News

Developer proposes 73 housing units on University Avenue block

Smith Development pitches mixed-use development near Middlefield Road

A proposal from Smith Development would bring a mixed-use project with 73 residences to 660 University Ave. Rendering courtesy Korth Sunseri Hagey Architects.

After dropping its plans to build apartments next to the California Avenue Caltrain station, Smith Development is now proposing another residential development, one that would bring 73 apartments to a block of University Avenue near Middlefield Road.

The proposal calls for combining three parcels along the south side of University Avenue, between Byron Street and Middlefield, which currently include two two-story office buildings separated by a parking lot. The two office buildings at 511 Byron Ave. and 680 University Ave. would be demolished and give way to a four-story, mixed-use building stretching between Byron and Middlefield, with office space on the ground floor, housing on every floor and two levels of underground parking, according to the application filed by Lund Smith of Smith Development.

To move the project ahead, Smith Development is requesting "planned home" zoning, a version of "planned community" zoning that allows developers to exceed development standards and zoning regulations in exchange for public benefits. In the case of "planned home" zoning, a designation that the city introduced in February 2020, the benefit is housing.

In this case, the project would violate numerous zoning rules, chief among them the city's density limit on residential developments. The half-acre site in an R-20 zone would, by definition, normally allow 10 dwellings. In this case, Smith is proposing 73 units.

In addition, the 55,960-square-foot building (91,590-square-foot if you include the two garage levels) would have a height of 45 feet under the proposal, 15 feet more than would normally be allowed for the project next to single-family zones. Its front yard setback, at 10 feet, would be well shy of the 24 feet that is required on Middlefield Road under the existing zoning rules.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

The proposal for 660 University is similar in many ways to the one that Smith Development had considered for the California Avenue business district. That plan called for a mixed-use development with 75 housing units and offices on the ground floor. It also sought to combine three properties — at 123 Sherman Ave., 150 Grant Ave. and 2501 Park Blvd. — for a new mixed-use development and, like the University Avenue proposal, it relied on the flexible "planned home" zoning process to exceed zoning regulations.

Ultimately, Smith opted to instead move ahead with a purely commercial project that is consistent with underlying zoning and that, as such, would not need to undergo the rigorous screening process that is reserved for planned-home projects. The process involves a "prescreening" session in front of the City Council, followed by formal hearings by the Planning and Transportation Commission and the council.

Meanwhile, the council is preparing to move ahead with a prescreening next week for another planned-home project, a proposal by Roger Fields to build a 49-condominium development at 280 and 300 Lambert Ave., a site that is currently zoned for commercial use. Located in the Ventura neighborhood, the housing development would replace two automobile service buildings. The project plan calls for 10 town house-style condominiums in a 35-foot-tall building at the front of the property and a five-story, 55-foot building with 39 condominium units in the back. Ten of these units would be designated as affordable housing, according to a report from the Department of Planning and Development Services.

Blue icons indicate active housing proposals and red icons indicate inactive housing proposals in Palo Alto.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Gennady Sheyner
 
Gennady Sheyner covers the City Hall beat in Palo Alto as well as regional politics, with a special focus on housing and transportation. Before joining the Palo Alto Weekly/PaloAltoOnline.com in 2008, he covered breaking news and local politics for the Waterbury Republican-American, a daily newspaper in Connecticut. Read more >>

Follow on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Your support is vital to us continuing to bring you city government news. Become a member today.

Developer proposes 73 housing units on University Avenue block

Smith Development pitches mixed-use development near Middlefield Road

After dropping its plans to build apartments next to the California Avenue Caltrain station, Smith Development is now proposing another residential development, one that would bring 73 apartments to a block of University Avenue near Middlefield Road.

The proposal calls for combining three parcels along the south side of University Avenue, between Byron Street and Middlefield, which currently include two two-story office buildings separated by a parking lot. The two office buildings at 511 Byron Ave. and 680 University Ave. would be demolished and give way to a four-story, mixed-use building stretching between Byron and Middlefield, with office space on the ground floor, housing on every floor and two levels of underground parking, according to the application filed by Lund Smith of Smith Development.

To move the project ahead, Smith Development is requesting "planned home" zoning, a version of "planned community" zoning that allows developers to exceed development standards and zoning regulations in exchange for public benefits. In the case of "planned home" zoning, a designation that the city introduced in February 2020, the benefit is housing.

In this case, the project would violate numerous zoning rules, chief among them the city's density limit on residential developments. The half-acre site in an R-20 zone would, by definition, normally allow 10 dwellings. In this case, Smith is proposing 73 units.

In addition, the 55,960-square-foot building (91,590-square-foot if you include the two garage levels) would have a height of 45 feet under the proposal, 15 feet more than would normally be allowed for the project next to single-family zones. Its front yard setback, at 10 feet, would be well shy of the 24 feet that is required on Middlefield Road under the existing zoning rules.

The proposal for 660 University is similar in many ways to the one that Smith Development had considered for the California Avenue business district. That plan called for a mixed-use development with 75 housing units and offices on the ground floor. It also sought to combine three properties — at 123 Sherman Ave., 150 Grant Ave. and 2501 Park Blvd. — for a new mixed-use development and, like the University Avenue proposal, it relied on the flexible "planned home" zoning process to exceed zoning regulations.

Ultimately, Smith opted to instead move ahead with a purely commercial project that is consistent with underlying zoning and that, as such, would not need to undergo the rigorous screening process that is reserved for planned-home projects. The process involves a "prescreening" session in front of the City Council, followed by formal hearings by the Planning and Transportation Commission and the council.

Meanwhile, the council is preparing to move ahead with a prescreening next week for another planned-home project, a proposal by Roger Fields to build a 49-condominium development at 280 and 300 Lambert Ave., a site that is currently zoned for commercial use. Located in the Ventura neighborhood, the housing development would replace two automobile service buildings. The project plan calls for 10 town house-style condominiums in a 35-foot-tall building at the front of the property and a five-story, 55-foot building with 39 condominium units in the back. Ten of these units would be designated as affordable housing, according to a report from the Department of Planning and Development Services.

Comments

Allen Akin
Registered user
Professorville
on Aug 10, 2021 at 8:35 pm
Allen Akin, Professorville
Registered user
on Aug 10, 2021 at 8:35 pm

The vast majority of units are small (a little under 450 sq ft), so this is single-worker housing.

One parking place for each studio and 1BR unit, 2 parking places for each 2BR unit, one parking place per 250 sq ft of office. The offices are under-parked, but on the whole, this is better than a lot of other proposals we've seen.

As always, implications for traffic, water, etc. are left for future generations to deal with.

If you're curious about the plans, you should be able to find them here:
Web Link


Amy
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Aug 10, 2021 at 10:08 pm
Amy , Crescent Park
Registered user
on Aug 10, 2021 at 10:08 pm

Didn’t we just lose a bunch of apartments in the Presidents building coming a hotel? It seems like now we need to add more congestion by replacing those lost apartments with more development


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Aug 11, 2021 at 7:35 am
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Aug 11, 2021 at 7:35 am

We certainly did lose the apartments in the President Hotel. Weren't there 84 low / moderate income apartments there?

450 sq feet?? Another "coffin hotel" for techies, not for families or low-income workers, and of course more offices with a loss of parking for the rest of us but more money for the city coffers for the loss of "public benefits"


MLF
Registered user
Evergreen Park
on Aug 11, 2021 at 11:57 am
MLF, Evergreen Park
Registered user
on Aug 11, 2021 at 11:57 am

I favor this project - a good addition to Palo Alto housing stock This project seems to be of a similar overall size and scale as The Hamilton next door - 4 stories tall, filling most of the available area. It is different than the Hamilton - rather than 36 luxury 1500+ square-foot condos, these are 450 square foot apartments, plus some retail space, close to downtown and Caltrain / buses. Smaller living spaces are popular with some people: We have a 315-square foot attached ADU which has been (before Covid) continuously rented to Stanford post-doc singles and couples a year or two at a time.


Rose
Registered user
Mayfield
on Aug 11, 2021 at 12:30 pm
Rose, Mayfield
Registered user
on Aug 11, 2021 at 12:30 pm

We need to change the zoning laws so HOUSING can go higher and the rent needs to be affordable -- not just some small fraction of the total units should be affordable. And get rid of the office space -- we need more housing, not more offices! If the housing is close to transportation, then they don't need a car. They can rent a zCar as needed and ride their bicycles. Make sure the housing has good bicycle parking. ADUs aren't going to solve the problem. We have to build up where it makes sense, and NO MORE OFFICES.


Stuart Berman
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Aug 11, 2021 at 12:59 pm
Stuart Berman, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Aug 11, 2021 at 12:59 pm

I wonder what the purpose of our zoning laws is.


Miriam Palm
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Aug 11, 2021 at 1:20 pm
Miriam Palm, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Aug 11, 2021 at 1:20 pm

I am a patient of both dental offices on this site. Leave them alone!


Rebecca Eisenberg
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Aug 11, 2021 at 6:51 pm
Rebecca Eisenberg, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Aug 11, 2021 at 6:51 pm

Due to Palo Alto's intentional policies, every MF housing proposal currently proposed involves micro-units of 300-500 square feet: the exact size that Palo Alto staff attributes per employee for commercial rentals. In other words, Palo Alto's entire proposed housing stock provides each *family unit* with the amount of space of a work office or cubicle.

Worse, developer plans estimate rents of $5000/month, averaging $12.50/square foot/month. That is 3-4 times the typical rent in SF & Manhattan. These prices are outrageous under any analysis, but especially for homes that cannot serve family units larger than two without potentially creating unhealthy conditions. Rarely, for example, do these one-room units have sinks in bathrooms.

This is a plan built to fail. These units will not serve the biggest need, and even the subsidized units are unlikely to be recognized as affordable under the State's strict equity rules. A housing market filled almost entirely with micro-units also violates Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan, which clearly states PA's obligation to provide a *variety* of housing across *multiple* affordability levels.

These are problems of City Council's own making - and all it takes to solve them is to embrace the same solutions as our more successful neighboring cities.

All other CA cities create their housing funds by taxing big businesses. With an emergency tax measure, we can tax our largest employers, who create the housing need for their tens of thousands of employees, and we also must tax our biggest commercial developers who make billions off Palo Alto office space which attracts these employers to town. A well-designed payroll and receipts tax on only our largest would generate at least $100 million a year, as Pat Burt knows.

We also can follow our neighbors and lift height limitations and parking requirements. Those outdated mandates make it impossible for housing developers to serve our market.

We CAN fix this - but must act now.


kate
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Aug 11, 2021 at 9:34 pm
kate, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Aug 11, 2021 at 9:34 pm

Absolutely - this is a step toward ruining our sense of place.
Too tall, too many micro units and it takes away what makes PA ideal - simple, walkable /bikeable services like the dental offices.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 13, 2021 at 5:56 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Aug 13, 2021 at 5:56 pm

University is our prime city street. Why would the city approve an apartment complex that has tiny apartments? Is this the same group that wanted to put tiny apartment at T&C? It sounds like this apartment complex would be more appropriate in the East Meadow circle near the bike bridge so that the techies can get to work. If that is the intended market for these apartments then put them where the victims are.
I have never seen so many pointless social experiments going on in one place. Are we a drawing card for pointless social experiments?

We have a city planning department - please plan this city accordingly so the right pieces go in the right places.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Aug 13, 2021 at 6:05 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Aug 13, 2021 at 6:05 pm

Shame on the city "planners" for continuing to threaten resident-serving businesses like the dentists. You know they'll be spending money to convince us to get out of our cars which we'll need to get to our NEW dentists who've been forced to relocate if they're even still in business.

Enough with the car-light fairy tales. Enough with these "coffin-like" apartments that do nothing for families, only for the highly paid single techies employed by the companies backing this high density push at OUR expense.


eileen
Registered user
College Terrace
on Aug 14, 2021 at 9:31 am
eileen , College Terrace
Registered user
on Aug 14, 2021 at 9:31 am

None of these housing projects will solve the lack of housing for families. All these small micro-units are being built for Stanford post-doc students, singles, or couples. It is difficult for families to live in 400 sq. ft. Families are leaving to find someplace where the kids have a little garden or open space. The rich couples with children are buying houses in Palo Alto with a bit of open space. How about some of these developers build small detached townhouses with a garden space? Cato tried to build a micro-unit development of 24 units in R1 College Terrace. If townhouses with garden space were proposed, instead of 350 sq. ft. units, unsuitable for families, it might have had a better chance of going through. We NEED housing for FAMILIES!


Online Name
Registered user
University South
on Aug 15, 2021 at 11:12 am
Online Name, University South
Registered user
on Aug 15, 2021 at 11:12 am

I guess anyone can propose anything, but this dense building of coffin-like apartments is horrific. Why not just make a proposal that states, "we are going to build whatever we want and won't follow any building requirements in this town!"
Suggestion that Council turn this down like similar near California Ave. and College Terrace. One would think this proposal was a joke except it's not.


Allen Akin
Registered user
Professorville
on Aug 15, 2021 at 12:18 pm
Allen Akin, Professorville
Registered user
on Aug 15, 2021 at 12:18 pm

@Online Name: I take your point, and I have a lot of sympathy for it.

But if the state continues on its path to destroy existing communities until a prescribed number of housing units is built, it's worth considering that this might be an example of how to reduce the amount of harm. Existing neighborhoods aren't being destroyed, the market-rate units while far from affordable are as low-cost as possible (because they're very small), and the total population increase is minimized.

One condition that should be imposed is that the entire development should be deed-restricted to be ineligible for any parking permits outside the property. If developers keep proposing car-lite projects, then that assumption needs to be enforced.

It's still going to do damage -- more people means more traffic, more water shortages, less open space per capita, higher prices for home ownership, and on and on. But given that the political power in this state is hell-bent on growth regardless of the consequences, until that changes, this might be the least-bad approach. I'm not convinced this is true, but I am thinking about it seriously.


Curmudgeon
Registered user
Downtown North
on Aug 15, 2021 at 5:09 pm
Curmudgeon, Downtown North
Registered user
on Aug 15, 2021 at 5:09 pm

450 sq ft is ideal for the small professional offices which would probably occupy the building despite residential zoning. Who's going to bother monitoring and enforcing the zoning anyway?


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 18, 2021 at 3:49 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Aug 18, 2021 at 3:49 pm

A commercial building is very different from a residential building. In a residential building you have a full bathroom in every apartment and kitchen. That is very different from a commercial building which has a number of bathroons on each floor - not full bathrooms. Different construction criteria - different plumbing and water useage assumptions. Different waste removal assumptions. Different storage of personal goods assumptions. That is why there is zoning - put the right type of building in the right place. The city needs to enforce zoning and the requirements for the correct placement of the correct type building in a location. Do not let Sacramento herd everyone down a donkey path to stupid end results. Tiny units on University is not a good use of property. Put the tiny units somehere else.


Anonymous
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 18, 2021 at 8:11 pm
Anonymous, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Aug 18, 2021 at 8:11 pm

Units are too small.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

On Wednesday, we'll be launching a new website. To prepare and make sure all our content is available on the new platform, commenting on stories and in TownSquare has been disabled. When the new site is online, past comments will be available to be seen and we'll reinstate the ability to comment. We appreciate your patience while we make this transition.