City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: November 10, 2025
Report #:2507-4975
TITLE
PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave [21PLN-00341]: Request for Approval of a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) on Three Parcels (511 Byron Street, 660 University Avenue, 680 University Avenue/500 Middlefield Road), to Demolish Existing Buildings and Provide a New Six Story Mixed-Use Building with Approximately 1,900 Square Feet of Office, 70 Multi-Family Residential Units, and a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. CEQA Status: A Draft Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024, and Ending on May 17, 2024. The City published a Final EIR in March 2025 and a revised Final EIR in October 2025. Zoning District: RM-20 (Multi-Family Residential).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt the Resolution in Attachment B certifying the EIR and Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP);
2. Adopt the Resolution in Attachment C amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element to modify the allowable uses in the Multiple Family Land Use Designation;
3. Adopt the Planned Community (PC) Ordinance in Attachment D rezoning the subject property and approving the development plan, uses, and public benefits; and
4. Approve the Record of Land Use Action in Attachment E with approval findings and conditions of approval.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to deconstruct two existing medical office buildings (9,216 square feet) at 511 Byron Street and 680 University and rezone three existing parcels (511 Byron Street, 660 University Avenue, and 680 University Avenue/500 Middlefield Road) from RM-20 to Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.38 (Planning Community Zoning). The parcels would be merged under a separate application, and the resulting parcel would be redeveloped with a new six-story mixed-use building with 1,984 square feet of ground floor office and 66,754 square feet of multiple-family residential use. The residential component, as recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission
(PTC), will include 66 units (19 studios, 39 one-bedroom, and eight two-bedroom units). One unit will be designated as a manager’s unit. Thirteen of the units would be provided as below market rate (BMR) units (20%), though Staff recommends a slightly modified distribution of the BMR units. Parking spaces will be provided in a two-story below-grade parking garage with 78 parking spaces. The project also includes a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow office use in the Multiple-Family Land Use Designation in limited circumstances as detailed further in this report.
The City and the public have reviewed multiple versions of the proposed project in various hearings, as described in the Background section below. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) and PTC reviewed the current proposed design on August 21, 2025, and October 8, 2025, respectively. Both hearing bodies recommended approval of the revised project with conditions and recommended revisions.
The proposed project serves as an alternative to a Builder’s Remedy application that includes 88 units and 9,215 square feet of office, for which a Senate Bill (SB) 330 pre-application was filed on May 14, 2024, and for which the applicant submitted a formal application on September 3, 2024. The Builder’s Remedy application has been paused in accordance with a tolling agreement between the Applicant and the City.
The City, acting as the lead agency, circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Report for this project for a 45-day review period beginning on April 2, 2024, and ending on May 17, 2024. The Draft EIR found there are no significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. A Final EIR was published in March 2025, which included a response to comments. To reflect the recent modifications to the project, the City published a Revised Final EIR on October 1, 2025. The Revised Final EIR concludes that the project, with the proposed modifications, would have no significant and unavoidable impacts.
BACKGROUND
The project has been reviewed extensively, and the applicant has proposed substantive revisions that required additional analysis several times. Including the prescreening, this meeting is the tenth public hearing for this project.
Prior City Reviews & Action
The following summarizes the project review timeline to date:
October 25, 2021 1: City Council prescreened a conceptual four-story mixed-use project (65 units; ~9,000 sf office).
1 October 25, 2021, Council Report: bit.ly/3NTpv3J
December 21, 2021: Applicant submitted a formal application. Staff completed initial review; resubmittals followed in May 2022 and August 2022 to address departmental comments.
November 16, 2022 3: Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) held an initial review and recommended forwarding the project to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) under the Planned Community (PC) rezoning process.
December 1, 2022 4: ARB provided initial comments. Applicant later relocated the garage entry from Middlefield Road to Byron Street and made additional revisions in response to FEMA’s suspension of LOMR-F (Letters of Map Revision based on fill) processing. The transportation analysis and arborist report were updated and incorporated into the Draft EIR prior to publication.
September 2, 2023: Applicant resubmitted; additional submittals occurred October 2023–February 2024 responding to staff comments.
April 18, 2024 5: ARB reviewed the revised project during Draft EIR circulation and recommended Council approval with conditions.
June 12, 2024: Scheduled PTC review was cancelled at the applicant’s request to allow further revisions.
October 1, 2024: Applicant submitted a revised project adding two stories and relocating office use to the sixth floor.
December 5, 2024 6: ARB reviewed the revised design and unanimously recommended Council approval, including return of specified items to an ARB Ad Hoc Committee and two additional conditions. Most ARB comments were addressed in the 2025 redesign (see below).
Review by the PTC and ARB in 2025 are described in more detail below.
Prior PTC Motion
On March 12, 20257, the PTC reviewed a version of the project that had 66 residential units, 9,115 square feet of office use, and six stories, and asked for staff to return with more information and analysis on the following items:
3 November 16, 2022, PTC Report:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=15500&compileOutputType =1
4 December 1, 2022, ARB Report:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=15521&compileOutputType =1
5 April 18, 2024, ARB Report:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=13830&compileOutputType =1
6 December 5, 2024, ARB Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13940 7 March 12, 2025 PTC Staff Report:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16498
1. Consideration of the impacts of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
2. Consideration of tying the price of the parking spaces to the cost of an RPP permit
3. Consideration of the engineering and potential use of the special setback for multi- modal use.
4. Consideration to remove asphalt around Tree #10 after construction.
5. Consideration of bird friendly glass on 6 th floor and balconies.
6. Clarification from PWE on the FEMA requirements.
After this hearing, the applicant made major design changes that necessitated returning the project to the ARB. This included reducing the office space from 9,115 square feet to 1,984 square feet and moving the office use to the ground floor while adding residential units (increased to 70 total units) to the sixth floor. This also reconfigured the useable outdoor space, and increased the protrusion into the daylight plane, though the overall height decreased approximately two feet.
ARB Recommendation
On August 21, 2025, following the voluntary redesign, the ARB held a hearing13 and voted 3-2 (Jojarth and Hirsch no) to recommend approval of the project to Council with one additional recommendation for a condition of approval to, “Remove the balconies within the H2 units on the 2nd-6th floor (5 units) facing the Oak tree, or stepping the units back to reduce the encroachment into the TPZ if balconies are provided within the 30-foot radius of the tree.” In speaking to their dissent, both Jojarth and Hirsch explained that although they both would like to see the project move forward conceptually, they feel that additional architectural changes are warranted.
PTC Recommendation
On October 8, 2025, following preparation of a revised Final EIR, the PTC reviewed a 70-unit, 1,984 square foot office plan. The applicant presented an additional option for the PTC’s consideration to address the ARB comments through their presentation, which returned the unit count to 66-units, but removed the balconies located within the area of the tree canopy.
The PTC voted 5-1-1 (Hechtman dissenting, James absent) to recommend approval of the project to Council with the following changes:
Address the ARB recommendation through the 66-unit option presented or otherwise remove the balconies encroaching into the TPZ as recommended by the ARB Add the following five conditions of approval to the Record of Land Use Action:
oEstablish an easement on the Middlefield side for dimensions of the Special Setback to a depth of 20 feet below grade. If the City chooses to use this area, the applicant will not be responsible for replacing the parking. 13 August 21, 2025 ARB Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16792 oBeginning two years after building occupancy, report to OOT the number of parking spaces being leased.
oAs part of the TDM plan, the OOT will develop a method to assess spillover parking created by the project and will impose incentives or penalties when spillover is excessive.
oRemove paving around the deck after construction, to the satisfaction of the Urban Forester.
1. Add Bird Safe Glass for the two units at the corners, Unit E and F2, on the sixth floor.
Designate that the approximately 1,900 square feet commercial space be for neighborhood serving use
The analysis section of the staff report goes into further detail on how these recommendations have been incorporated. The PTC also identified in their discussion some typos and clarifications in the attachments, which have been addressed.
The dissenting commissioner cited opposition to reducing the unit count and requested a separate vote on the condition regulating on-site versus off-site parking pricing. While supportive of collecting parking utilization data, the commissioner viewed reducing the on-site parking cost from $150/month to the RPP rate of $56/year as financially infeasible for the applicant. The commissioner nevertheless supported forwarding the project to Council and expressed a desire for eventual approval.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project, as currently proposed, includes deconstruction of the existing medical office buildings (9,216 square feet of medical office use) and rezoning of three existing parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd) from RM-20 to Planned Community (also referred to as “Planned Home Zone” (PHZ). The parcels would be merged under a separate subdivision map process, and the resulting parcel would be redeveloped with a new six-story mixed-use building with 66 residential rental units and 1,984 square feet of office on the ground floor. The project would have two levels of below grade parking with 78 parking spaces. Because office use is not an allowed use within the multi-family land use designation, the project proposed a narrow Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow commercial use in the Multiple-Family Land Use Designation on Planned Community parcels that propose a housing development project.
A location map is included in Attachment A and the project plans are included in Attachment I.
Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview:
The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to Council purview:
Planned Community (PC/PHZ): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.38. The Planned Community Zone District is intended to accommodate all types of developments, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The planned community district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments that are of substantial public benefit and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The application requires initial review by the PTC, followed by review by the ARB.
Upon recommendation from the ARB, the draft ordinance for the project is presented along with the development plan to the PTC for recommendation to the City Council for final action.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The steps for processing a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment are set forth in PAMC Chapter 19.04. The PTC considers the amendment and forwards its recommendation to the City Council for final action. This is done in parallel with the application to rezone the subject property.
ANALYSIS
Staff’s review of the project finds it to be in compliance with applicable municipal code requirements or, through the requested entitlements, compliant if deviating from certain requirements.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Multiple-Family Residential, which prescribes a density range of eight to 40 dwelling units per acre, with higher densities allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, and services and facilities are available. The project has a density of 132 dwelling units per acre, and the Downtown location is sufficient to support this density. Further analysis is provided in the Findings (Attachments D and E). However, in order to retain some of the existing office square footage, this mixed-use project also includes a ground floor office use where office is not permitted within this land use designation. The project is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to modify the allowable uses in the Multiple Family Land Use Designation in limited circumstances.
In its previous review the PTC requested additional information on how the Comprehensive Plan amendment could affect other properties within this land use designation. As written, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is narrow as it would allow office uses only on sites that are zoned Planned Community, proposing a housing development project, and with an existing nonconforming office use. Any future proposals would be considered based on the individual context and appropriateness of commercial in each specific location, with fully discretionary review by both PTC and Council.
The proposed language is shown in underline below:
Multiple-Family Residential: The permitted number of housing units will vary by area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping and environmental problems. Net densities will range from 8 to 40 units and 8 to 90 persons per acre. Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single- family residential areas. Densities higher than what is permitted may be allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Population densities will range up to 2.25 persons per unit by 2030.
As part of a Planned Community zone, or in accordance with retail preservation requirements, existing commercial square footage may be maintained or rebuilt, as part of a housing development project.
There are approximately 1,730 property addresses within the Multiple Family Comprehensive Plan designation, and the vast majority do not contain non-residential use(s). Approximately 35 properties have been identified as having a non-conforming non-residential use. The majority of these properties have a medical office use (including dental offices). The majority of these properties are also located around the periphery of Downtown, on Byron Street, Cowper Street, Forest Avenue, Homer Avenue, Middlefield Road, and University Avenue. Some are also located around the California Avenue area on Park Boulevard, Sheridan Avenue, and El Camino Real. A handful of these properties are already PC-zoned. However, existing PCs would require a PC amendment if proposing a new use for the site, which would be a legislative action subject to PTC and ARB review as well as Council approval.
Given the limited number of sites that this could apply to and the public review process required for any PC zone, this modification to the Comprehensive Plan is anticipated to have very limited impact. It would not increase commercial use in the Multiple Family land use designation above what is existing, and would allow for a mixed-use project, providing jobs and/or services in a location that would otherwise be limited to 100% residential. As a PC is required, the project must overall improve the City’s jobs-to-housing ratio.
Zoning Compliance
As a PHZ project, the project proposes to deviate from the RM-20 Zoning Development Standards and Parking Standards though the Planned Community rezoning process set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.38. An analysis of how the project deviates from the current zoning is provided in Attachment F. In summary, the project deviates from the underlying zone district in the following ways:
• Height (71 feet 2 inches where a maximum 30 feet is allowed) • FAR (3.05:1 where a maximum 0.5:1 is allowed)
• Density (126.9 dwelling units per acre where a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre is allowed)
• Useable Open Space (86.2 square feet per unit where a minimum 150 square feet is required)
• Setbacks encroachments:
oMiddlefield Special Setback – 0 feet below grade where 24 feet is required oByron street side yard – 12 feet above grade, 0 feet below grade where 16 feet is required
oUniversity street side yard – 7 feet above grade, 0 feet below grade where 16 feet is required
oInterior side yard – ramp to garage is 2 feet setback where 10 feet is required • Daylight plane (fourth through sixth floors encroach into the 10 foot, 45-degree angle daylight plane adjacent to RM-20 zoned properties). (See Attachment I, plan set pages A3.3B and A3.3C for section diagrams.)
• Parking (78 parking spaces where 89 are required)
In the RM-20 zoning district, office is a non-conforming use that would not be allowed to be demolished and redeveloped. As a part of the rezoning process, the applicant requests that office be a permitted use of the PC Ordinance, consistent with the development plans. In accordance with the PTC’s motion, additional neighborhood-serving uses have been incorporated into the PC Ordinance (Attachment D) for this project.
Builder’s Remedy Alternative
The proposed project serves as an alternative to a Builder’s Remedy application that includes 88 units and 9,215 square feet of office, for which a Senate Bill (SB) 330 pre-application was last filed on June 11, 2024, and for which the applicant submitted a formal application for on September 3, 2024. The Builder’s Remedy application has been paused in accordance with a tolling agreement between the Applicant and the City, which is valid through the end of the year. A member of the public has pointed out that the formal application on file does not contain enough units to take advantage of the Builder‘s Remedy. However, under the tolling agreement, the applicant retains the ability to amend its formal application to include the necessary number of units (ranging from 89 to 131 units).
Protection of Tree #10
It is a stated priority of the City, neighbors, and the applicant to preserve the Coast Live Oak tree on the adjacent property and overhangs the project site. Several arborist reports were prepared to analyze this tree, and a condition of approval is proposed to require a security deposit for 200% of the appraised value of the tree. This security deposit shall be returned to the applicant upon survival of the tree for five years past the certificate of occupancy being granted for the project.
The tree is primarily adjacent to an existing parking lot on the project site, meaning the area around the root zone is paved. The plans show the asphalt below the proposed wooden deck, within the dripline of the Oak tree, would remain to minimize root disturbance.
The applicant and Urban Forestry Manager agree the best thing for the tree is for the proposed wooden deck to be placed on the existing paving to prevent the need for additional excavation within the root zone. During construction, removal of existing paving will be the minimum amount necessary for excavation and construction of the building. The deck will be built on the existing paving. Lastly, any remaining paving beyond the footprint of the deck will be removed to increase permeable soil within the root zone. The PTC motion recommended a condition be added to clarify this, condition #43(f) has been updated to better reflect this.
Recommended Conditions of Approval from the ARB and PTC Certain recommended Conditions of Approval require Council’s determination as they affect various goals and policies set forth for the City.
Future Use of the Special Setback
One of the primary topics of discussion at the prior PTC meetings has been the usability of the portion of the special setback where the below grade parking garage encroaches. The plans now designate a portion of the site as, “area to accommodate possible future city improvements” (approximately 425 square feet). Presently, the City does not have an adopted plan, nor does any ongoing plan anticipate use of the Middlefield special setback. However the PTC and Staff want to maintain usability of the Special Setback to the extent possible. In particular, the Office of Transportation (OOT) expressed interest in maintaining a portion of the setback as viable for a traffic signal pole.
Staff recommends the following condition of approval be added to the Record of Land Use Action based on the PTC’s motion:
“EASEMENT REQUEST. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall dedicate a Public Access Easement over a portion of the 24-foot front yard special setback, including to a depth of 20 feet, for multi-modal transportation improvements in a form acceptable to the Planning and Development Services Director, Public Works Director, and City Attorney. Any future easement may require the removal of site improvements to facilitate multi-modal transportation improvements or Transportation Element Comprehensive Plan policies, except to the extent that the features required for site circulation and egress shall be allowed to remain. The City accepts this may reduce parking from 78 to 72 parking spaces. If future City projects or utility needs require removal or relocation of facilities within this setback, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for all associated costs, including administrative processing and construction fees. The developer shall accept financial responsibility for any such relocation or retrofit required by future City projects.” This expands the area of the easement beyond what is shown in the current plan set. The project proposes required stairs to the garage which are within this area. To move the stairs would require a further loss of parking and may affect the overall circulation. Specifically, the location of the ramp cannot be moved as it is designed around the Tree Protection Zone of a significant Oak tree and was moved from Middlefield Road to Byron Avenue in the initial design review stages to address safety concerns raised by the OOT. Council may consider exempting the stair from the easement area or requiring more significant design changes to the parking garage.
Balconies
The ARB and PTC both recommend removing the balconies from within the Tree Protection Zone, though Urban Forestry staff confirms that the balconies do not affect the anticipated health of the tree.
As a result, the applicant has opted to reduce the proposed number of units from 70 proposed to ARB and PTC to 66 units shown in the current plan set. This allows for a balcony to be provided for each unit. The alternative would have been to maintain a 70 unit design, but not provide private useable outdoor space in six of the units. Both options result in minor reductions to the total availability of useable open space on a per-unit basis.
Onsite Parking, Residential Preferential Parking (RPP), and Transportation Demand Management Plan
The project requests a parking reduction of 8%, which is reduced from 30% in prior iterations of the project. 78 parking spaces are proposed. A transportation demand management (TDM) plan has been prepared (Attachment I). Some of the TDM policies include:
• Transit subsidies are made available to all employees • Carpool/vanpool spaces for the office use
• An information kiosk and webpages for multi-modal transportation options including clipper card discounts for low-income residents
• On site bike repair tools for residents
The TDM plan is designed to reduce the number of trips by 20%, as required by the Comprehensive Plan. This will accommodate both the 8% current proposed reduction, and the potential reduction that would result from use of the Special Setback easement as described previously.
The project is not subject to AB 2097, though future residents may walk or bike 0.6 miles to the Caltrain station. There is a SamTrans bus stop at University Avenue and Middlefield Road and a VTA bus stop at Channing Avenue and Middlefield Road, however neither bus stop provides sufficient service to qualify as a high-quality transit stop under AB 2097. This project is not located along a Safe Route to School, but future residents could easily access Webster Street, which is a Safe Route to School for Addison Elementary School and Greene Middle School. It is within walking distance of many Downtown businesses, shops, and restaurants.
The project site is located within the Downtown Neighborhood RPP District.15 As such, a future resident of this development could purchase a permit to park on local streets. The cost of this permit is currently $56 per year, plus $5 for daily visitor permits. There is a maximum of 50 daily permits per year, and they do not permit overnight parking.
In contrast, the anticipated cost of an unbundled on-site parking space in the garage is $150 per month. Members of the PTC are concerned that this would incentivize future residents to get an RPP permit instead of paying to park in the garage. While street parking is allowed on Byron Street, no street parking (RPP or otherwise) is allowed on the nearby portions of University Avenue, Middlefield Road, or Hamilton Avenue. The PTC’s concern is that an individual would opt to park more than a block away from their home.
Staff recommends the following condition of approval be added to the Record of Land Use Action based on the PTC’s motion and Chair Akin’s comments made during the discussion:
“SPILLOVER PARKING. As part of the TDM plan, the applicant shall propose a method to assess spillover parking created by the project, to the satisfaction of the Chief Transportation Official, and identify incentives or penalties to address spillover parking, if it occurs. This method may include but is not limited to:
oBeginning two years after building occupancy, the property owner shall report to the Office of Transportation the number of parking spaces being leased. This shall be compared to the number of RPP permits issued to residents of this building, for the purpose of determining if resident parking is spilling over into the neighborhood.”
These have been incorporated into the draft conditions of approval (Attachment E).
Bird Friendly Glass
The ARB and PTC both previously asked the applicant to consider bird safe glass for the sixth- floor office space and for the balconies, as the railing material is glass. When the sixth floor 15 Additional information on the RPP program is located here:
https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Transportation/Parking/Parking-for-Residents/Downtown-Residential- Parking-Permits
changed to proposed residential units, rather than office, the residential unit windows were proposed to be clear glass, with bird safe glass on the balconies.
The PTC then recommended in October that the applicant add bird safe glass to the sixth floor in areas where the corners create a “see-though” effect that could result in a higher likelihood of bird strikes. The applicant has incorporated this into all four corner units, as the condition facing Byron Street is the same as facing Middlefield Road.
Public Benefit
The project proposes to provide two Very-Low Income, five Low Income, and six Moderate Income units; 20% of the total 66 units. The PHZ process offers developers the option to provide affordable units as the public benefit of a PC project, as described in the September 21, 2020 Council Staff Report.17 The proposed meets the weighted 20% as shown below. 660 UNIVERSITY BELOW MARKET RATE UNIT CALCULATION
Income
Level
Area Median
Income
Weighted
Value
Number
of Units
% of Actual
Units
Weighted
%
Very-low
Income 31-50% 1.9 2 3% 6%
Low Income 51-80% 1.2 5 7.6% 9%
Below
Market
Rate Units Moderate
Income 81-120% 0.6 6 9.1% 5%
Typical
Units
Above
Moderate &
Market Rate
121% + 0 53
Total 66 19.7% 20.3%
However, the units are not equitably distributed amongst unit types. The project proposes five studios, seven one-bedrooms, and one two-bedroom being provided at below market rates.
Staff recommends this be revised to four studios, seven one-bedrooms, and two two- bedrooms.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Processing of this application has no fiscal impact as applicants are responsible for staff and consultant costs through applicable fees through the deposit-based cost recovery program. This 17 September 21, 2020, Council Staff Report - https://bit.ly/PHZ-CouncilReport project is also subject to Development Impact Fees, currently estimated at $3,063,197.53. The project proposes on-site Public Art.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on October 31, 2025 which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on October 29, 2025 which is 12 days in advance of the meeting.
Public Comments
Neighbors at The Hamilton have been involved in this process, both by email and in person comments. Comments raised by stakeholders primarily relate to noise, traffic and the transportation demand management plan, construction-related disruptions, and protection of the neighboring Oak tree. Staff also received letters of support of the project. All comment letters are included in Attachment H.
Staff has also responded to questions regarding application processing, hearing dates, and comparing the PHZ project and process to the Builder’s Remedy project and process. One commenter has asserted that the applicant’s Builder’s Remedy application is not valid because it represents too great of a change from the SB 330 pre-application that provides the applicant with the ability to rely on the Builder’s Remedy. The commenter is correct that the formal application on file for the Builder‘s Remedy project is not consistent with the SB-330 pre- application. However, under the parties’ tolling agreement, the applicant still has the ability to modify its application to qualify for the Builder’s Remedy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. A Draft Environmental Impact Report has been published and was circulated from April 2, 2024, to May 17, 2024. The Draft EIR found there are no significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, any potentially significant impacts can be mitigated as further discussed in the document, see Attachment I. The City published a Final EIR in March 2025, which evaluated a 63-unit development with 9,115 sf of office.
On October 1, 2025 the City published a Revised Final EIR to reflect the proposed project, as revised, and to analyze whether the revisions changed the conclusions of the previously published analysis. The FEIR concludes that the project would not result in any new or more significant impacts, beyond what was assessed in the previously published Draft and Final EIR.
Because the project does not result in any significant impacts, findings of overriding consideration are not required. However, the Resolution in Attachment B certifies the EIR and sets forth the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed project required to ensure that impacts remain less than significant.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report and Adopting the MMRP Attachment C: Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment Resolution Attachment D: Draft PC Ordinance
Attachment E: Draft Record of Land Use Action
Attachment F: Zoning Consistency Analysis
Attachment G: Applicant’s Letter
Attachment H: Public Comments
Attachment I: Project Plans and Environmental Review Documents APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director