Planning commission continues review of 660 University mixed‑use project after debate over oak tree, parking and FEMA rules

The Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission on March 12, 2025 continued consideration of a proposed six‑story, mixed‑use project at 660 University Avenue after hours of public comment and a lengthy discussion of tree protection, parking and FEMA flood‑zone insurance requirements.

Project planner Emily Callas summarized the applicants’ proposal as a planned community rezoning to allow a new six‑story building with about 66 rental units (20 percent below‑market‑rate), roughly 9,000 square feet of office space, two levels of below‑grade parking with 78 stalls, and a height of about 73 feet 6 inches. Callas said the plan relies on at least 25 percent nonresidential floor area to qualify for below‑grade parking under the city’s current flood‑zone review as implemented by Public Works.

Why it matters: The project sits near a protected coast live oak whose root zone and canopy neighbors say could be damaged by excavation and construction. Neighbors also warned of spillover parking and safety problems on narrow Byron Street, while some housing advocates urged approval to add 66 units — including deeper affordability and three extremely low‑income units.

The commission’s discussion focused on three technical areas: (1) tree protection and construction impacts around a large coast live oak adjacent to the site, (2) parking and curbside impacts that would fall on Byron Street and nearby residential zones, and (3) whether the office component is required by FEMA flood/insurance rules or is a financial choice that makes the affordable housing component feasible.

Applicant and staff positions Applicant Lund Smith of Smith Development said the project team has revised plans repeatedly since 2021 to respond to City and neighbor input and to preserve the oak. “We’re grateful for your time tonight to discuss 660 University Project,” Smith said during the presentation. Architect Ted Korth and the project’s arborist and landscape team described a design that preserves the tree in place, keeps the existing asphalt over a portion of the root area during construction, and uses raised planters and a pedestalled deck to avoid direct root disturbance.

Project planner Emily Callas told commissioners the city’s Public Works review indicates the below‑grade parking will require the project to provide at least 25 percent nonresidential floor area in order to meet the insurance criteria being applied by the city for this flood zone. She said that requirement is the basis for keeping the office component on the top floor and other shared nonresidential amenities.

Concerns from residents and experts Neighbors from the Hamilton retirement community and nearby buildings urged the commission to pause and demand stronger protections. Christopher Reem, speaking for several Hamilton residents, said of the oak tree: “If it’s not treated correctly, it’s gonna die and crash into the Hamilton, and probably kill a couple of people on the way, seriously.” Other speakers described frequent delivery and service stops on Byron, a narrow street used by many seniors.

Peter Golinger, the city’s urban forester, said he had not seen a formal reproduction appraisal in the applicant’s arborist reports and estimated, based on the submitted materials, that the reproduction value of the oak could be “about $80,000 to $90,000,” making a 200 percent replacement bond roughly double that estimate.

Project arborist David Babbie and Golinger both testified about acceptable pruning and root‑protection measures; Babbie said the proposed scope of work and the project‑level protections (including increased tree protection fencing, a retained asphalt surface in the short term, and arborist oversight during any work inside the tree‑protection zone) made the team comfortable the tree could survive the construction as designed.

Parking and circulation Residents and some commissioners pressed the applicant and staff for more detailed analysis of parking impacts. The project proposes 78 below‑grade stalls and a 30 percent parking reduction tied to a Transportation Demand Management package. Commenters and several commissioners said Byron Street’s narrow width, frequent deliveries and large senior population make additional curbside loading and a reconfiguration of parking on Byron a real safety and access risk.

Rafael Rios, the city’s senior engineer, explained that many signal poles, cabinets and utilities sit in the area between sidewalk and curb and that moving or redesigning that infrastructure to expand multimodal facilities (a bus lane, separated bike lane or loading zone) typically requires relocating poles whose foundations can be 12–16 feet deep. That infrastructure can conflict with basements that extend to the property line; Rios said putting typical signal foundations and cabinets over an existing garage could be technically difficult without a redesign of the garage or an engineered foundation solution.

FEMA, insurance and the office component Commissioners and several public speakers asked whether FEMA actually requires the nonresidential component. Commissioner Gee recounted a call with FEMA’s mapping and insurance exchange and reported FEMA told him the 25 percent nonresidential threshold is applied by the insurer’s program to allow below‑grade parking in that insurance product — not a universal FEMA mandate. City staff and Public Works, however, said the city’s review and the engineering details for this parcel currently assume the below‑grade parking will only be accepted if the project meets that 25 percent nonresidential threshold as part of the insurance and Public Works review package. The commission requested clearer, written confirmation from Public Works and/or FEMA/insurer guidance before the project moves forward.

Action and next steps After extended public comment and deliberation the Planning and Transportation Commission voted to continue the project so staff and the applicant can supply additional materials and to give commissioners time to refine conditions. The commission set a list of items to be returned with the project when it returns for a recommendation to City Council, including clearer documentation on the FEMA/insurance requirement for the nonresidential threshold, additional engineering analysis and options to allow future street improvements in the Middlefield special setback, refined tree‑protection and monitoring plans, and consideration of bird‑safe glazing on balconies and upper‑floor office glazing.

The commission did not forward a final recommendation to council on March 12. Staff and the applicant said they will work to provide the additional analysis the commission requested. The project remains scheduled for future review; commissioners asked staff to return the municipal plan amendment (the text change that would allow retention of some commercial uses within a new planned community) as a discrete item so the commission can consider the policy amendment separately from the quasi‑judicial project decision.

Ending note Commissioners and members of the public expressed sharply different priorities: some stressed protecting the large coast live oak and the safety of older pedestrians on Byron Street; others stressed the need for additional housing, deeper affordability and the applicant’s concessions to increase unit size and affordability levels. The commission’s continuation leaves those tradeoffs unresolved pending the additional technical materials it requested.