. The development standards that determine that compatibility 6 are specifically called out in the finding. The inclination was to forward the project to Council 7 but the plain language of the code precludes it. It would be nice to make the code self-8 consistent in this respect. Another approach worth considering would be to borrow the concept 9 of a statement of overriding considerations from CEQA. 10 Commissioner Hechtman stated he looked at the project in contrast to a Builder's Remedy 11 application. City Council has recognized that this property is a housing opportunity site for 65 12 units and is the desirable level of density for this site. It is a benefit that office space has been 13 reduced by 70 percent. Based on the findings of the arborist, the tree is adequately protected. 14 The commissioner was okay with making removing asphalt from the deck a condition of 15 approval and if the applicant has issue with it, that can be raised with City Council. The 16 commissioner supported Staff's solution for the treatment of the part of the garage in the 17 special setback. It should be clarified that if the City activates the easement, the parking 18 requirement is reduced by the spaces lost to the easement. The commissioner supported a 19 condition of approval for bird safe glass on the sixth floor. Changes needed to be made in the 20 record of land use regarding number of units and language in finding three. 21 Commissioner Ji voiced agreement with the other commissioners about finding three. There 22 was concern with the transportation havoc that is going to occur. The commissioner described 23 disagreement with the ARB findings. 24 Chair Akin proposed establishing an easement covering the area reserved for the Middlefield 25 special setback to a depth of 20 feet below grade, gather data from the Office of Transportation 26 of on-site spaces being leased, and as part of the TDM plan, the Office of Transportation 27 develop a method to assess spillover parking created by the project and impose incentives or 28 penalties when spillover is excessive. 29 Motion: Vice Chair Chang moved the Staff recommendation with the following changes, 30 seconded by Commissioner Templeton: 31 32 1. The project be modified to either be the 66 unit option or that the project remove the 33 balconies from the H2 units for floors 2 to 6 to reduce the encroachment into the tree 34 protection zone as recommended by the ARB. 35 2. The addition of the following conditions of approval to the Record of Land Use action: 36 a. Establish an easement covering the area reserved for the Middlefield special setback 37 to a depth of 20 feet below grade with the provision that if the easement is used the 38 applicant is not responsible for replacing the parking spaces that are removed. 39 b. Beginning two years after the start of occupancy, the building's management will 1 report annually to the Office of Transportation the number of on-site spaces that are 2 being leased. 3 c. As part of the TDM plan, the Office of Transportation will develop a method to 4 assess spillover parking created by the project and impose incentives or penalties 5 when the spillover is excessive. 6 d. Remove the asphalt under tree number 10 after construction as recommended by 7 Palo Alto's Urban Forestry manager. 8 e. Bird safe glass for units E and F2 on the 6th floor. 9 f. Designate that the approximately 1,900 square feet of commercial space is for 10 neighborhood-serving use. 11 g. Consider making the findings of the Record of Land Use action more generic. 12 Vote: Passed 5-1, Commissioner James Absent 13 Commissioner Hechtman had issue with the loss of units and parking. 14 15 3. Request for a Zoning Text Amendment to Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning) 16 Section 18.18.120 [Noncomplying (Grandfathered) Uses and Facilities] to allow existing 17 floor area to be replaced in new buildings without increasing the degree of existing non 18 compliance. CEQA Status: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15061 (b)(3) (Common Sense). 19 20 Steven Switzer, Senior Historic Planner, provided a slide presentation including the request, 21 background of legislative history, project description (applicant), project description (modified), 22 key considerations, properties affected, and recommendation. 23 Commissioner Hechtman wanted to make sure the title is broad enough to refer to substantial 24 remodel as well as a new building. Assistant City Attorney Yang agreed to proceed with the 25 discussion. 26 Commissioner Hechtman inquired if Staff wanted feedback or a recommendation. Mr. Switzer 27 stated Staff wanted feedback. Assistant Director Armer added the discussion would be 28 continued to a date uncertain because if there is a code change, it would require a 29 recommendation from PTC to Council, Council making the final decision. 30 Commissioner Hechtman wondered if Staff has a rough count of the number of interpretations 31 that happened between 1988 and 2015. Mr. Switzer did not have an exact number. 32 Ken Hayes, The Hayes Group Architects, provided a slide presentation including a history of the 33 ordinances changes through the years, new buildings in the downtown area since 2016, a 34 demonstration of how the Shrink Wrap Rule has led to paralysis and will lead to the eventual 35 suffocation of downtown, the benefits of eliminating the Shrink Wrap Rule, and proposal to 36 recommend the removal of the Shrink Wrap Rule subsections 18.18.120 A(2)C and 18.18.120 37 b(2)C. 38 Public Comment 1 2 1. John S., Thoits Bros., implored the Commission to stay focused on the Shrink Wrap Rule 3 and the words and not conflate the issue with other meaningful things. 4 2. Mark M. opined the ordinance passed in 2016 was ill-conceived as it was targeted for a 5 specific property without the foresight to see what the impact would be. 6 Mr. Hayes agreed an injustice was done in 2016 without understanding the consequences on 7 the downtown building stock and opined it is an urgency. 8 Commissioner Hechtman had questions about part B on the 2016 changes. Mr. Hayes indicated 9 it would go back to 1989 and was not proposed to change. Commissioner Hechtman wondered 10 why the proposed revision for C did not go back to 2015. Mr. Hayes said that was leftover from 11 the original language. Staff had to issue an interpretation in the 1988 staff report. It is still 12 unclear and needs to be cleaned up. Commissioner Hechtman questioned if the amendment 13 would create more flexibility than existed from 1988 to 2015. Mr. Hayes thought it made it 14 clearer. 15 Commissioner Hechtman wanted to understand if the version proposed by the applicant is the 16 same as existed prior to the Shrink Wrap Rule or more flexible. Mr. Switzer explained the text 17 amendment offers a timely opportunity to address some barriers to the existing code in 18 downtown. There are a lot of ongoing planning efforts at either the state level or the local level 19 with the downtown housing plan and some retail revitalization priorities of Council. Looking at 20 the language itself is hard to pinpoint how removing C altogether would make it less restrictive 21 than the 1988 interpretation. Having no language there, it would be understood that the floor 22 area could be reconfigured. The language of the 1988 interpretation was unclear. Providing 23 more clarity in the code without having to have reliance on an interpretation document would 24 be a good situation. 25 Commissioner Hechtman agreed it is ideal to have a code that can stand on its own without a 26 separate interpretation. A request was made for Staff to ensure that losing the language in C 27 that was there before 2016 will not create the unintended consequence of allowing things that 28 couldn't happen between 1988 to 2015 to happen as this goes forward. The commissioner 29 appreciated the provision of the Staff alternative but thought there was need for buildings to 30 become new when they can and not have to stay outdated because the owners are not able to 31 renovate because of the Shrink Wrap Rule. It would be interesting to know how many of the 47 32 buildings that might apply to. Mr. Switzer responded 66 parcels would be affected removing 33 the 19 that had sustained some renovations from 2011 to 2015 bringing it down to 47 that 34 would likely be able to redevelop in the near term. Assistant Director Armer added that would 35 apply to all the same parcels. The difference between the two has more to do with what's 36 proposed than what is existing. 37 Vice Chair Chang wanted a better sense of the goals Shrink Wrap was trying to achieve. 38 Commissioner Peterson was favorable of the revisions. 1 Chair Akin appreciated the incentive that it is baked into Staff's proposal in attachment B; 2 however, liked the simplicity of the applicant's version in attachment A. Version A is preferable 3 assuming the concerns raised by Commissioner Hechtman have been addressed. 4 Mr. Switzer indicated the feedback provided gave Staff more things to think about. 5 Motion: Vice Chair Chang moved to continue the item to a date uncertain seconded by 6 Commissioner Ji. 7 Vote: Passed 5-0, Commissioners James and Templeton Absent 8 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE 9 MEETINGS AND AGENDAS 10 None. 11 ADJOURNMENT 12