Planning & Transportation Commission - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress. I call to order this October 8th, 2025 regular meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission. Mr. Devetto, would you call the role, please? Yes. Uh, Chair Aken, here. Vice Chair Chang here. Commissioner Hecman, here. Commissioner James. Commissioner G here. Commissioner Peterson here. Commissioner Templeton here. For the record, we have quorum. Thank you. Do we have any public comment for items that are not on the agenda?

Um to the chair. I do have one request at the moment to speak for general public comment. Um I will invite um Cheryl K. And uh we allow 3 minutes for each um speaking period here in this uh for this item.

Good evening um commissioners and thank you so much for doing what you do for all the time that you put into our community. Uh my husband, my name is Cheryl Klene and I live at 576 East Crescent Drive. Um I live right next to Jim Duran's house um on the corner of East Crescent and Southwood. And this issue was discussed at the last PTC meeting. And I just want to go on the record um about um our support for making the bulb out permanent. So, I I appreciate it and I felt great that you gave so much time to Jim and his concerns. Um, I think most of my neighbors would agree that the bulb out has increased um the safety of our street a lot. We live on a very narrow street. Cars used to go down there very quickly in order to get onto Southwood. Um, it was sort of a bypass for getting on to 101, getting off of it quickly. And what I appreciate about the bulb out is it creates a visual sign. It's the stop sign can be seen from probably like 30 feet away that you need to slow down. And that has really helped slow the the traffic on our street. It's made it safer for pedestrians, for bicyclists who are going to school. So, even though I know it's not in your necessarily in your purview anymore, I just want to go on the record. I think it has it has calmed traffic in our neighborhood so much that I think our neighbors thought when they got the postcard about the meeting that it was probably just going to become permanent. Um, and we didn't realize that there was going to be um a fight on our hands. But I think after speaking with some of

them, we are interested in making it permanent. And um if we have to come to city council to do that and to advocate for ourselves, we certainly will. So I invite you to come to the neighborhood to walk the street to see the the improvement that it's made. And thank you. Thank you, Miss Klein. Are there any other uh public comments? Uh through the chair, I've received no other requests for general public comment and no other raised hands on Zoom. Thank you. All right. So, Assistant Director Armor, do we have any agenda changes, additions, or deletions? No changes or deletions.

All right, then we're ready for the city official reports. Miss Armor, would you begin?

Yes. Thank you. We will share a quick presentation as usual. Just going over some of your upcoming meetings. So, we'll look at the next slide. At your next meeting, we actually have three items scheduled. An update on the Grand Boulevard effort uh from SAM Trans. This is focused mostly on San Monteo County, but it does include the train station or the yeah, the train and transit station here in at University Avenue since they do connect there. the PaloAlto link. We'll be receiving an update on that and a discussion of retail revitalization, some of the code changes that were temporary, adopted in an interim ordinance at the end of last year for discussion um to towards a permanent ordinance. On November 12th, we have scheduled three items as well. The bicycle and pedestrian transportation plan. you did see some options for this previously and so this would be coming to you for a recommendation, the annual comprehensive plan progress report um which is just an annual update on how we're doing on accomplishing those programs and a site and design application at 929 Laurel Glenn Drive. As usual, these are subject to change, but that's what we have planned as of now. And you will note that in your uh packet for this evening, we did have we have an initial schedule for your meetings in 2026. So, if you can take a look through that and if you do note any typos, any edits, or meetings you don't anticipate being available for, we always welcome that information as early as possible. You will note that at the end of the year, even more unusual than you we usually

do, uh November, both meetings are either on a holiday or the night before the night before Thanksgiving. So, uh I have proactively put a special meeting in for the week between so that we have that all on our calendars uh from the beginning of the year. Uh you will also you will have seen in your emails a survey about a potential special a special session for the PTC in December. That's just a placeholder for now. Um but at the moment I have tentatively four potential items to go to your December meeting. So want to make sure we've got the capacity if we need it if those don't move on. All right. So then uh we can now move on to the next slide and a little bit of an update about council dates that are coming up on the 20th. Uh we did have to reschedule the 7DNC net tenative map. So that's going but that's consent calendar so should not need any participation from the liaison. On October 22nd, we are going to be having a discussion of the downtown housing plan and um the potential influence of Senate Bill 79, which is not yet adopted or signed by the governor, but we are being proactive in case it is since it would affect that effort and we want uh looking for some input from city council. That's a special meeting on a Wednesday just in case anyone is interested in joining. And then the next meeting uh November 3rd for city council will include on consent the El Camino Riale retail node map and the rental registry one-year reportformational item. Again, no discussion items that would require a liaison participation that evening. And that concludes my report. Uh, I actually

before we move on to transportation for an update, the city manager's office has asked me to remind you about the upcoming religious tolerance training. If you have not done so, we encourage you to sign up. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Armor. U, do we have any questions for Miss Armor on that report? If not, uh, who's with us from the Office of Transportation tonight? I'm not sure that we have anybody connected at the moment.

Yeah, I see no one I recognize on the list. Right. So, unfortunately, we may not have a transportation update this evening.

That's all right. We can work it in later if uh the opportunity arises. [Music] Okay, that concludes the uh official reports. So, we are ready to move on to our first action item tonight. That is uh a quasi judicial item, a recommendation on applicants request for approval of a planned home zoning on 511 Byron Street, 660 University Avenue, and 680 University Avenue. Uh first, I must ask for disclosures. Does do any of the commissioners have information that is not already in the public record? All right, seeing no disclosures, I believe we're ready for the staff presentation.

Good evening. My name is Emily Kalis. I am the project planner for 660 University. This is a planned community uh planned home zoning reasonzoning and comprehensive plan amendment application. The project overview which I I sent it to the next slide. There seems to be a bit of a delay between my computer and uh your screen. So I'll keep that in mind for this presentation. Um, the project includes a comprehensive plan amendment to allow existing office to be rebuilt in the multi- a family comprehensive plan designation. The development project also includes a new six-story mixeduse building with approximately 1,900 square ft of office use and 70 residential units, 20% of which will be provided at below market rates. The project also includes two levels of underground parking with 78 parking stalls, a height exception to the 35- ft height limit, and reduced setbacks. Um, this slide says including the middlefield special setback. Um, and but I want to clarify that the special setback is only encroached below grade. Um, and the building itself above grade is not within the setback. [Music] This is an overview of all of the hearings this project has had up to this point. Uh most recently, the planning and transportation commission reviewed this project in March of this year. The applicant uh made development changes to the project which I will go over on the following slides. It went to the architectural review board um last two months August and uh they provided a

recommendation for council to approve it. We are currently at the PTC meeting and then the next step would be the council decision. [Music] There is also a builder's remedy application submitted for this address. Um it is currently on pause. it is not currently being processed uh based on the tolling agreement which is valid through the end of the year. Uh the development potential for the builder's remedy application is based on what was submitted as a part of the uh pre-application and it can deviate from that by up to 20%. So, uh, there is a potential for that project to include up to 131 dwelling units and up to 100 and one square ft of floor area. A builder's remedy project is not subject to our usual development standards, including the special setback height, daylight plane, parking, etc. Um, however, this application would require additional review by the architectural review board and city council. In terms of the PHZ application, uh there's been a handful of changes since the PTC last saw it in March. This includes an increased number of units from 66 to 70. However, the office space decreased from 9,000 square ft to 1984 square ft. The office use was also moved to the ground floor with the sixth floor being fully residential use. As a part of this, um the plate heights changed to better accommodate the residential use and the overall height decreased by about 4 ft. Um as a part of the increase

in units, additional balconies were added particularly to the um interior side facade that faces the um other neighbors. And this also has an increased daylight plane encroachment. This slide shows that comparison with the top image being the new plans and the bottom image being the previously reviewed plans with the office on the sixth floor. Uh this is the view on University Avenue. [Music] This shows the Byron Street side showing that um because there is no longer the sixth floor balcony area that um that portion of the building would further encroach into the daylight plane. [Music] on the opposite side of the building along middlefield there is a similar um change although the primary change is what you are looking at kind of past the primary facade to the side that's closer to Byron Street and then lastly uh the facade looking towards the interior including as I noted additional residential balconies this is also the side that as the um large oak tree that overhangs the property line. [Music] The key considerations for the PTC tonight include uh the items that were requested as a part of the March 2025 PTC motion. Uh this includes consideration of the impacts of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment which I will cover on the next couple of

slides. uh consideration of tying the price of the parking spaces to the cost of the residential parking permit which the applicant can go into further detail on their analysis of consideration of the engineering and potential use of the special setback for multimodal use. The plans currently show a portion of the below grade garage that could be designated or modified in the future to accommodate um future projects that the city could consider for making transportation and related improvements. A consideration to remove asphalt around tree number 10 after construction. Tree number 10 is the significant oak tree. Um the project arborist will be able to answer questions about this. We also have urban forestry manager Peter Golinger available on the call. Number five, consideration of bird friendly glass on the sixth floor and balconies. The balconies have been revised to include bird friendly glass. Uh the sixth floor at the time of this recommendation was office use. However, um now that it is residential use, the bird friendly glass has not been incorporated into the sixth floor. And then lastly, clarification from public works engineering uh regarding the FEMA requirements. So the question last time was how the um what the minimum square footage of office use required to allow below grade parking for this property which isn't a flood zone. And so it has since been determined that there is no minimum square footage and that is part of why the applicant chose to reduce the office

provided from 9,000 square ft to uh the proposed square footage. The multiple family residential land uh comprehensive plan designation is proposed to change as um shown here with an additional uh sentence added to the end stating as part of a planned community zone or in accordance with retail preservation requirements. existing commercial square footage may be maintained or rebuilt as a part of a housing development project. And so um last time the planning commission had asked what the expected effect on the overall um city could be of this. And so, uh, staff does believe that the use would be limited, particularly since in order to utilize this, the project would need to be proposed with a PC project on a property that already has an existing commercial use in this comprehensive plan designation. And so, there are currently approximately 1,730 properties in the multifamily designation. Uh approximately 35 of these have been identified as having a non-residential use. The majority of these properties are neighborhood serving medical or dental offices. And the majority are located um close to downtown areas such as this one um as well as others along Middlefield and um a couple near the California Avenue downtown area as well. [Music] Uh this project was analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act. A draft EIR was prepared and circulated

last year. A final EIR um initially was prepared for March of this year analyzing the project changes that had been made at that point. And then um now in October uh analysis has been completed for the current project as proposed um and that revised final EIR is published. Uh in that analysis we found the current project would not result in any new or more significant impacts beyond what was previously assessed. The recommended motion is for the planning commission to consider the final EIR and recommend that city council approve the project um by adopting the EIR, the resolution for the comprehensive plan amendment and the PC ordinance to reszone the property as well as the record of land use action with approved findings and conditions of approval. The PTC may alternatively consider uh the above and recommend approval to the city council. I think this is supposed to say with additional changes. Um and then um alternatively recommend denial based on revised findings. This concludes my presentation. The applicant also has a presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Collus. Uh before we move to the applicant, uh commissioners, do you have any clarifying questions of staff? Commission. Thank you, chair. Um I had two quick questions. One is about uh on slide 15 you described neighborhood serving businesses. Is that a defined term or is that kind of a loose term that you used for the slide? that is not based on a formal definition. It is in reference to the fact that since it is in a multifamily zone, it is surrounded by residential uses.

Thank you. Uh could we go back to the slide, please? And I thought there was a definition of neighborhood serving in title 18. So it is a term that is used uh in some places in our comprehensive plan. Um but if you want to elaborate

um not necessarily sorry. So it it is a term that is used in some of our adopted documents. Um but it isn't a use category the way you might have retail defined or uh you know commercial recreation defined. Thank you. And then I have one other question which is part of our discussion from the last meeting was regarding the FEMA requirements and I see on packet page 15 that there's reference to an NFIP technical bulletin that requires the building to be mixeduse. Do you have do you know which bulletin that refers to?

Um it is referenced in the staff report but potentially in a different page. Let me take a look at that. Yeah, it doesn't have to be answered now but you can just kind of answer that asynchronously.

Thank you, Commissioner G. Any other clarifying questions of staff? All right, then. Uh the next step in the process will be the presentation from the applicant. You have up to 15 minutes to speak. Um for the public public comment will follow uh the applicant. Good evening. I'm Boyd Smith uh with the applicant Smith Development. I want to thank the staff for all their help and support in getting us to this this evening and also want to thank you for your time uh this evening as well. We're excited to show you the progress that we've made. We think we've made some real uh forward progress in response to your prior comments and excited to share those with you this evening. I'll turn the time over to Ted Cor now, our architect, as we have a lot to cover. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening. I'm Ted Cor with Corser Hegy Architects. So Emily did a good job going through the history of it. I'm going to go through some of this quickly just because it was prepared. So, we started in 2021 and we've revised the project numerous times based on policymaker and staff feedback. In September of 2024, we submitted the project as a sixstory mixeduse residential and office building with two levels of below grade parking. In December of 2024, the project was presented to and approved by the ARB with some ad hoc comments. In March of 2025, we presented to the planning and transportation commission, all of you. And in that meeting, there were questions raised about the city's requirement to provide 25% of the building area's non-residential use. Sorry, we're not displaying.

Oh, just one second. Sorry. I did the share thing.

Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you. Let me let me grow it back up again. Yeah. So, in so questions were raised about the city's requirement to provide a 25% of the building area's non-residential use. In April of 2025, the city planning confirmed that the 25% non-residential requirement does not apply to the project. In June of 2025, the project was resubmitted as a six-story mixeduse residential and office building with two levels of below grade parking. The project was revised to meet FEMA's definitions of a mixeduse building in a special hazard flood zone. Mixed buildings must include residential and commercial or other non-residential uses. The project was revised in response to ARB and ad hoc comments as well from the meeting we had in December 2024. We converted the office space to residential units at the sixth floor. We reduced the office space from 9115 ft to 1984 ft. We increased the unit count from 66 to 70 located on levels 2 through six. This project as designed with 70 units reduces the parking reduction from 30% to 13%. We provide space for possible future city improvements at the corner of University A and Middlefield Road in that setback area. We maintain compliance with the 24 foot middlefield road special setback above grade and the arborists have worked together to make sure that that we would maintain and preserve the adjacent coast live oak tree. In August of 2025, the project was presented to the ARB and approved with one ad hoc comment. That ad hoc comment was to request the removal of two balconies on one H2 unit. I'll show you later where that is. Um in that that are

30 ft from the setback or 30 ft in the setback. Your motion from our first meeting with you was approved with the continuence to provide a clarification. The following items of interest. The project responses to the comments are noted below in blue. One, give staff the time to bring back the amendment to the comprehensive plan with more of an analysis of the impact citywide with a map of affected properties, their existing conditions, and nearby uses. And that information was provided by Emily to consider restructuring the monthly parking fees to align with the residential parking permit cost in the neighborhood. The applicant has concluded that matching the downtown RPP costs would not be financial feasible for the for this project given the cost of the garage. Three, address the engineering and potential use of the 24 foot setback regarding facilitating multimodal use. Approximately 425 square feet on each level within the below grade garage has been allocated for future city improvements. The areas will be designed to accommodate a future retrofit and improvements to the event in the event that it is needed and would provide 20 foot depth from the sidewalk grade for future improvements. The retrofit would remove three residential parking stalls for a total of 75 stalls. Four, incorporate removing the asphalt around the tree after construction is complete. The city arburist and the team's arburist both recommend maintaining the existing asphalt surface throughout and following construction to avoid the inevitable loss of roots underlying the asphalt and/or base material. The proposed design effectively eliminates the risk of damaging those roots and represents the optimal measure to ensure the roots remain intact. Five, require bird safe glass for the balconies. We will provide bird safe glass for the balconies. And then clarify whether the office square footage is a public works requirement or only required to qualify for FEMA insurance. Um Emily explained the city and confirmed that the non the 25% non-residential requirement does not

apply to the project. This is the view of the site. Let me see if I can get the image to be larger here. Oh, maybe I'll just keep going. Anyway, that's the site in context with the city. And then in large view of the same area showing four story residential buildings surrounding the site. These are the these are the buildings that are on site today. These are the buildings in the adjacent neighborhood. Two buildings on the site in the site plan today with an existing setback of 10 foot 11 in along middlefield road. And then along Middlefield Road, this is a fourb block segment of Middlefield Road. Existing buildings, some are as low as 8'6 in from the property line terms of the setback. Some are 15, some are 17, some are 20. There are three existing buildings that are 24T setback today. And we're proposing a 24ft setback for this project as well. The project on the left was the project that we presented to you last time with office space on the top floor and on the right side is the proposed project today with residential on all five floors above grade. The ground floor being a mixture of uses. This is a corner shot from Middlefield Road in the University A showing the extensive landscaping in the 24 foot setback activated ground floor strong definition of base middle top for the design of the project and plane changes to add articulation. It's a corner from University and Byron. The area in green is shown as a public art which will be integrated into the design of the project. This is a view from Byron. is showing the automotive entrance and exit. And this is a view on Middlefield Road

showing the building stepping down towards the adjacent residential hall. The prior project that we presented to you was 71% residential and 29% non-residential. The project today proposed is 86% residential and 14% non-residential. The section on the left was the project from the prior meeting with both of with all of you um that showed office at the top floor and the view on the right is the current project with residential on those floors. Ground floor contains a variety of uses. In yellow are the mixed common area uses for the residents. In blue is the office space and purple is a fitness center which would be used only by the residents of the building and tenants in in the office space. on the upper right hand corner there's an area shaded in blue which we've said could be converted if the city determined that they'd like to do that in the future um for there was a mentioned last time we met maybe there was an opportunity to have new signalization new traffic lights so we provided that space not knowing what would actually be be be proposed there we're just taking a whatever queue we can So the prior project was 66 units with office space, more office space, 78 cars with a 30% parking reduction. The current project is 70 units with very little office space, 78 stalls for 13% parking reduction. This is one of the first basement level and the area in blue again is available for retrofit in the future. And the other parking level is the same thing. That area is available for the future. So one other change here besides 66 units before and 70 units today, the unit mix has changed a little bit. So

there are more larger units and fewer studios. Prior there were 38 studios and the scheme now is 28 studios. Prior was 2020, excuse me, 22 onebedroom and now it's 33 onebedroom. and prior was six twobedrooms and now is nine twobedrooms. And each each of these schemes has 14 below market rate units. This is the second floor with a mixture of units shown on this plan. There's a note here in blue, which are the two balconies that are in lighter green right there that the ARB requested be removed from the project. Our client would like to have every unit have private open space. So they would like to maintain those um if that's acceptable to you. So that's the second floor, third floor, fourth floor, fifth floor, sixth floor. As an alternate to this scheme with the two balconies in the center, we tried a a version where the units in that area would be reconfigured a little bit so that you take you essentially pair up two one-bedroom units in that area and get the balconies out of the area that the RB requested that they be deleted. So this way every unit still has um private open space. So if if this new version, that last version with the adjusted plan layout for the units, um that would amount to a 66 unit project versus 70. And there would be a little bit different makeup in terms of the unit count. So instead of 33 onebedrooms, there'd be 39. Instead of 28 studios, there'd be 19. And there would be eight two bedrooms instead of nine two bedrooms. And the parking reduction because there

are fewer units would reduce. So it'll be an 8% parking reduction versus 13%. This is a section through the building that shows the area in blue that could be retrofitted in the future for city city needs on the middlefield setback. And this is a section through the building adjacent to the the home. And that diagonal line is the daylight plane and it shows the uh upper floor is infringing on that on this is a section that shows the tree and it shows an area in blue. It's set in six within six feet of the building. The tree would be trimmed to allow space for um scaffolding and construction practices during the project. If those balconies that were proposed for the 70-unit scheme were included, they would be bolted on at the tail end of construction and so there wouldn't be any additional effect on the tree other than what occurs to just build the building. If you remove those then it would look like that. I went fast but that was that was it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cor. Um, after public comment, we will ask you back for any followup you'd like to offer and then we may also have clarifying questions for you.

Mr. Dutter, how many uh public speakers do we have? So uh through the chair I have uh three group presentations um and at the moment six individual speakers. All right given the low number of individual speakers we'll retain the three minute limit for those and I assume we'll stick to the 10-minute limit for each of the groups. Go ahead.

So, uh let's begin. Uh comment from the public. Our first uh speaker is uh Christopher R speaking on behalf of five and then after he'll get 10 minutes. After that will be uh K. Brown speaking of a half of five. Just give me a little pause to make sure I can get in on this thing. Can you help me? How am I going to do the share screen? What? What am I doing at this point?

I'm sorry, sir. You're going to want to move like this your next arrow to move the screens and down. Yep. Up or down? Yep. Okay. Sorry. Okay. As he said, I'm Christopher Ree. I'm from the Hamilton and we have a lot of people from the Hamilton here today because it's very important to us.

Okay. How's that? Lot better. Good. Okay. Everybody thinks it's better. Um there's the tree. That's what we're trying to save. And the city of Pala says it's a protected tree. 50 inch diameter, six feet tall, and most importantly, a 90 foot cross canopy, uniform canopy. That's what it would look like. And here it is on their plans. That's where it's situated. The tree protection zone standard for Palo Alto is 41 ft for this tree. That's where the canopy would get sliced off if you did the 41 ft. But the applicant wants to call it 30 feet. That's where it's sliced off, right at the face of the building. But you've already heard they want six more feet for their balconies. There it is. Sliced more. And then in reality, you've got to go even further out because if you're a resident standing on the balcony with your friends, you don't want to get poked in the eye with a branch. So I'm suggesting five feet for safety. There's that's what it looks like after the five feet. That all adds up to 19 feet from the trunk of the tree compared to 45 ft that it is now. Okay. Now the there the canopy there's two halves. There's the southern half which is close to Hamilton and the northern half which is the side next to or looking at university. The southern half is fully it's full there. We're not uh cutting anything there. It's different property different owner. They're not touching that. They're only cutting on the north side.

So the north side is naturally going to be a lot lighter than the south side. There I've just gone through north and south and all the cutting on the canopy will be on the north side. Now the ar the arborist for the applicant has come up with a number and our arborist we retained an arborist to look at this they've come up with a number and they would agree at 25% of the canopy is going to have to be cut but that's all going to be cut on the north side which 25% of half of the canopy is means the north side has only got half of what it used to have the South side is going to be twice as large as the north side. It's the way it's going to work out. Here's a table I put together after a lot of work of calculating various things. And this is in the letter I sent all of you, which I hope you have. So, I'll let you go through that. But what I'm really looking at here is how much force is that canopy going to pull on? And the the force is called a leverage. Where is the center point of the canopy that's going to remain and how far is that from the trunk of the tree tree? And these I've come up with these numbers that on the south side of the tree which hasn't been touched the center of the canopy is 18 ft whereas on north side it's now going to be uh 9 ft and that's based upon this 25% cut of the canopy that's been agreed upon by both arbors. Whereas down below, next number I have is down here, this number is where I did

the calculation based upon them cutting back to 19 ft from the trunk. Interestingly, my my calculation comes leaves a little more canopy there and I think it's because the arborists realize that in construction they're going to cut some more of canopy. As you can see, there's going to be a major imbalance in that tree. I mean, very major. You saw that four 4:1 ratio. So, how's it going to be held up? It's going to be held up by its roots on the north side because the tree when it starts to tilt is going to try to bend over. The trunk is going to pull up. The roots hold it back down. That's what keeps the tree up in that case. So, we have an arborist on site here. city hired this arborist who did a ground penetration radar to see where the roots were. He was told to stop at 51 ft. That's 51 ft out there. You can see those roots look pretty vigorous at that point. And I'm told the normal is two to three times the canopy, which would be in our case 90T, maybe 130 feet. But we're not going to get that. Here comes the garage, underground garage. It's cutting things off. That's uh about 30 feet to the edge there. 34 ft I think in the center. But it's cutting off a huge amount of it. And that's not all. The applicant says they could cut back to 20 feet from the trunk. Here's a quote out of their tree protection report filed in March. Here's here's what we were just looking at. And there's the area where they can dig into the roots as much as they want. They're

coming down with just 20 foot radius of roots there. The comparison. Whoops. Well, I don't know. This thing is getting cut off over here on the side. Are you getting No, you're not getting cut off. It's just mine that's getting cut off. Okay. 51 ft radius up there on the existing tree. 20 foot radius after construction. The area is the square of the radius. Square of 51 is 2,600. Square of 20 is 400. What's that ratio? We've got 15% of the roots left. that tree is going to come down if this construction goes forward. I mean, there's just no chance. No chance otherwise. I'm going to move on to a couple other concerns I have, but I want to let you know that's my biggest concern. That's what uh Byron Street looks like. It's a narrow street. You bring a truck, a delivery truck or something down there, nobody can get past it. You can see that cars well cars can sort of pull into a driveway if if one of them is nice enough to do that. The Hamilton has a circular driveway. They've set back quite a ways from Py uh Byron in order to let cars get by each other. You can actually pull in and park a car on that circular driveway in front of the Hamilton and another car can come around it. We don't we do not block the street. We get Amazon deliveries every day. When you get to this building, if they build it, what's the medium age there? Young

20s got to h call in for food delivery every night. There's going to be a lot of traffic, a lot of delivery on that street. Parking. The plans calculate that 89 stalls are required. Now, they're changing a little bit, but that's what it was last time I looked online of two days ago. 69 stalls actually go to get uh provided. That leaves 20 cars roaming around the neighborhood looking for a place to park. Here's another issue. The office space you see in the upper right hand side there, that's what we had last year. 9,000 square feet. all that light blue. Now, they're showing a much smaller area, which they say they're doing because they they're allowed to do that. Now, I question, you know, the fact that rental square foot rental charges are a lot higher than residential charges. And they put a little note down there saying, "Hey, we might just change the interior at some time in the future." So, give them approval. Oh, they just decided to go back to the plan from last year because they're going to make a lot more money that way. I strongly suggest that if you were to happen to approve this project, get the city attorney to get a contractual agreement from them that they will not make this kind of change. The planner told me informally that they would only change up to 100 square feet. Well, I'd get that in writing under a contract. Okay. Now, if they do do that, that's another 29 cars that are going to be joining those first 20. 49 cars wandering around the neighborhood.

And as David Hirz of the Architectural Review Board said when they first looked at this back in December of 2022, too much building and too small of a space, and that is the situation. Thank you very much. [Applause] Thank you, Mr. Re. Next, our next speaker is KB speaking on behalf of five.

Hi, my name is Kay Brown, 555 Byron Street. Um, I want to start out by saying I'm coming a little late to the project, about a year and a half late, but um, so I might be saying things that have already been corrected, but I I think not. I went through the draft the IR. I went through the final one, and I'm hoping I'm understanding it all correctly. Okay. I'm in favor of the city's effort to provide more housing. I understand the need for our children and our grandchildren to be able to live in this area. I want teachers and police and fire officers and public servants to be able to reside here as well. However, in the planned home zoning charter, the developers of 660 have been granted a myriad of variances that would otherwise not be permitted within PaloAlto's building codes. The issue is the size and scope of the project and the space allocated. So many allowances variances were granted by the architectural review board to the developer that skirt regulations building codes that were formally in place. For example, they devi de deviated from the RM20 zoning, the multiple family residential zoning to a planned home zone, which I know you all know, but to accommodate variances requested, the newly planned community far exceeds the residential density previously zoned, all the setbacks that were allowed. Middlefield was originally a 24- ft setback. Now it's been reduced to 10. University original setback 16 reduced to six. Byron original setback required 16 ft reduced to 10. Height now is 77 feet I believe where 35 ft was allowed. The lack coverage of the foot the footprint far exceeds what was previously allowed. The reduced usable open space traded the open space

requirement by substituting balconies and terraces for open space requirements. And then again the parking reductions. Okay. So what does this all mean to the planning transportation commission? You now have to deal with the traffic and safety issues of a development that is high high density too large for the square footage and location allotted. I will speak to the safety issues that currently exist in Byron. Byron currently has parking on both sides of the street. There is a very narrow residual allowance for two-way traffic requiring requiring one car to pull to the side to allow oncoming traffic during the week. Delivery trucks, telecommunication repair trucks, food delivery trucks for the church, linen deliveries, plumbers, electricians, multiple nursery school transport vehicles are parked along Byron, which exacerbates an already congested street. Drivers on University that choose not to wait for the light on Middlefield use Byron and attempt to sidestep the traffic light. They zoom through Byron. This is not a normal residential street, nor a normal mixed residential street. The church is an event venue. Two to three times a week. Music, dance, ethnic and religious events are held. parking exceeds spaces in their lot, which then flows out onto Hamilton, Byron, and adjacent residential streets. The architects of 660 were not required to provide either a circular drive nor a loading dock to accommodate C commercial vehicles. With the size of the community, there's going to be untold numbers of Amazon type deliveries. The width of the driveway specified cannot accommodate these commercial vehicles and also allow for ingress and egress for residents. And what is the height of the garage plant? It has not been

specified as far as I can see and most likely too low for the commercial trucks if there is one more than one commercial vehicle. Where will it park? If a truck driver decides to temporarily pull up on the drive, it is then blocking egress and ingress and stopping pedestrians that then will need to go around onto Byron Street with canes and walkers. Please keep in mind this area is replete with the elderly challenge stands is for these large vehicles to park alongside Byron. Maybe one or two spots would fit along the Byron portion of 660. How will emergency vehicles access Byron efficiently? Every weekday lunch hour, the church provides senior meals. A stream of residents of Litton Gardens cross university, challenging drivers to stop to avoid the pedestrians. There is no crosswalk provided. Transportation needs to look at the intersection of Byron and University. This whole area houses the elderly with three communities within a twob block radius. There are pedestrians with walkers, wheelchairs, canes, and limited ambulatory capabilities. Oh, yeah. I I want you to look. There were some issues that were shown in the first EIR, the draft EIR. They're still showing up in the final EIR. And to my thinking they have not have been addressed properly. I don't can you all see that on your screens? Okay. The the answers for this is that it's a normal I believe hexagon says it's a normal street as discussed in the draft EIR. Byron Street is a local residential street that carries light traffic volumes throughout the day. This is their

response to this. Because the speed and volume of vehicular traffic would be low on Byron Street, it is anticipated that traffic accessing the project site would not result in safety or operational impacts. In addition, the transportation impact analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants um continues to say there is no safety issue. But okay, now here's another issue that I I feel is going to be a big problem and that is during demolition and building. Where will the construction vehicles park now that there is very limited setbacks that might have accommodated temporary parking for construction vehicles? There is no room on Byron. Will they park on University or on Middlefield? Doesn't there need to be a plan upfront for demolition and construction to accommodate all the large trucks? Okay. Developers cannot disregard public safety safety, including traffic concerns, and cannot invoke builder's remedy without providing some mitigation or modification to the project. In order to use builder's remedy, they must provide alternative solutions to secure the safety of the population surrounding the plan development. So I think they're this they're using vehicles mild travel. That's mostly the answer in um to to these situations and the requirements. The project checks they it does through vehicle miles travel check regulatory boxes. However, there has never been an adequate study analyzing the traffic volume and safety issues on Byron and University intersection, nor on Byron and Hamilton intersection, nor on Byron itself. This would include multiple days and times of observation. The study should be at least a week long, including weekends with church functions

often take place. I'm asking the trans transportation and planning commission to look at the safety situation with common sense rather than a broad descriptive overview of the streets and thorough affairs and traffic flow of Santa Clara County that hexagon provided. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, if I may through the chair, just a a point to share with the audience. We do ask that there not be audible responses to public comment, positive or negative, because either way, it can discourage others from feeling comfortable to share their thoughts and that's important for this process. Thank you. Good point. Thank you very much for bringing that to our attention, Mr. Der.

Yeah. Um to the chair, our next speaker is uh Kenzie H speaking on behalf of five. Thank you for uh giving me an opportunity to speak and I really appreciate the importance that PaloAlto places on these community comments and and I I'm grateful for that. Um I have submitted through um Emily to and directly to the planning department two uh written statements which are uh relevant to this and there one of them was sent today so you haven't seen it yet. It I'm going to say today we'll follow with that. The other addresses the question of the builder's remedy and let me just mention one thing about that. I believe and if you read what I've sent you will agree that the 680 builder's remedy application is actually dead letter. The reason for that is that when the application was filed it has a 20% reduction from 88 from 110 to 88 units. However, the law does not allow a reduction of 20 20% or greater without resubmitting the preliminary application and the effective date of the resubmitted application is not does not occur until the resubmission is finished. That means that the builder's remedy application disappeared when the actual application was filed because the actual application is exactly a 20% reduction which is greater than the allowed range. Emily pointed out a top limit of of what was 131. I think the bottom limit is 89.

The application they submitted was 88. Therefore, they had to resubmit the preliminary application. So, that means no builder's remedy because the city's housing element was approved in the meantime. Turning to this first, the oak tree. My personal experience is that there was this tree in the city in the town of Los Altos near where I used to live before we moved over to the Hamilton where it was an oak of similar dimension and size and essentially the same thing happened. The re the root structure was um trimmed way back. The um trim was the the tree was pruned asymmetrically and it did fall. A big giant limb fell. Fortunately, it didn't land on a car or a person where the car the the car would be flat or the person would be dead. So this is not a trivial matter and it does happen. Now in that case those changes were all arborist approved. They got permits. There was nothing legally improper. But the consequence was as Chris is concerned about. The other thing about I want to mention here and again this is described in detail more detail in um what I sent you this afternoon. This this little strip of Byron is actually not even in my mind is not even a residential street. It's more like an an alleyway or um a long driveway because it's blocked at both ends. It's just one block long. So to analyze the traffic impacts solely with respect to ingress and egress from the garage is glib and inappropriate. I think that you have the legal obligation to take an a

look at the greater impact. Everybody who's gets exits onto that 500 block of Byron has to go somewhere and they're going to go to university or or over to Hamilton. So you have to look at the effect of of these additional units which of cars which in the abstract are not great in a number but when you get added to the already existing heavily burdened streets it's a different story. Also, you need to look at things like the synchronicity between the traffic lights. When you come out of Hyron and want to turn to the right on University, often you have to wait for the stop light at Webster to turn red. If at that point the stoplight on Middlefield is red, it's filled up. That means the car who's on Byron will not be able to move or it'll make a traffic maneuver, which is risky. if they want to turn left on on middlefield, they have that that problems more exacerbated. Oddly enough, and then there's the problem of the narrowness of the street, too. Oddly enough, the solutions that might fix that, like limiting parking or making it one way, actually exacerbate the problems because if it's made one way, all of the traffic will have to funnel out in one direction and and get all the traffic coming in will funnel in from the other direction. If you um just remove some parking spaces and leave it two-way, you've now increased the the parking deficiency problem, not decreased it. The difficulty here is I I also support additional housing and and affordable housing. Those are all excellent excellent need things and things the city needs. It's just this isn't the way to do it. This building that they propose is too big and it's in the wrong place and it's of the wrong type.

By wrong type, these units are really tiny. If you look, I mean, they're the studios are like 400 500 square feet. Even the the two-bedroom and oneb apartments are less than a thousand square feet. People don't live in these places very long. This is a form of slightly extended transitory and temporary housing. That is what happens over at the MIA, which is a similar kind of project just a few blocks away. The MIA shows um things like very short cycle times between when a unit comes on the market and when it's taken off because it's been rented. Um, it shows that, this is all based on AI research, so you can decide how reliable you think that is, but the rental rates are about $7 a square foot compared to average in the rest of PaloAlto for about $3 a square foot. Three to four. So, this is not cheap housing, even at discounted rates for um below market. This is not long-term residence. This is not the kind of housing that that PaloAlto would like to encourage in my opinion. The uh returning back to the uh traffic problems, if you think about someone coming down university from work um and they want to go into Byron, they would have to make a left turn. There's a short little storage lane that will fill up. When that fills up and there's another car that wants to to get in it, all of University traffic will be blocked. The the the absence of the the place to in front of the building to drop off people, pick people up, make deliveries and so forth significantly exaggerate ex exacerbates this problem. Similarly, you have the same kinds of problems on Hamilton. It's if you're going to go left on Middlefield and right on Hamilton and loop around to Byron,

then you would have the risk that the left turn lane from University to Middlefield, which is already overtaxed, will be completely difficult. the the the to look at this building from a traffic point of view only based on the 500 block by which is what the EIR and the two consultants have done is really inadequate and in my opinion improper. You have I think you have no choice under the law to except to expand your analysis to include the the direct impacts on the major arterials like Hamilton and University. The indirect effects on Linton forest and cars are like water drops. They find some way to go downhill. Water starts here, goes there. Cars do the same thing. That's why you have the all the complexities of left turns and so forth on Middlefield between University and Men Park. That's why you put in all these, you know, roundabouts and oneway streets and stop signs in the residential neighborhoods in Palo Alto. This type of pro of of property will make all those kinds of problems come back again. So, don't approve it. very simple and I don't think there's really any it is okay well we don't want to have an entrance to the garage on the university or middlefield for lots of reasons which you know far better than I if you make entrance on on Byron you just kick the can half block down the street you're either going to turn left to right into the garage or left to right into Byron one half block doesn't solve anything to push the the garage around to Byron except create lots of problems around Byron.

I think that this whole project is illconceived and ill- advised. It doesn't provide the right kind of housing. It doesn't provide adequate address doesn't address adequately the parking problems. It creates all sorts of traffic concerns and complications and really is not something you should approve. Thank you. Thank you.

Our next speaker is uh Carol G followed by Faith B. [Music] Good evening and thank you for the work that you do. Thank you for the work that we all do. Three and a half years worth. Uh I am Carol Gilbert. I am a resident on Byron. When the project at 660 is completed, it'll be foolish to believe that the number of parking spaces included will meet the demand. And given that the developers even engaged a transportation demand management company that offers a plan to reduce the parking demand by encouraging people who move into this building to simply not have cars is a dream and uninforcable. Slide one, please.

Oh, it is up. Okay, great. Uh this graphic shows something that was done in 2014. Uh all the parked areas around the spot, the property that we're talking about were physically counted in the Hamilton area. The situation has only grown worse since then. Clearly, if if if a spot is in red, you were never going to be able to park there. If it was in yellow, it would have some turnover and it would take you far out of the lines to get to really open and available parking. Between 2014 and now, that situation has only been exacerbated. Could you put up slide two, please? I physically walked all around the area and marked what was 2-hour parking and no hour parking around where we live on Byron. Uh same thing is true if it's red, there is no parking, and you can see the location of the building they want to put up. And then in green where there's 2-hour parking, the only visible place for auto ingress egress is on Byron Street. Uh I I'm sorry that we brought that up three and a half years ago because clearly mil middlefield in university were not going to be wise choices. I don't even think that Byron is a really wise choice. But of the three possibilities, it kind of was the only place you could

come and go from. Uh, the accommodation. Oh, am I almost finished? Okie dokie. I will just get to my Miss Gilbert, I'll allow you another 30 seconds, but we do need to

Thank you. Thank you. Uh, we need a lane width that wide enough to pass other vehicles. We need parking restrictions that must prevent blocking by trucks. Emergency vehicles need to enter from both Hamilton and and University. Planning Transportation members, you have a duty to consider all of us within the reach of 660 University and recommend to the city council that they must make changes to the configuration of Byron Street traffic parking and safety. Of course, adding parking to the proposed building would help tremendously.

Your time is up. Byron changes will be made only by the city council, but you can forward what you really think of your consideration. Thank you, M. Our next speaker is Faith B followed by Tim P. That is that that's Faith Brigel. Yes.

Okay. Hello. Um, two weeks ago I was in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, where I used to live. I met up with a former neighbor who became a lawyer and then a judge. We talked about the growth in Toronto. That it was not the same as when I used to live there. There are many more highrises and a lot more traffic and congestion. It used to be one of the most beautiful cities in Canada, but it is not any longer. I thought of PaloAlto and I fear that you are letting the same thing happen here. You're so focused on the growth and more housing and I understand that a lot of it is statemandated, but please consider the quality of life of the neighborhood of 660 University Avenue is what I'm talking about. If you were going to approve it, please go back to the four stories, not six stories. And actually, now I'm a little confused because I thought it went up to six stories because they said you you wanted more setback and I thought they said, "Okay, you can have setback, more setback, but we'll go up." So, I'm a little confused about that, but definitely six stories is way larger than any other in that area, and it sets a precedent for other new developments. And definitely, please request more parking. As everyone before me said, we're relying on you to protect PaloAlto and our quality of life. Thank you. Do I have any more time?

Yeah, you have a one more minute.

One more minute. Balconies. What I think it was the developer who said everybody loves balconies, but um the neighbors don't. Um I'll just leave it at that. It will affect the quality of our lives to have so many balconies and people on the balconies and I agree with everything that was said about the parking that there isn't enough parking. You're going to have it's a large building. It is multi-use. You're going to have delivery trucks. And where are they going to park? In the middle of the street. If they do that, well, first that's illegal, but also that's definitely going to affect um the neighbors. Me, I'm across the street.

I think that's it. Time is now up. That that that's it. Thank you very much for all your consideration.

Thank you, Miguel. Yeah. And just a reminder for the public, uh there is a timer on the podium, so you'll see how much time you have. Um our next speaker is Tim P followed by Steven. Hi. Uh my name is Tim Persine. I'm a PaloAlto resident and I have been so for 10 plus years. And for the first time tonight, I support the uh development at 660 University and I ask the planning commission to move this item on to the city council for a vote. Um, as we know that this project has been in review since 2021. Um, last year I sent an email to the planning commission, don't know if you got it, um, to support 660 University. um this year um I saw it come around again and I decided to show up in person. So there are many reasons to support 660 University. One, its downtown location within walking distance to retail and services. It's near Cal Train transportation and adjacent to transit. And 20% of the homes will be affordable housing which could help PaloAlto make progress on fair housing. As we know, Cal Palto has a bit of a reputation for being an exclusive community and this development could help create opportunity. So, in conclusion, I support this proposed development and I ask the planning commission to vote to move this on to city council. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Clark.

Our next speaker is Stephen Nell, followed by Zena H. Good evening. I come tonight as a representative of the Peloto League of Women Voters who have sent you a letter. I'm here to summarize the high points of the letter. I'm a member of the League board and co-chair of the league's housing and transportation um committee. The league asks that you send this project forward to the city council. Um, please add your comments and suggestions, but it is time for a decision. The letter notes what many others have said. The number of units is up. The number of larger units is up. the 20% um requirement is being met with some units for very low, low, and moderate income residents. So, this supports the league's policy of increasing the diversity of housing opportunities with an emphasis where we can on low and very low and moderate income residents. The project also supports the league's commitment to environmental protection. As Tim said, the downtown location is close to shopping and dining um services and jobs. Residents who go downtown for this project will be able in many cases to walk and bike. It's a huge um positive for the environment and also will mean that they don't have to take up the precious downtown parking spaces if they

walk and and they bike. Um the league letter notes the challenges that you and the council are working on to make it easier and faster to get 100% affordable projects. But it is difficult. It's increasingly difficult with the funding challenges. The downtown parking lot proposals are now in a lawsuit and that could affect the financial feasibility. So getting units in these mixeduse projects is a very very positive outcome toward our by the way the state gave the region a goal but our council and this commission adopted the housing goal. It is our goal now to meet. Um finally, please move it forward. Um the next ending comment is personal. I've been to many of these meetings over the four years. Um people have a right to speak, but we're hearing the same thing again and again and again. Please add your comments and get it to the council so they can um again with everybody's comments finally reach a decision whatever that may be. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Le. Our next speaker is SA H followed by Ali S.

Hello. Can you hear me? Okay, great. I'm Z Hammer. I'm a Peloto resident and I also have family members in nearby um senior uh residences. Um so I'm all in favor of more housing and this is a good location for a new apartment building. Um, at the same time, there are uh serious concerns that have been brought up today and I agree with many of those concerns. Um, the setback requirements need to be met um on University Avenue and Byron Avenue on Byron Street as well as Middlefield. As well as Middlefield. Yeah. Um, this current proposal somehow increase space on the sixth floor and that exacerbates concern about daylight planes and so consider rolling back that extra space on the sixth floor close to Byron. That's a significant change from the last version you have considered. But what I really want to focus my comments on today is the need for a loading space in front of the main entrance on University Avenue. PaloAlto Municipal Code section 18.52.040 040 Chapter D clearly states, "Residential and mixeduse structures with 50 or more dwelling units shall provide at least one on-site short-term loading space for passengers ve for passenger vehicles to

be used by taxi cabs and similar transportation and delivery services. This requirement makes sense anywhere. It's common sense in this location. It is crucial. This location is a gateway for traffic in and out of downtown on University Avenue and it is the block right before Middlefield. Um, it is also an avenue for through traffic connecting 101 and Stanford. Huge amount of traffic. So without the loading space in front of the main entrance on University Avenue, you're going to have traffic backing up on University Avenue. Um, slowing down traffic in and out of PaloAlto. People will not be use able to use a right lane uh to turn right on middlefield. There's a bus stop nearby. It is crucial to have that loading space in front of the main entrance.

This concludes your time. Please insist on that change to the project. Thank you. Thank you, M. Our next speaker is Ali S, followed by Zachary A on Zoom.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Ally Saberman and I'm here on behalf of the housing action coalition. Our endorsement committee had the opportunity to review Smith Development's proposal at 660 University. We proudly endorsed the project. Palo Alto in order to meet their statemandated Reena has to build 6,86 units with 1556 units for very lowincome households and 896 for low-income households. Smith's Development's proposal will help meet those requirements by bringing 70 muchneeded new units to PaloAlto. We were impressed with the project's dedication to affordable housing with 20% of the units for lower tiered affordable housing, which is high, especially considering the current economic conditions. By prioritizing uh affordable housing and urban development, we can create more sustainable and inclusive communities for everyone. We also appreciate the reduction of parking and we would support further reduction in parking in order to maximize housing. We are simply not in a parking crisis. We are in a housing crisis. In terms of land use, the project's C site central location with proximity to essential downtown amenities including Cal Train Station and the inclusion of ample bike parking facilities underscore a commitment to promoting environmental sustainability and reducing reliance on automobiles. The office space is critical in the funding for the project. Namely, the housing and especially the affordable housing does not pencil with the off without the office component. In terms of overall design, we commend the steps Smith's development has taken to preserve the oak tree on site and even has incorporated it into the design. The project will be critical to support PaloAlto and the Bay Area's housing needs. Please move this project forward without any further delays. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Herman. Our final speaker is Zachary A. Zachary, you may now speak. [Music]

Good evening, uh, uh, transportation board. Uh, my name is Zachary Angelmeer. Um, I am a former, uh, four-year resident of, uh, PaloAlto. Um, now, uh, I'm I'm here on behalf of, uh, Pathways for Kids, a organization based in San Francisco that helps underserved kids, but also helps build up communities. I'm also here because um uh I'm working very hard at making it easier for projects like this um to be uh uh one maybe you know maybe one-year projects as far as getting approved um as a as an endeavor of mine and some others uh people that I work with. Now, I I have watched this project for the last three years, commented a few times. Um, and while I highly support anything related to housing in Palo Alto and and and just in general, uh, you have to look at each building in the context of its community. And in the case of this building, it has been looked at in isolation. It's as if someone designed a building, picked a site, but didn't design a building for that site. And that is unfortunately what occurs across the United States um quite often. I just came back from Vienna uh for work and it is clear that in that part of the world they do not think of things that way and so you get really responsible development. And I bring this up because there are many wonderful sites in downtown S Palo Alto um that are underutilized or partially utilized that could spread the uh additional units that you have been adding to this site um to help reduce some of the size. Um so that's just something to consider. But on another note, um I want to bring up two things very briefly. one um everything that's been said about ingress and egress is very important and

everything that's been said around um setbacks setbacks are very important you need consistency uh particularly at the gateway to a city um but I I think that there's really two areas that are being overlooked and as as a circular economist um I know that you can make this building pencil out to 50% um low-income housing um if you think of the If you add sort of two elements, one uh if you make the entire roof agricultural space um and uh being able to sell that as a revenue generator for the building. Two, actually increasing the office space um uh and uh slightly u maybe by 20 30,000 square feet, excuse me, by by 10,000 square feet. Um that will uh provide more revenue for the building. So you can actually increase the amount of of of that. And then two, um, parking, it really isn't an issue as long as the parking garages in the area that have access parking overnight, not saying they have it during the day, but overnight is permitted for people in this building as if it is their own garage.

Yes. Just 10 more seconds. Um, so in conclusion, this building has the right concept but the wrong execution and it should not be moved forward until the execution meets the concept. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Angle Meer. Mr. Do we have any other speakers? Uh, to the chair, that concludes public comment. No more request to speak. Thank you. So, Mr. Smith or Mr. Uh, Cor, if you would like to uh respond to any of the comments you've heard, then we will turn it over to commissioners if they have any clarifying questions for you.

How much time do I have to respond? Three minutes.

Three minutes. Okay. So, I'll do my best. There's a lot that was covered there, but uh more than anything, I just wanted to take this time to appreciate all the comments that have been made in this project over the last four years, both in favor and against. I know there's a lot of passion behind this project both those in favor and against and I appreciate all of you here helping us in this process and staff. Um so just to point out and I know that Hamilton you know has shown up for all these hearings and it's consistently provided um you know complaints regards to the project and we do feel like we've made a lot of changes and there's been a lot of iterations this project to accommodate. We want to be good neighbors. So, I just hope you guys acknowledge we are trying. Um, we also want to acknowledge too though there's a lot of people have consistently been in favor of this project. Housing advocacy advocacy groups, uh, residents as well as, um, League of Women's Voters and a lot of other groups as well. So, um, let me just go to a couple of key points here. Let's first talk about the tree really quick. And I don't want to dive too much into this other than the fact that Chris re I appreciate the fact you know I like mathematics too and I have done some calculations for various things on this project as well. The city arborist is in full support of our approach to the tree has been all along the process. He's available for comment. any questions you have or that the residents have in regards to that, city arburous is available and ready to answer questions. Full support of what we're doing in our approach, working with our artist very closely. Terms of the transportation, just want to highlight that we have um gone from 30% reduction in parking to 13% reduction in parking. Um just want to clearly highlight that Santa Clair Valley Transportation Authority defines the corner of University Middlefield as a major transit corridor. It is if you

look at this slide right here, our area is barely outside the half mile zone. In that zone, we would be required to do zero parking. Interestingly enough, VTA deems our site actually as a major transit corridor, perhaps even no parking. um because we're right across the street from a major bus corridor. You can see here all the different bus lines that it serves. I recognize that cities have different interpretation, but if you just look at the VTA itself, they you view us as a major transit corridor. Also coupled with the fact that the Palto TDM program is designed to specifically reduce parking by up to 30% in certain locations because we're in a major transit corridor. I feel like it goes to it is in perfect line with Powaltto's plan in the downtown to deem this site at least subject to a 20% reduction. We're only asking for a 13% reduction. Again, we have a very robust plan that actually accommodate up to a 30% reduction. We're very confident that. Also, just one last thing, we also really like the tree. We are dedicated and want to save the tree. This is why we've had so much effort with our arborist and the city arborist to make sure this tree lives. So, any other comments? We have lots of more things we could discuss.

Thank you very much. Uh, we have an opportunity for clarifying questions from the commission for the applicant. Do I have any requests? Commissioner Hecman. Uh thank you. So just clarifying questions now. This is for the applicant. Last time you were before us uh there there was a fair amount of discussion about uh the possibility of uh an off street loading spot. And if I'm remembering correctly, it may have related to the area where you're going to be um holding the garbage uh and then bringing it out to the street. And u so that was seven months ago. Uh, and I'm wondering what you can tell us about uh, your efforts to find a place for an Uber or an Amazon or whatever to pull off the street off of Byron um, for a pickup or delivery.

Hi, I'm Amanda Bordon with KSH Architects. I'm gonna share my screen real quick here. Um, so you should be able to see the proposed plan and what's shown here is the area of offsite trash staging. So, we have a trash room that's on site here. Those trash bins are pulled offsite to this loading area that'll be signed for the trash pickup. So, outside of those trash pickup areas, it would remain as street parking. In addition, beyond the 10-ft sidewalk, we have 13 ft setback to where that uh rollup door ends. And so there's uh 23 feet there uh with space for pedestrians to still pass for a car to pull on site. The area within the trash is not tall enough for a trash vehicle or a larger uh loading vehicle. So the the Powalto code requires a 15t height loading stall. As you can imagine, 15t of clear height is very difficult to accommodate on such a small site. Um, but we think that we've provided enough space for those taller vehicles offsite with the limited hours, the trash, and that there's room for cars, passengers to pull up. Um, and then that's also the movein, loading, and unloading area that, uh, residents will have access to.

Okay. I didn't entirely follow you. So I I think what I'm seeing is is that that 10 foot three dimension that's off Byron, right? That that's not on the street. That is the public sidewalk. Okay. That's the public sidewalk. So you're not going to pull a vehicle. An Uber is not going to pull onto the sidewalk to pick somebody up, right? They That's not the plan

there. Uh no, there there can be a curb cut there. We are limited with how close the curb cuts can be. there is uh the currently the trash uh can be pulled to our driveway curb cut um or I believe we it's hard to see on this plan if we still have our curb cut there but the intent would be that we could have a curb cut there for somebody to pull on site into the 13t area.

Okay. Okay. Um and and that 13t area that's is that that has to do with the height issue. So like an Uber, no issue. But is that where the overhang would be? So a tall Amazon truck couldn't go there, but an Uber vehicle could. The overhang is not all the way to the property line there, but it not all of that 13 foot would be available to an Amazon truck.

Okay, understood. Right. And then the area on Byron, um that there's going to be a portion there that um will need to be available on trash days. And so is that like a a red curb zone that people can't park in? Typically it's handled with signage so that there are certain hours kind of like um street sweeping. Okay. So So that would be off limits to parking and therefore available for somebody to swing in only during whatever those trash hours were. Okay. All right. Um that answers my question. Thank you.

Yep. I have Vice Chair Chang followed by Commissioner G. Hi. Um, since I've got the architect up here, maybe you could help me. So, we went through the presentation very quickly. Um, when you were speaking about or when Mr.

was speaking about the moving the balconies around, could you go through that again and then the unit implications? I just wanted to slow down there because that's new to us and I don't think was in our packet unless Yeah, I think it was in our packet. Miss Callus, could you verify that that's new to us? Um, yes, in my presentation I had also briefly touched on that there had been changes about the balconies. These were reviewed by the architectural review board and so for the purpose of my staff presentation that was seen as more under their purview but of course please ask any clarifying questions.

Okay before I ask them more questions can I quickly ask you so um in terms of the unit counts and the affordability is what we have in our plans the accurate count of what's on the table or is this I got a little confused there. Um the applicant did show a slide in their presentation that talked about the affordability in a way that unfortunately I was also not following. Okay. So that's so this is where my questions are. So if you could just start with where uh the the the bit about the change in the balconies and the change in the units and if you could just go through that a little more carefully or slowly. I mean,

so the the idea was to trim the tree 6 ft from the face of the building just to just literally build the building and the balconies, this is in the base scheme, that 70 unit scheme. Then the balconies would be installed at the end of construction and they wouldn't even touch that tree because it had already been trimmed out back six feet. If the ARB, a couple of the members asked that those two balconies that were there in the center of the site, kind of centered on the tree could be deleted, even though they understood the whole thing with the tree trimming. So, we thought our our client would like to have private open space for every unit. And so in order to do that, we tried a version where we split two one-bedroom units over the center of that tree. And so that the balconies are shown. Amanda has that out. Now you can see where the balconies would be located outbound at the area where the ARB had had questions or or had asked that those um two balconies go away. So this splits them out. It changes the unit count from 70 to 66. Um, and then the mix change a little bit, but the exterior of the building other than the balcony, there's no proposed change at all. It would be identical.

And and what would it do to the Okay. So, sorry. Uh, you had shown a chart about the mix change. Could you show that?

Yes. Now, I'm doing this from memory because I can't see that far, but but I think it went from 33 onebedrooms in the 70unit building to 39 onebedrooms. And then the studio count, I think, is 28 in the 70unit plan. And it's 19 in the 66 plan. And the nine, there were nine twobedrooms in the original version, and this would be eight twobedrooms. So that was just the result. If you make the units bigger, then you'd have to remove some units in order to do that.

Right. Got it. Okay. Thanks. Uh that's very helpful. And then from an affordability standpoint, we would have to adjust the mix as well. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. So you can see that on the right side of this chart here that talks about the BMR. So we go from a total of 14 to 13. Too much data for me to like absorb on the fly. Okay. Yeah, that's why Ted memorized it. Okay. So, it go from 14 to 13 in the mix. We basically lose a studio. Got it. That I can

that I got. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um my other question for the architects or applicant while you're up there is um could you show the corner shots again? Um sort of the corner elevation. Yeah, there we go. Okay. This is something in my lack of experience as a plan reader I I missed. Um so in the the last time this was here the PTC had asked to cons to consider a bird safe glass up on the sixth floor. Um so I wanted to see if that is like what are those two corners on the sixth floor where a bird could theoretically see through the glass. What what is that space right there?

It's a residential unit. There's a bedroom and a living room in that area. Okay. And so um the concern about Did you guys consider bird safe glass there at all? the the the Birch Safe Glass. We we we thought, again, this is us think trying to think think this through, but before when there was the terrace um on the other side of the building facing the Hamilton, the big big terrace when it was an office place that that had landscaping on it and birds would tend to fly towards vegetation. It's it's not an exact science, but

because this is just there isn't vegetation in the foreground of it, then the bird isn't going to be confused and and hit foliage or try to land on foliage.

Okay. Just so that because this commission has heard a whole long uh item on bird safe glass and our like what we had learned during that presentation was the issues with bird safety come up when there's lots of glazing that may be reflective or that a bird can see through and think that it can fly through. So that was my concern upon seeing the corners and when I had looked at the plans I didn't realize that because I was only looking at elevations that didn't show the corners. Um so is it feasible to do bird safe glass there? That's up to these guys.

That's something we're happy to explore. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Thank you very much.

Thank you vice chair commissioner G. Thank you, chair. Um, I just also was a little bit lost with the new data about the unit distribution. So, on packet page 19, it says that the number of units is 70, but what I'm hearing is that the number of units is now 66. Is that correct? Our thought was to show you the option um if if this commission um really wanted to um eliminate any balcony in that tree area, then we would we're we're happy to go either way with this to go 70 units and to keep the balconies in that tree canopy area. or if this commission would prefer to eliminate balconies that location, our preference would be to go to 66 units and just shift those balconies out as was described. Does that make sense?

Yeah. And then do you have the like on packet page 19 there's a kind of a distribution of the different income levels like in the 66 design. How does that kind of play out here? I'm gonna have to defer to Amanda on that one. we that that may be something we need to revisit and figure out exactly how we're going to distribute if we go that 66 route option which it we'll do it proportionally in a very similar way what we did with the 70 units

sorry I'll just respond real quick without going to exact detail as you can see on this chart we go from 14 affordable units to 13 and we go from basically the same number of onebedroom same number two bedrooms, they're just one less studio. So really, we're just talking about how to allocate that one studio. Okay. Lisa,

um, another question I have is that so in our last discussion about the special setback on Middlefield, there was some discussion about how there are staircases and a bunch of other utilities that may be existing in the special setback as currently designed. Do you know if those are still there in this current version? Yes, we still have the stair from the uh six floors above that is within that 24t setback. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you, Chair. Um, I was hoping that the applicant would answer um or respond to the comment from the public about whether or not you need to reapply based on these changes. I I'm we have an attorney Holland Knight that represents us in that process and from what they've told us we have uh comply with exactly the process that's needed to comply with the B builder's remedy application and we have a toll-in agreement in with the city that has that on hold until this process unfolds.

Okay. Um but I was wondering did you already talk about that with the city? I mean, what your attorney is going to say is going to be what you want, but I want to know what your conversation with the city has been. Our attorneys over the communicates with the the city on this, and they're the ones that submit the revised application, the revised blur remedy. You've probably familiar with Holland tonight. They do a lot of the work here in PaloAlto with blurs remedy projects. I'm pretty sure they're very very competent and aware of what needs to happen. I'm sure I'm not interested in talking about them. I want to know what is is going on between you and the city. So you have

as far as what I as far as what I've been told the city agrees that our application projevision was applied appropriately and is in good standing. So you don't feel that that's why you didn't respond to it because that's not an issue that has been brought to never heard of it. Yeah,

that's great. Thank you. Um I'll save the rest of my questions for staff. I appreciate that you clarifying that. Are there any further clarifying questions for the applicant? All right, it's uh time then to begin general discussion. Uh I do want to put a little bit of a framework around this. Uh I know we have a few comments on the comp plan amendment. Uh and I don't want those to get lost in what will be the much larger discussion about the PC. So, I'd like our first round of discussion comments to focus on the comp plan amendment and if necessary uh the EIR and I suspect we can wrap those up fairly quickly and then move on to the um more substantive matters. So, Commissioner Templeton.

Oh, you can pass me for later. Um I have a request for a break. discussion. All right. Yeah, this I think this is a reasonable request. Before we get into the major discussion, let's go ahead and have a break. So, we it is currently 7:51. Let's return it at 8:00.

Folks, it's uh time to resume. So, if you would take your seats, please All right, welcome back everyone. Uh during the break, I have been informed that we need another round of clarifying questions of staff before we begin consideration. So, uh I will now open it up to another round of clarifying questions for staff, beginning with Commissioner Templeton, followed by Commissioner Hagman.

Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you to everybody who came here to share their perspective tonight. I know um we're all very passionate about a lot of things around here. Housing and trees are some of the top. Uh so it's it's very exciting um to be able to engage the public on issues like this. Um my first question to ask of staff is really uh I want to know a little bit more about the tree and the history of the tree. And so I was wondering if we could bring the arborist on to answer some questions about that. Good evening, commissioners.

Thank you so much for joining us and it's really a pleasure to have you here. Um uh as you know it it is something that uh we really appreciate your expertise on uh especially in issues like this where we have a conflict or a seeming conflict um between housing and our beloved trees. So um my question is can you tell me about the history of this tree? How old is it? Um and do we have any for example historical pictures of the site from before development? Um I'm thinking like I've seen some pictures of PaloAlto in the 1890s and we can see some of these kinds of trees are present. Is it one of those kind of trees? Uh, no. I do not believe so. Based on aerial imagery that's available in Google Earth, the tree does not appear to predate uh development. Um, I can share my

Yeah, that'd be fantastic.

I'd really like to see uh that and I'd also like to see what trees were present on the site uh adjacent to Hamilton before it was developed. So, uh, what I did was I cut and um some images from Google Earth. And so, here's the most recent image from March of this year. And I measured a canopy estimate of just under 90 ft, which fits with the arburous measurements from the arburous reports. And as you can see, the tree is located here basically on the virtually on the property line between the two parcels. The earliest aerial photos available in Google Earth are from 1948. And as you can see, the tree is barely there. If you look, there's some larger trees off to the left and right. And there's one actually just below this image that I didn't get in the screen snip, but the generous estimate would be about 30 feet for canopy width, which would put the tree in 1948 probably at about 20 to 30 years old, maybe a little bit more. So I would say the tree is at most about a hundred years old at this point. Um, compare that to the tree we recently lost at Rinkanada Park where the canopy width in the 1948 image is the exact same as what was measured recently. So that tree was several hundred years old.

Um, wow. You know, dramatic dramatically different. That tree predated development whereas I believe this tree did not. This is really informative. Um, while you have that picture up, can you show us the adjacent site in the historical photo? Let me see if I can get it over here. So, there's a larger tree here. I don't know if did it switch to the Google Earth view for you guys?

Yes, we have the historical picture. Yep. So if you look down here um below the right here along Byron, there was a very large oak there. Um whereas you can see where the Cardinal dental label is, there's really not much. That's the canopy width from the current tree. And then if we zoom out a little bit, we can see that there's some open space here across middlefield and some additional trees further that direction. That's really give you kind of a Yeah. Yeah, thank you so much. That was my question. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Templeton. I have Commissioner Hecman, then Vice Chair Chang. Thank you. So, u staying with Mr. Dolinger. Uh the the proposed plan, the the version that's in our packet, not the new October version, um that that was introduced to us tonight, uh but shows on the tree side, uh that the tree would need to be cut back six feet, I think it's six feet from the face of the building to allow the face of the building to be built. Uh, is that your understanding?

Correct. That is my understanding that it would need to be at least the width of scaffolding to erect the building and based on discussions with the uh developer at the previous meetings, the balconies could be installed in that same envelope. So, there would be no additional tree pruning required to install the balconies. Um, there would be minimal ongoing maintenance with the presence of the balconies there. But uh tree canopies are not a solid wall. They're they're constructed of areas of uh limbs and small branches and foliage and voids. And so I find it unlikely that these would dramatically impact the uh the tree beyond what was going to need to be pruned for the construction.

Okay. And and focusing on that for a minute, what would need to be pruned for the construction? Do you have concerns that that pruning, which again my understanding is it needs to be pruned back far enough for the scaffolding? I think I heard the figure 6 ft. Um do you have concerns that that that amount of uh initial trimming for the construction will uh present a a hazard that risks the the longevity of the tree? So due to the unique structure of this tree, uh the majority of the pruning that's going to be required to facilitate the project is the removal of one large lower scaffold limb that happens to provide most of the foliage near the uh proposed building location. Um because it's not pruning an entire side of the tree back a certain amount, it's going to be selective pruning. I I think the impact is going to be relatively minimal on the overall foliage or stability of the tree. Um because we're not cutting everything back to a a predetermined line that that it is going to need to be clear, but it's going to be selective pruning to achieve that.

Okay. And then after construction, if the balconies are installed in that open area, um the the the branches will be initially at the edge and over time they may extend over the balcony and that I think is what you were referring to as uh would need on some ongoing maintenance trimming. Correct. Yes. as would the tree in relationship to the face of the building. Okay. So, there's still going to be ongoing maintenance whether the balconies are there or not. Okay. All right. Uh those are my questions for you. Thank you. Um I have one more question uh for Mr. Yang.

Good evening, Mr. Yang. So, in our staff report, uh, as in our last staff report, it states that, uh, that the application that we're considering is an alternative to a pending builder's remedy application, uh, which is on hold in in our current staff report, it's it refers to a tolling agreement that lasts until, I think, the end of the year. Um uh we heard uh during public comment tonight a remark that the uh builder's remedy uh application u may in fact no longer be uh legally valid for reasons that I didn't entirely understand. Um, but I wanted to ask if it is the opinion of our city attorney's office that um that there is a defect in that builder's remedy um application that that the city attorney's office is aware of.

Yeah. So, um the public commenter did identify um a potential issue that staff had not previously identified in terms of the uh kind of the difference between the pre-application and the formal application that was filed for this uh for the builder's remedy project um on this site. Um but because of the tolling agreement that we have um the applicant actually still has the opportunity to correct that defect. Um so I would not say that I would not yeah I would say that the builder's remedy application still uh has the potential to you know proceed if uh in the event that this PHC is not um what the applicant wants to go forward with.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Hecman. I have Vice Chair Chang and then Commissioner G.

Thank you, Commissioner Hecman, for asking most of the questions I wanted to ask. Um, I wanted to ask uh Mr. Gallinger, one more question. So, if we could have you pop back on. Thank you. Hi, Mr. Gallinger. Um so there when this was last here at the PTC um there was a question about the asphalt covering uh currently covering the base of the tree and in our staff report um the staff report captured the information about the tree as follows. that said um urban forestry manager Peter Gallinger stated that it is important for the asphalt to remain during construction but could ideally be removed once the project construction is completed. And I also kind of vaguely remember you saying that it's probably better for the asphalt to be gone after the project is done. Um the applicant stated that both their arborist as well as um you agree that it's okay for the asphalt to stay. And so I wanted to ask you or that it's preferable for the asphalt to stay for the safety of the tree. So I wanted to ask you which is better.

So it's a combination of both. So for sure during the construction the existing asphalt should stay in place to protect the roots that are there. What has changed since the last time we were with PTC I believe has been the design of the outdoor area there with the patio. Um, I can't remember the exact amenities there, but it would have less impact on the tree if those amenities are placed on top of the existing asphalt and then the asphalt is removed around that area. The applicant could probably better answer that, but during the uh ARB that was, I believe, when that was presented and I had a discussion with the project arborist and we agreed that at least underneath those amenities, it would make sense to preserve the asphalt to avoid um additional disturbance of the root zone.

Okay, thank you. That's really helpful clarification. I appreciate it. Thank you, Vice Chair, Commissioner G. Um, sounds like a lot of us have the same question. So, um, but the one additional question I have is Miss Callus, do you have the NFIP uh, document now available? Yes. So, the staff report did not um specify a number because there are 11 of these bulletins and ultimately the project does need to be compliant with all of them. However, technical bulletin six is the one that refers to below grade parking being allowed below mixeduse buildings.

I'm just going to pull it up, but that's all of my questions for now. So, we can go asynchronously. Thank you, Commissioner G. Do I have any other requests for clarifying questions of staff? All right. Then um I believe we can proceed to uh discussion. And as I mentioned earlier, uh since we have these three items to deal with as part of this project, the uh EIR, the comp plan amendment, and then the PC itself, um I expect the bulk of the discussion will uh occur when we're discussing the PC. So I'd like to see if we can clear out the comp plan amendment and EIR relatively easily. And I know we have a few um questions or comments about the comp plan amendment. So if we can make this next round focused on those two things, uh we'll knock them out quickly and move on. Vice Chang.

So, I know Commissioner Templeton will have to leave and I I understand your desire to kind of knock out the e the lowhanging fruit or maybe the easiest discussion first, but I'm also worried like I I don't want to lose um her thoughts for the back for for the remainder. So, um I just thought maybe if we could have her go first to talk about things, um that might enable us to at least benefit from her thoughts.

Commissioner Templeton, are you prepared to uh give us a brain dump of the things that are of concern to you? I don't know if it's a brain dump, but I I also know what kinds of things you guys will be asking that I don't have to dig into because I I know you're passionate about, but there are a few things I wanted to share. And I don't have to leave until 9:05. So, um, if we think we can get through this comp plan stuff soon and then we can get to that discussion, I'm happy to be patient, but if it'd be okay with you, I would love a chance to speak before I leave um on my general comments. Would that be okay? I think so. Okay. Um I don't anticipate any controversy about the uh comp plan amendment or the EIR. Just some observations that I have already been informed people would like to make.

Okay. Well, let's just uh let's just go with that and then um I really appreciate Vice Chair Chang's consideration. Um and I will uh jump in when when we get through or right before I leave. Thank you. Okay. Vice Chair Chang, you have a comment on the comp plan amendment or the ER?

Uh, not on the IR, but yes, on the comp plan. So, um, I was interested in um, let's see if I can find the language that I pulled up for the uh, comp plan. Um, now I've lost it. Um, but I was interested in specifying that the um that the office with the commercial space that is allowed to be redeveloped or kept in a in a multif family zone um be designated for neighborhood serving uses. Um so my thought is that even though the situation is pretty limited based on staff analysis um if we are keeping commercial space um what we know is that in the areas where this uh commercial space is [Music] in that it's mostly around Calab and universities. So, uh, community serving commercial would be quite appropriate, I think. And, you know, we do have this job housing imbalance and so the idea of just preserving any amount of office when it should be housing instead, you know, I just would really like it to be neighborhood serving ideally. So, I was hoping that we could add that.

Commissioner G and followed by Commissioner Hegman. Thank you, Chair. Uh, I think that Vice Chair Chang makes a great point. A lot of the discussion so far also has talked about this site in particular as being pretty close to downtown amenities and with lots of foot traffic. I think that having some kind of neighborhood serving usage for the for the office space or the commercial space is useful. And um I also want to call out that uh municipal code section 181630F actually has a definition for neighborhood serving uses. And so I'd like to uh maybe insert that into the language for for the comp plan amendment. So it would read something like as a part of the planned community zone or in accordance with retail preservation requirements, existing uh commercial footage may be maintained uh or re u wait existing uh commercial footage may be used may may be maintained rebuilt as uh neighborhood serving spaces as a part of a housing development project or something similar to that. Thank you, Commissioner Hecman.

Thank you, Miss Callus. Can you remind me? It was in one of your earlier slides. This uh comp plan amendment is potentially applicable to how many properties? I identified approximately 35 um in a survey starting with you know the list of um properties and then okay looking at Google maps and that sort of thing.

Thank you. So so um I'm I'm supportive of the of moving the comp plan amendment forward if um we decide to move the uh project forward. um even though we're talking about them separately um I really think that they're connected if if for some reason we weren't willing to move the project forward we can defer conversation on this um so but but as a part of that package I am supportive of it um I will note that in the res so this amendment will apply to roughly 35 properties give or take and and this is a comment I made back in March the findings for the various policies many of them focus on this particular circumstance and those all of those which is policy L11 L1.4 L1.6 L2.2 and L2.6 six. Uh, so nearly all of them need to be made generic because this is a finding. We're not finding that the that we're going to do a comp plan for this property. We're we're finding we're going to do it for the whole city. And so the findings have to be applicable to the whole city or the subset of the whole city that uh was identified by Miss Talis. So um so that I think is important. Um uh in terms of the potential modification uh that's been uh suggested by the vice chair and supported by commissioner G. Um um I'm I'm hesitant to apply uh in this instance a one um um you know one sizefits-all to perhaps 35 projects because I don't know where they're all located and I don't know if every single

one of those will uh uh what they're giving up and and what they would be uh potentially converting to uh neighborhood serving as defined in our zoning code and uh so I think a more appropriate way to address that is going to be on a case-byase basis. In this instance, we've got a project in front of us and if we want their 1984 square ft to have a particular limited use, then I think we should uh make that a condition of approval. Um and I did notice incidentally in the finding for policy L-1.6 six um we actually used the term the needs of the community for maintaining existing medical office and again I don't know if that was sight specific here but if if we didn't change that then it would be medical office in all 35 spots which I didn't think is appropriate but but and I'm not adverse to talking about a limiting of that office use on this site but that's why I don't want to do it for the other 34 because I don't know what's involved Oh um and on the uh EIR um I uh you know the the E the EIR had come to us in March um um there have been up the changes in the project and uh staff's determination that the the pre from a sequest standpoint those uh the changes the addition the reduction of office the addition of um uh additional units were really a dimminimous environmental impact and I think that is supported in the record. So I really um um find that the it's appropriate to recommend um the EIR to the city council.

Before I uh select Vice Chair Chang, uh does staff has any staff have any comment on Commissioner Hecman's uh suggested rewrites for the findings? Um, no. It is clear that it should be more broad and not specific to this project. That makes sense. Okay. Um, vice chair Ch.

Um, so thank you, Commissioner Hecman for that um point of view about a way to address in the specific location. Um, I just did want to say that my thought about a broader uh comp plan, the broader language to apply it to the citywide is because of the analysis shown on the top of packet page 17 where it's talking about 35 properties where the majority of them have medical office use and the majority of them are located around downtown. um but that some are also located around Calav and so that was my logic for it but I'm also fine addressing you know the specific situation as as you've proposed as well I I'm just leery always of comp plan amendments because they do have that broad and far ranging effect and if we're saying that we want to preserve that we're going to allow office to be preserved um I know that based on prior discussions here in the commission, what we're really wanting in terms of that commercial space in general is more neighborhoods serving. So, just food for thought there.

Uh, further question for Commissioner Hecman. Um, I'm curious as to why you suggest that this should strictly proceed as a package. Uh we did talk about this some the last time this project came before us and there was concern that um strictly speaking uh some of the decisions to be made about this project required that the decision about the comp plan be made first. So what what was your rationale for um preferring that uh they go forward as a package? Uh well, I I suppose what I prefer is they leave here as a package. Um but if we want to and uh I mean my point was if it becomes clear that it's the will of this commission that we're not going to recommend uh this proposal in any form. We're going to recommend that it be denied. Then in that scenario, I don't know that we need to forward a recommendation on the comp plan. So maybe we what we could do but I think we'll have a sense of first of all I don't believe that's going to be the direction but we'll the discussion will tell and so maybe if we can have the preliminary uh I'm I'm okay I'm wondering can we v vote on them sequentially at the end or right after we've discussed all three can we first vote on the EIR recommendation then the comp plan recommendation and then the the project

I I think we can uh we have the freedom to to choose that. Um I was interested in getting the discussion of the comp plan and the EIR out of the way first because I really expect us to concentrate on the PC

and I didn't want to uh I didn't want things to get lost in that larger discussion. But I think I'm hearing we have a sense of where we would like to go with the comp plan and the EIR. Uh I will add my single comment on this which is I did go through the EIR updates in some detail and they are interesting. There are some interesting changes particularly for transportation. Um but again um I see no uh no reason to object to the uh conclusions that have already been reached with respect to the EIR. All right. So given that I think we have uh a sense within our own minds at least of where we're going with those two, let's proceed to um the PC itself where I think most of the interesting discussion will happen. And Commissioner Templeton, would you please go first?

Thank you. Um yeah, I this is such an interesting project. Yes, we've discussed it before, but I I've been really um engaged by how organized the different constituencies have been. Um and of course the applicant, you know, uh we're getting a lot of um very helpful engagement. And so I've been trying to wrestle with uh as I mentioned before this um tension between the tree and the building of the homes um and the experience that those uh that are living nearby are are predicting or worried about. And one of the things that that really struck me and this is why I asked the question before is I'm just trying to understand if you know this this project we have explor expressed explicitly how much we want to protect this tree right this is something we have talked about as a body um that the applicant has u made adjustments they understand the seriousness of this and our hope for it and um we've heard from public comment that, you know, this tree shall not be shall not be touched and we really need to consider that any of the um um changes to the tree would affect the health of the tree. And so um that's what got me to thinking about, you know, what is the history of the tree? How important is this tree? How old is this tree? How fragile is this tree? Right? are we actually in danger of killing the tree if we make any of these modifications including the root base um the trimming for the scaffolding and things like that. So um what I heard from the arborist is that these plans really do not concern him about the health of the tree. Um, and I'm wondering, and this

may be a question for staff, is what is what is going to happen if some if the tree is damaged?

Yes. One of the conditions of approval, and this has been in place, it was already in the draft in March, is to have um a bond on the tree. So, if anything um were to happen that goes outside of what is anticipated um then that fee I don't have the amount of I remember us talking about it and it's worth bringing up again so thank you for that. Um so so with that um kind of um you know insurance so to speak in place I I'm now I'm thinking about the engagement of of people who are so against the the touching of the tree that they'd want to kill a project like this. And it is something I'm really struggling with because what we saw was many trees were cleared in order to make the project that is the current home of all these fine people. And so for me I I struggle with that because I'm happy that they live here, right? I'm happy that they have a home to live in and I want people to be able to live across the street. So then my thought process here is well can we not touch the tree? Right? And we've talked to the builder and currently uh with our height restrictions and other cost things to pencil out that's not on the table. Right? And so then I look at it to what extent is that our fault as a city because we're trading off the height for the tree and but now as a result we're affecting the tree because of our height situation. So I don't know

that we can resolve it. I did want to walk through that thought process together because I know we are all working and wrestling with all of these parameters that we have to deal with. But from my perspective, I'm very satisfied with the changes that were brought here uh from the applicant and that the the community has been engaged and has had a chance to speak up. Um and I really hope that um we can come to an agreement on how to move this project forward. So I do want to hear everybody else's thoughts as well, but generally I feel the tree protection is there. We have affordable housing on deck. We have potentially some community um amenities on deck and uh you know with the suggestion of the bird safe glass I I think this could could be a really good project. Um the the biggest thing probably that's something that Sher will get into, but the biggest thing is how to make sure that that traffic on that street uh really works because I think that was the the major issue that was brought up by the public. But I also feel like that's one we can work through. Um so I'm hopeful that we can come together on this. So thank you for listening to my thoughts.

Thank you, Commissioner Tibbleton. I have Commissioner Hecman and then Vice Chair Chang. I think that's a ghost light. Okay. Uh, Vice Chair Ch.

Okay. Um, thank you to all the members of the community for coming out and for your extensive research. I can tell that a lot of effort went into it and I appreciate it. Um, so I found the concerns um that the community that the neighbors voice compelling with respect to the traffic and the circulation and the type of housing. Um, one public speaker mentioned um that this project offers. Um, with respect to the tree, I think that last time I'm not a tree expert. So if our city arborist is comfortable with it, then I go with what the city arborist says. And I think that he explained his logic and reasoning and it made sense to me. Um so for this project it is very large and its traffic impacts could potentially be very severe given its location. On the one hand it's a great location because it's near downtown and we want denser housing near downtown. But then the sticking point for me aside from the tree remains the setbacks because even though we may not have a bike lane or an extra lane of traffic all the way along Middlefield that is a spe that intersection specifically is a very busy intersection. There's a potential SB 330 development down in Menllo Park. If that happens, and some version of it likely will, the traffic on Middlefield is going to be uh even more congested. Um and so I could see that I mean it's kind of the applicant actually showed an image and showed that you know

if you really extend much past university in Middlefield there is there are a lot of buildings there that extend into the 24 ft setback. However, that block itself on that side of the block is clear right now. And I can imagine that our city may want a host of things such as pedestrian islands for senior corner to make it safer for pedestrians there, especially as we move towards a world where we're hoping that a lot of people aren't coming with cards. Now, how realistic or not that will be that that's a debate. But if that's what we want, then we need to be planning for a world in which that intersection is safe. Um, and so it's kind of university and then either street to the north and south of university. Those are the intersections that are particularly important for us to protect. And if you look at that picture that the applicant provided, it's actually pretty darn good there. we wanted to do kind of small things like left turn lanes for congestion or pedestrian islands. Um and so that setback is very important to me. And so my decision really hinges and the only reason that we're considering encroaching into or the only reason that I I think I'm really looking at this project and possibly going to recommend um to city account like recommend approval by city council is because of the SB330 application. So my because other than that if if that SB330 application didn't exist according to our own code this PC would violate all sorts of things in the special consideration section which is 18.138 sorry 18.38.150

and so um I find myself in this unusual situation where I can't make finding number three um for kind of technical reasons. So, finding number three, pack page 35. Um, and I had checked with Mr. Yang beforehand about why our findings are in the record of land use action and not in the PC ordinance and he said that oh, they should probably be in both places and that's something that staff could do um for between now and council if we do indeed recommend this project for approval. Um but for finding number three, it says the use or uses permitted in the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the PaloAlto comprehensive plan and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. And it's not just the comp plan needs to be consistent with our code. I don't think that this project is consistent with 18.38.150 for any number of reasons including um that this was zoned RM20 and there's it's zoned RM20 next door and as a result certain daylight planes apply and we know that those daylight planes are being violated and staff has done a really good analysis of of the issues with respect to 18.38.150 on packet page 54. So I kind of can't I can't make finding number three. Um similarly on a like technical basis the comp plan has this is not consistent with the comp plan because and we had a little bit of a discussion of this last time this was here like the comp plan amendment should have been done first. Now of course city council can do whatever they want to. So that's why staff has brought us a comp plan amendment at the same time. But I literally cannot make funding number three because the comp plan has not been been fixed um or to allow this project. That said, there's this

overarching issue of SB330. And so then on balance approving this project would be consistent with the comp plan because the alternative project assuming that this SP330 application is still valid would be way worse in terms of being consistent with the comp plan. So um those are sort of my broad thoughts. There are a bunch of small uh things that I would like to add such as word safe glass for those two units on the sixth floor. Um removing the asphalt surrounding the improvements, the patio improvements under the tree. Um I thought that the applicant's proposal to address the feedback from the ARB regarding the balconies was a good one. I like that alternative better for a host of reasons. One, the impact on the tree, but also the change in the unit mix I think creates units that are like it creates fewer studios and more onebedrooms and that is better in terms of housing that um is less transitional and and likely longer term housing for residents of our city. So, I liked that um option that the applicant brought and thank you very much for bringing it. Um so, those are my thoughts right now.

All right. Seeing no other requests to speak at the moment, I'm going to jump in because some of what I wanted to say in this round uh dovetales with what Vice Chair Chang has just said. Um I will be interested in uh proposing some conditions of approval on the next round but these are just more general comments. Um yeah, I too observed that uh this project violates the special requirements for PCs and that makes finding uh number three very difficult to to justify. Um, and I think that's that's not only on the basis of concern about the comp plan amendment, but also compatibility with nearby sites and the development standards that determine that compatibility are specifically called out in the finding and those are specifically the standards that are violated uh that are specified in 18 38.150 that are violated. So, I have I have a hard time with this. Um, my inclination is to um forward the project to council. However, I find find myself in this kind of untenable position of wanting to recommend a project that the plain language of the code says I can't. And um my general comment about this uh for staff is it would be really nice if we could make the code self-consistent in this respect and we don't have that at the moment uh as we've discussed in the past.

Another approach that might be worth considering that could be uh accomplished more easily would be to borrow the concept of a statement of overriding considerations from SQA. So if we had an option um if we had the option of saying um despite its benefits this project also has negative impacts that can't be mitigated but I find that the project has enough benefit to justify it moving forward despite that incompatibility. So, that's the mechanism I'd like to have that I can't seem to find that would uh make it easier to move things forward. So, please take that as a a recommendation for something to consider uh in the medium term. All right. And uh once again I will have some COAs to um propose in the next round but in the meantime I would like to hear Commissioner Hen.

Uh thank you. So really my starting point in in this analysis um is something some of the other commissioners have mentioned and that is um uh based on the information we have um we are not looking at this project in a vacuum. We are looking at it uh in contrast to a builder's remedy application. Um which our as our city attorney just explained if it is the view of our city uh legal staff that that the pending application is legal or if for some reason it's technically not it is correctable within the framework of the tolling agreement. And so I think for our purposes tonight and certainly my views are colored by that. Um and so I am comparison comparing the project proposed tonight with what I view as the alternative. And the that alternative instead of somewhere between 66 and 70 units is 88 units to apparently 131 units. Uh according to one of the slides we saw and I suspect that has to do with issues like density bonus uh that can grow a project. Uh instead of something like 66,000 square feet, it could be up to 101,000 square feet. And so so uh I I appreciate as as as at the prior hearings uh the neighborhood showing up in force and forcefully expressing their concerns. Um but they are part of those concerns are are uh their quality of life and um and my view is that uh it would not have surprised me after we

uh heard this in March for the developer to say you know it's already been over three years that's enough let's just turn our attention to the builder's remedy to their credit uh they made refinements and and I think improvements uh and I'm appreciative of that. Um but I suspect their patience has some end and um I don't want to uh be a part of the process that causes them to pivot to that builder's remedy uh project uh uh which all of you neighbors will feel inflicted upon with uh greater heights, smaller setbacks, uh more traffic um and so so uh I'm looking at this project in that lens. And on the merits, um I want to note that that um in our housing element process uh our city council has recognized that this property uh uh is a housing opportunity site for 65 units. And so the contemplation um of the city is that that is the desirable level of density uh for this site. and and with the current proposal um uh at 70 um I I think uh we're there. Um I appreciate that since March we've uh reduced uh the office uh space in this building by I think 80% uh 70% from 9,000 down to 2,000 and that has allowed an increase of the units from 63 to 70 and a and an increase in the size of those units. um uh and that's uh a benefit um on the tree. I find that um based on the views of our arborist, it's adequately protected and um and my

preference is uh of the alternatives, if you will, uh the 70 unit version um with the balconies um because um because we need more units. We need more units of every size. And while it's true that um if we took the new uh October version and reduced down to 66 there those units would be somewhat larger. There will be other larger units. Remember we have something like 1,500 um affordable units to build in this arena cycle. And so so um I'm interested in opportunities to to get that number reduced by filling some of those blanks uh sooner. I'd rather take that that's you know four more units for people to live in sooner. Um and so that's where I come down on the the 70 versus 66 plan. uh the loading space. I appreciate the additional thought that uh the applicant has uh um undertaken and had an answer for that tonight. I I I'm not positive it'll work, but it it could ameliate some of this issue. And so I think we have to to figure it out and and u you know go forward with that one. Um let's see. Oh, on the tree, you know, I I am I am curious whether the um our arborist is now suggesting rather than remove all the as uh asphalt only remove the part that's around the outside of I think it's a deck that's going there. I don't even know how much

asphalt that is. Um um I'm okay and I probably should have asked the applicant earlier um if if that presented any problems. I'm okay with making that a condition of approval and if the applicant has an issue with it, they can raise that with the city council and and say here's why that doesn't work. Um um I'm supportive of the staff solution uh for the treatment of the part of the garage that's in the special setback um that that there be an easement um to to secure those rights long term. I I do think that if we do that somewhere in the conditions of approval which which should state a a number of parking spaces if ever that easement becomes utilized there will be and it's not clear to me the the applicant letter said three spaces left. I I thought I saw somewhere in staff report five. Whatever it is, it should be clarified that if the city activates the easement then the parking requirement is reduced but from 78 to whatever the number is so that we don't get into a fight years down the road about no now you're underparked. um the bird safe glass concept. Um I'm uh uh you know I guess the issue is coming up because it's a corner and so a bird would kind of fly in sideways which I think is better than headon. But I don't have any uh incidents on how birds survive hitting a window at 45 degrees versus uh dead on. So, I'd be supportive of a condition of approval uh uh dealing with that for the sixth floor uh residential. Um and then um oh, I noticed there in the uh record of land use approval. Um there uh there are a few uh changes that need

to be made. There are potentially there are uh three references to 66 units that might become 70 uh in our recommendation. And in finding three there's the language maintain the proposed to remain medical office use. Um um I haven't heard that and again that this may be a discussion that we're going to have have about whether that uh uh 2,000 square feet should be limited to that. Um so that may or may not need to change. Incidentally on finding three like the other findings um I think the findings can be made. I I think I interpret it a little differently than the chair and uh the vice chair because I think what binding three is is in the planning purview. It's the it's really focused on the use and uh not the design. Those design aspects are really in the ARB finding section four which were are not in our purview. So so and that's so because we don't interpret findings to be repetitive of each other. we have to see why we would have different findings and so that's how I break it down. So, so I'm comfortable making all the findings one, two, and three. Thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner Hecman. Yeah, I think the the source of disagreement between us on finding number three is that I see not just the land uses but also uh the the phrase and the site development regulations applicable within the district. So I see there are two conditions to be met there. Vice Chang.

Um, so I don't want to jump the gun or cut off um discussion, but I can see that there are no other lights here. So I was ready to make an a motion and then again as usual hopefully the rest of the commission will help. Uh would you like COAs before making the motion or after? Well, I had COAs in mind also regarding the parking, but if I think that's right. You had said that you wanted to throw some COAs in as well. So, please go ahead. Uh before I do that, I think Commissioner G was in ahead of me.

Thank you, Chair. Um I am also in agreement with my some of my fellow commissioners about finding three. Uh I find that uh those on the commission know that I am very intimately aware with section 1838 to150 the the PC amendment and I and I won't kind of comment on any of the specifics. I think the public comment has done a great job and I really appreciate all the public comment that has come forward um highlighting all of the exceptions that we've had to make um on packet page 53 like setbacks, density, the loading space etc. So I kind of won't comment specifically on that. Um, I also happen to have a a transportation planning background and I also am really concerned with the transportation havoc that is going to occur here. Um, my grandparents live at Linton Gardens and so I'm pretty familiar with the space here. Um, I may or may not have been one of those people who has parked on Byron because it is very convenient as of right now. So I apologize for that in advance. Um, and I do think that uh kind of on packet page 61 with the the uh PTC motion responses that the applicant saying that the parking permits are uh for the cost it's unabled and not financially feasible for this project. I think that my my guess is that chair Aken will probably have some creative commentary in his conditions of approval which I'll defer to at the next statement. But I I just kind of want to reiterate the the comments from my fellow commissioners that finding three uh is kind of something I struggle with. And I know that also the ARB findings are technically out of scope for the PTC, but I'll just kind of comment on them as a general matter. So for example, ARB finding four on packet page

37 says that the design is functional and allows e ease and safety of pedestrian bike traffic and providing elements to support the building's necessary operations. convenient access to property, utilities, etc. Anyone who has been on Byron can probably say that the new design is not really that compatible. The amount of traffic that's going to come in here, especially with um the the the senior corner that we we previously mentioned and also that uh ARB finding two that says that uh the project uh provide enhances living conditions on the site in adjacent uses. I think we've kind of heard loud and clear that the adjacent use of the living condition is not being improved by this project, but those are out of scope and I know those don't um impact our decision-m here, but just want to call those out.

Thank you, Commissioner G. Any other comments? If not, I will uh dive into some transportation COAs. All right. Um, as staff suggested and uh I think Commissioner Hecman agreed, we should establish an easement on the middlefield side uh to protect potential use uh for what was once regarded as the special setback uh and now seems somewhat conditional. Um and we need to do that and provide enough depth below grade so that we can relocate signal poles if we need to. Um my recollection is that um senior engineer Rus's estimate was around u 16 feet the last time this came up for discussion but the applicant's architect has designed for a depth of 20 ft and that's certainly um a reasonable choice. So, uh, I would propose, um, my COA number one, establish an easement covering the area reserved for the middlefield special setback to a depth of 20 ft below grade. Now, this is larger than the 400 square foot area that's identified on the plans today, and I don't anticipate needing to go below grade for that entire area, but I can quite easily anticipate needing at grade for that entire area. So, we need to figure out how we would like to express that sort of constraint. So, what I propose is the easy one. just make it all 20 feet deep with the uh likelihood that we would use that being very all of it being very low.

The other two conditions that I'd like to propose are related to spillover parking. So, I think there is really good reason to worry about spillover from this project. Uh the on-site parking has been reduced. Um, state law requires us to allow the residents of the project to park on the street. Uh, we can't restrict that in any way. And the financial incentives strongly encourage parking on the street because you're talking about for a resident $1,800 a year versus $56 a year. It's clear that a significant PE number of people are going to go for 56. Um, and perhaps the the final straw is that there are no specific spillover measurement or enforcement provisions in the TDM plan. There are only a few casual mentions of the issue with nothing that's either specific or enforcable. So, having heard the feedback uh on the proposal I made last time to constrain the the price of the um on-site parking, I'd like to propose a couple of conditions that will um hopefully cover the same concerns but with a great deal more flexibility. So, condition two um we need to gather some data. So, beginning two years after start of occupancy, the building's management will report annually to the office of transportation the number of on-site spaces that are being leased. I'll explain a little later how that comes into play, but I think that's not an honorous requirement and it's similar to requirements we've used in other projects. Um, this allows the office of transportation

to determine if the on-site spaces are being used effectively and that's one of the key things we need to know to deal with spillover. Now, RPP permit uh residential preferential parking um program permits are associated with the address of the permit holder. So that means the office of transportation has the ability to make a good estimate of how much spillover uh is caused by the project. Um I specifically want to invo avoid having to do surveys because that's expensive. The time you do the survey makes the results unreliable. Um, this measure is easy, inexpensive, and consistent. I want to give the Office of Transportation the flexibility to decide how much spillover is too much. Um, and just as in other cases, what penalties or incentives should be applied to fix the excess spillover if it occurs? Um, I don't want to specify that tonight. That should be done by the professionals in the OOT. However, I want to give you an example of how this would work because I spent a fair amount of time trying to see how um it could be made viable before making these suggestions. So, this is just an example. Um, the Office of Transportation often assumes that an area is fully parked if it's more than 85% occupied. As far as I know, there's no standard for excess spillover. So, OOT would have to would have to establish one, but I trust that they can define one that is reasonable. uh for the sake of this example, let's

say it's 15% of the number of on-site spaces. So total we're covering covering about 100% of the on-site spaces. Uh for this project, that works out to be about 12 spaces. So there are three conditions that arise. If there are fewer than 12 permits, RPP permits sold to building residents, then everything is working as intended and no action is needed. So if you believe the TDM plan will accomplish its goals, then this is the case that applies. If there are more than 12 permits sold and the on-site occupancy is greater than 85%. Say then that means the demand reduction in the TDM plan is not working and that's a piece of information OOT needs to adjust to the TDM plan. Finally, the third case, if there are more than 12 permits sold and the on-site occupancy is less than 85%, then you have spillover, then people are choosing not to park on site. they're going onto the street and that exports the inconvenience, safety, safety hazards, um pollution, noise, all the the problems associated with excess parking um to other people's neighborhoods. In that case, the Office of Transportation should consider applying penalties or requiring that the price of on-site parking be reduced in a negotiation with the building management.

um to encourage residents to move their cars back on site. I would hope that building management would support this idea because this is the situation in which they're losing revenue because they're not making they're not they don't have good occupancy for their on-site parking places. So, um, they have an incentive to try and make sure that occupancy on site is, uh, as high as is practical. Miss Armor.

Yes. Through the chair, I wanted to note that I believe we had a commissioner who has to leave at this time. I wanted to give her a chance to make that statement or anything else before she does.

Thank you. Are we close to making a motion in the next four minutes? I can extend five minutes. I'm through with my example. I will just read the uh condition just say that um I believe while I believe this is a good example of how things could work, it really has to be done. The design has to come from OOT, but I want to make sure the problem is not ignorable. And thus the third condition, as part of the TDM plan, the office of transportation will develop a method to assess spillover parking created by the project and impose incentives or penalties when spillover is excessive. So those are the three conditions that I would consider um adding to the motion.

Commissioner Templeton, no, I'm not making the motion. I thought Vice Chair Chang was. No, I just wanted to know if you had any further comment. Okay. No, if if we can vote before I go, I'll participate and if not, uh, I appreciate everybody's comments. Vice Chang, then.

So, I'm going to attempt to capture things. I might not I've been trying to type notes and I may not have done everything. So, I move the staff recommendation with the following changes. Uh first, in order to address the issue of balconies in the tree protection zone as highlighted by the ARB, that the project be modified to either be the 66 unit option as presented by the applicant tonight or that the project remove the balconies from the H2 units for floors 2 to six to reduce the encroachment into the tree protection zone as recommended by the H A ARB. Um second the addition of the following conditions of of approval to the record of land use action. So first the three um COAs that chair Aken suggested which is one to establish an easement covering the area reserved for the middlefield special setback to a depth of 20 ft below grade with the provision that if the easement is used the applicant is not responsible for replacing the parking spaces that are removed which I think is what commissioner Hecman suggested. Okay. Second COA, beginning two years after the start of occupancy, the building's management will report annually to the Office of Transportation the number of on-site spaces that are being leased. Third COA, as part of the TDM plan, the Office of Transportation will develop a method to assess spillover parking created by the project and impose incentives or penalties when the spillover is excessive. Fourth, COA, remove the asphalt under tree number 10 after construction as recommended by the urban forestry manager, PaloAlto's urban forestry manager. Five, uh, bird safe glass for the two units at the corners of the sixth floor, which I believe are units E and F2 on the sixth floor. six uh designating that the

approximately 1,900 square ft of commercial space is for neighborhood serving use. So that is it. Now, are there other conditions of approval that I missed or do we need to make changes regarding um the comp plan goals that are cited um for the comprehensive land use element modification? You know, as you had suggested, Commissioner Rman.

Well, I think actually in your condition six, you just did that. Okay. by specifying for this site uh that 1984 has to be used for neighborhood serving. You've you've addressed it and maybe recommending council send it back to us for broader use if we need to have consider it more broadly. Um no, so I made us the condition of approval would restrict the use for this one site, but you commissioner Hecman had brought up other issues with the actual text of the amendment I believe. Oh. Oh, sure. You're talking about the record of land use approval document which which actually um

right had cited a bunch of comp plan goals and policies and we need to um that's yeah that's in the uh well that's on that's on the comp plan. So we're not right now right now you're making a motion on I'm making a motion for the entire staff recommendation which has three parts. The EIR the comp plan as well as the PC and the record of land use action. Yes. Then on the record of land use action, if you'll include in your motion that they should uh consider uh making the findings in in that record of land use action more generic. Okay. What he said for the comp plan, we understood. We've got that. Great. So that is my motion. Second.

Um sorry. Well, I just that clarification because you've used the term neighborhood serving use, which I'm fine with. Finding three in the uh on packet page 35, finding three, the description currently refers to maintaining the proposed to remain medical office use. Do you need that change to be consistent?

I had asked staff about this beforehand and I apologize. It's a typo. It's a typo where red lines weren't like fully captured and staff meant the language to actually say maintain office use, not maintain medical office use. So now I'm just saying we switched that to neighborhood serving use. Okay. All right. So So finding three is going to be revised to be consistent with condition approval six of your Yes. Correct. Okay. Very good. Do we have a second? Second. Pardon me. I just spaced there. You did you did get it in in time. Right. I believe it's time for a vote. Yeah. Uh, Commissioner Peterson,

hi. Uh, Commissioner Templeton, yes. Commissioner G, yes. Uh, Commissioner Hecman, no. Uh, Vice Chair Chang, yes. Uh, Chair Aen, yes. U, motion carries 51. Um noting um Commissioner James absent. Thank you. I have I have to excuse myself now. Thank you. Thank you very much. Commissioner Templeton, would you like to speak to your number? Yes, please. So, and if I Sorry, before you do, just a clarification. Commissioner James is absent, not G.

Yeah.

And and Commissioner Templeton has left. U so so u while largely I supported the motion there there were a couple aspects to it that that um I I thought we left four units on the table. I explained that uh earlier. Uh I uh again I I thought the units were were right sized at 70 and um but uh and then if if if I didn't have that issue, I probably would have just asked that condition uh of approval number three regarding the RPP permits be voted on separately. But um we were going to lose commissioner and since since the I wasn't supportive of the main part of the motion u because of the loss of units I didn't feel need to do that but I will say on that um issue uh first as shown in one of the diagrams we are about this location is about two blocks from a half mile to the C train station where where uh buildings will be able to be built. with no parking. And anybody who has a car and wants to live in one of those buildings will likely be applying um um for an RPP permit. Um and so my thought is is this is like, you know, whatever putting a a finger in the dam. Um there's a much bigger issue that I think we should be um talking about and I think we are talking about comprehensively. Um, uh, here I think there is a real, uh, you know, you just run the numbers and there's a delta per parking space of $1,740 a year. There are 78 parking spaces. I I just, you know, did math. I figured, well, you know, just carry that out 20 years. That's $2.7 million. Now, you'd

have to reduce that to present value. It's still a pile of money. Now, I I think the city is interested in not having um this uh parking spill over to the neighborhood, but I doubt the city would be so interested that they'd be willing to to sub reduce their impact fees by that amount um uh to ensure that that this owner could park everybody at $56 a year uh that wanted a parking space there. So, so I I was supportive though of the idea of um uh collecting the data uh which is now a part of our recommendation. So, I'm happy for that because I do think in this bigger discussion of what we're going to do in parking downtown with all these uh places that might be built with no parking, um I think that is going to be uh useful data. So, those are the reasons for uh my no vote, but I am pleased to see uh the project uh moving forward uh to council.

Thank you, Commissioner. And just an observation, um, projects that are built in the CD zone are not eligible for residential parking permits. So without gaining all the rest of the fine points that you just made, that's useful to know.

All right, then. Uh, I believe we are concluded with this item. And we are ready for item number three. Request for a zoning text amendment to 18.18.120 to allow existing floor area to be replaced in new buildings without increasing the degree of existing non-compliance. Uh do we have a staff presentation? Staff will take just a minute or two to get switched over and then we'll move on to this project.

Let me know when we're ready to proceed. And I think as Commissioner G just stepped up, we'll ask him to return. All right, we are ready to proceed whenever you are. Thank you, Mr. Switzer. Please proceed.

All right. Well, good evening. Uh here before us, we have I'll wait for people to exit the chambers. All right. Well, um, good evening and, uh, before us this evening, we have a text amendment to, uh, amend the non-compliant grandfathered uses and facilities in the downtown commercial district. So, just a little bit about the request. Uh this is to allow existing non-complying floor area to be replaced without restricting the existing building envelope. It's commonly referred to as the shrink wrap rule. And to kind of frame the discussion tonight, I wanted to provide a little bit of background of the legislative history of how we've gotten here today. So if we go back to the 1980s, uh back in 1986, there was an ordinance that uh is detailed on the screen here that established the commercial downtown district. So uh that was in response to some uh soaring development in the early 1980s and some concerns about the compatibility of either large commercial projects with some nearby residential neighborhoods. In creating that commercial district, uh council had the uh foresight to understand that uh there needed to be a provision of some replacement of non-complying floor area for these existing structures that didn't meet the current standards that were put in place in the CD district. So following that in 1988, a report prepared by staff concluded that buildings within the newly formed commercial downtown district can be

remodeled or replaced if there's no increase of non-compliance. So that could result in either a um increase of either height if it's still within the governing CD district regulations, length with footprint, what have you. And that continued for about 27 years of consistent staff interpretation of that uh 1988 report. And if we move forward to 2013, there was a proposal to relocate a non-complying floor area in the property across the street at 261 Hamilton. It was roughly around 6,000 square feet that would be relocated uh from the basement to form a rear addition on the structure. Following that, after multiple hearings in 2014, uh council clarified that the zoning code section prohibits shifting the grandfathered uh floor area, if you will, in the downtown, including from below grade to above grade. And following that, in 2015, council directed staff to prepare a code amendment to reinforce uh said provision. So after some time and preparation on staff's behalf, in 2017, an ordinance was adopted. This was roped in with quite a number of items, but uh ordinance 5373 clarified and provided a definition of the building envelope in the current CD district and it is detailed on the screen as well as in the staff report and um it prohibits the replacing of non-compliant floor area in a way that would alter the existing building's three-dimensional shape rather than its potential maximum buildout. Following that, in 2022, there was a pre-screening for 616 Ramona Street to

allow for the replacement of non-compliant floor area. While that project was or potential project, should I say, was wellreceived, there was some concerns cited by council and I've highlighted those in the staff report as well as on the screen here. And just to go through that briefly is the potential number of properties that would be impacted by a code amendment. highlighting some of the pros and cons of said code amenment change such as either historic impacts to some of the historic structures in the downtown area, seismic and ADA improvements that could be sustained with new buildings, as well as additional open spaces or rooftop terraces that might come with new development, as well as some opportunities for council to potentially incentivize housing in the downtown area, as well as a relationship, if any, to the transfer of development rights program that currently allows some flexibility in floor area in the downtown district. So on to the actual proposal. So the applicant has provided a proposal in attachment A uh with the proposed text amendment language and that would essentially remove the subsections that were added in 2017. So that would allow existing non-complying floor area to be demolished and replaced with either renovations or new construction at perhaps differing heights, footprints, and building envelopes with not with not increasing the uh degree of non-compliance. staff provided a little bit modified version rather than perhaps writing say a blank check if you will for the uh reconfiguration of this floor area that comes with some limitations for retail and residential exceptions. So those modifications could potentially

incentivize or incorporate residential and retail uses and redevelopment projects when opting for the reconfiguration of this non-compliant floor area. And that language is provided in attachment B. So some considerations for the discussion tonight. The staff report does provide a little bit more detail, but those are highlighted on the screen here. And just going through some of these, uh, finding the connection of some of this language to the council's priority of retail revitalization, potential impacts, if any, to some historic resources in the downtown area, the relationship to the transfer of development rights program, uh, the downtown development cap evaluation from 2014, the ongoing efforts that we have with the downtown housing plan, some fiscal and resource impacts detailed in the staff report, uh the ongoing efforts with Senate Bill 79 as well as potential properties affected which is an attachment D and I have those highlighted on the screen here. So out of the 302 total parcels in the CD district, uh 87 of those have sustained some uh either remodels or rebuilding from uh building permit data from 2011 to 2025. So those are unlikely to rebuild soon. 19 of those have had a floor area above 1:1 and 66 parcels have that non-compliant floor area. So, of those 19, if we subtract that, there's likely 47 parcels that would be affected by this said code change. For the recommendation, uh staff is

looking for the PTC's, uh feedback on the proposed text amendment, and uh we're definitely all ears. So, with that, I can entertain any further questions. And I know that the applicant has a presentation that provides some context as well. All right. Clarifying questions for staff. Commissioner Hecman.

Uh thank you. Uh first question. The title of this item uh refers to allowing existing floor area to be replaced in new buildings uh without increasing degree of existing non-compliance. My my impression is that the shrink wrap rule would apply to a remodel, substantial remodel, not just a tear down new building. Uh and and I think that's what's intended here, new construction in buildings. Um but I just wanted to make sure that the title is broad enough that that um we can go forward tonight. Um

I will defer that to the city attorney to see if he is comfortable with us proceeding with this discussion. Um, yes, I'm I'm fine with that.

Okay, thank you. Uh, next question. The staff report recommends that we um uh review the applicant's request and provide feedback to staff. That's in the recommendation. But um u on packet page 250, it says following the PTC's review and recommendation, the evidence would go to city council. So my question is, does staff want feedback or a recommendation to come out of uh this uh agenda item?

Feedback for tonight. Uh and that uh section of the staff report that you were referencing is more so about process of next steps. So but feedback for tonight would be desired. Yes. and and we would continue this discussion to a date uncertain um because eventually if there is a code change it would require a recommendation from PTC to council council making the final decision.

Okay. All right. So we're going to see this again. So feedback tonight when it comes back to us a recommendation. All right. Uh and then the third question I had is um um one of the slides referenced you know 27 years of consistent interpretation. I'm wondering if staff has uh a rough count of the number of interpretations that happened between 1988 and 2015. I know in the Hayes letter they cite I think 10 that were specific to them, right? And and they were aware of others. So I'm wonder if staff has a a broader number so we can get a sense of its utility during those years. There is some limited records, but uh ours do align with the uh applicants for the u more recent projects, but if we get a little bit further back in time, uh recordkeeping is a little uh difficult to kind of connect those dots. So, as for an exact number, I do not have that for you.

Okay, fair enough. Thank you. Those are my clarifying questions. Any other clarifying questions for staff? If not, then I believe it's time for the applicant's presentation. the uh here um for a meeting. Um good evening uh Chair Aken, members of the commission. Um thank you so much for your How many do I have? 15 minutes? Okay. Um I should be fine. Um thank you for uh uh your your service and for your endurance especially. Uh my name is Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects and I want to talk to you tonight about the shrink wrap rule. Um the uh a little bit of history of course staff has done some of that. Um a little bit about the paralyzing effect that the shrink wrap rule has had on the downtown in the last 10 years. Um and offer a very simple solution that I was actually looking for a recommendation to council um on to tell you the truth. Um but uh it all started in 1986. So in 1986, council adopted ordinance 3696 which reduced the F and the CDC from 3:1 to 1 one. Um but they acknowledged at the time that many properties would become non-complying as a result. The ordinance that was adopted required that facilities that when built were

complying facilities shall be deemed to be complying. Quote, "Such a facility shall be permitted to be remodeled, improved, replaced without necessity to comply with site development regulations. Any such remodeling, improvement, or replacement shall result in increased floor area, height, length, or any other increase in the size of the facility only pursuant to exceptions to floor area regulations. and those are historic bonuses, seismic bonuses, and TDRs. Um, this language not very clear, obviously led to confusion over non-complying floor areas. So to clear things up, in March of 88, uh the city manager staff report to council offers an interpretation. And the area that's highlighted in yellow there says where existing floor area at or above grade is eliminated, whether that's the whole building or a portion is demolished. Such buildings would be permitted to be remodeled and replaced provided there would be no increase in the building's non-compliance in floor area or in height. However, in remodeling or in replacing, such buildings would be permitted to be reconfigured in terms of length, width, and height so long as the existing floor area was not increased except for the aformentioned exceptions. Um, also in no event could you go higher than 50 ft. Um, it goes on to say that, and this is in the staff report, uh, this could mean that a two-story 10,000 ft² building, which shown on the left, could become a three-story 10,000t building with a reduced building footprint so long as the height limits were not exceeded, the 50 ft. Such an interpretation permits reasonable, this is quote, reasonable flexibility for buildings undergoing remodeling and or replacement so that improved building design that the city has identified over time is contributing to the enhancement of the downtown will be encouraged. Close quote. So, one can imagine the green area there and the building on the right, which is the same

floor area um could be used for site amenities or a better site plan, but the building is the same in terms of area as the two-story building. And these are just some examples of uh our projects in the downtown. All of which, and this is probably from 19 90, let's say, um until 20 1996 until uh 2015. Um and uh they all utilize non-complying uh floor area. But everything changed in 2016 when council adopted ordinance 5373. And this is different than what staff said. Staff said 2017. I believe it was 2016 during controversy on 261 Hamilton across the street and added the red text to 1818 120 A2C and B2C. And it reads, if I again may read, um, grandfathered uses and facilities are permitted to remodel, improve or replace site improvements provided such remodeling, improvement or replacement complies with all the following. And this was how it was interpreted forever. Shall not increase the floor area. Shall not relocate below grade floor area above grade. and C shall not result in an increase in the height, length, building envelope, new text, building footprint, or any other increase in the size of the improvement. And then for the purposes of this section, quote, building envelope, unquote, shall mean the three-dimensional shape and size occupied by an existing building. It's not sort of the envelope of the site um for the potential development of the site. The red text is the birth of the shrink wrap rule. Um, as I've diagrammed there with my pallet, the shrink wrap rule renders non-complying facilities frozen in time paralyzed unless an owner wants to eliminate existing floor area to build a new better building. In a typical class B commercial building, existing floor areas worth at least 1,200 bucks a foot. The shrink wrap rule

says to replace a building and existing non-compliant floor area, the new building must match the existing building's 3D shape as though covered in plastic shrink wrap. Just like the pallet on the slide, no owner I know is going to tear down their building to build back the same building. They want a better building. We all want a better building. Therefore, owners of existing buildings, non-complying buildings are paralyzed. to replace a building with a new better building with greater floor to floor heights and reconfigured footprint or to provide needed housing um in our downtown in a mixeduse building. The new building must eliminate existing non-complying grandfathered commercial floor area. Therefore, an existing two-story building with an F 2:1 must eliminate one story. and a three-story building with an F of three to one. It needs to eliminate two stories of existing floor area to be compliant. For a 5,000 square foot site common in the downtown, this is at least 6 million to12 million in value. No owner is going to tear down their building to lose value. Owners of the existing buildings are paralyzed. I did some of my own research and also had a public records search done to help prove my case. new buildings in the downtown since January 2016, almost 10 years now, total one. It is 620 Emerson, which is the Nou Garden building, but it wasn't subject to the shrink wrap rule. It was a complying building beforehand, so they could do whatever they wanted. 429 University, we're all familiar with that, was approved before the shrink wrap rule, so it wasn't considered. 355 Hamilton, which is actually outside of the housing down. My boundary is the housing study area. Staff's boundary is the CDC. Um, but if it was, it would not have been subject to the shrinker rule either because it too was a complying building before the demolition. That's on the corner of Webster in Hamilton. Remodel

buildings in the downtown since 2016 total two 480 Linton, which was one of ours. It was not subject to the shrink wrap rule since it was a complying building and 355 university which was the design within reach building. It was subject to the shrink wrap rule and it's the only project in 10 years that has the constraint of the shrink wrap rule that an owner embarked on a project and that actually wasn't the owner, it was the tenant. So that was also our project. New buildings built or remodeled in the downtown subject to the shrink wrap rule total one in nearly 10 years. This is paralysis. Owners of non-complying buildings don't know what to do. They're unable to move. They're paralyzed. Lewis Mumford, urban theorist and historian of cities, said, quote, "The city must periodically divide and renew itself or risk suffocation." Close quote. Mumford warned that cities that refuse to divide and regenerate become stagnant and diseased. He believed that cities should grow like living organisms shaped by human needs, nature, and history. The shrink wrap rule has led to paralysis and it will lead to the eventual suffocation of our downtown. Here's a parcel disposition map that I prepared based on the downtown housing study area, not the CDC. Um, properties, historic properties. Um, it lists historic properties, recently redeveloped properties, non-complying properties. And I'm happy to come back to this later if you have questions about it, but in the upper right hand corner is this legend. And basically this is what the legend says. There are approximately 276 parcels in this area that I studied. Subtracting recently redeveloped parcels, historic properties, public facilities, and residential properties from this leaves 98 properties available for redevelopment in in this study area. Of these, 42 or 43% are subject to the shrink wrap rule and will likely not

redevelop because of it. However, according to the city's map in the staff's in the in your packet tonight, actually, um it is worse. 47 out of 66 properties or 71% are subject to the shrink wrap rule. However, the benefits to the downtown and building owners by eliminating the eliminating the shrink wrap rule are many. We get better buildings responding to contemporary needs. Healthier buildings and workplaces. Energy efficient all electric buildings with solar arrays offsetting embodied carbon over time. Greener buildings with daylighting. Safer code compliant buildings. Accessible buildings. Many of these existing buildings that are multi-story have no elevators, no accessible toilets or perhaps even entries. We get more desirable retail spaces with higher ceilings and storefronts. It encourages owners to build mixeduse housing projects by allowing owners to replace their commercial floor area. You get a increased property tax base. There's no increase in commercial floor area. It's the same floor area that exists. And it restores the natural process of renewal that was interrupted by the shrinker rule in 2016. And it is fair to building owners who have paid property taxes and parking assessment in l fees for years on existing floor area. I propose the city remove the shrink wrap rule sections 1818 1282C and B2C. Removing these two sections will allow existing floor area above grade to be replaced in new buildings that better respond to the natural and built environments. These new buildings may have different footprints, heights, and envelopes. They will be able to maintain their existing floor area without increasing the degree of non-compliance while complying with all other site development requirements. Please make a recommendation to council tonight and move this forward. The shrink wrap rule, eliminate the shrinker wrap rule and restore the natural evolution and health of our downtown. And I'm happy to answer

any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hayes. Um, normally we would find out if there's public comment so that you have an opportunity to respond to it before we question you. So, Mr. TVO, do we have any uh public commenters? Yes. uh through the chair. I have two requests to speak then let's proceed. All right. Uh our first speaker is John S.

Thank you very much. Good evening commissioners. And I also applaud your uh fortitude in getting through all these things and spending so many nights here. Uh John Shank with uh the Thoitz brothers and representing the Thoitz family who's been a active member of the of the community for I don't know 130 140 years. And we uh today probably have the most numbers of properties in the CDC. Um, and we stay in very close contact with our many retail, more retail than office tenants, but we have retail and office in the downtown. And as well as the neighbors, as Mr. Hayes was describing, the I think my term has been the mummification of the downtown. We've looked at acquiring a property and ended up not because of the shrink wrap rule. We knew we couldn't do anything to the building in the future without losing more than half of what we were thinking if we would buy. Um I know it also dampens the marketplace in the downtown from um companies who want to look at, hey, if we were to move in and we want to be able to grow, could we add on? There's some land. Nope, you can't. Nope, we can't. Nope, we can't. And that's bad. Um, some people think and you know there's been a voice in the community that's sort of anti-off like somehow office is bad but boy retail is great. If we don't have office we're not going to have retail. Our retailers have all submitted to the city especially at the beginning of COVID when we were trying to figure out what's going on. 70 80% of their sales are from the office employees. We need that. we need

to reinvest in our in our buildings, in our spaces. Um, and and just there's also something just from the ownership side of the property owner side where there's and it just feels wildly unjust to say, hey, you built a building according to code. the city council did what it did early on recognizing I think more in the moment what the intent was and what the city's position was on these legal non-conforming buildings and to now hey thanks for paying all your assessments on it and on all this square footage and all these things but to reinvest and get a retail height that's decent and redo the office and get rid of asbestous in buildings and all these things that happen in a more normal course we can't you're you're you're leave it as it is or get rid of it. It doesn't make sense. Um, and I'm also hoping and I implore you to stay focused on the shrink wrap rule in these words and not conflate this issue with other meaningful things like how do we generate more housing, how do we do this, how do we do that. I think we need to really focus on this as we work on all these other matters. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. She. Our next speaker is Mark M.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Mark Moreny and I'm one of the owners of 616 Ramona, which is just across the street on Ramona here from um and in um I want to say that I think the the ordinance that was passed in 2016 was an illconceived ordinance. it was I think it was really targeted for a specific property and not didn't have the foresight to see what the impact of it would be on our um building stock in in the CD district specifically and uh in downtown in general. Um, in 2022, we had a pre-screening with the city council to talk about our project, and I think it was wellreceived, but they simply, for all intents and purposes, said, "We can't do anything about it because the shrink wrap rule uh doesn't allow you to effectively touch the exterior of the building or modify it at all." And um two years ago in front of the architectural review board uh we had a study session and it was uh well received by the by the by the members of the architectural review board and uh in fact uh chair I'm going to probably get this fixed up but tr chair Balt took a straw poll um of all members at the uh that asked whether or not they supported um in our case increasing the building height by 10%. All of them thought that was was acceptable to do. Um again the code wouldn't allow that to happen. Um but just shows the the um the difficulty or really impossibility of working with the shrink wrap rule. So thank you for your consideration on this matter.

Thank you very much Mr. Hayes. You have three minutes to respond if you wish. Um, and I suspect we will have some questions for you. Yeah, I guess my my response I mean it's consistent with what what what they've said um that uh it just seems like a real unjustice that was done kind of in the heat of the moment in 2016 without fully understanding what the consequences might be on the downtown building stock. Um and I think we're finding that out now. um and uh you know it's it's going to have a greater effect um on uh you know on the future. So I I really think it's it's an urgency. So thank you.

Thank you commissioners. If you have questions to ask of Mr. Hayes uh Commissioner Hman. Uh thank you Mr. H. Can you pull up the slide that you had with the changes the council made in 2016 on

No, I'm sorry. I thought you said staff. My apologies. No. Um, yeah, if you can. I'm here a lot, but um I am so sorry. That's okay. That one. Yep.

Okay. So, I want to um ask about u part B. uh shall not relocate below grade floor area above grade because that's that's a provision that according to our staff report was actually added in 2016. That was one of the changes they made and which might make sense because that project that spurred this was 5,000 square feet coming from underground up. Um, so it was new in 2016, but from your proposed change, it seems like you're not proposing to delete that. So, um, I'm not 100% sure that that that it was added in 2016. All right. Um, you think it was, Stephen? For sure. Um, anyway, that was the policy since I've been working in PaloAlto. So that would go back to 1989. Um, and you would never you were never allowed like the 27 uh Joseph Banks building. The reason it has that basement down below with that nice well it's an office space. We thought it could be retail was because we couldn't bring it up

and that building was done in 2001 something like that. All right. So it was always the policy that you could not bring below grade floor below floor area above grade. Okay. All right. So So and that's why when I am looking at your proposed modification, you're not touching that prohibition. I was not. Okay. So then when we look at C um uh what I I think you are correctly showing here the language added by council in 2016.

Correct. You're proposed and and and you've commented in your letter and here that before council made these changes from the time of the interpretation in 1988 until the council made the shrink rack wrap rule, it worked fine. The the the ordinance as interpreted worked fine. So, so that made me wonder why your proposed revision for C doesn't just take us back to what C looked like in 2015, but rather you have it uh you're proposing delete the whole thing, which seems like it would make more flexibility than we had before 2016. Well, so I think that C in the text in black that was there before um the um that's uh you know I think left over from the original language that staff had to issue an interpretation in that staff report in 1988. This is what we meant.

I still think this is very unclear. I mean it says shall not result in an increase in the height, length, building envelope or any other increase in the size of the improvement. How would you interpret that if you were an architect or and with staff even if this red text was removed? But it just needs to be cleaned up. I think so. But I think the answer from 1988 to 2015 was you look at the interpretation. Correct. And and that worked for you on at least 10 projects. Yes.

Okay. So, so do you think by doing your amendment and which takes all of C out, are you creating actually more flexibility than existed from 88 to 2015? More flexibility. Yeah. Without Without that there, I I don't see that it would result in a different building than if it is there. I just think it makes it clearer. Okay. You can't move below grade floor area above grade and you can't increase the floor area unless you have exempt floor area which would be TDRs and seismic and historic bonus.

Okay. All right. Thanks for that. Yeah, that's uh I'm clearer now. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other clarifying questions for Mr. Hayes? Right. Thank you, Mr. Hayes. Uh, it's time to open it up for discussion. And I would like to needle staff a little bit about uh our intended action tonight. Um, what's the rationale for not making a recommendation to council? So, I'll start and the project planner may have something to add, but as stated in the staff report, there are a lot of moving parts going on in downtown right now. And so things like the going through the process for the downtown housing plan and the potential for Senate Bill 79 um could be signed by the governor any day which would uh potentially increase the heights and densities and F all of these parcels up to you know 70 65 to 75 ft in height and FS of three or 3.5 depending on how far you are from the transit center. Um for projects that are at least a certain percentage housing, there's so many changes. It's uh the recommendation from staff is to have this initial discussion because we do have an application before us. Um but with the understanding of all of those things going on at the same time um that this may not be the time to move forward

um with an action on this given that next week the environment for this the context at least in terms of the state law could be drastically different than it is today. I see. Thank you. That's that's sufficient for my understanding anyway. Um further questions, Commissioner Heckman. So questions of staff now we can proceed to discussion if uh no more questions remain.

Okay. So I do have a question for staff uh and that really relates to this the the dialogue I just had with Mr. Hayes. Um the so I understand the the staff alternative version uh in attachment B um removes the the shrink wrap rule in a more limited set of circumstances to retail, retail like and residential. Um what what I'm trying to uh understand is the version proposed by the applicant is it effectively the the same as existed prior to the shrink wrap rule or is it more flexible and you know the the explanation um for Mr. Hayes, uh, which by all means might be right, is the the applicant's version equals the pre205 version plus the 1988 interpretation. It gets you to the same place so that for any application, you wouldn't get more or less. and and that may well be. So, but I'd like um staff um to weigh in on that. And if you don't know tonight, if this is coming back to us, then I think that's something we should understand. And and again, my my perspective on that is is if it wasn't broke, if it didn't appear to be broken prior to 2015, then why shouldn't we just go back there, but maybe with retaining the sentence about you can't move from underground up, which appears from the staff report to be something that was added in 2016.

So, do you know now or is that something you need to study?

I can definitely take a stab at that. Uh I think you know this text amendment offers a a timely opportunity to address some barriers uh to the existing code that we have uh in downtown. Um there as mentioned by the assistant director a lot of ongoing planning efforts at either the state level or um the local level with our housing um plan downtown housing plan and uh some retail revitalization priorities of council. Um, if we're looking at the language itself, um, it's a little hard to kind of pinpoint how, uh, removing C altogether would either make it more or should I say less restrictive than the 1988 interpretation. Um, I think having no language there, uh, I think it definitely would be understood that you could reconfigure the the floor area. um having the 1990 1988 interpretation uh that staff report was provided because the language that if we were to revert back to was unclear. So um I think you know if we're considering that at least from my viewpoint it's a code text language in the code as well as an interpretation that has to be you know paired with it in order to get that final conclusion. So if we're able to provide some more clarity or conciseness in the code without having to have a a reliance on an interpretation document that perhaps would be a good situation to be in. So,

so if if there are other questions, I'll yield. Otherwise, I can make some comments. I see no other light. So, let's proceed to discussion.

All right. So, and staff, thank you for that. I I um conceptually I agree that I think it's ideal to have a code that can stand on its own without a separate 30 plus year old interpretation that has to be re read as a companion. So and I think you're right this is a a good opportunity to to do that um through this process. So I first I I wanted to thank um uh the the Haze group. Um you know we we have applications from architects and developers all the time. Usually they're focused on a single project. It's pretty rare that um an entity will, you know, take the laboring or and bear the expense to actually change an ordinance that's beyond their project that that really for the benefit of the whole city. And it I think it does take uh a longtime player in PaloAlto and we have a lot of you know ex extraordinary talent um in the development community here in PaloAlto. So, so, uh, I just wanted to acknowledge that I appreciate it. Didn't you didn't have to do it. Um, but you did it and and it's a problem that that I think needs a solution. Um, it um, lawyers have this uh, saying uh that bad facts make bad law. And what it refers to is sometimes you get these weird situations and judges react with a ruling that might make sense for that one weird situation, but the ruling isn't limited to the one weird situation. It's it applies across the board. And when you start to apply it across the board, you get all these unintended consequences that really weren't thought of because they weren't

in the little bubble that that judge was addressing. Um, and I feel like that might have happened here back in 2015, 2016 is something really um um an application was made that the council really disliked and they said we have to fix it. We have to fix it so this can't happen. We have to clarify this. And so they added this provision. You can't move stuff from below grade above. But then they added some other things perhaps because those weren't an issue on that site not thinking through um what had happened. But now we've got 10 years of data or more accurately the absence of data um showing that there were some unintended consequences. You know, we haven't uh I did read the minutes. Um actually I thought that I thought this that because the transcript of those 2016 minutes was here. I figured, oh, this must be in the Stanford item, which is at the back. It's like 70 pages. So, I read through that, not finding this, except there were actually some references to, well, oh, they've got some legal non-conforming, but that's okay because of the ordinance. So, there actually some kind of backward references. Um, but but so, um, I didn't really know, one of the questions I had is what happened? Why did this happen? And that was anticipated by our staff in answering that. Um, but so now we've got 10 years of non-data to know there's a real problem with an unintended consequence. And so I do think we need to fix it. Um and uh because it seems like we're not making a recommendation, I I would um like staff has just goed forward to ensure that um that losing the the language and C

that was there before 2016 um won't somehow um create the unintended consequence of allowing things that couldn't happen between 88 to 2015 to happen. So I'd like you and you might have to sort of think through some a few examples uh to do that. Uh and so then the the last comment I'll make is there's a uh staff alternative u which is really to apply this in a more limited setting to retail uh retail like and residential um and and I'm uh I I appreciate the provision of the alternative but um um I think we need our buildings to to become new when they can to upgrade and I don't uh and there's only 47 of them um that we're talking about anyway and so I don't want to eliminate some of those and force them to stay as they are inefficient outdated um um because the owners aren't wanting to uh aren't able uh to renovate because of the shrink shrink wrap rule. So, um uh it would be interesting to know well um you know how many of the 47 might that apply to? In other words, what I think the potential the realistic universe for the applicant's version is 47. I I um I didn't see in the staff report the realistic universe for uh the

staff version. I'm assuming it must be somewhat smaller. Maybe it's in there. I just didn't see it. If I may, uh 66 parcels would be affected and that's removing the 19 that had sustained some renovations from 2011 through 2015. So that would bring it down to 47. So 47 would be the number that would likely be able to redevelop in in the near term if if we're thinking about that. But it would apply to all the same parcels. The difference between the two has more to do with what's proposed than what's existing.

Right. Right. So if unless I was one of those 47 parcels, unless um I was proposing retail, retail like or residential above ground floor, I'd have the shrink wrap rule. Thank you, Commissioner Hecman. Vice Chair Ch.

Um so I also would ask I mean Commissioner Hecman had some really good questions there. Um, my initial reaction to kind of the two options that were presented were that I appreciated staff's restriction of the of the applicability. But um but what the applicant said about you know showing that you could make the building higher and set it back further. Um, that makes a lot of sense to me. So, it's unclear to me. Like, I don't have a good sense of what the the goals are. If we're saying that, you know, this office is here and we're fine with that office continuing, then I don't see any problem with changing the shape of it. I I don't know. I'm trying to understand what the sh purpose of the shrink wrap rule was. And without that context, it doesn't make any sense because the zoning is what should determine the shape of the building. Um, and if we're grandfathering stuff in, then the question is it's it's kind of a larger question, policy question. Do we want that office existing office to be transitioned to something else? Um, and if that's the case, then we need to think about what we want it to be transitioned to to um, and then the staff inter the the staff option B, sorry, attachment B would make sense. But I think that's the big question and I don't think I have enough information in terms of kind of the interplay between office and retail and housing and all of that. I mean it

is very very linked to the downtown housing plan and and and SB79 and what happens there. So that sort of I think it's sort of like what are the goals that we are trying to achieve here. Um I don't think shrink wrap itself is the goal. So but then what are the goals that shrink wrap was trying to achieve and I don't think we have enough context for that. So that's I mean I think yeah that's my overall feedback. I need some sense of what council wants here or what the downtown housing plan wants in order to figure out what changes should be made. I do think that the current like the current language in the code is not good. It doesn't make any sense at all for any number of reasons. So okay thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair. Uh, anything from Commissioner G or Commissioner Peterson?

Commissioner Peterson. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I'm supportive of it. When three people come from the community, they're practitioners and seem to have, you know, a unified voice on it. I think it speaks to me that definitely this is something that needs to be done. And um looking at the wall over here, I'm trying to say, okay, who who who did it and um yeah, I'm I'm favorable of of definitely uh these revisions. Commissioner G, anything?

All right, I have few comments. Um, I appreciate the incentive that is baked into um, staff's proposal in attachment B. However, I like the simplicity of the applicant's version um, in attachment A. So, while I would find either acceptable, I find version A preferable. Um, assuming that uh the concerns raised by Commissioner Hecman have been addressed, is there any other feedback you would like from us?

Thank you for the feedback that was provided. I think it uh definitely gives us uh some more things to think about uh in this uh opportune time that we have with some ongoing efforts. So, thank you. Thank you. And good luck working your way through all of the complexity of the next next period. Because this is because this is listed as an action item, do we need to continue it to the uncertain? I will defer to the city attorney if he has um an opinion on that. Um yes, there should probably be a motion to that effect.

Okay. I move that we continue this item to a date uncertain. Second. Uh Commissioner Peterson. Hi. Commissioner G. Yes. Commissioner Hecman. Yes. Vice Chang. Yes. Chair Aen. Yes. Motion carries 50. Uh noting uh Commissioner James and Templeton are absent. Thank you, Mr. Together. Um I have a quick question for staff before we move on to commissioner questions and that is still no minutes to approve.

That is correct. Sometimes we do receive them in batches and we will share them with you at a reasonable pace once they become available. Okay, thank you very much. All right, it's now time for commissioner questions, comments, and announcements. Do we have any?

I see none. Very well. Then we are adjourned.