Palo Alto commission forwards revised 660 University plan to council with tree, parking and loading conditions

The Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission on Oct. 8 recommended that the City Council consider approving the proposed six‑story mixed‑use development at 660 University Avenue, forwarding the draft final EIR, comprehensive plan amendment and a record of land‑use action with conditions intended to protect a prominent coast live oak and limit neighborhood parking spillover.

The commission’s action (5‑1) followed hours of staff and applicant presentations, and public comment from both neighbors describing safety, parking and tree‑health concerns and housing advocates who supported the project’s downtown location and its 20% below‑market‑rate requirement.

Why it matters: The project would add up to 70 residential units (an applicant alternative of 66 units was offered to reduce encroachment on the tree), provide two levels of below‑grade parking with 78 stalls and roughly 1,900 square feet of ground‑floor commercial space. Staff presented a revised final Environmental Impact Report concluding the current design would not cause new or substantially more significant environmental impacts than those analyzed previously. The commission conditioned its recommendation on measures intended to preserve the tree, provide space for possible future city transportation improvements, and require monitoring and mitigation for spillover parking.

What the commission recommended: Vice Chair Chang moved the staff recommendation with changes; the package the commission voted to send to council includes: - Certification of the revised final EIR and forwarding the comprehensive plan amendment and planned‑community zoning recommendation to City Council for final action. - Establishing an easement covering the Middlefield Road special setback area to 20 feet below grade so the city can use that corridor for future street or signal improvements without requiring the applicant to replace parking spaces removed later. - A requirement that, beginning two years after occupancy, the building’s management report annually to the Office of Transportation the number of on‑site parking spaces leased, enabling the city to monitor whether residents are parking on neighboring streets. - A requirement that the Office of Transportation develop a method (as part of the project’s Transportation Demand Management program) to measure spillover parking and, if necessary, apply incentives or penalties to reduce it. - Removal of asphalt around the protected oak (Tree #10) after construction as recommended by the city arborist, and a tree protection bond to fund remediation if the tree is damaged. - Bird‑safe glass on two sixth‑floor corner residential units, and designation of the roughly 1,900 sq ft of commercial space as neighborhood‑serving uses.

Numbers and alternatives: Staff and the applicant described two design options: a 70‑unit plan (the primary recommendation) with 14 below‑market‑rate units (20% of the total) and a version with balconies removed in a tree‑protection zone that would reduce count to 66 units and shift the unit mix (fewer studios, more one‑bedrooms). The applicant said the project reduced office area from about 9,000 sq ft to approximately 1,984 sq ft and reduced the proposed parking reduction from 30% to 13% while keeping 78 parking stalls.

Tree protections and dispute: Neighbors’ testimony highlighted technical arborist analyses asserting extensive canopy and root loss if construction proceeds under current excavation plans; Christopher Ream, representing Hamilton neighbors, warned the tree could be made unstable. The applicant and city arborist countered that selective pruning and construction mitigation can preserve the tree; city arborist Peter Golinger estimated the canopy at about 90 feet and recommended preserving asphalt during construction to protect roots and removing surface asphalt only after final amenities are placed — a compromise the commission incorporated in its conditions.

Loading and deliveries: Residents raised concerns about short‑term loading and frequent deliveries limiting Byron Street’s two‑way flow. The applicant described a limited off‑site loading/roll‑out area and potential curb cut arrangement designed to allow Ubers or small passenger vehicles to pull partially on site; engineers acknowledged larger trucks could not be accommodated within a low‑clearance trash staging area, and the project includes signage and limited curb restrictions for scheduled trash periods.

Vote and next steps: The motion to forward the EIR, comp plan amendment and the record of land use action with the stated conditions passed 5‑1; Commissioner Heckman voted no, citing the loss of four units in the preferred alternative and lingering concerns about legal findings. The PTC record (including COAs and recommended language clarifications) will go to City Council for final action; the council will consider the EIR certification and related ordinances and resolutions.

What remains open: The developer’s Builder’s Remedy application remains paused under a tolling agreement through year‑end; staff said defects identified publically could be corrected by the applicant within that agreement. The City Council will weigh the PTC recommendation alongside staff reports, COAs, and public testimony at the subsequent council hearing.