Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-21 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, August 21, 2025 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM   Architectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are available at https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491 ) Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1(669)900-6833   PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to arb@PaloAlto.gov and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@PaloAlto.gov at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL   PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.   AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.   CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS   1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN-00341]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) on 3 Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), to Demolish Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Provide a New Six Story Mixed-Use Building with Approximately 1,900 sf of Office and 70 Multi-Family Residential Units. The Project Includes a Future Parcel Map Application to Subdivide the Office Component from the Residential Component. 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. The City is Preparing a Revised Final EIR. Zoning District: RM-20 (Multi-Family Residential). 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2280 El Camino Real [24PLN-00339]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow Façade Modifications to an Existing Restaurant, Jack in the Box. CEQA Status: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: Neighborhood Commercial (CN). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 17, 2025 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).   ADJOURNMENT     PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@PaloAlto.gov. 2.Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. ◦You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. ◦You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. ◦When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. ◦When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3.Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4.Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1-669-900-6833 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@paloalto.gov. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 21, 2025 Report #: 2508-5069 TITLE Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND This document includes the following items: ARB meeting schedule Upcoming ARB agenda items Recently submitted and pending projects subject to ARB review Board members are encouraged to contact Samuel Tavera (Samuel.Tavera@PaloAlto.gov) to notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the availability of an ARB quorum. Approved projects can be found on the City’s Building Eye webpage at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director’s decision(s) within the 10-day or 14-day appeal period by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, there is a fee for appeals. Pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 UPCOMING ARB AGENDA ITEMS The following items are tentative and subject to change: MEETING DATE TOPICS September 4, 2025 180 El Camino Real: Ralph Lauren Façade Improvements 1661 Page Mill Road: Tier 2 Wireless Facility RECENTLY SUBMITTED PROJECTS The following new ARB projects were submitted: ADDRESS & RECORD #PROJECT DESCRIPTION 540 University Avenue 25PLN-00189 Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Buildings at 530 and 540 University Avenue and the Construction of a New, Approximately 30,375 Square Foot, Three-Story, Commercial Building with Ground Floor Retail-Like Uses and Office, Second and Third Level Office Spaces, and a Private Roof Top Terrace for Office Users. Zoning District: CD-C (GF)(P)(Commercial Downtown- Community with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Combining Districts). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment B: Pending ARB Projects AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1& Contact Information  Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner  (650) 329-2321  Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Architectural Review Board 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 8 4 9 3 2025 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/2/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 1/16/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Adcock 3/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/3/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid CANCELED 4/17/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/1/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/15/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/5/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid CANCELED 6/19/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid CANCELED 7/3/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/17/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Adcock & Jojarth 8/7/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/21/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/4/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/18/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/2/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/16/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/4/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/18/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2025 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair January February March April May June 3/20 – Adcock & Rosenberg July August September October November December 7/17 – Chen & Hirsch 8/7 -Chen & Rosenberg Item 1 Attachment A - 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 7     ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Pending ARB Projects The following projects will soon be reviewed by the ARB. For more information, visit the project webpages at bit.ly/PApendingprojects or via Building Eye at bit.ly/PABuildingEye. Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Major Architectural Review 9/16/20 20PLN-00202 250 Hamilton Ave Bridge Allow the removal and replacement of the Pope-Chaucer Bridge over San Francisquito Creek with a new structure that does not obstruct creek flow to reduce flood risk. The project will also include channel modifications. Environmental Assessment: The SFCJPA, acting as the lead agency, adopted a Final EIR on 9/26/19. Zoning District: PF. On-hold for redesign Major Architectural Review Zone Change 12/21/21 21PLN-00341 24PLN-00239 660 University 680 University Mixed-Use Planned Community (PC), to Combine 3 Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Demolish Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Provide a New Four Story Mixed-Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and Multi- Family Residential (all floors) Including a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. Proposed Residential Proposed Residential (42,189 SF) Will Include 65 Units (47 Studios, 12 1-Bedroom, 6 2- Bedroom). NOI Sent. Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow SB330/Builder’s Remedy project and construct a new six (6) story mixed-use building. The proposal includes ground floor non- residential (5,670 SF), ground and sixth floor office (9,126 SF), multi-family residential (all floors), and a two level below-grade parking garage. Proposed residential will include 88 units with 20% on-site BMR. ARB 1st formal 12/1/22 ARB recommended approval 4/22 Revised Plans Submitted 6/23 Item 1 Attachment B - Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 8     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Major Architectural Review 6/8/23 23PLN-00136 23PLN-00277 (Map) 23PLN-00003 and -00195 – (SB 330) 24PLN-00230 (Code compliant version) 24PLN-00231 (Map) 3150 El Camino Real Housing – 380 units Request for Major Architectural Review for construction of a 380- unit Multi-family Residential Rental Development with 10% Below Market Rate. The project includes a 456,347 square foot apartment building with a 171,433 square foot garage that extends to 84 feet in height. Staff is reviewing the project to ensure the requested concessions and waivers are in accordance with the State Density Bonus laws. Focus Area Compliant Application Filed 8/7/24 Ad Hoc (Rosenberg, Hirsch) Reported out 5/4 on SB 330 Ad Hoc (Rosenberg, Hirsch) Reported out on 8/17 ARB 11/7 Rec. approval PTC 5/14 Council 7/17 PC Amendment 8/9/23 23PLN-00202 4075 El Camino Way Commercial 16 convalescent units Request for a Planned Community Zone Amendment to Allow New Additions to an existing Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility consisting of 121 Units. The additions include 16 Additional Assisted Living Dwelling Units; 5 Studios and 9 One Bedrooms. Zoning District: PC-5116 Community Meeting in October. 2/28/24 and 6/12/24 PTC hearing, 7/18/24 ARB hearing, ARB 10/17/24, PTC & Council hearings TBD. Ad Hoc (Baltay, Chen) reported out 6/1 Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 4/02/24 24PLN-00100 24PLN-00223 (Map) 156 California Mixed-Use Request for Major Architectural Review in accordance with California Government Code 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes to redevelop two lots located at 156 California Avenue and Park Blvd. Lot A, 156 California Ave ( 1.14 ACRE) is situated at the corner of Park and California, Lot B, Park Blvd. (0.29 ACRE) is at the corner of Park and Cambridge Avenue; the reinvention of both sites will include the conversion of an existing parking lot and Mollie Stone's Grocery Store into a Mixed Use Multi Family Development. This project consists of three NOI Sent 5/2/2024; 60-day Formal Comments sent 6/1; Resubmitted, Request for Supplemental Info Sent 7/11; Pending Resubmittal. SB 330 Pre-app Item 1 Attachment B - Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 9     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes integrated structures; (1) 7 Story Podium Building with 5 levels of TYPE IIIB Construction over 2 levels of TYPE I Construction, 15,000 square feet will be dedicated to the Mollie Stone Grocery Store, (1) 17 Story Tower, (1) 11 Story Tower, both Towers will be proposed and conceptualized as TYPE IV Mass Timber Construction. Environmental Assessment: Pending Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P) and CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial) submitted 11/21/24 Ad Hoc (Baltay, Adcock) Deemed Complete 12/22/24 Supplementary info req. Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 4/23/24 24PLN-00120 762 San Antonio Housing – 198 Units Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow CA GOV CODE 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes the demolition of three existing commercial buildings and the construction of a 7- story multi-family residential building containing 198 rental apartments. This is 100% Residential Project. Environmental: Pending. Zoning District: (CS) AD. NOI Sent 5/23/2024. Ad Hoc (Baltay, Chen) ARB 8/7 Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 6/10/24 24PLN-00161 24PLN-00048 (SB 330) 3781 El Camino Real Housing – 177 units Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish multiple existing commercial and residential buildings located at 3727-3737 & 3773-3783 El Camino Real, 378-400 Madeline Court and 388 Curtner Avenue to construct a new seven-story multi-family residential housing development with 177 units. Two levels of above ground parking, rooftop terraces, and tenant amenities are proposed. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CN & RM-30. (Previous SB 330 and Builder’s Remedy: 24PLN-00048) NOI Sent 7/10/2024. Resubmittal on 11/22/24 Deemed Complete 4/3/25 Supplementary info req. Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 6/10/24 24PLN-00162 24PLN-00047 (SB 330) 3606 El Camino Real Housing – 335 Units Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish multiple existing vacant, commercial, and residential buildings located at 3508, 3516, 3626-3632 El Camino Real, and 524, 528, 530 Kendall Avenue to construct a new seven-story, multi-family residential housing development project with 335 units. The new residential building will have a two levels of above ground parking, ground floor tenant amenities, and a rooftop terrace facing El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CN, CS, RM-30, RM-40 NOI Sent 8/1/2024. Resubmittal on 11/22/24 Deemed Complete 12/25/24 Supplementary info req. Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 7/17/24 24PLN-00184 24PLN-00232 (Map) 3400 El Camino Real Housing – 231 units & Hotel – 92 rooms Major Architectural Review of a Builder's Remedy application to demolish several low-rise retail and hotel buildings located at 3398, 3400, 3450 El Camino Real and 556 Matadero Avenue and replace them with three new seven-to-eight story residential towers, one new seven-story hotel, one new three story NOI Sent 8/16/2024 and 9/12/2024; Pending Resubmittal. Item 1 Attachment B - Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 10     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes townhome, and two new underground parking garages. Three existing hotel buildings will remain with one being converted to residential units. 231 total residential units and 192 hotel rooms. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: various (SB330) Minor Architectural Review & Conditional Use Permit 9/24/24 24PLN-00263 3950 Fabian Way Private Education Request for Minor Board Level Architectural Review for exterior modifications to an existing 32,919 square foot, 2-story commercial building, site modifications and a new approximately 4200 sf addition to the North side. The project also includes a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the change of use to private education to accommodate Girls Middle school. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: GM. NOI Sent 10/24/2024. Early ARB 11/21 ARB 5/1 rec. approval Ad Hoc 8/7 Streamlined Housing Development Review 10/08/24 24PLN-00280 3997 Fabian Way Residential Request for Streamlined Housing Development Review to deconstruct two existing commercial buildings located at 3977 & 3963 Fabian Way and surface parking lot at 3997 Fabian Way to construct a new single structure of seven stories containing 295 multifamily residential rental apartment units (8% very low- income units – 19 units), 343 parking spaces, 295 secured bike parking spaces, open courtyards, several outdoor gathering spaces, a pool area, and a rooftop terrace. The project is proposed to comply with the City’s GM/ROLM Focus Area Development Standards and is proposed in accordance with State Density Bonus Law. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: General Manufacturing (GM). (Housing Inventory Site & State Density Bonus Law) (Previous SB 330 Pre-Application: 24PLN-00111) NOI sent 1/16/25 Resubmittal 1/31/25 NOI Sent 2/21/25 Master Sign Program 11/7/24 24PLN-00322 340 Portage Av Mixed-Use Master Sign Program for the installation of 2 Project ID Monuments, 2 Entry ID's, 2 Parking ID's, 2 Directional Wall signs, 1 Brand/Tenant ID Wall sign, and 2 Tenant ID Canopy signs at The Cannery Palo Alto. Zoning District: RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District). Environmental Assessment: Pending. NOI sent 1/09/25 Resubmittal 3/27/25 ARB 5/15 rec. to continue date uncertain Minor Architectural Review 12/03/24 24PLN-00339 2280 El Camino Real Restaurant Minor Board Level Architectural Review for the exterior and interior remodel of the existing Jack in the Box restaurant. Modification to the exterior of the building include the removal of the mansard roof, installation of new parapets, new finishes and branding panels. No increase in building footprint. NOI sent 1/22/25 Resubmittal 2/21/25 NOI sent 3/26/25 Item 1 Attachment B - Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 11     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Site and Design & Conditional Use Permit 12/8/24 24PLN-00356 24PLN-00357 (Map) 2100 Geng Rd Housing – 137 Units Tentative Map/Subdivision and Site and Design & Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the transformation of an existing underutilized business park at 2100-2400 Geng Road into a new residential neighborhood with 137 multi-family townhome units and community space. Project site totals approximately 11-acres. NOI sent 1/24/25 Resubmittal on 4/16/25 NOI sent 5/22/25 Resubmittal on 7/25 Minor Architectural Review 2/6/2025 25PLN-00027 180 El Camino Real Restaurant Minor Board review for Cedar & Sage restaurant (formally Terrain Cafe) at Space #1301, Bldg. DD at the Stanford Shopping Center. Exterior improvements include new textured plaster and painted façade, new storefront glazing, and bi-folding door system, remodeled outdoor patio, new retractable canopy system, new railing, landscape planters, and new signage. Interior improvements will include partial interior remodel. No change of use, no new square footage. NOI sent 3/10/25 Resubmittal on 4/8/25 Tentatively scheduled 7/17 ARB rec. approval 7 Minor Architectural Review 4/07/25 25PLN-00092 180 El Camino Real Commercial Request for Minor Board Architectural Review to allow for exterior improvements including painting, new entry door, glazing, patio, and new signage for proposed Ralph Lauren & Ralph's Coffee approximately 5,200 Square Foot, Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). NOI sent 5/14 Resubmitted 6/9 Minor Architectural Review 4/14/25 25PLN-00100 975 Paige Mill Rd Commercial Minor Board review for the renovation of an existing building (approximately 50,000 square feet) with no net change in the building area proposed and a request for Conditional Use Permit for a new cafe (retail service use - 3,769 square feet) with Alcohol Service within the renovated building. ARB rec. Approval 7/3 Item 1 Attachment B - Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 9 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 21, 2025 Report #: 2507-4973 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN-00341]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) on 3 Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), to Demolish Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Provide a New Six Story Mixed-Use Building with Approximately 1,900 sf of Office and 70 Multi-Family Residential Units. The Project Includes a Future Parcel Map Application to Subdivide the Office Component from the Residential Component. 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. The City is Preparing a Revised Final EIR. Zoning District: RM-20 (Multi-Family Residential). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend that Council approve the proposed project based on findings and subject to conditions of approval in Attachment B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant requests approval to demolish the existing buildings, which includes 9,216 sf of medical office use, and to rezone three existing parcels located at 511 Byron Street, 660 University, and 680 University/500 Middlefield Road, to “Planned Home Zone” (PHZ) in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.38 (Planned Community Zoning). The parcels would be merged under a separate subdivision map application. The resulting parcel would be redeveloped with a new six-story mixed-use building with 1,894 sf of ground floor office and 59,121 sf of multiple-family residential use. The residential component will include 70 units (eight studios, 33 1-bedroom, and nine 2-bedroom units). One unit will be designated as a manager’s unit. Parking spaces will be provided in a two-story below-grade parking garage with 78 parking spaces. Fourteen of the units would be provided as below- market rate units (20%). This is comprised of one Very-Low Income, one Low Income, and twelve Moderate Income units. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 9 The ARB previously reviewed the project and recommended approval on December 5, 2024. The purpose of this report is to consider changes that have been made to the design, most notably to modify the sixth-floor design to provide residential units in-lieu of the previously proposed office use on the sixth floor. This change increased the unit count from 63 to 70 units and reduced the overall office use from 9,115 square feet to 1,894 square feet. The exterior design is substantially similar to the design the ARB previously recommended for approval. Staff recommends that the ARB reaffirm its recommendation to approve the project based on the revised design. Conditions of approval previously recommended by the ARB have either been incorporated into the revised plans or have been added in the recommended conditions of approval in Attachment B except where otherwise discussed in this report. Following the ARB’s recommendation, the project will return to the Planning and Transportation Commission for a recommendation. Both recommendations will be forwarded to Council for a final decision. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:Shachi Bahl, DMD Architect:Amanda Borden, KSH Architects Representative:Lund Smith, Smith Development Legal Counsel:N/A Property Information Address:511 Byron Street, 0 University Ave., 680 University Ave., 500 Middlefield Road.; Lots to be combined and use 660 University Ave. Neighborhood:Downtown/University South Lot Dimensions & Area:100 ft by 225 ft 2 inches, 22,526 sf Housing Inventory Site:Yes, 65 units Located w/in a Plume:No Protected/Heritage Trees:Protected street trees, Protected Oak tree overhanging from adjacent property. No Heritage trees. Historic Resource(s):No, DPR has been completed Flood Zone: AH46.9 Existing Improvement(s):511 Byron: 5,260 sf, two-story, built 1950 680 Byron: 3,955 sf, two-story, built 1950 Existing Land Use(s):Medical office and associated parking Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Office (RM-30) West: Multi-family Senior Housing (Lytton Gardens) (PC) East: Medical Office, Single-Family Residence (RM-20) South: Office/Medical Office (RM-40) Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 9 Special Setbacks:24 ft along Middlefield Road. Encroachments proposed. Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Comp. Plan Designation:Multi-Family Zoning Designation:RM-20 Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 9 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:Council held a prescreening for the proposed project on October 25, 2021.1 PTC:PTC held an initial hearing on November 16, 2022 to review the initial plans and recommended that the plans be forwarded to the ARB for review in accordance with the PTC process.2 The applicant requested to pull this item from the scheduled PTC hearing on June 12, 2024, in order to propose a revised design. Following ARB recommendation, the PTC held a hearing on March 12, 20253 and recommended to continue the project to a date uncertain. In its motion, the PTC recommended that the FEMA requirements related to mixed-use buildings be further evaluated, which triggered further investigation into the FEMA requirements. The PTC also recommended two additional items relevant to the ARB’s purview. These included: 1) a request for balconies to also include bird safe glass; and 2) encouraged the applicant to address the engineering and potential use of the special setback. HRB:None ARB:The ARB held a hearing on December 1, 2022 to review the plans and continued the project to a date uncertain.4 The ARB held a hearing on April 18, 20245 to review the plans and recommended that Council approve the proposed project with conditions, including a list of items to return to an ARB ad hoc committee. Following that hearing the applicant revised the design. The ARB held another hearing on December 5, 20246 to recommend approval of the revised plans. However, following this hearing, the applicant submitted a revised design again, which is the project current before the ARB. 1 The October 25, 2021, Council Report for this project is available online at: bit.ly/3NTpv3J 2 November 16, 2022, PTC staff Report for this project is available online at: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=15500&compileOutputType=1 3 The March 12, 2025 PTC Staff Report is available online at: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16498 4 The December 1, 2022, ARB staff Report is available online at: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=15521&compileOutputType=1 5 The April 18, 2024, ARB staff report for this project is available online at: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=13830&compileOutputType=1 6 The December 5, 2024, ARB Staff Report is available online at: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13940 Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 9 Project Review Timeline A complete history of this project is summarized in the March 12, 2024 PTC report.4 This staff report focuses on the ARB’s feedback and recommendation on the previous design, summarizes modifications to the design since that hearing, and analyzes those changes. ARB Review Comments In December 2024, the ARB unanimously recommended approval of a prior design of this project to Council with conditions of approval, including a requirement to return to an ARB Ad Hoc Committee for specific minor modifications to the design. They also supported Urban Forestry’s COA for the 200% tree value bond. The items the ARB recommended return to an ARB Ad Hoc committee included: 1. Ensure the approved plans do not further increase activity in the TPZ than currently shown in the plans without Arborist review. Remove balconies from within the Oak tree canopy. 2. Include greater specification of all materials including complete material specifications and samples, the corner details, and reducing the Light Reflectance Value (LRV) of the white paint finish to 83 LRV or less. 3. Provide at least 25% of the long-term bicycle parking readily accessible at grade 4. All residential units shall comply with the City’s private open space requirements, excluding the units within the Oak tree canopy 5. Revise the tree planting plan to eliminate or relocate proposed new trees under the Oak tree canopy, with review from the City Arborist 6. Reduce the height and total transparent area of glazing on the sixth floor 7. Review and revise the elevations to eliminate or mitigate co-planar situations with different building materials The ARB also requested that the following conditions of approval be added to the conditions set forth in the Record of Land Use Action: 1. Provide a shade/blind and lighting control plan for after-hours within the office use as applied to similar previous projects 2. Ensure the structure over the below grade garage within setbacks can accommodate proposed planting and utilities, with at least 3 feet of soil depth Project Description The proposed mixed-use project includes 70 residential rental units and 1,894 square feet of office on the ground floor. The project would continue to be a six-story project with two levels of below grade parking. Access to the below grade parking garage is provided from Byron Street. The materials of the project have not changed from the previously reviewed design. A location map is included in Attachment A and the project plans are included in Attachment D. The revised plans include the following high-level changes to the project: Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 9 Change of use of the sixth floor from office to residential, which reduced the proposed office use from 9,115 square feet to 1,894 square feet. Increase in number of proposed residential units from 63 units to 70 units The applicant also incorporated some of the comments from the previous ARB hearing into the revised design, as discussed further below. ANALYSIS Overall, staff’s analysis concludes that the project, with the proposed modifications, would comply with relevant plans, policies, and regulations or otherwise deviate in a manner that is consistent with the code through the Planned Community Rezoning process and the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Design Changes Based on discussions with the applicant, staff understands that the proposed design changes were precipitated by updated guidance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). On the basis of NFIP documents reflecting the definitions in 44 C.F.R Section 59.1, staff previously provided direction to the applicant that the NFIP standards (and, accordingly, PAMC Chapter 16.52) required that a mixed-use building devote at least 25 percent of its floor area to non-residential uses. In April 2025, staff received email correspondence from FEMA representatives stating that the percentage thresholds for building types stated in 44 C.F.R. Section 59.1 are used only for setting NFIP insurance rates and are not used when applying NFIP building standards. The FEMA representatives confirmed, however, that this distinction is not expressly stated in any FEMA documentation; it may simply be inferred from the absence of a percentage threshold in the NFIP technical bulletins. As a result of this correspondence with FEMA representatives, staff has determined that a 25 percent non-residential floor area threshold is not a requirement under PAMC Chapter 16.52 to construct a basement in a flood hazard zone. However, in accordance with NFIP technical bulletins, the building must still be mixed use and the presence of some commercial or other non-residential use in the building is required; ancillary areas that serve only residents, such as laundry facilities, mail rooms, and exercise facilities are not considered a non-residential use. In addition, all residential uses must be located at base flood elevation plus one foot. The project has thus been modified to eliminate the office square footage on the sixth-floor level, providing only a proposed ground floor office use. The sixth floor has been modified to accommodate residential uses in-lieu of the former office use. This change modified the design by increasing the protrusions into the daylight plane on a portion of the building and changing the privacy context. Specifically, the sixth-floor level no longer has a common open space facing the interior lot line. Instead, on the Byron side, the sixth-floor steps out in line with the levels below. The interior side yard façade closer to Middlefield Road remains the same on levels one Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 9 through five but has been modified slightly on the sixth level to align more with levels one through five. Private balconies have also been added on the sixth floor. In addition to these key modifications, the applicant incorporated some of the ARB’s previous recommendations into the revised plans. These changes include: The materials are better specified and the LRV has been reduced to 82, consistent with the previously submitted materials board 18 of the 70 required long-term bike parking spaces are now on the ground floor in order to meet the ARB’s recommendation that 25% of the long-term bicycle parking spaces be provided at the ground floor level Bird-safe glass has been incorporated for all of the balconies, and for the windows on the sixth floor Instances of co-planar material changes have been revised. The following items recommended by the ARB have not been addressed in the revised plans: The balconies within the Oak tree canopy remain where the ARB recommended that these be removed 97 square feet of useable open space per unit is provided where 150 square feet is required where the ARB recommended that all residential units comply with the City’s private open space requirements, excluding units within the Oak tree canopy One proposed tree is primarily within the canopy of the existing Oak tree where the ARB recommended that the tree planting plan be revised to eliminate or relocate proposed new trees under the Oak tree canopy, with review from the City Arborist. Staff notes that modifications to the balconies also relate to deviations from development standards with respect to Open Space. Staff will recommend that the PTC also weigh in on these proposed modifications. Additionally, although one new tree is proposed within the canopy of the existing oak, consistent with the previous design, the City’s Urban Forestry division has reviewed and recommended approval of the revised plans. Nevertheless, the ARB’s recommendations from the previous approval have been incorporated into a proposed condition of approval in Attachment B for the PTC and Council’s consideration. The two recommended conditions of approval have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval (see Conditions #9, #13, and #14 in Attachment B). Staff notes that the second condition of approval related to providing soil depth within the special setback also helps to address the PTC’s recommendation to further evaluate improvements within the special setback. The applicant has shown the requested soil depth on Sheet A.3A. In addition, the corner has been designed in a manner that will allow flexibility for removal or other modifications if any portion of the area is needed to accommodate modifications at Middlefield Road and University Avenue. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 9 Unit Affordability With the change in the unit count, the applicant proposed a change in the BMR units. The project now proposes to provide one Very-Low Income, one Low Income, and twelve Moderate Income units; 20.6% of the total 70 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 Report13. The proposed mix falls short of the weighted 20% as shown below. This will need to be addressed prior to Council decision but does not need to be addressed prior to the ARB recommendation. 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 1 1.4%2.7% Low Income 51-80%1.2 1 1.4%1.7%Below Market Rate Units Moderate Income 81-120%0.6 12 17.2%10.3% Typical Units Above Moderate & Market Rate 121% +0 56 Total 70 20%14.7% The ARB is encouraged to consider how the design changes affect their prior recommendation for approval. 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 D. The City published a Final EIR in March 2025, which evaluated a 63-unit development with 9,115 sf of office. The City is currently preparing a Revised Final EIR to reflect the revised proposed project and to document that the scope change does not result in any new or more significant impacts, beyond what was assessed in the previously published Draft and Final EIR. 13 September 21, 2020, Council Staff Report - https://bit.ly/PHZ-CouncilReport Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 9 PUBLIC NOTIFCIATION, OUTREACH & COMMENTS 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 August 8, 2025, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on August 6,2025 which is 14 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Neighbors at The Hamilton have been involved in this process, primarily through emails from attorneys Leigh Prince and Christopher Ream. All prior comments are available in Attachment C. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: ARB Findings and Conditions of Approval Attachment C: Public Comments Attachment D: Project Plans Report Author & Contact Information Emily Kallas, Senior Planner (650) 617-3125 Emily.Kallas@PaloAlto.gov ARB15 Liaison & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 15 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@paloalto.gov Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 21     30 24 24 24 24 30 24 24 First United_Methodist Church Alain Pinel Realtor Lytton Gardens 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 200.0' 100.0' 100.0' 250.0' 225.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 200.0' 152.5' 19.3'3.0' 47.7' 25.2' 67.0' 22.2' 100.0' 125.0' 140.0' 112.5'140.0' 112.5' 160.0' 112.5' 160.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0'100.0' 59.0' 100.0' 59.0' 100.0' 66.0' 100.0' 66.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 95.0' 50.0' 95.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 147.5' 400.0' 174.7' 47.8' 3.0' 19.3'22.2' 133.0' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 75.0' 125.0' 50.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 48.5' 7.0'1.5' 150.0' 50.0' 143.0' 75.0' 125.0' 75.0' 125.0' 48.5' 82.0' 48.5' 82.0' 35.0' 100.0' 35.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 100.0' 35.0' 100.0' 57.5' 125.0' 57.5' 125.0' 67.5' 125.0' 67.5' 125.0' 50.0' 90.0' 75.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 25.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0'75.0' 75.0' 578 642-652 630-640 600-610 415 405 434 765 750-798 482 486 490 483 547 526 649 625 523 518 610 600 616 624 630 511 517 524 500 680 725 478 499 489 435 428 422 416 724 425 555 530 575 555 536 518 720 500 498 755 515 537 543539 720 519 UNIVERSITY AVENUE UN I V E R S I T Y A V E N U E BYR O N S T R E E T MIDDLEFIELD ROAD FULTON STREET MIDDLEFIELD ROAD WEBSTER STREET FULTON STREET HAMILTON AVENUE RM-20 PC-4173 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site Current Features Search Polygon 0' 68' Attachment A Location Map 660 University CITY OF PALO ALTOI N C O R P O R A T E D CAL I F ORN I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f A PR I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto ekallas, 2024-03-21 09:04:52 Attachment A. Location Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 2 Attachment A - Location Map     Packet Pg. 22     Page 1 of 17 6 2 2 7 Attachment B ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: With approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Community Rezoning in accordance with Ordinance _______ and Resolution _______, the proposed project complies with the zoning code and Comprehensive Plan. The project is not located within a coordinated area plan area. The proposed project is consistent with relevant goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Below is an analysis of the applicable goals and policies: Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Multiple Family Residential. The project proposes high-density housing in an area designated for high-density housing. The project includes a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to allow for existing non-conforming office uses to be redeveloped when part of a new mixed-use development. This would align the proposed project with the underlying comprehensive plan land use designation. Land Use Element Policy L-1.3 Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. This project proposes to redevelop two existing medical office buildings into a mixed-use, office and multiple-family residential rental building within the Downtown neighborhood. Policy L-2.5 Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as feasible. This project includes 14 BMR units, which is 20% of the 66 provided housing units. Policy L-2.11 Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The proposed building includes a deck area for the office and individual balconies for the residents, in keeping with the urban character of the project and neighborhood. Greenery is incorporated into the ground level planters. Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The proposed residential building will act as a gateway to the Downtown area and meets the Architectural Review Board findings for approval. Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings and Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 23     Page 2 of 17 6 2 2 7 Policy L-6.7 Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. The proposed project is six stories, two stories taller than the nearby Lytton Gardens and The Hamilton residences. While it will be the tallest building in the immediate area, overall it is compatible with the Downtown neighborhood. Policy T-1.19 Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. The project includes sufficient short and long term bicycle parking in compliance with the code requirements. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: There is internal order between the ground floor lobby and amenity spaces, upper floor residences, and office penthouse. There are separate, defined entrances for the residents and office tenant. There are no historic resources on this property. The context-based design criteria do not apply. However, the project incorporates many of the design intents and is consistent with the Architectural Review findings for approval. The six-story building is taller than nearby four-story buildings. However, this is to accommodate the mixed use ground floor for flood zone requirements, and to respect the Middlefield special setback. It will enhance the residential options Downtown by providing additional units at various sizes. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project incorporates a variety of materials, including gray cast concrete, wood tone panels, painted siding, glass, and landscape elements that are of high quality and that integrate well to create a cohesive design. The project proposes on site Public Art, which will also enhance the design. The project will stand out from other nearby buildings, because it uses a variety of materials to break up the massing and add visual interest. Most other buildings in the area use a more limited palette. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings and Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 24     Page 3 of 17 6 2 2 7 The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The driveway to the below grade garage is located on Byron St. due to traffic limitations on University Avenue and Middlefield Road. The bike rooms are located below grade and are accessible by stair or by elevator. Building operations such as refuse collection and utilities have been designed to be oriented towards the side streets to create a cohesive façade along University Ave. Pedestrian access is clear and a separate entrance is provided for the residents and office users. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The project is consistent with the finding in that the project provides landscaped area around the perimeter wherever possible, including 9 new trees, and 4 new street trees (13 trees total), as well as in planter boxes on the rooftop garden. The project will protect the Coast Live Oak and provides measures to ensure the tree’s protection through construction. All plants proposed are very low to moderate water use, as well as native or regionally adapted. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. The project proposed an all electric design and will be consistent with Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) requirements. DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "660 University Ave., Palo Alto, CA,” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on March 3, 2025, as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT: Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions as contained in this document. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET: A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings and Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 25     Page 4 of 17 6 2 2 7 Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. ARB SUBCOMMITTEE: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB subcommittee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: a.TBD 6. ENTITLEMENT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of issuance of the entitlement. If within such one/two years period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced, the Planning entitlement shall expire. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration. 7. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in said document. Prior to requesting issuance of any related demolition and/or construction permits, the applicant shall meet with the Project Planner to review and ensure compliance with the MMRP, subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning of Planning and Development Services. 8. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. 9. BASEMENT EXCAVATION: Any retaining wall required for basement excavation shall not prevent the planting and future growth of required landscaping. This shall be review by the Project Planner prior to issuance of a Building permit. 10. NOISE THRESHOLDS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. In accordance with PAMC Section 9.10.030, No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. All noise producing equipment shall be located outside of required setbacks. 11. OPEN AIR LOUDSPEAKERS (AMPLIFIED MUSIC). In accordance with PAMC Section 9.12, no amplified music shall be used for producing sound in or upon any open area, to which the public has access, between the hours of 11:00pm and one hour after sunrise. 12.NOISE REPORT AT BUILDING STAGE. An analysis of the proposed project’s compliance with the City’s noise requirements for the proposed HVAC was prepared as part of the documentation to support a Class 32 categorical exemption. At the time of building permit issuance for new construction or for installation of any such mechanical equipment, if the proposed equipment exceeds the anticipated noise Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings and Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 26     Page 5 of 17 6 2 2 7 level that was analyzed or is proposed in a location that is closer to the property line, the applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis by an acoustical engineer demonstrating projected compliance with the Noise Ordinance. The analysis shall be based on acoustical readings, equipment specifications and any proposed sound reduction measures, such as equipment enclosures or insulation, which demonstrate a sufficient degree of sound attenuation to assure that the prescribed noise levels will not be exceeded. 13. LIGHTING. For the office use only, between the hours of 10:00pm-6:00am (normal cessation of business hours), lighting within the building or on the property shall be reduced to its minimum necessary to facilitate security, in order to minimize light glare at night. 14. WINDOW SHADES. For the office use only, between the hours of 10:00pm-6:00am (normal cessation of business hours), automatic shades shall be utilized to further reduce the light visible from the exterior at night. 15. SIGN APPROVAL NEEDED. No signs are approved at this time. All signs shall conform to the requirements of Title 16.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Sign Code) and shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. 16. AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT (RENTAL PROJECT). This project is subject to the affordable housing requirements set forth in Section 16.65.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. As such, unless the mixed use, nonresidential or residential rental project is exempt under Section 16.65.025 or an alternative is approved as described in Section 16.65.080, all mixed use, nonresidential and residential rental projects shall pay housing impact fees as specified in Section 16.65.060 to mitigate the projects' impacts on the need for affordable housing. This fee will be collected along with other required development impacts fees. 17.AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN AND AGREEMENT. The applicant shall prepare an affordable housing plan. An affordable housing agreement, reviewed and approved by the City of Palo Alto, shall be recorded prior to the approval of any final or parcel map or building permit for the development project (PAMC 16.65.090). 18.BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) HOUSING. A Regulatory Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the thirteen (13) BMR units shall be executed and recorded prior to final map approval or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. All BMR units constructed under this condition shall be in conformance with the City’s BMR Program rules and regulations. Failure to comply with the timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not waive its later enforcement. Failure to comply with the timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not waive its later enforcement. 19. TRASH ROOM. The trash room shall be used solely for the temporary storage of refuse and recycling that is disposed on a regular basis and shall be closed and locked during non-business hours. Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings and Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 27     Page 6 of 17 6 2 2 7 20. REFUSE. All trash areas shall be effectively screened from view and covered and maintained in an orderly state to prevent water from entering into the garbage container. No outdoor storage is allowed/permitted unless designated on the approved plan set. Trash areas shall be maintained in a manner to discourage illegal dumping. 21. TDM PROGRAM AND ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT. The applicant shall abide by the Final Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, entitled “660 University Avenue, Transportation Demand Management Prepared for Smith Development”, dated March 3, 2025 to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services. The TDM plan includes measures and programs to achieve a reduction in single-occupancy vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 45%, in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The TDM plan includes an annual monitoring plan to document mode split and trips to the project site. The TDM annual report shall be submitted to the Chief Transportation Official. Monitoring and reporting requirements may be revised in the future if the minimum reduction is not achieved through the measures and programs initially implemented. Projects that do not achieve the required reduction may be subject to daily penalties as set forth in the City’s fee schedule. 22. MECHANICAL LIFT PARKING. Up to 52 required parking spaces may be provided in a puzzle parking system, which allows independent access to each vehicle. The property owner shall have a maintenance agreement with the lift system manufacturer and the system shall be operational at all times. All new renters/employees shall be given instructions on how to operate the lift system. If the lift system is out of operation for any reason, anyone who is not able to retrieve their vehicle within a 10-minute period shall be reimbursed by the property owner or their designee for travel expenses up to $50 per occurrence. 23. UTILITY LOCATIONS: In no case shall utilities be placed in a location that requires equipment and/or bollards to encroach into a required parking space. In no case shall a pipeline be placed within 10 feet of a proposed tree and/or tree designated to remain. 24. SUBDIVISION MAP. The Lot Merger and Final Map for Condominium Purposes shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. 25. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $4,093,094.24 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 26. REQUIRED PUBLIC ART. In conformance with PAMC 16.61, and to the satisfaction of the Public Art Commission, the property owner and/or applicant shall select an artist and received final approval of the art plan, or pay the in-lieu fee equivalent to 1% of the estimated construction valuation, prior to obtaining a Building permit. All required artwork shall be installed as approved by the Public Art Commission and verified by Public Art staff prior to release of the final Use and Occupancy permit. 27. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings and Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 28     Page 8 of 17 6 2 2 7 on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 28. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 29. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Emily Kallas at emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. BUILDING 30. A building permit is required for the scope of work shown. 31. At time of building permit, the following items shall be reviewed in detail. a. Building and site accessibility per CBC 11A, 11B b. Regular and van accessible spaces including EV per CBC and PAMC c. Building Code analysis d. Fire-rating and protection of opening at roof, floors, and walls e. Green building compliance. f. Structural design calculations, plans, and details. PUBLIC WORKS ZERO WASTE 32. Project will be required to submit a salvage survey prior to receiving the building permit. Please anticipate meeting PAMC 5.24 Deconstruction and Construction Materials Management requirements. Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings and Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 29     Page 9 of 17 6 2 2 7 33. The following comments below are part of the Palo Alto Municipality Code. If your scope of work includes internal and external bins then cut-sheets for the color-coded internal and external containers, related color-coded millwork, and it’s colored signage must be included in the building plans prior to receiving approval from Zero Waste. Please see below for more details. As per Palo Alto Municipal Code 5.20.108 the site is required to have color-coded refuse containers, related color-coded millwork, and colored signage. The three refuse containers shall include recycle (blue container), compost (green container), and garbage (black container). Applicant shall present on the plan the locations and quantity of both (any) internal and external refuse containers, it’s millwork, along with the signage. This requirement applies to any external or internal refuse containers located in common areas such as entrances, conference rooms, open space, lobby, garage, mail room, gym, and etc. except for restrooms, copy area, and mother’s room. Millwork to store the color-coded refuse containers must have a minimum of four inches in height worth of color-coding, wrapping around the full width of the millwork. Signage must be color coded with photos or illustrations of commonly discarded items. Restrooms must have a green compost container for paper towels and an optional black landfill container if applicable. Copy area must have either a recycle bin only or all three refuse receptacles (green compost, blue recycle, and black landfill container). Mother’s room must minimally have a green compost container and black landfill container. Please refer to PAMC 5.20.108 and the Internal Container Guide. Examples of appropriate signage can be found in the Managing Zero Waste at Your Business Guide. Electronic copies of these signage can be found on the Zero Waste Palo Alto’s website, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Zero-Waste/What-Goes- Where/Toolkit#section-2 and hard copies can be requested from the waste hauler, Greenwaste of Palo Alto, (650) 493-4894. TRANSPORTATION 34. BUILDING PERMIT REVISIONS: Revise site plans so that sight distance triangles properly show the required sight clearance required, as shown in the shared markups. Additional revisions as required for the TDM Plan, see condition #36. 35.MECHANICAL LIFT: The applicant shall submit an analysis and report, prepared by a qualified professional for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Development Services, that demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed parking lift system with respect to operational details, identifies a regular and emergency maintenance schedule, and procedures and backup systems for tenants prior to building permit issuance. The applicant agrees to maintain a maintenance service contract with a certified individual/organization that will provide a prompt response (same day) to address system issues. An annual audit of the system must be provided to Planning/Transportation staff of the system to ensure the system operates effectively. If the audit or performance reports reveal that the system is not functioning or is failing to meet required operational standards, the applicant will be required to take corrective measures. Failure to address identified issues may result in penalties or restrictions, including but not limited to enforcement actions under local code enforcement procedures. 36.TDM PLAN MONITORING: The Owner and any subsequent Owner(s) of the property, including their successors, assigns, or agents, shall comply with all Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures set forth in this approval. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Director of Planning on an annual basis, demonstrating adherence to the approved TDM measures. Should the Owner fail to meet the established targets and goals of the TDM Plan, the director may require program modifications and may impose administrative penalties if identified deficiencies are not addressed within six months. Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings and Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 30     Page 10 of 17 6 2 2 7 URBAN FORESTRY 37. PROJECT ARBORIST. The property owner shall hire a certified arborist to ensure the project conforms to all Planning and Urban Forestry conditions related to landscaping/trees, as well as relevant CEQA Mitigation Measures. 38.TREE PROTECTION FENCING. Tree protection fencing shall be required for the street trees to remain, the neighboring Coast Live Oak, and for all tree/shrubs proposed to be maintained. 39. TREE-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. The property owner shall follow all conditions from the Urban Forester and all recommendations and guidelines listed in Section 6.1 of the February 7, 2024 Arborist Report prepared by David L. Babby, including but not limited to: a. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION INSPECTION REQUIRED. Prior to any site work, contractor must call Uriel Hernandez at 650-329-2450 to schedule an inspection of any required protective fencing. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. b. Prior to mobilizing equipment to the site, install tree protection fencing for tree #10, utilize Type I Protection, which includes affixing 5- to 6-foot tall chain link onto 2-inch diameter steel posts spaced apart as needed to remain upright. c. Digging for any bollards or permanent fencing within a TPZ, such as for #10, shall be manually performed using a shovel or post-hole digger. For any root encountered during the process with a diameter ≥2 inches, shift the hole over by 12 inches and repeat the process. d. All pruning shall be performed under the direction of the Project Arborist, conducted in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal code 8.10.020 regarding the prohibited use of excessive pruning for Quercus agrifolia species, in addition to the best management practices outlined in ANSI A300, and implemented by a California licensed tree-service contractor (D-49) with an ISA certified arborist in a supervisory role. e. All pruning work on oak #10 shall be supervised directly by the project arborist. Any authorized digging within the TPZ should be retained and protect roots encountered with diameters of ≥2 inches. Once exposed, cover with wet burlap and keep continually moist until they can be assessed by the project arborist; once assessed, cleanly sever at 90° to the angle of root growth against the cut line using a fine tooth saw, and then immediately after, bury the cut end with soil or keep continually moist by burlap until the dug area is backfilled. Roots encountered with diameters <2 inches can be cleanly severed at a 90° angle to the direction of root growth. f. Removing existing asphalt and base material located beyond the proposed deck and within #10's TPZ shall be performed under direct supervision by the project arborist. g. Once work is completed, restrict heavy equipment from traveling over the newly exposed ground, manually spread a 4- to 6-inch layer of coarse wood chips (or as determined by the project arborist), and expand protection fencing. The removal of any existing plant material within a TPZ must be manually performed, and the work reviewed with the project arborist beforehand. 40. Expected impacts to neighboring protected coast live oak tree #10 as described in the C8 updated consulting arborist report from David Babby and from the ground penetrating radar study provided by consulting arborist Robert Booty, are within acceptable parameters of industry standards, provided that all mitigation methods outlined in the consulting arborist report are followed during construction. In addition, prior to the applicant receiving building permit approval, a security bond will be placed on the neighboring coast live oak tree (Quercus agrifolia) 50" DBH tree #10 for 200% of the appraised replacement value Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings and Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 31     Page 11 of 17 6 2 2 7 of the tree. The security deposit duration period shall be five years from the date of final occupancy. See language below pertaining to the tree bond as specified in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual: 41. TREE APPRAISAL & SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. (Reference: CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.25). Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall work with the Urban Forestry Section to prepare and secure a tree appraisal and security deposit agreement stipulating its duration and a monitoring program. For the purposes of a security deposit agreement, the monetary market or replacement value shall be determined using the most recent version of the “Guide for Plant Appraisal”. The appraisal shall be performed at the applicant’s expense, and the appraiser shall be subject to the approval of the Urban Forester. a. SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. Prior to grading or building permit issuance, as a condition of development approval, the applicant shall post a security deposit for 200% of the appraised replacement value of the following protected status tree: Tree #10, 50" DBH Quercus agrifolia on the neighboring property. The security may be a cash deposit, letter of credit, or surety bond and shall be filed with the Revenue Collections/Finance Department or in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. b. SECURITY DEPOSIT & MONITORING PROGRAM. The applicant (or new property owner should the property change hands) shall provide to the City of Palo Alto an annual tree evaluation report prepared by the project arborist or other qualified certified arborist, assessing the condition and providing recommendations to correct potential tree decline. The monitoring program shall end three years from date of final occupancy. c. SECURITY DEPOSIT DURATION. The security deposit duration period shall be five years from the date of final occupancy. Return of the security guarantee shall be subject to City approval of the final monitoring report. A tree shall be considered dead when the main leader has died back, 25% of the crown is dead or if major trunk or root damage is evident. Should the tree die, a new tree of equal or greater appraised value shall be planted in the same area by the applicant (or new property owner should the property change hands) with permission of the tree owner at 517 Byron Street. Landscape area and irrigation shall be adapted to provide optimum growing conditions for the replacement tree at applicants expense. The replacement tree that is planted shall be subject to a new three-year establishment and monitoring program. The applicant shall provide an annual tree evaluation report as originally required. d. FORFEIT OF DEPOSIT. The City may determine that if the tree should die (as defined above) and an agreement on a replacement tree cannot be reached with the tree owner at 517 Byron Street, it will constitute a forfeit of the deposit equal to the appraised value. Any forfeit will be deposited into the Forestry Fund to plant new trees elsewhere. Issues causing forfeit of any portion of the deposit may also be subject to remedies described in Palo Alto Municipal Code. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 42. PUBLIC WORKS APPLICATIONS, FORMS, AND DOCUMENTS: Applicant shall be advised that most forms, applications, and informational documents related to Public Works Engineering conditions can be found at the following link: Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings and Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 32     Page 12 of 17 6 2 2 7 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Engineering-Services/Forms-and-Permits 43. PARCEL MAP: This project is subject to, and contingent upon the approval of and recordation of a parcel map. The submittal, approval and recordation of the Map shall be in accordance with the provisions of the California Subdivision Map Act and Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 21 Subdivision requirements. All existing and proposed property lines, easements, dedications shown on the parcel map are subject to City’s technical review and staff approval during the map process prior to issuance of any construction permits. 44. MAP THIRD-PARTY REVIEW: The City contracts with a third-party surveyor that will review and provide approval of the map’s technical correctness as the City Surveyor, as permitted by the Subdivision Map Act. The Public Works Department will forward a Scope & Fee Letter from the third-party surveyor and the applicant will be responsible for payment of the fee’s indicated therein, which is based on the complexity of the map. 45. STREETWORK PERMIT: The applicant shall obtain a Streetwork Permit from the Department of Public Works for all public improvements. 46. GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT: A Grading Permit is required per PAMC Chapter 16.28. The permit application and all applicable documents (see Section H of application) shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering. Add the following note: “THIS GRADING PERMIT WILL ONLY AUTHORIZE GENERAL GRADING AND INSTALLATION OF THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. OTHER BUILDING AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL.” 47. ROUGH GRADING: provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for access, crane locations (if any), tree protection measures, etc. 48. CIVIL ENGINEER CERTIFICATION: Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, applicant shall provide an as-graded grading plan prepared by the civil engineer that includes original ground surface elevations, as-graded ground surface elevations, lot drainage patterns and locations and elevations of all surface and subsurface drainage facilities. The civil engineer shall certify that the work was done in accordance with the final approved grading plan. 49. SOILS ENGINEER CERTIFICATION: Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, applicant shall provide a soil grading report prepared by the soils engineer, including locations and elevation of field density tests, summaries of field and laboratory tests and other substantiating data, and comments on any changes made during grading and their effect on the recommendations made in the soils engineering investigation report. The soils engineer shall certify as to the adequacy of the site for the intended use. Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings and Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 33     Page 13 of 17 6 2 2 7 50. SHORING & TIEBACKS: Provide a shoring plan showing the existing utilities (if needed), to clearly indicate how the new structures will be constructed while protecting the existing utilities (if any). If tiebacks are proposed they shall not extend onto adjacent private property, existing easements or into the City’s right- of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 51. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER STATEMENT: The grading plans shall include the following statement signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record: “THIS PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND FOUND TO BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT”. 52. CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING: At the time of building permit submittal, the applicant shall submit a recent groundwater level reading. This project may be subjected to a dewatering permit during construction due to the groundwater level relative to the depth of excavation. 53. FLOOD ZONE: This project is in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area and shall comply with the requirements in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.52. 54. DRY-FLOODPROOFING PLAN INSERT: Insert the “Plan Insert for Dry Floodproofed Non-Residential and Mixed-Use Buildings” sheet into the plan set. 55. FLOODPROOFING CERTIFICATE: A Floodproofing Certificate (FEMA Form FF-206-FY-22-153, also formerly known as 086-0-34) shall be completed by a licensed professional engineer prior to building permit approval. 56. FLOODPROOFING PLANS REQUIRED: Prior to building permit final, a licensed professional engineer shall submit a (1) Flood Emergency Operations Plan and (2) Inspection and Maintenance Plan. Additional information may be obtained from Section 5.5 of FEMA Technical Bulletin 3, dated January 2021. 57. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Prior to Public Works final inspection, the owner shall enter into an Operations and Maintenance Agreement to ensure that the Flood Emergency Operations Plan, and the Inspection and Maintenance Plan are followed for the life of the structure and that the agreement will be transferred to future owners and/or leaseholders. This agreement shall be notarized and recorded with the County of Santa Clara and passed on to all subsequent owners. 58. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for any work that encroaches onto the City right-of-way. 59. LOGISTICS PLAN: A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, bus stop relocations, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors’ parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map. NOTE: Some items/tasks on the logistics plan may require an encroachment permit. Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings and Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 34     Page 14 of 17 6 2 2 7 60. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: All improvement plan sets shall include the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” sheet. 61. C.3 THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATION: Applicant shall provide certification from a qualified third-party reviewer that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Provision C.3 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. 62. Submit the following: a. Stamped and signed C.3 data form (April 2023 version) from SCVURPPP. https://scvurppp.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SCVURPPP-C.3-Data-Form-_-updated__4- 12-2023_clean_fillable.pdf b. Final stamped and signed letter confirming which documents were reviewed and that the project complies with Provision C.3 and PAMC 16.11. 63. C.3 STORMWATER AGREEMENT: The applicant shall enter into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. The agreement shall be executed by the applicant team prior to building permit final. 64. C.3 FINAL THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY: Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, the third-party reviewer shall submit to the City a certification verifying that all the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures were installed in accordance with the approved plans. 65. PAVEMENT RESTORATION: The applicant shall restore the pavement along the entire project frontage, curb-to-curb, by performing a 3.5” grind and overlay. The exact restoration limits will be determined once the resulting road condition is known following completion of heavy construction activities and utility lateral installations, at minimum the extent will be the project frontage. 66. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. To determine the impervious surface area that is being disturbed, provide the quantity on the site plan. 67. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS FINAL/ACCEPTANCE (STORM DRAIN LOGO): The applicant is required to paint “No Dumping/Flows to Matadero Creek” in blue on a white background adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. The name of the creek to which the proposed development drains can be obtained from Public Works Engineering. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings and Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 35     Page 15 of 17 6 2 2 7 68. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS FINAL/ACCEPTANCE (ELEVATION CERTIFICATE): The "as-built" elevation of the lowest floor not used solely for parking or storage must be certified on the FEMA Elevation Certificate and accepted by Public Works inspector as meeting the Special Flood Hazard Area requirements prior to final City approval of the structure. WATERSHED PROTECTION 69. Stormwater treatment measures a. All Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements shall be followed. b. Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details. c. For all C.3 features, vendor specifications regarding installation and maintenance should be followed and provided to city staff. Copies must be submitted to Pam Boyle Rodriguez at pamela.boylerodriguez@cityofpaloalto.org. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. d. Staff from Stormwater Program (Watershed Protection Division) may be present during installation of stormwater treatment measures. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 before installation. Add this bullet as a note to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan. 70. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org) - Add these bullets as a note to the building plans. e. Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-friendly-landscape- guidelines-sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance. f. Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. 71. Stormwater quality protection g. Temporary and permanent waste, compost and recycling containers shall be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. h. Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed). i. Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping. j. Offsite downgrade storm drain inlets shall also be identified on this plan set and protected. If City staff removes protection from an inlet in the ROW during a rain event, the contractor shall replace the inlet protection by the end of the following business day. 72. All proposed Stormwater treatment measures should have a detail on this detail sheet. Provide a standard detail for the pervious pavers Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings and Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 36     Page 16 of 17 6 2 2 7 73. Alternative Compliance for Stormwater Treatment: The applicant and the City shall enter into an agreement acceptable to the Public Works Director or designated representative to provide alternative compliance as either approved equivalent treatment area or with payment of in-lieu fees to comply with the regulated projects stormwater treatment obligations FIRE 74. Include the following notes in the Building Permit plan set: a. Install a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler, NFPA 14 standpipe, NFPA 20 fire pump and NFPA 72 fire alarm system. b. This building shall be evaluated for an Emergency Responder Radio System. WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER UTILITIES PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 75. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect utility services and remove meters. The utility demo is to be processed within 10 working days after receipt of the request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR BUILDING PERMIT (WGW Utility Engineering) 76. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m. and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 77. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 78. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 79. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services, and laterals as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services/laterals. Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings and Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 37     Page 17 of 17 6 2 2 7 80. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead-free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly (RPDA backflow preventer device, STD. WD-12A or STD. WD-12B) is required for all existing and new fire water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPDA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the City owned meter, within 5’ (feet) of the property line or City Right of Way. 81. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the city inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 82. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 83. If a new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. If the existing fire service to remain. Applicant to sign an application for CPAU connection for & agree to operate the fire service in accordance with these rules & regulations. Applicant needs to verify whether the existing water supply can meet the current & anticipated fire flows at the site & all equipment for the sprinkler system is in accordance with the fire department requirements. 84. Each unit or building shall have its own water meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 85. A sewer lateral per lot is required. Show the location of the sewer lateral on the plans. Existing sewer laterals (city's co to sewer main) if determined to be in poor condition shall be replaced at the owner's expense. A video inspection and full evaluation of the lateral will be performed by WGW utilities operations. The applicant will be informed of the sewer lateral assessment and need to install a new lateral. If a new sewer lateral is required, a profile of the sewer lateral is required showing any possible conflicts with storm, electric/communications ductbanks or other utilities. 86. All existing water and wastewater services/laterals that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per the latest WGW utilities standards. 87. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas, or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas, and wastewater mains/laterals/water services/or meters. New water or wastewater services/laterals/meters may not be installed within 10’ of existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water and wastewater services/laterals/meters. Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings and Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 38     Page 18 of 17 6 2 2 7 88. The applicant shall provide to the WGW Utility Engineering department a copy of the plans for the fire system including all fire department's requirements prior to the actual service installation. 89. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas, & wastewater. 90. The contractor is to temporary plug the sewer lateral during construction. (by using t cone plug: expandable pipe plug with no metal parts) SECTION 7. Term of Approval. 1.Planned Community Development Schedule. Sixty days prior to the expiration of the development schedule, the director shall notify the property owner in writing of the date of expiration and advise the property owner of Section 18.38.130. Failure to meet the approved development schedule, including an extension, if granted, shall result in: (a) The expiration of the property owner's right to develop under the PC district. The director shall notify the property owner, the city council, the planning commission and the building official of such expiration; and (b) The director's initiating a zone change for the property subject to the PC district in accordance with Chapter 18.80. The property owner may submit a new application for a PC district concurrently with the director's recommendation for a zone change. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ ___________________________ Director of Planning and Assistant City Attorney Development Services PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: 1. Those plans prepared by KSH Architects titled “"660 University Ave., Palo Alto, CA,” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on January 21, 2025. Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings and Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 39     From:Kallas, Emily To:Christopher Ream Cc:Gilbert, Carol Subject:Re: 660 University Date:Monday, July 21, 2025 4:28:11 PM Attachments:Outlook-Logo__Desc.png Outlook-po3batwi.png Outlook-Logo__Desc.png Outlook-tkzgy4nh.png Hi Chris, Thank you for letting me know you did not receive my email on July 14th. The revised plans are also available on the project webpage: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/660-University-Ave You are correct that the plans have been reuploaded with the changes you identified. They also made changes to how the BMR units are distributed, and minor changes to the Middlefield setback area. We are currently targeting ARB on August 21, PTC on September 24, and Council on October 20 or November 3 depending on agenda availability. Thanks, Emily Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped From: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@paloalto.gov> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 4:18 PM To: Christopher Ream <chrisshop@reamlaw.com> Cc: Gilbert, Carol <carol.gilbert@comcast.net> Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 40     Subject: Re: 660 University Hi Chris, Yes, we discussed this on July 14th. Please let me know if you did not receive my email that day. That information is correct. Thanks, Emily Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped From: Christopher Ream <chrisshop@reamlaw.com> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 4:16 PM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@paloalto.gov> Cc: Gilbert, Carol <carol.gilbert@comcast.net> Subject: 660 University Emily, Please give me an update on the status of the 660 University Project. It is my understanding that the developer is moving forward with its original application 21PLN-00341. Two new sets of plans and supporting documents were filed on 6/23/2025, C12_660 University Ave_PLAN1.pdf, C12_660 University Ave_PLAN2.pdf, and C12_660 University Ave_DOCS.pdf. My brief review of these plans reveals a major change: The top floor (sixth) is no longer office space but has been changed to 12 new residential units, and the total number of residential units has increased from 66 to 70. I am assuming that these new plans and documents supersede the prior filings. Am I correct in my understanding? Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 41     Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 chrisshop@reamlaw.com Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 42     From:Faith Brigel To:Kallas, Emily Subject:Planning and Transportation Committee: 660 University Ave. Date:Wednesday, April 30, 2025 1:58:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Emily, I received a notice that there will be a public hearing tonight at City Hall re the construction project at 660 University Ave. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend. So I am writing this email to you in the hopes that you and the members of this committee will see it. I cannot state strongly enough how out of place, and cumbersome this huge building will be on University Ave and Byron Street. I have been on Byron St. for thirty years and so I feel that I have some knowledge of that area. It will be out of place in that no other buildings in that area are that large, that dense, nor that high. No other buildings are 6 stories high. Initially weren’t they describing it as 4 stories, which is still very high? I call it cumbersome in that there will be many people living there, and many people working there and most of them will need parking spots. And as they explained at one of the meetings though they will have a 2 level underground parking lot- there still will NOT be enough parking sports for all of their people. There is very little parking on University Ave, , and rarely are there any available parking spots on Byron Street. Similarly, finding parking on Middlefield is close to impossible. This lack of parking for their tenants, and clients or customers will be a serious problem once the construction is complete. I am quite sure that they are not yet aware of this. The fact that they are planning to build 6 stories is of a great concern to me. My building at 518 Byron Street is as I have explained a one story, and it has been there for more than 120 years. Having this construction 6 stories high right across the street will effect the light plan. It will be ominous. And it will detrimentally affect the quality of life of my tenants. I am hoping and would expect that the City Staff would help protect the Palo Alto community of already established buildings., like mine, from new developments coming in and overwhelming the area. I hope that you will not just focus on building more houses for Palo Alto, but also protect the character that older, Victorian buildings such as mine offer to our City. Thank you, Faith W. Brigel Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 43     From:Faith Brigel To:Planning Commission Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: The 511 Byron St., 660 University Ave. 680 University Ave., 500 Middlefield Ave.Complex Date:Friday, March 14, 2025 6:35:17 PM Attachments:image001.png ATT00001.txt image002.png ATT00002.txt CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Panning Commission, I do not know if you got the email that I sent to you on March 12 right before the meeting. I am sorry that it was so late. I read some of what happened in the meeting and I would like to make a few comments. Firstly, I realize that these developers initially submitted their plans for this project in 2021. And I think that there may be the concern that since it has been such a long time- you should be more empathic to them, and just approve it. I would like to make the point that had their initial draft been different it may have gone through much faster and more smoothly. By different I mean more in line with the other buildings in this area. From the first draft this building has been mammoth, massive, and very out of character with this neighborhood. For several reasons this construction is wrong for that location. All the changes that they have made over the past few years have not brought it down in scale or size. In fact, it has gotten larger! When they were told that they need more setback- they said fine we will just add another story- so it went from four stories up to six stories! And so due to their own insistence that it remain massive in size - this process has lingered. And they have taken up your time. Secondly, I read that at least one of you believe that the final decision that was made at your meeting was wrong. And that you should have approved their current design. I want to say that you did the right thing. I am thrilled that their design was not approved. It is so wrong. I was fearing that only once it is built will you see how wrong it is. And by then of course it is too late. Thirdly, to mention several of the reasons why it is wrong: 1- It will be huge, gigantic, massive and totally out of scale with the neighbor’s buildings. There are NO 6 story buildings here. The highest is 4 stories. 2- That intersection of University and Middlefield is the gateway to downtown Palo Alto, and it is always congested. To accept this current design will add more congestion and traffic than it can bear. It will be a constant nightmare. 3- At one of the meetings the developer himself stated that they will have a two level parking garage in their new basement. But he added, there will NOT be enough parking spots for them. There will be 66 apartments. And only 78 spaces. What about the parking needs of their offices? That is not near enough what they will need. So where will they park? They will not be able to park on Byron Street which is a small, narrow street and as I wrote 3/12 it is always full. Rarely are there available spots. There will be very few spots on University, and very few on Middlefield. So this will become a serious and ongoing problem. 4- This area mostly consists of office buildings with professionals, attorneys, dentists, and therapists. Aside from the traffic, it is a quiet area. Allowing this gigantic construction with 66 studio apartments that will have balconies, plus offices will effect the ambiance negatively. We have no restaurants, nor bars in our area. It is quiet. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 44     5- By allowing this development company to build a 6 story, complex sets a precedent for others to build that high in this area. A bad decision. 6- Personally, I have owned the small, one-story, beautiful, well maintained, 120 year old Victorian building across the street. This massive development will totally overshadow my building, which will negatively affect the quality of living of my tenants. One tenant has already told me that she might move out. And I think it might affect my daylight plane. 7- I understand that due to some contract not being signed by Palo Alto the developers can now build at their own discretion. But it seems that these developers realize the benefits of trying to get the Planning Commission and the City Council’s approval. But still this is not a reason to approve such a phenomenally mammoth building. Pease continue to use your discretion, and integrity as you did at that last meeting, and do not let a developer destroy what has been a tasteful, professional area just for their own greed. Thank you for your consideration. I would be happy to meet any of you on Byron Street to discuss this further. I have spent a lot of time on Byron since 1987, which is 38 years. Best regards, Faith Faith W. Brigel 518 Byron St. > On Mar 12, 2025, at 5:35 PM, Faith Brigel <faithwb3@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> Dear Planning Commission, >> I am not able to get to the meeting tonight. And I was not able to write any sooner. >> I hope that you see this email prior to the meeting. I have attended a couple of the other meetings on the construction on University Ave. and Byron. I own the building across the street. It is a single story Victorian house. I have been there since 1987. >> The construction submitted that is being discussed is much too large for this area. And I understand that now they are asking for it to be six stories. This is much too tall for this area. No other buildings here are that high. There is also a lot of traffic at that corner. The 2 level underground parking will not be large enough for their needs. So their parking needs will spill out onto Byron that is already completely taken every day, all day, except maybe Sunday. >> Please consider the quality of life that will be detrimentally affected by the neighbors by allowing that project to be so massive. Please have them scale it back to a more moderate size. >> Thank you for your consideration. >> >> Faith W. Brigel >> >>> On Mar 6, 2025, at 2:01 PM, Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> You are receiving this email because you have expressed interest in the Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) project proposed at 511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd (aka 660 University). This project. is being presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission on March 12, 2025 at 6pm. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 45     >>> The agenda, staff report, and attachments are available here: >>> https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16498 >>> The project plans, Draft EIR, Final EIR, and other project documents are available here: >>> https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/660-University-Ave >>> If you have any comments, please email them to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. There will also be the opportunity for public comments during the hearing. If you have any questions about the project you would like assistance with prior to the hearing, please email me at emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org. >>> Thanks, and see you next week, >>> Emily Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 46     From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Planning Commission Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:660 University Date:Monday, March 10, 2025 4:23:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Commissioners, Please add your comments and forward to the City Council. This application is now in its 4th year of review. They deserve a decision by council. I attended all the ARB hearings in which opponents made their objections after which the ARB approved the project. The applicant has worked hard to meet concerns while preserving feasibility and choosing a compliant not builder's remedy application. This to my knowledge is the only housing proposal downtown of any significant size. Also it brings with it BMR units that the applicant was able to weight toward lower income residents. Housing downtown is a major city goal in our HE and approval of this project will be a promising start and\ bring the many benefits of downtown living to residents (I am one), to local businesses and to the environment. I look forward to seeing this application approved and see the new housing in my neighborhood. Stephen Levy This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 47     1 Kallas, Emily From:Preparata, Franco <franco_preparata@brown.edu> Sent:Wednesday, March 5, 2025 8:25 AM To:Planning Commission Cc:Lily.lim-tsao@cityofpaloalto.org; Kallas, Emily Subject:660 University Ave CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Byrne Chang (Chair)  Allen Akin (Vice Chair)  Doria Summa (Commissioner)  Bart Hechtman (Commissioner)  Carolyn Templeton (Commissioner)      Dear Honorable City Commissioners:    As residents of The Hamilton, the 55+ retirement community located next to this proposed site, this proposed project is  deeply concerning for us.    The increased density of a 6‐story building would substantially alter what is currently a quiet and safe street; It would  not only change the character of this neighborhood block but it would also create a hazard for many of The Hamilton's  residents. As elderly pedestrians, increased congestion is a significant safety issue. This is particularly the case given that  the vehicular entry to the proposed building’s parking garage would be on Byron Street, next to The Hamilton’s  entrance.    Additionally, Byron Street is a narrow street. As it stands, two cars cannot pass one another on the street. The setback of  the proposed building on the Byron street side would need to be comparable to the setback of The Hamilton complex in  order to permit the safe parking of firetrucks or other emergency vehicles.    We urge you to seriously reconsider the project.    Franco P. and Rosa Maria Preparata  ‐‐   Franco Preparata  An Wang Professor of Computer Science, Emeritus  Brown University  Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 48     1 Kallas, Emily From:Christopher Ream <ream@reamlaw.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 5, 2025 2:31 AM To:Kallas, Emily Subject:660 University - SECOND letter Attachments:Ream Letter re Other Than Tree - 20250305.pdf Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Emily,    Please find attached a SECOND letter from me regarding other concerns with the 660 University project.  This  is in addtion to the letter concerning the Tree which I had just sent to you.  Please include include this SECOND letter as well in the packet for the March 12 PTC hearing.   Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1‐650‐424‐0821 ream@reamlaw.com      Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 49     THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: ream@reamlaw.com March 5, 2025 Commissioners Planning and Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto, California Via: Emily.Foley@CityofPaloAlto.org Re: 660 University Project SECOND LETTER – More Comments Commissioners, The Hamilton is a senior living (55+) condominium development which shares the small block with the proposed development at 660 University Avenue. The Board of Directors of the Hamilton Homeowners Association (the “HHA”), with the support of its residents, has resolved to push for revising the proposed building that will materially adversely affect us and all of our neighbors. Parking Parking in downtown Palo Alto is a problem the City has been dealing with for years and continues to deal with. There is no parking on either University Avenue or Middlefield Road near the project. The Hamilton is on the short block of Byron between University and Hamilton and sees the parking problem every day. It is a narrow street to start with, but on every workday, every single parking spot on both sides of the street is filled all day long. This narrows the drivable room so that two cars going in opposite directions cannot pass; one has to slowly pull into a driveway to make room for the other to pass. Every time a delivery vehicle stops on Byron Street during the day, it clogs and backs up Byron. The project does not provide short-term parking for delivery vehicles, so Byron is going to get backed up many times a day. Applicant calculates that according to PAMC 18.52.040 a total of 111 parking stalls are required to serve the residents of the 66 residential units and the workers in all the office space. But then Applicant invokes several arguments to reduce the number of stalls it has to provide, starting with a 30% reduction claimed by TDM, down to only 69 actual parking stalls. I have seen 20% reductions claimed for TDM, but never 30%. Is Applicant’s claim of 30% proper? Has the city staff carefully reviewed the TDM Applicant has submitted? Will it actually reduce the need for parking or is it only designed to reduce the daily use of cars: Is it designed to reduce the number of daily automotive commutes a person takes, while that person still owns a car to be used for weekend activity. Even though it may reduce daily congestion, that car still needs a place to park. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 50     Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project November 26, 2024 Page 2 of 4 Bottom Line – Applicant has cleverly eliminated 42 parking stalls (111 – 69 = 42). Those 42 stalls may have been eliminated, but the cars have not been eliminated, and the 42 cars that can’t find an empty stall in the project’s garage will be driving around downtown, commercial and residential, looking for a parking space and causing congestion that the TDM was supposed to reduce. My granddaughter and other family members may not come to visit me because of the inability to park nearby; friends will not want to come over as much as they used to. Setbacks At the April 18, 2024 ARB meeting on this project, there was a lot of discussion about the lack of proper setback along Middlefield Road. Applicant has moved the above grade portion of the building back to form a 24’ setback along Middlefield as requested, but the underground garage extends right up to the property line with ZERO setback and a minimal amount of soil fill above the garage structure. (See Sheet A3.3A.) Will the City of Palo Alto be able to make improvements to Middlefield Road in the future with this garage flush up against the road? This brings out the fact that the garage also abuts both University Avenue and Byron Street with zero setbacks. Is this standard and acceptable? Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 51     Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project November 26, 2024 Page 3 of 4 Daylight Plane There is a single family, one-story residence zoned RM-20 at 524 Middlefield Road, adjacent to the project. Upon a 1/21/2022 review of the initial filing by Applicant, Samuel Gutierrez advised Applicant of the requirement to observe a 45° daylight plane. Applicant complied, and in the next submission of plans, cut back the portion of the fourth floor next to the neighboring house. The fourth floor has remained cut back and compliant with the daylight plane in all subsequent plans submitted by Applicant including the current submission; but Applicant has now added two additional stories onto the building raising the height up to 82 feet, and disregarded the fact that these additional floors egregiously violate the daylight plane. The following is from Applicant’s submission. I have enhanced it to make the line of the daylight plane and the location of the neighboring house more visible. Balconies in the Canopy The approval of the Architectural Review Board at its December 5, 2024 meeting was subject to several conditions being met. The first condition was “Remove balconies from within the Oak tree canopy.” (This can be found at the top of the fifth page of the document filed on 3/3/2025 under the name “C11_660 University Ave_DOCS_Revised for PTC.pdf”). Applicant’s plans show 24 balconies would intrude into the canopy (45-foot radius), and none have been removed. 3/32"=1'-0" PL PL OFFICE LOBBY SPEED RAMP DOWN TO P2 LEVEL UNIVERSITY AVE. 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " OFFICE PARKING RESIDENTIAL PARKING STAIR BEYOND 7'- 9 " T Y P . 45.0° 55 ' - 0 " LIN E O F D A Y L I G H T P L A N E 3'- 6 " 3'- 6 " 9'- 9 " 13 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 14 ' - 6 " 7'- 0 " FE N C E 7'- 0 " 9'- 9 " EL. -1'-6" (NAVD 88 EL. 45.5') NEIGHBORING PROPERTY GRADE P1 LEVEL P2 LEVEL LIFT PIT SECOND FLOOR EL. 14'-8" THIRD FLOOR FOURTH FLOOR EL. 24'-5" EL. 34'-2" FIRST FLOOR EL. 1'-2" (NAVD 88 EL. 48.16') BASE FLOOD ELEV. EL. 0'-0" (NAVD 88 EL. 47') 1'- 2 " 12 ' - 8 1 / 2 " ± 8'- 4 1 / 4 " 7'- 6 " M I N . EL. -12'-1 1/8" ± EL. -26'-7 1/8" ± EL. -33'-7 1/8" ± CORR. TYP.9'- 9 " 12 ' - 3 " 55 ' - 5 " 1'- 6 " FIFTH FLOOR EL. 43'-11" SIXTH FLOOR EL. 56'-2" T.O. ROOF SLAB EL. 70'-2" 14 ' - 0 " T.O. PARAPET / ELEV. EL. 71'-8" OVERRUN / STAIRS T.O. RAILING EL. 73'-8" T.O. MECH. SCREEN EL. 80'-2" 3'- 6 " 6'- 6 " MECHANICAL SCREEN 54 ' - 6 " + / - 3'- 6 " 2'-2" SHORING/SOLDIER BREAMS 1/32"=1'-0" 3/- UNIVERSITY AVE MI D D L E F I E L D R O A D BY R O N S T R E E T 64G CA R T COMP O S T 64G CA R T COMP O S T R C 64G CA R T COMP O S T 64G CARTCOMPOST 96G CARTWASTE 96G CARTRECYCLING 96G CARTWASTE 96G CARTRECYCLING ARCHITECTS KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY SHEET NUMBER SCALE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE DATENO. ISSUES AND REVISIONS DESCRIPTION ARCHITECTS KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY 21003 PLANNING SUBMITTAL12.01.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #105.13.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #208.15.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #408.28.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #510.31.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #612.20.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #702.07.24 AD HOC REVISIONS05.02.24 PLANNING RESUBMIITTAL #809.30.24 524 MIDDLEFIELD A3.3B ENHANCEMENT OF VISIBILITY OF LINE OF DAYLIGHT PLANE AND 524 MIDDLEFIELD MADE BY CHRISTOPHER REAM Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 52     Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project November 26, 2024 Page 4 of 4 Balconies over University Avenue Applicant shows six to seven foot setback for the above-ground building along University Avenue. There are 29 balconies from the second to the fifth floor sticking out six feet into that “setback” so they come right to the edge of the public sidewalk or within one foot of it. They will have a clear glass railing set 3½ feet off the deck, with a clear glass sheet between the railing and the deck of the balcony. The majority of these balconies are part of small studio apartments. On warm, sunny Friday or weekend afternoons, there are going to be young people socializing on these balconies. The 3½ foot railing is an inviting place to rest your forearm as you hold a soft drink, a beer or a glass of wine. Geometry dictates that the drink is now another 6 -12 inches closer to the sidewalk floors below. Many residents in The Hamilton get some exercise by walking around our small block and their walk will pass under these balconies. I frequently see seniors from other parts of “Senior Corner” including this sidewalk as part of their walk. Please don’t drop a glass – you may kill someone. Those balconies need to be removed. Conclusion The Hamilton community strongly opposes this application for excessive development on our small block and urges the Board to require action to correct. Thank you for your consideration, Christopher Ream Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 53     1 Kallas, Emily From:Christopher Ream <ream@reamlaw.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 5, 2025 2:26 AM To:Kallas, Emily Subject:660 University - Letter t for PTC hearing Attachments:Ream Letter re Tree - 20250304.pdf Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Emily,    Please find attached a letter from me regarding the Tree next to the 660 University Project, together with two  attachments. Please include this in the packet being prepared for the hearing on March 12.   Thank you.  Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1‐650‐424‐0821 ream@reamlaw.com      Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 54     THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: ream@reamlaw.com March 4, 2025 Commissioners Planning and Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto, California Via: Emily.Foley@CityofPaloAlto.org Re: 660 University Project Protect the Coast Live Oak Commissioners, My wife Anne and I have been Palo Alto residents for more than 53 years and have been residents of The Hamilton for the past six years. The Hamilton is a senior living (55+) condominium development which shares the small block with the proposed development at 660 University Avenue. The Board of Directors of the Hamilton Homeowners Association (“HHA”), with the support of its residents, has resolved to push for revising the proposed building that will materially adversely affect us and all of our neighbors. There is a majestic, beautiful Coast Live Oak tree (the “Tree”) in the middle of our block. David Babby, Applicant’s arborist, reports the Tree’s trunk is 50 inches in diameter and its mostly uniform canopy stretches out 90 feet in diameter and is approximately 60 feet high. The Tree abuts the back property line of the 660 University project and so its limbs reach out approximately 45 feet over the project’s property, and its root structure is much larger. The Tree is several hundred years old and is deemed a protected tree by the City of Palo Alto. The Tree brings shade and joy to us and everyone else on the block. Applicant’s proposal to build a large building close to the Tree will put it in grave danger, and we need to protect it. TPZ – Tree Protection Zone The Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual requires a “Tree Protection Zone” (TPZ) for a protected tree with a radius equal to the ten times the trunk’s diameter. For the Tree, that would be 10 x 50” = 500” = 41 feet. Applicant acknowledges this 41-foot TPZ requirement in the Tree Protection Report it has filed with its plans, but then it has arbitrarily drawn a TPZ of only 30 feet on its plans and positions this building right next to that 30 feet. That is 11 feet less than required by the City of Palo Alto. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 55     660 University Project Protect the Coast Live Oak March 4, 2025 Page 2 of 3 Notwithstanding Applicant drawing a 30-foot radius circle on its plans, its Tree Protection Report discloses that Applicant intends to disregard even that fake TPZ by reporting that there will be a 20-foot setback from the Tree’s trunk for any ground disturbance and that applies to any soil compaction, grading, subexcavation, overexcavation, drenching, and drilling/auguring. In other words, if the construction crew is at least 20 feet from the Tree, they are free to rip out as many roots as they like notwithstanding the deadly effect on the Tree. Robert Booty, arborist retained by Rincon Consultants on behalf of the City, reports that his LIDAR root scan of the existing asphalt parking lot at 600 University Avenue shows that the Tree’s roots are still dense and going out strong at his 51-foot scan, the furthest extent of his investigation. (See Attachment A). But those roots are going to cut off by the garage and ramps at 30 feet and much closer to the trunk by the 20-foot rule during construction. Canopy The Tree has a beautiful canopy that stretches 45 feet over the site. The TPZ applies to the canopy as well as the root structure, but Applicant has used its fake 30-foot TPZ to bring the exterior wall of the building up to 30 feet from the trunk of the Tree, slicing off 15 feet of canopy. But then there are a large number of balconies sticking out six feet from the exterior wall. Applicant will need to slice off another 6 feet of the canopy to make room for those balconies. The building’s residents are not going to tolerate the Tree intruding their balconies, so the Tree will be pruned back to provide a little fresh air to those enjoying the balconies and you can be sure the Applicant will prune the Tree back so that there is at least 5 feet of clearance between those balconies and the Tree. The Tree’s beautiful canopy stretching 45 feet over Applicant’s property will be cut back 26 feet or more (15 + 6 + 5) and will now be only 19 feet. Tree Failure A tree’s roots do more than just feed and water a tree, the roots stabilize the tree and hold it upright. These roots are going to be sliced off under where the canopy is going to be cut back. As the weight and leverage of the canopy on the opposite side of the Tree strains to tip it over the dental office and onto The Hamilton, it is the job of the roots to fight back and hold the Tree up. But the roots will not be able to do that after they have been sliced off. The Hamilton retained an independent arborist to analyze the possible danger to the Tree. After extensive investigation and the preparation of a detailed analysis, it was that arborist’s professional opinion that the Tree’s vigor would be negatively impacted to a severe degree as a Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 56     660 University Project Protect the Coast Live Oak March 4, 2025 Page 3 of 3 direct result of the proposed work at the 660 University site as described on Applicant’s plans, resulting in the Tree falling into a spiral of condition decline from which it cannot recover. Please review the Walter Levison Consulting Arborist Impact Analysis dated 12/18/2023 (See Attachment B). Notwithstanding that this report had been made public to Applicant over a year ago, Applicant has done nothing to minimize this serious danger. How soon will the Tree topple over and crash into The Hamilton and others. It would destroy the dental offices and badly injure and maybe kill anyone in those offices at the time. Conclusion The Hamilton community strongly opposes this application for excessive development on our small block and urges the Commission to require action to correct As David Hirsch so succinctly stated on December 1, 2022 at the first Architectural Review Board Meeting to consider this application: “This is too much building in too small of a space.” Thank you for your consideration, Christopher Ream Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 57     660 University Project Ream – Protect the Coast Live Oak March 4, 2025 A"achment A Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 58     Item 2Attachment C - PublicComments    Packet Pg. 59     660 University Project Ream – Protect the Coast Live Oak March 4, 2025 A"achment B Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 60     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 1 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Date: 12/18/2023 Impact Analysis of Proposed 660 University, Palo Alto Site Plan Project Work on One (1) Off-Site Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Specimen (Project Tree #10, Palo Alto City Tree Tag #1572) at 517 Byron Palo Alto, CA Mr. Chris Ream, President The Hamilton Homeowners Association 555 Byron Palo Alto, CA ream@reamlaw.com Dear Mr. Ream, The following written letter report is the single deliverable prepared by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) per your request as an association with members residing at The Hamilton, in close proximity to the proposed multi-story 660 University project. Background and Assignment The proposed private development project stated above proposes to demolish various existing office buildings and parking lot areas, and build an underground parking garage, with residential and commercial office facility directly over the garage footprint. WLCA’s assignment was to determine whether the site work as currently proposed per the set of plan sheets (dated October 2023) would cause severe or otherwise irreversible injury to the subject oak specimen to such as degree that it would be expected to fall into a spiral of decline from which it could not recover, as a direct result of the site work. WLCA visited the site on 12/13/2023 to archive digital images, create a tree map markup showing actual site-verified canopy dimensions (rough approx.), and confirm existing site conditions. The project encompasses three lots, 660 University, 680 University, and 511 Byron. An adjacent lot at 517 Byron just south of the proposed work area exhibits a relatively very large “veteran tree” coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) referenced by David L. Babby, author of the Tree Protection Report filed by the developer, as tree #10 (City tag #1572), a specimen in good overall condition (62% out of 100% possible) as visually assessed by WLCA, with a canopy spread that is equal to the largest coast live oak specimens ever assessed in the author’s entire 25 year professional consulting career (see digital images below in this report showing the 90 foot diameter canopy). WLCA reviewed the private development proposed plan sheets dated 10/31/2023 (planning resubmittal #5) which were downloaded from the City of Palo Alto website, and an arborist report by David Babby dated 11/19/2021, which does not actually contain any site plan sheets (Mr. Babby used a topographic survey sheet for his site tree map markup). Multiple marked-up tree location maps, color-coded by WLCA, show expected construction-related impacts in relation to the tree #10 existing canopy dripline and in relation to the standard tree protection zone (TPZ) of 10 x diameter as an offset radius from mainstem edge. These markups are attached to the end of this letter report for reference (view document using Adobe Pro, Adobe CS, or other paid form of Adobe Acrobat, to maintain the visibility of the color-coded markups). Digital images archived by WLCA in December 2023 are also included in this report for reference of pre-project conditions. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 61     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 2 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Basic Data Diameter: 50 inches, per Babby report. Spread: Approximately 90 feet total diameter, per David Babby report and WLCA. Health (Vigor): 70% per Babby, 80% per WLCA. Structure: 40% per Babby, 50% per WLCA. Overall Condition Rating: 50% (fair) per Babby, 62% (good) per WLCA. Live Twig Density and Live Foliar Density: Good. Additional Tree Information per WLCA’s Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) 12/13/2023 and Research Foliage hangs down to 15 to 25 feet above grade at 45 feet radius north of mainstem edge. Multiple mainstems exhibit wide angle saddle shaped (i.e.”normal”) attachment forks between 10 and 15 feet elevation above grade. These stems are somewhat upward oriented. Buttress root flares at root crown appear normal, though root system extent and condition are essentially unknowable due to hardscape presence over a large percentage of actual root zone. It is hypothesized that the actual extent of root zone is at least 2x to 3x the 45 foot canopy radius in terms of lateral distance in most directions out from trunk1, based on both Arboriculture 4th Edition (2004), and on WLCA’s past 25 years of construction site consulting experience with coast live oak specimens on older sites with older less-compacted root zone conditions, where historical building foundations and parking lot baserock base sections were constructed to far less strict standards than modern engineer specifications. There may be extensive rooting occurring out through various private lots that adjoin the 517 Byron lot on which tree #10 stands, with lateral woody roots extending from tree #10 underneath various retaining wall footings and building footings, out to underneath existing asphalt parking lot surfacing, etc. Per USGS local quadrangle soils map, tree #10 is growing in the “Qoa” unit, which is defined as an older alluvium (oa): a gravelly riparian soil that is derived from stream associated movements, and typically contains smooth rocky material that drains relatively well, and is excellent for development of deep, elongated native oak tree root systems (based on WLCA’s professional experience and research). This Palo Alto site probably has one of the best soils in the entire Bay Area in terms of allowing for fast growth of native oaks. See the digital images section of this report for an overlay map created by WLCA using various online sources and the USGS soil map shows how groundwater at this location is relatively high in elevation (25 foot groundwater contour), and shows existing roads, historical streams, and red dot plots where a past survey by others indicated locations of extremely old native valley oak specimens for reference. What this all means is that the proposed project site has very good growing conditions for native oaks with a high groundwater table elevation contour and gravelly alluvium soil associated with historical waterways which drains relatively quickly and may also exhibit relatively good aeration related to the larger material components of the soil. 1 Per Harris et. al. 2004. Arboriculture 4th Edition. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 62     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 3 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Expected Tree Root Zone and Canopy Impact Analysis / Based on October 2023 Set of Proposed Plan Sheets • Canopy: Expect 20 to 30% of canopy live wood and foliage to be removed to clear southward-extended balcony construction, garage vertical wall construction, foundation footing construction for main building structure, vertical exterior walls along the south side of the residential structure, and an additional +/- 10 feet of horizontal width required to be totally cleared up to roof peak elevations as a “construction corridor” airspace for exterior work, scaffold erection, and bucket lift machinery use (based on WLCA’s past projects to date, which required between 6 feet and 15 feet of horizontal clearance as construction corridors around building exterior walls, between soil surface grade and the roof peaks). Note that the curvilinear section of garage entry ramp, although it is below grade elevation, may actually require tall vertical machinery clearance directly above the proposed wall cut locations, resulting in further clearance pruning of the tree #10 northwest corner of canopy (not verified). This information is based on past projects overseen by WLCA involving underground parking garage retaining wall construction in the Bay Area. Total expected canopy loss will likely result in a remnant canopy with 20 to 25 feet of north, northeast, and northwest extension from mainstem base, whereas existing canopy is +/- 45 feet radial extension in those directions. Refer to the attached WLCA tree map markup for a graphic representation of the various impacts indicated as color-coded lines. • Roots: Expected subgrade work will encroach to within the City of Palo Alto “10 times diameter” tree protection zone on the north side of tree, inside which special methods/materials/monitoring is required for site construction work. Extent of root zone compromised by the various elements of proposed work (garage wall excavation using vertical shoring, landscape decking, landscape irrigation, landscape plant and tree installation, etc. is expected to be moderate to severe, depending on actual cut depths and depending on whether machinery and personnel are allowed to enter into the TPZ and compact the root zone in the north area of TPZ. Note that the actual extent of roots may or may not be 2x to 3x the tree canopy dripline radius distance northward from trunk, and is currently obscured by hardscape and not able to be verified in terms of lateral distance of growth. Critical Root Zone (i.e. “CRZ”) or “Tree Protection Zone”, in terms of structural root plate, lateral woody roots, and absorbing root mass retention during work on one or more sides of a tree, is ten times the diameter of trunk (10 x 50 inch diameter as noted in the David Babby report). Therefore, it is WLCA’s understanding that the required TPZ work offset radius for tree #10 is approximately 10 x 50 inches = 41.6 feet radius2), unless site work at offset distances less than 10 x diameter is specifically authorized by City Urban Forestry Staff. Note that in the case of the 660 University project, the severe extent of clearance pruning creates a cumulative impact in terms of loss of tree condition, such that the combined root zone and canopy impacts are relatively severe or extremely severe (see attached WLCA markups showing deep excavation work impacts, for example, expected to within 30 feet offset from trunk, which is far less than the 41.6 foot official TPZ offset). 2 Reference the developer’s Tree Disclosure Statement, which notes that the official TPZ is 10 x diameter of trunk, per City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (TTM) standards. Blue link to full TTM below shows up erroneously as a hyperlink to “Appendix A”, but is actually the full TTM document: APPENDIX A (cityofpaloalto.org) Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 63     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 4 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Note also that there is no guarantee that site work will be performed by the developer in a manner consistent with specific conditions of project approval as set forth by Palo Alto Urban Forestry Staff, even if those special conditions were mandated by the City. There is no way for an arborist monitoring site work, for instance, to be on site during every stage of the work. The arborist monitor, if retained to inspect site work near to tree #10 during the development phase of the project, would only be able to visibly inspect the site once a month or so, leaving him/her with a limited snapshot of what below-ground impacts occurred in relation to the tree #10 root zone. Soil Compaction within the CRZ/TPZ: Note that proposed driving of machinery, foot traffic, extensive landscape footing development, and extensive planting and (possibly also) extensive irrigation pipe trenching are expected to occur within the CRZ/TPZ of 41.6 feet radius from trunk edge of tree #10. Consulting Arborists will typically specify use of robust “ground protection” in these cases, covering the ground with a thick mat of geotextile overlaid with 6 or more inches of wood chips, and finally covered with steel trench plates or full sheets of exterior grade plywood strapped together with steel strap plates to create a soil buffer. But given that there is planned intense landscaping and decking, etc. to be developed in the area between the garage retaining wall and the south property line abutted up against the 517 Byron lot, WLCA expects that it would be virtually impossible for the developer to actually implement use of robust ground protection and maintain it for any length of time, without causing a major problem in terms of ground logistics (staging, storage, movement of tools and materials, performance of landscape related development between 517 Byron and the underground parking garage wall, etc.). Therefore, it is expected that soil compaction of a high degree will likely occur in the north section of the tree #10 root zone, within the CRZ/TPZ offset radius, causing additional reduction in overall tree health and structural condition as soil oxygen pore space is compacted and root zone root growing conditions end up suffering as a result of loss of oxygen pore spaces within the tree root growth section of the soil profile (i.e. mainly the uppermost two feet of the soil profile, but potentially down to 4 or 5 feet or more below soil surface grade elevation in native Palo Alto area historical riparian cobble type soils). • TRAQ Risk: The removal of 20% to 30% of the canopy of tree #10 for clearance as noted above, will cause southward lopsidedness of the currently-symmetrical canopy tree specimen of extremely large spread radius (45 feet radius), resulting in increased load forces acting on the north side (“tension” side) of the root system. The root system will have been compromised to an unknown degree during site work (underground parking garage wall excavation, landscape development, and possible adjustments to or demolition of the existing brick retaining wall that separates 517 Byron from the proposed 660 University project site. Risk of whole tree failure mode and impact with targets to the south of the mainstem location will be necessarily increased and elevated due to these site plan work activities. Risk of stem failure and impact with various ground targets will over time be increased and elevated, due to the required clearance pruning through the north side of the canopy to clear scaffolding, bucket lift machinery, balconies, and the new building exterior wall plus underground parking retaining wall work that requires vertical machinery airspace clearance. Very large diameter pruning cuts will be made to accomplish the work, ranging from a few inches diameter each, up to 17 or more inches diameter each3, on some stems that extend northward into the proposed project airspace area. Pruning cuts of this relatively large diameter will allow for fungal wood decay-causing pathogen entrance into the stems via these open cut wounds, resulting in extensive decay column formation over time that progresses down into the stems from the cut wounds. 3 David Babby’s arborist report notes that a 14” and a 17” diameter stem will require pruning. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 64     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 5 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture • Heritage Tree Designation in City of Palo Alto There are currently +/- eight (8) trees listed on the City heritage tree list maintained by the City. Per the following information, trees are apparently not required to meet any specific “approval criteria” in terms of species, size, condition, or other relevant parameters, to be selected as formal heritage tree specimens in City of Palo Alto, other than that the trees are native oak species or redwoods located on private property: (Excerpt from a City Staff Report Online): “In 1996, Council enacted the Tree Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 8.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, to preserve and maintain specified native oaks, redwoods, and heritage trees on private property, and to protect them from disfigurement or removal, except in certain circumstances. Section 8.10.090 of the ordinance allows persons to nominate a tree on their property forheritage tree status. After Council approval of such designation, the tree is added to the heritage tree listing, which includes specific location, overall size, and canopy spread. The list is maintained by the Department of Public Works and available to the public on the City’s Urban Forestry website. Once designated, a heritage tree is protected by the provisions of the Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, unless removed from the heritage tree list by subsequent Council action at the request of the property owner.” Per the above information, protected size tree #10 (City tree tag #1572) appears to be an excellent candidate for inclusion in the City’s heritage tree designation program which protects native oaks on private properties. It is a specimen in good overall condition, with exceptional size in terms of both mainstem diameter (est. 50 inches), and canopy spread (90 feet total diameter), with good vigor, good buttress root flares, and good saddle-shaped wide angle forks of mainstem attachment. • David Babby Report 11/19/2021 Page 6 Per page 6 of the dev eloper’s arborist report by David Babby, tree #10 exhibits a “high” rating in terms of suitability for preservation (see below excerpt from page 6 of Babby report): Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 65     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 6 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Conclusion If the proposed 660 University site plan project were built out as currently proposed per the 10/31/2023 planning resubmittal #5 versions of the plan sheets, WLCA expects that tree #10 would experience relatively moderate to severe root loss, and relatively severe pruning, which combined as a cumulative below-ground and above-ground negative impact would necessarily result in loss of vigor (health) and structure to a severe degree. The tree’s safe and useful life expectancy in its current condition rating of “good” (+/- 62% overall condition rating) may be reduced as a result of site plan project work from (EXISTING: no-construction scenario) 50 to 100 years remaining, to (PROPOSED: post-construction scenario) 10 to 20 years remaining, or less, depending on the tree’s response to very significant project clearance canopy and root pruning as described above in this letter report. It is WLCA’s professional opinion that the tree’s vigor would be negatively impacted to a severe degree as a direct result of proposed site work as currently described on the 10/31/2023 set of plan sheets, resulting in tree #10 falling into a spiral of condition decline from which it cannot recover. There would also necessarily be a corresponding elevation of the TRAQ risk rating in terms of risk of whole tree and/or tree part failure and impact with various static and moving targets with moderate to high occupancy ratings within the target zone and a reasonable time frame such as 12 to 24 months, starting as of the proposed site construction completion date (this would need to be assessed at a future time, and is outside the scope of WLCA’s initial pre-project assignment). The tree is located in the an area known to have high water table elevations and gravelly (gravel-laden) riparian type alluvium soil that tends to support excellent native oak tree root growth in terms of both rooting depth and root lateral extension. It is highly recommended that this exceptionally large native oak specimen in good overall condition be designated by the City Council as a City of Palo Alto Heritage Tree on private land, and formally added to the list maintained by the City on their official website, with the added tree protection guarantees that this tree special protection status includes (tree specimens are typically nominated for such designation by the owner of the property on which the tree stands). Refer also to David Babby’s arborist report dated 11/19/202, page 6, which notes that tree #10 is rated as “high” suitability for preservation, appearing healthy and structurally stable per his assessment, presenting “good potential for contributing long-term to the site”. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 66     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 7 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Digital Images by WLCA 12/13/2023 / Tree #10 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) View looking eastward while standing on 517 Byron. Note the excellent buttress root flaring at the root crown of tree #10 which is considered normal and desirable. View of the relatively wide angle fork attachments between 10 and 15 feet elevation above grade at which the tree #10 codominant mainstems arise. These saddle shaped forms are normal and desirable from a structural stability standpoint. Although it is not “optimal” to have codominant mainstems forking in a tree, the best case scenario would be for all of the forks to exhibit wide saddle-shaped attachments like this tree. It is actually extremely unusual for a coast live oak to exhibit saddle-shaped forks at every bifurcation of the codominant mainstems. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 67     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 8 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture View of subject oak #10 looking northward from 517 Byron. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 68     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 9 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture View of oak #10 lower 50% of canopy/mainstem architecture, with the adjoining asphalt parking lot area west of 517 Byron visible at left half of the image. The root system is assumed to be extended through most or all adjoining lots surrounding 517 Byron (not verified), as is assumed to reach as much as 2x to 3x the 45 foot canopy radius (again, not verified, but very possible, per WLCA’s past experience with older oaks in Palo Alto and Menlo Park area, especially if the soil is a historical cobble-based riparian soil profile with fast drainage (not verified). Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 69     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 10 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Per WLCA’s multi-layer mockup created for a valley oak location comparison with groundwater depths and soil types, the tree #10 location has a 25 foot depth groundwater table, and nearby Palo Alto study-noted red dots which indicate very large older valley oak specimens surveyed in the past and included on internet maps for reference. The Qoa soil type at the 660 University site is defined as “older alluvium” (hence the “oa” designation): a Pleistocene soil of gravels, sand, and silt that is unconsolidated to consolidated, interspersed with alluvial materials from stream action. See next page of this report for the United States Geological Survey legend pertaining to this soil unit, clipped from the local Palo Alto soil map, obtained from USGS Menlo Park headquarters. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 70     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 11 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Above was excerpted from the USGS Quadrangle (soil unit map) which includes the City of Palo Alto area. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised and evaluated as through free and clean, under responsible ownership and competent management. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinance, statutes, or other government regulations. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement. Unless required by law otherwise, the possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any other purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser. Unless required by law otherwise, neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the prior expressed conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initiated designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualifications. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant’s/appraiser’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report, being intended for visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys unless expressed otherwise. The reproduction of any information generated by engineers, architects, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of said information on any Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 71     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 12 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Walter Levison to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless expressed otherwise: • information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the conditions of those items at the time of inspection; and • the inspection is limited to ground-based visual examination of accessible items without climbing, dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. • There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. Arborist Disclosure Statement: Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Tree are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborist cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees. Certification I hereby certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. Signature of Consultant DIGITAL BADGES: ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST CREDENTIAL: https://certificates.isa-arbor.com/f1918723-df46-48cc-ace2-c12625530fec#gs.v54om6 (Renewed through June, 2026) ISA TREE RISK ASSESSMENT QUALIFIED (TRAQ): https://certificates.isa-arbor.com/d180515f-ab75-440b-9c66-106005e3cf10?record_view=true#gs.hpb30w (Renewed through March, 2028) Attached: Tree Map Markups by WLCA 12/18/2023 (View Using Adobe or Adobe CS in Order to Allow for Full Visibility of the Markups Created Using Adobe Pro Software). Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 72     1 Kallas, Emily From:Kay Brown <kayb49@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, March 4, 2025 9:59 AM To:Kallas, Emily Subject:21 PLN-00341/660 University Ave Attachments:City of Palo Alto Letter to Planning.pages CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Kay Brown 555 Byron St Apt 101 Palo Alto, CA 94301 kayb49@sbcglobal.net 650-269-1985   March 4, 2025    Emily Kallas   Senior Planner  Planning and Development Dept.  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301  Re:  660 University/21 PLN‐00341    Dear Ms. Kallas,     I’m writing to express my concerns regarding the intended project slated to be built at 660 University. This large  apartment/multi‐use facility is scheduled to come before you for determination on March 12, 2025.  I would like to  familiarize you with the current traffic issues on the 500 block of Byron St.    As it stands today, senior residents of 555 Byron as well as nursery school parents, church goers and dental office patients  encounter frequent near‐misses entering and exiting their respective parking lots.    1. Currently parallel parking is permitted on both sides of the street, and the narrow residual allotment for 2‐way  traffic becomes unwieldy with one car needing to pull over to allow on‐coming traffic to pass.    2. Byron is utilized by random drivers as pass‐through wanting to avoid the traffic light at University and  Middlefield. Residents and patients in cars must to pull‐over and brake to avoid the on‐coming traffic. The cars  travel swiftly without regard to elderly residents that are with walkers and wheelchairs as they attempt to cross  the street.  3. Large commercial vehicles  deliver food, linen, packages, etc or service plumbing, electrical, wifi tele‐ communication issues at the various facilities. When these large trucks park on Byron, the danger factor is  exacerbated. It is difficult to see or maneuver safely around the commercial vans, etc.   4. There are currently 3 large senior facilities within the 2 block radius.  Concern for Emergency Response Vehicles  ability to access the streets at all times should be paramount.  And, keep in mind that the majority of the  population in this vicinity is elderly (ie. walkers, wheelchairs, and slow physically impaired amblers). Residents  of Lytton Gardens regularly come for lunch at the church on foot with assisted devices. They traverse both Byron  and University.  Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 73     2   It is my understanding that the developer of 660 University intends to situate the ingress and egress to the underground  parking directly on Byron St? With the dense apartment units and office spaces anticipated in the new complex, accidents  can be anticipated.    Also, please consider the situation that will arise during construction of the new complex.  At any given time, there will  be large construction vehicles needed to demolish existing structures and erect the final facility. Where will the  construction vehicles park so as not to worsen an already dangerous situation…on University, on Middlefield?     I am under the impression that the developers are anticipating that many of the 660 University dwellers will not own cars  and will be utilizing mass transport.  At the previous City Council meetings, a study initiated on the developers behalf  stated that a majority of the tenants will not be coming and going in automobiles by a computer generated (formulation)  pie in the sky scenario?  If this is an accurate analysis, I am asking the city of Palo Alto to verify this information and  stand by it’s assessment.    Thank you for your attention to this matter.    Appreciatively,  Kay Brown  Letter Attached:    Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 74     1 Kallas, Emily From:Leroy Barnes <ltbarnes@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 4, 2025 12:56 PM To:Kallas, Emily Subject:660 University Avenue CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.    To the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Committee    I am a resident of what is known as “seniors corner”, at University and Hamilton in Palo Alto.   Lytton Gardens, the  Webster, and the Hamilton together house hundreds of elderly Palo Alto citizens at this corner.   The addition of about  88 new cars in this small area would result from building the proposed 660 University high rise, assuming one car for  each living unit.   Slow‐walking citizens with poor eyesight and impaired hearing walk on Byron St., University, and  Webster all day, every day.    One of the cars belonging to the proposed building will surely run over one or more of our  citizens within months or years of its completion.   Help us live a long life by rejecting this proposal.    In addition, aesthetically, the building is a poor fit for downtown Palo Alto.    Since it would be built on University at the  east entrance to downtown, they might as well put up a sign that says, “Welcome to Downtown Palo Alto.   We’re trying  to look like Redwood City.”      This building may some day serve a great purpose to Palo Alto, but not in the proposed location.    We energetically  request that you deny the proposal as it has been presented.    Leroy Barnes  555 Byron Street Resident    Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 75     1 Kallas, Emily From:Leroy Barnes <ltbarnes@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 4, 2025 12:54 PM To:Kallas, Emily Subject:660 University CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.      Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission:    We respect the developer’s desire to add housing units to the Byron/University/Middlefield neighborhood.    However,  we are confident that the completion of this project will be an irreversible mistake that mars Palo Alto’s downtown  skyline and endangers hundred of senior citizens who live and walk in this three block area.       The traffic congestion that would result from this development would suffocate Byron Street between University and  Hamilton, a street on which delivery trucks, moving trucks, ambulances and parents dropping off preschool children at  First School all compete for space on the single two‐way lane between cars parked on both sides of the street.   The  additional cars that would belong to the residents of 660 University would overwhelm this area.      Please reject the proposed location for this development.   We support additional housing in Palo Alto, but are confident  that this would be a disaster that would be forever blamed on the members of your Commission.      Thank you.     Linda Chin  555 Byron Street Resident    Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 76     1 Kallas, Emily From:Admin <carol.gilbert@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, March 4, 2025 12:45 PM To:Transportation; Planning Commission Cc:Kallas, Emily; Gilbert, Carol Subject:660 University Ave. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    To: Planning and Transportation Commission March 4, 2025 Subject: 660 University The building proposed at 660 University will create a dangerous situation for those of us who live or do business on the 500 block of Byron between University and Hamilton. Lund Development proposes to create 60+ living units plus a floor of office space. The proposal only provides for 78 parking stalls. There are no parking spaces surrounding that building on University or Middlefield, so that only leaves Byron or other nearby streets with 2-hour limited parking available to those occupants, a traffic nightmare. This photograph shows Byron on a delivery-impacted day. Imagine adding the truck, auto, emergency, and garbage truck traffic for the occupancy that will be added. As an area of senior residences with pedestrians on walkers and canes and frequent Paramedic vehicles needed, I wish to propose that you strongly consider reconfiguring the length of 500 Byron St. so that all cars, rescue vehicles, pedestrians, and trash removal can safely turn onto or cross or exit our street. At the forthcoming meeting on March 12, I wish to propose this reconfiguration: Sincerely, Carol Gilbert 555 Byron St. #209 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 77     From:Austin Traver To:Kallas, Emily Subject:Neighbor, Opposed to 680 University Avenue Date:Friday, December 6, 2024 7:03:43 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Emily, My name is Austin, I own a home on Fulton St in downtown Palo Alto. I noticed that a developer has proposed to construct a massive building right next to my little condo. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/680-University-Avenue I live one building away, in a 10-unit complex. Our condo is already pretty cramped as it is, in terms of parking spaces, density, etc., This project seems like it will be very disruptive to the character of the nearby neighborhood community. Can you help me understand how I, as a resident of Palo Alto, can participate in our city’s decision on whether to allow this to go forward? I want my voice to be heard by my representatives. Sincerely, Austin Traver Sent from my iPhone Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 78     1 Kallas, Emily From:Yingxi Chen <ychenarch@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 5, 2024 8:26 PM To:Kallas, Emily Subject:660 University Ave- Structure Feasibility for Future Transportation Improvements CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Hi Emily,  I would like to share some additional thoughts regarding the special setbacks for the 660 University Ave project  following today's ARB meeting.  One of the key reasons for establishing these special setbacks is to accommodate future transportation improvements,  which may include bike lanes, street parking/loading zones, left‐turn lanes, and other enhancements. Given the rapid  growth of the city, with over 6,000 new units planned, Middlefield Road will inevitably face increased traffic congestion  and safety concerns. At some point, the road will require modifications to address these challenges.  The design team for 660 University Ave has made significant efforts to meet the required 24‐foot setback, but it would  be shortsighted if, years down the line, we discover that these necessary roadway improvements cannot be  implemented due to potential structural issues with underground parking.  In fact, the applicant could benefit from these future improvements. For instance, if the street is widened to allow for  street parking, it could help alleviate parking issues. Similarly, the expanded roadway could provide space for a loading  zone or designated trash collection area, preventing disruptions to traffic flow while meeting the building’s operational  needs.  I understand that further studies, surveys, and community engagement will be conducted before any changes are made.  However, buildings are permanent commitments, and their design will shape the city for decades. The ongoing wave of  new housing projects means that transportation infrastructure improvements will need to keep pace with growth. I urge  the applicant to consider the structural feasibility of accommodating these future transportation needs in their design,  in addition to provisions for landscaping and utilities.  Thank you for your consideration of these points, and I hope you have a wonderful holiday season.  Sincerely,  Yingxi    Yingxi Chen, AIA  Y. Chen Architect  Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 79     From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Kallas, Emily; Lait, Jonathan Subject:660 Univeristy project Date:Saturday, November 30, 2024 10:57:53 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Chair Rosenberg and committee members, I hope you are having a joyful Thanksgiving holiday. Please move this application forward with your comments and any remaining concerns. As the housing project on this site enters its fourth year of review, I believe the applicant and community deserve a hearing before the city council and timely decision. My comments below are as a DTN resident and economist with experience in housing economics and more than a dozen HCD advisory committee member meetings. As I always clarify before you, I have no expertise as an architect or arborist and will not comment on these issues. 1) I believe this is the only housing proposal of any significant size in DTN, an area identified as important for additional housing in our Housing Element and by you in previous meetings. 2) As with 3265 and 3150 ECR, this current application is the result of collaboration between the applicant and staff to respond to ARB comments and concerns while preserving the financial feasibility of the application. I have been pleased by the recognition and appreciation by ARB members of these twin objectives. As with 3265, the applicant has responded to concerns by adding height and other configuration changes. And, as the chair noted at the last meeting, the alternative to successful resolution of issues could be no project or in this case a builder's remedy application that the applicant has shelved for now in favor of this smaller project. 3) The applicant is proposing a large majority (10) of the 14 BMR units for low income residents including 6 for very and extremely low income residents. I am pleased the applicant i able to co this in the context of a feasible proposal. 4) This site has additional benefits as it will allow some/many trips to be done without driving and the residents will make a small but positive addition as customers for DTN businesses. I look forward to hearing council's review asap as we begin the process of adding housing in appropriate DTN locations. Stephen Levy Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 80     From:Greg Welch To:Architectural Review Board; Kallas, Emily Cc:Ann Lewnes Subject:Public Feedback on the proposed project "660 University Ave" project [21PLN-00341] Date:Wednesday, December 4, 2024 7:58:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. My wife and I are writing as we will be unable to attend the ARB meeting at 8:30am on 12-5- 24 due to work conflicts. We own a unit on the north side, third floor of the Hamilton building ( at 555 Byron St.) just to the south of the proposed project. My house-bound, elderly mother-in-law occupies the unit and the sunlight through her windows and on her balcony represent most of her experience of the outdoors. We are very concerned that the proposed project could cut off all direct sunlight and require her to have to draw her blinds to have any sort of privacy. 1) the six-story height suggests a size and mass completely out of keeping with the surrounding neighborhood 2) at that height, the project threatens to loom over and literally overshadow the buildings around it. 3) Throughout Palo Alto, building standards preserve privacy by preventing neighbors from building structures that look down into backyards, or directly into windows in existing structures. How will that be accomplished on this project? Greg Welch Ann Lewnes 560 Center Drive Palo Alto, CA Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 81     December 3,2024 Dear Committee Members, The Housing Action Coalition is a member-supported nonprofit that advocates for creating more housing for residents of all income levels to help alleviate the Bay Area and California’s housing shortage,displacement,and affordability crisis. Our endorsement committee had the opportunity to review Smith Development’s proposal at 660 University,and we proudly endorsed the project. Smith Development’s proposal would bring 66 much-needed new units to Palo Alto.We were impressed with the project's dedication to affordable housing,with 20 percent of the units for lower-tiered affordable housing,which is high especially considering current economic conditions.By prioritizing affordable housing and urban development,we can create more sustainable and inclusive communities for everyone. In terms of Land Use and Density,the project site's central location with its proximity to essential downtown amenities,including the Caltrain station,and the inclusion of ample bike parking facilities underscore a commitment to promoting environmental sustainability and reducing reliance on automobiles.In terms of parking,our committee would like to see a reduction on the amount of parking provided for the project,and have the project redirect those costs to increasing the overall density of the project.In terms of overall design,we commend the steps Smith Development has taken to preserve the Oak tree on site,and even incorporated it into the design. This project will be critical to support Palo Alto,and the Bay Area’s housing needs.Please move this project forward without delay. Corey Smith,Executive Director Housing Action Coalition (HAC) Ali Sapirman,Advocacy and Policy Manager Housing Action Coalition (HAC) Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 82                 !" #$"!%&'()*+,$$!-"*"./0 12 3345645758 6938 :;< ="+2,!+" >!),!- ?"( #"@'+,&A%*"./BCDEFGHI EJKL MNOKP QRKSKTOUMV WRQN QXULKVM QW UJM QRSOTKYOUKQTZ [M \OXUKQXL QW Q]MTKTSOUUO\JNMTUL OTV \PK\^KTS QT PKT^LZ_`ab cadb _`ab cadb ebffghhgbijkhlm `f nkgdgio db jpqkjhh fr jidsthg`hdgu htqqbkd vbk dsj qkbqbhjw sbthgio qkbxjud `d yyz{ig|jkhgdr c|j gi wbnidbni _`ab cadb} ~sgh qkbxjud ngaa j ` dkjfjiwbth `hhjd db dsj ubfftigdr`iw btk kjogbi `h ` nsbaj}~sj `wwgdgbi bv yy tigdh db dsj `kj` gh ` j`ubi bv sbqj gi `wwkjhhgio _`ab cadb€h qkjhhgiosbthgio hsbkd`oj} ~sj qkbxjud€h qkbpgfgdr db wbnidbni `fjigdgjhl giuatwgio e`adk`gi hd`dgbi nsgus m ab|j `iw kgwj w`gar‚ `iw `fqaj gƒj q`kƒgiol f`ƒjh dsj qkbxjud `i `ddk`udg|j qa`uj db ag|jlnsgaj qkbfbdgio ji|gkbifjid`a hthd`gi`gagdr}„bkjb|jkl m `f q`kdguta`kar gfqkjhhjw r dsj qkbxjud€h ubffgdfjid db giuathg|gdr} …jddgio `hgwj †zqjkujid bv dsj tigdh vbk abnjk‡dgjkjw `vvbkw`aj sbthgio hsbnu`hjh ` wjwgu`dgbi db qkb|gwgiobqqbkdtigdgjh vbk giwg|gwt`ah vkbf wg|jkhj hbugbjubibfgu `uƒokbtiwh db dskg|j gi dsj ubfftigdr}~sgh gh hb gfqbkd`id} ˆr qkgbkgdg‰gio `vvbkw`aj sbthgio `iw tk`i wj|jabqfjidl nj u`i ukj`djfbkj hthd`gi`aj `iw giuathg|j ubfftigdgjh vbk j|jkrbij} md gh ijujhh`kr vbk _`ab cadb db jpq`iwsbthgio bqdgbih `iw `uubffbw`dj dsj ijjwh bv ` okbngio qbqta`dgbi `iw m tkoj rbt db d`ƒj`udgbi r htqqbkdgio dsgh qkbxjud ngds ib vtkdsjk wja`r}m abbƒ vbkn`kw db ngdijhhgio dsj hsbkd djkf `iw abio djkf qbhgdg|j gfq`udh ds`d dsgh qkbxjud ngaas`|j bi _`ab cadb `iw dsj htkkbtiwgio ubfftigdr} ~s`iƒ rbt}e`f ebtadjku`fjkbi}i}ubtadjkŠof`ga}ubf‹Œ†‹ bio Žkg|j cq`kdfjid z …`i ‘bhjl e`agvbkig` ’‹ Œy Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 83                ! " # $ %& ' (  ' )*+, -./0+12 3+*+,*4./0+1256+/7.,8  91: ;;<=><=?=@ >A;B )C )1./:D.1+ EDF:D0 G+1* 3+1H5.:6IJ++71K8LMNOPQRS OTUV WXYUZ [\U]U^Y_W` a\[X [b_VU`W [a _TW [\]Y^UcY_U[^d eW fYb_U[bV [a [gW^U^]Y__YfTXW^_V Y^` fZUfhU^] [^ ZU^hVdij klm nmnompq jr klm stuj vukj vpwlxkmwkyptu zm{xm| }jtp~€pmmkx ‚qƒ „ |pxkm x qkpj ‚ …†ss‡zi jr klm ˆpjˆjqm~ ljyqx ‚ ˆpj‰mwktk ŠŠ‹ † x{mpqxkŒ v{m ym t‚m ~t xkmn Ž ‘ t ~ tuqj m’ˆt qxj jr klm“u ”tnx j zmtu •jyqx ‚ –jwyq vpmt t‚m ~t xkmn Ž— ƒ vk klm yˆwjnx ‚˜mwmnomp ™ nmmkx ‚ jr klm vz}‘ ˆumtqm tˆˆpj{m ojkl jr klmqmˆpjˆjqtuq‘ t ~ ˆumtqm pmwjnnm ~ kltk klm ”xkŒ ”jy wxu ~j qj‘ kjjƒ‡yp wxkŒ ltq t ljyqx ‚ wpxqxqƒ …j nt Œ jr nŒ rpxm ~q t ~ rtnxuŒ tpmomx ‚ ˆpxwm~ jykƒ ilm qjuykxj xq kj oyxu~ njpm ljnmq‘ rjp ˆmjˆum tk tuux wjnm um{muqƒ „ wuy~x ‚ x rxuu ~m{mujˆnm kq mtp jyp wxkŒšq tnm xkxmqƒilxq ˆpjˆjqtu tk ŠŠ‹ † x{mpqxkŒ v{m ym xq m’twkuŒ |ltk |m mm~ƒ „k xq tqljpk |tu› kj jyp ~j| kj| wjnnmpwxtu ~xqkpxwk‘ t ~ ‰yqk ‹ƒŠ nxumq kjklm ”tukptx ƒ „k |xuu x wuy~m qwjpmq jr m| ljnmq‘ x wuy~x ‚ nt Œtrrjp~toumƒœx›m|xqm‘ njpm ljnmq j “”z |xuu opx ‚ njpm mx‚lojpq kj stuj vukj‘{mpŒ wujqm kj qljˆˆx ‚ t ~ kpt qxkƒsumtqm umk klmqm ljnmq ‚mk oyxukš …x wmpmuŒ‘v~tn …wl|tpkž‘ ™ — ”lt x ‚ v{m Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 84          ! "#$%& ''()*(+*+, '*-./ 012 03453& 657 8&39 !&3:5;<&&3="> ?&&@ A 5 !A 5?&&5;<&&3="B C&5@ DE&4&E !DE&4&EC&5F5;G&03="HIJKLMNO KPQR STUQV WXQYQZU[S\ ]XWT W^[RQ\S W] [PS WXYUZQ_U[QWZ` aS bU^[QW^R W] WcSZQZYU[[UbPTSZ[R UZ\ bVQbdQZY WZ VQZdR`efgh ijgkh lmnfopfhq gor smttkuuff tftpfhnvw jmxf ymz ghf jg{koq g |my}z~ jgo€nqk{koq jm~krgy ‚~fgnf tm{f ujkn gxx~ksgukmo }mhƒghr ƒkuj ymzh smttfoun gor goy hftgkokoq smosfhon „n ujf jmznkoq xhm|fsu mo ujkn nkuf foufhn kun }mzhuj yfgh m} hf{kfƒv w pf~kf{f ujf gxx~ksgou gorsmttzokuy rfnfh{f g jfghkoq pf}mhf ujf skuy smzosk~ gor uktf~y rfsknkmo …y smttfoun pf~mƒ ghf gn g e† hfnkrfou gor fsmomtknu ƒkuj f‡xfhkfosf ko jmznkoq fsmomtksn gortmhf ujgo g rmˆfo ‰ie gr{knmhy smttkuuff tftpfh tffukoqn „n w g~ƒgyn s~ghk}y pf}mhf ymzv wjg{f om f‡xfhuknf gn go ghsjkufsu mh ghpmhknu gor ƒk~~ omu smttfou mo ujfnf knnzfn Š‹ w pf~kf{f ujkn kn ujf mo~y jmznkoq xhmxmng~ m} goy nkqok}ksgou nkˆf ko e†v go ghfg krfouk}kfr gnktxmhugou }mh grrkukmog~ jmznkoq ko mzh ‰mznkoq Œ~ftfou gor py ymz ko xhf{kmzn tffukoqn ‹ „n ƒkuj Ž gor ŽŠ ‘ Œilv ujkn szhhfou gxx~ksgukmo kn ujf hfnz~u m} sm~~gpmhgukmo pfuƒffo ujfgxx~ksgou gor nug}} um hfnxmor um „l’ smttfoun gor smosfhon ƒjk~f xhfnfh{koq ujf }kogoskg~}fgnkpk~kuy m} ujf gxx~ksgukmo w jg{f pffo x~fgnfr py ujf hfsmqokukmo gor gxxhfskgukmo py „l’tftpfhn m} ujfnf uƒko mp|fsuk{fn „n ƒkuj Ž v ujf gxx~ksgou jgn hfnxmorfr um smosfhon py grrkoq jfkqju gor mujfh smo}kqzhgukmosjgoqfn „orv gn ujf sjgkh omufr gu ujf ~gnu tffukoqv ujf g~ufhoguk{f um nzssfnn}z~ hfnm~zukmo m} knnzfn smz~rpf om xhm|fsu mh ko ujkn sgnf g pzk~rfh“n hftfry gxx~ksgukmo ujgu ujf gxx~ksgou jgn njf~{fr }mh omƒ ko}g{mh m} ujkn ntg~~fh xhm|fsu Ž‹ jf gxx~ksgou kn xhmxmnkoq g ~ghqf tg|mhkuy ”Š‘‹ m} ujf Š• ’…l zokun }mh ~mƒ kosmtf hfnkrfounkos~zrkoq }mh {fhy gor f‡uhftf~y ~mƒ kosmtf hfnkrfoun w gt x~fgnfr ujf gxx~ksgou k gp~f um sm ujknko ujf smouf‡u m} g }fgnkp~f xhmxmng~ •‹ jkn nkuf jgn grrkukmog~ pfof}kun gn ku ƒk~~ g~~mƒ nmtf–tgoy uhkxn um pf rmof ƒkujmzu rhk{koq gorujf hfnkrfoun ƒk~~ tg€f g ntg~~ pzu xmnkuk{f grrkukmo gn sznumtfhn }mh e† pznkofnnfn w ~mm€ }mhƒghr um jfghkoq smzosk~“n hf{kfƒ gngx gn ƒf pfqko ujf xhmsfnn m} grrkoq jmznkoq kogxxhmxhkguf e† ~msgukmon —ufxjfo ˜f{y Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 85             !"# $% & '()%(* +,%-%-.)*/01%2-314567 89:8:9;9< =>88 &?@# &(3A2B3(% CBD2B) E%(* +%(F/32G.,%%-(04HI &2 6%,2(1%7 +%2/AJ270%3273%227-(04K &GJ% (7 +%GJ%/J12A*BDB,1B7-314K 6BDG+JBDG/33J3B-3149 %%3A1B7J L8M ?ENOO; P72D 6,,( Q( L89-;8-9<N-,*.K &%3A & OO; P72D 6,,( R17J-,*.KSTUVWXYZ V[\] ^_`\a bc\d\e`f^g hcb_ bif]\g^ bh f[^ bcd`e\j`f\bek l^ m`if\bi] bh bn^e\ed`ff`m[_^ef] `eg ma\mo\ed be a\eo]kpBq$B%JB JBB $% & '()%(*rJ J,,( BB( .( AB OO; P72DB(J2G &DB7B ?2sB* PJB $(tB3 LuB1 vw7 AB 89:x &CE %0B7*%N %7* %JJ32%B* &%3A1B7 &q )A23A 273*BJ DB( 8;; ,%0BJ . ,(BD2JJ,,( BB(J .( AB ,(tB3- yA%7 Gqzz{|}~ {€ ‚ƒ„…~†‡ }ˆ~ ‰}Š~† ‚Š‹Œ Ž Ž ‘Ž’“Œ’”•–—˜™š›˜œ–š– Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 86     December 1, 2024 SUBJECT: Agenda Item #3 - 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project Dear Chair Rosenberg and Board Members, We urge quick action on the proposed mixed-use project at 660 University Avenue. The project has been positively modified based on previous Architectural Review Board comments. We are excited to see an additional floor has been added to the project for a total of 66 residential units as part of this mixed-use project We support this project because it is walking distance to downtown businesses, retail, and services . It is 0.6 mile from Caltrain and adjacent to major transit stops, thus reducing residents' climate emissions because they can drive less. In furtherance of our affordable housing goals, the project will provide 66 homes and 20% will be affordable (where normally 15% is required). We hear often from tenants in Palo Alto that there is not enough bike parking in their multi-family developments. This is especially true as more residents are adopting e-bikes and cargo bikes. We are excited to see accessible and plentiful bicycle parking being provided as part of the project – a huge bonus to future residents and office tenants. The proposed vehicle parking ratio is adequate based on recent development trends and given the project’s location near transit and retail. This modest 66-unit project has been through a long (but sadly typical) PHZ process since 2021, including an exhaustive Environmental Impact Report that is normally reserved for significantly larger projects. Please provide substantive comments so that the project can move towards approval. Palo Alto Forward has been working to strengthen community support for housing projects to end our housing crisis and strengthen our city. As such, we have included 100 pages of support letters written by residents on behalf of this project. Thank you for your service to our community! Amie Ashton Executive Director, and on behalf of the Board of Palo Alto Forward ATTACHMENT A: 100 Pages of Public Comment Comments Supporting the Project Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 87     ATTACHMENT A: 100 Pages of Public Comments Supporting the Project (link) Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 88              ! "#$%!&'()%*% +, -./0( 123232425 6718 90: 9 ;'!  <!='!> ? + " *$'%@A, -.BC 9%& ( "%&$&)';+!=!A)!(,).D ?%+ E)'; "*%+$&)';+!=!A)!(,).1 ;)!( FG2H I?J664 K('=! &'% 9=! L M((!+ N)! O('(- P)A'(,+QDRSTUVWXY UZ[\ ]^_[` ab[c[d_e]f gba^ ahe\[f] ag eZ] abc_d[i_e[adj k] l_he[ah\ ag am]d[dc_ee_lZ^]de\ _df l`[ln[dc ad `[dn\jo+ ) ('(-pM!&! @'(+ ;!+  !&A(+!(! @ ;! ? +q& )!!'(- ( r!!)*! s;,E'(! !%ptuvw xuyyz{{ |}~|€ ‚ƒ‚„…†‡ ˆ‰‰Š…‹‚Œ Ž ‘’ ‘‘“ Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 89     YIMBY Law 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org 12/02/2024 City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 arb@CityofPaloAlto.org Via Email Re: 660 University Avenue Proposal Dear Palo Alto Architectural Review Board, YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). As you know, the City Council has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the HAA. Should the City fail to follow the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to file suit to ensure that the law is enforced. This proposal consists of a mixed-use development with 66 units and a top-floor office and two levels of below-ground parking. The proposal was submitted under Palo Alto’s Planned Home Zoning community plan in an area zoned for multi-family residential use. Though it requests zoning changes, this proposal is compliant with the City’s General Plan. Under California Government Code § 65589.5 in cases where the general plan and zoning ordinance do not match, a project is only required to comply with the general plan. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 90     YIMBY Law 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org (j)...(4) For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. In the case of this particular project, the zoning ordinance has a more restrictive density limit than the general plan and no density minimum. The general plan on the other hand requires a minimum density for new development in this area that is not present in the zoning ordinance. Applied to this project state law clearly mandates that the project comply with the city’s general plan in cases where the zoning ordinance differs. This includes all objective general plan standards or criteria, including the density minimum. This is all noted in the staff report for this project, which accurately describes the proper application of state law, regarding unit count, to this project. Therefore, you must approve the application, or else make findings to the effect that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, as described above. Should the City fail to comply with the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to take legal action to ensure that the law is enforced. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 91     YIMBY Law 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. Sincerely, Sonja Trauss Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 92              !" #$%& '#$%&(  !)*%&+,  (-./012 345454647 897: ;1< ;-*=%>*-  ?>@%>A B -C ' -D)*%&+,  (-./EEEEE-%.%2  1>!! .>EEEEEF-$9 F %= B-%.> '+ %=ADG)& =(*$/H>29 H2C &" I>*>$D>- 3" 4647 :943 J1K9   !" #$%& '#$%&(  !)*%&+,  (-./L*9 F %= B-%.> '+ %=ADG)& =(*$/HDM>*9 NN6 O2%@>-!%& ;@>( ,-M>* E  $ !!%@>L;OKPQ9 K=%! >$ % -%.%2 >C +-$ !%C> + => -. 2%R %2( B> * %! + ,>2%2.  *=$>2! 2C *%*%2. 2 %2!(S> #$%&"P ->*>%@>C => 2%*> -> => ;-*=%>*-  ?>@%>A B -C $>>%2. 2 I>*>$D>- T" =  A% C%!*!! =>*2!-*%2 !D$%>C +- NN6 O2%@>-!%& ;@>2>(P A% D>  + => ! > =  C & 2C ! P * 22 >2C( SA>@>-" P = @> !-2. +>>%2.! D =%!,-M>*( P $ A-%%2. & ! &- >$ % CC->!! %! => 2& 2> 2 => * -C =  A ! !>2  $> D =%!$>>%2.(P =,> =  & * 2 ,! +-A -C %  => ;-*=%>*-  ?>@%>A B -C A= A% D> *2C*%2. =%! $>>%2.(P D>%>@> =  A=>2 =%! ,-M>* A ! +%-! !D$%>C =>& A>-> C>!*-%D%2. % ! 7 !-& D%C%2.( ;2C=>2 A=>2 C =  =>& 2>>C>C  A A%C>- !>D * =>& ! %C =  =>& *C C =  D =>&AC =>2 D%C % T !-%>!( ;2C 2A -> C%2. =%! 2%*> P !>> =  =>& -> %2 + * ->U>!%2. %  D> N!-%>!V1! + => D%C%2.! %2 =  -> -> 2>" A - =->> !-%>!( Q2> -> T - N !-%>!( P = @> A2>C =>D%C%2. *-!! => !->> +- G6 &> -!( P %! D> %+" @>-& A> >, W%*-% 2 =  %! @>- 346 &> -! C(P %! 2> !-& D%C%2.( P+ => 2>A *2!-*%2 %! A>C  D> N !-%>! E % A% @>-!= CA $& 2>!-& D%C%2." 2C % A% 2>. %@>& >++>* 2C D!-* => C &%.= , 2 + $& D%C%2.(; =>%- ,->!>2 %2 =>& >X, %2>C =  =>& A% D%C A >@> 2C>-.-2C . - .> +- , -%2. D=>& >X, %2>C =  =>-> A% !% 2 D> >2.= , -%2. +- =>%- >2 2!( K=%! %! !>-%! ,-D>$" !>@>2 A%= => D%C%2.! =  -> =>-> *-->2& Y A=%*= -> $*= !$ >- = 2 A=  %! D>%2. !D$%>CZ, -%2. %! A &! @>-& C%++%*  +%2C( B&-2 H->> %! !$  !->> A%= @>-& %> , -%2. 2C $! A &! >@>-& , -%2. !, %!  >2( J>-!2! A-%2. %2 => -> 2 =>- !->>!" +>2  > , !$> +=> , -%2. !,! > -& %2 => $-2%2. 2C =>2 ! & =>->  C &(K=> %2>-!>*%2 + 1%CC>+%>C 2C O2%@>-!%& %! 2> + => >2- 2*>!  => CA2A2 -> 2C % %! A &! @>-& *2.>!>C( K=>-> %!  + - ++%*( K=> D%C%2. =  =>& = @> !D$%>C %! $*= $ !!%@> +- =%! -> ( P A% ++>* => -> %2 @>-& 2>. %@> A &( K=%! -> = ! $ 2& ,-+>!!%2 ! %2 =>D%C%2.! 2 O2%@>-!%& 2C 2 B&-2 H->>9 ,-+>!!%2  C>2%!!" -2>&! 2C =>- ,%!!( ;!%C> +-$=> - ++%* % %! U%> -> ( ;CC%2. =%! @>-&  -.> $%X>C !> + $ 2& ++%*>! 2C !C% , -$>2! = = @> D *2%>! @>-%2. O2%@>-!%& 2C B&-2 H->> A%  & *= 2.> => +>> + =%! -> ( Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 93                                                        Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 94                     !""# $!" %&"#'()!*+,!-.&&#/","012  3# 456765859 45:7; <=> ?"-@.#-"! A#+.#/ B!"* %!"C)-.(D'!!,"01EFGHIJKL HMNO PQRNS TUNVNWRXPY ZUTQ T[XONYP TZ XMP TUVRWN\RXNTW] ^P _R[XNT[O TZ T`PWNWVRXXR_MQPWXO RWY _SN_aNWV TW SNWaO]bcde fdge bcde fdge heiijkkjelmnkop ci qnjgjlr ge mstnmkk iu kgnelr kvtteng wen gxm tnetekmy tnezm{g cg ||} ~ljmnkjgu fmlvm€ fkc nm{mlg nmkjymlg ew bcde fdgeo p xcm tmnkelcddu mstmnjml{my gxm yjwwj{vdgu ew km{vnjlr vcdjguxevkjlr jl gxm yeqlgeql cnmco c {xcddmlrm wc{my ‚u iclu jl evn {eiivljgu€fk c nm{mlg dcq k{xeed rncyvcgmo p ƒleq kmmncd tmmnk qxeo ymktjgm km{vnjlr ze‚k jl bcde fdgeoqmnm vlc‚dm ge wjly kvjgc‚dm xevkjlr lmcn‚u€ „eim xcy ge djm wcn wnei gxmjn qenƒtdc{mo qxjdmegxmnko djƒm iukmdwo kmggdmy wen ienm ieymkg c{{eiieycgjelk gxcl tnmwmnnmy yvm ge djijgmyetgjelk€…xm yeqlgeql cnmc jk xeim ge lvimnevk ivdgjwcijdu ‚vjdyjlrko iclu ew qxj{x cnm iv{x edymngxcl gxjk tnetekmy ymmdetimlg€ …xmkm xeimko ewgml kv‚yjjymy wnei dcnrm kjlrdm†wcijdu xeimkocnm leq jddmrcd ge ‚vjdy umg tdcu c {nv{jcd nedm jl tnejyjlr xevkjlr wen iclu nmlgmnko {elgnj‚vgjlrge gxm j‚ncl{u ew evn {eiivljgu€…xm tnetekmy tnezm{g el ~ljmnkjgu fmlvm ewwmnk c tnjim de{cgjel qjgxjl qcdƒjlr yjkgcl{m ewhcdgncjl cly c kxeng ‚jƒm njym wnei ƒmu ymkgjlcgjelko icƒjlr jg cl jymcd kteg wen {cn†djrxg en {cn†wnmm djjlr€ ‡xjdm {el{mnlk c‚evg gncwwj{ cnm cdjyo gxmu cnm ewgml emnkgcgmy€ …xm tnezm{gˆk de{cgjelcly ymkjrl qjdd ijljij‰m jgk jitc{g el gncwwj{ qxjdm tnejyjlr iv{x†lmmymy xevkjlr jl gxm xmcng ewbcde fdge€Šen gxm ‚mlmwjg ew evn {eiivljgu cly wvgvnm nmkjymlgko p kgnelrdu vnrm gxm cttnecd ew gxjk tnezm{goqxj{x qjdd xmdt cyynmkk gxm elrejlr xevkjlr kxengcrm jl bcde fdge€…xclƒ uev wen uevn {elkjymncgjel€‹cnnmgg hdcnƒ{dcnƒŒ rcnnmggŽricjd€{eibcde fdgeo hcdjwenljc Œ }‘ Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 95     Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 96                     !"#$% &'$($# )!#$*+,-"./-0'!!$%#/#(12  3$ 456765859 4:;7 <=> #0?'$0#- @$.'$% A-#" )-#B,0'+C*--/#(1DEFGHIJK GLMN OPQMR STMUMVQWOX YTSP SZWNMXO SY WLO STUQVM[QWMSV\ ]O ^QZWMSZN SY S_OVMVUQWWQ^LPOVWN QVX ^RM^`MVU SV RMV`N\Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 97                        !  ! "    ! #      #      !#     "$          #        "%                          "&!    '                  #       #               "(           )  #  !               "                    "$   #      !         !  *      !         "$ !               )  #  "     !  '      #         !    !      #'   '     #   "          #        +, #    !      #    !  #          !         ! "$ '+  -    ./  " - 0   .1223 Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 98               !"###$#% & !"###$#%'() *+,-,+.+/ -0/+ 123 45#67#58 9 7: ;85< &85="#7!>?88$5@' A8B C7=5@ &D8B"E7B@B?8BB7B@$#%'F G:7H5I G B &G B$G:7H5"J7!>184$5@'F K87IAB868B &AB868B$K87"J7!>184$5@'LMNOPQRS OTUV WXYUZ [\U]U^Y_W` a\[X [b_VU`W [a _TW [\]Y^UcY_U[^d eW fYb_U[bV [a [gW^U^]Y__YfTXW^_V Y^` fZUfhU^] [^ ZU^hVdijkl mnkol pqrjstjlu ksv wqxxoyyjj xjxtjlrz{| }svjlryksvosu q~ ynj wq}swo vorw}rroqs ynky jv yq osw}vosu j€ ksvosu ynj ‚mp ~qw}r kljk t|ƒ„…† ‡kr yq j€ ksv ynj kljk ‡oynq}y ljrylowyosu ynj ˆqsosu ksv vj‰jq xjsy ryksvklvr kvq yjvk~yjl jsukujxjsy ‡oyn ksv ~jjvtkwŠ ~lqx lq jly| q‡sjlr os ynj kljk‹Œ roxokl jsukujxjsy ksv wqktqlkyoqs ‡oyn ryk~~ tlq}uny |q} ynj } vkyjv Ž† ‚mp k owkyoqsz‡nown |q} ‡jwqxjv ksv k lq‰jv yq xq‰j ~ql‡klv‹ qyn ~lqx ynj ‚mp jsukujxjsy ksv ynor xqlj ljwjsy jsukujxjsyz ‡j Šsq‡ ‡nky or sjjvjv yq tlosu~qlyn ~oskswok| ~jkrotj k owkyoqsr ksv krq ‡nky lj‰jsyr ~oskswok ‰oktooy|‹‘ k k}v ynj Œp ~ql ljwqusoˆosu ynj wloyowk ox qlykswj q~ ~oskswok ~jkrotooy| ~lqx ynj k owksy’r jlr jwyo‰j ksv jswq}lkuj |q} yq oswql qlkyj oy osyq ynj j€ ksroqs l}jr‹‘ jswq}lkuj Œp yq kvq y ynj ‚mp ˆqsosu ksv vj‰jq xjsy ryksvklvr ~ql ynj lq jlyojr kwlqrr ‚mp~lqx ynj ~qw}r kljk ksv lq jlyojr oxxjvokyj| rq}yn q~ {kykvjlq‹‘s kvvoyoqs ~ql ynjrj lq jlyojr ‘ tjoj‰j ynj qlouosk ryk~~ ljwqxxjsvkyoqs q~ k † ljkl rjytkwŠ “sqyŽ† ~jjy” ‡o xkŠj k vo~~jljswj yq ‰oktooy|‹‘ kx k‡klj ynky ynj lq jly| q‡sjl voljwy| rq}yn q~ {kykvjlq tjq‡ ynj mljjŠrovj royj nkrj€ ljrrjv osyjljry os vj‰jq osu nq}rosu‹ •nq}un nj sq‡ nkr k p k owkyoqsz ‘ kx r}lj nj ksvryk~~ wks tlosu ~qlyn k wqx oksy k owkyoqs ‡oyn ynj ‚mp l}jr‹Œ q~ ynjrj royjr klj sjkl ylksroy ksv –qt ksv rnq osu royjr‹‘ tjoj‰j ynj ‚mp l}jrz sqy ynj —˜mŒ™ l}jrz wks tlosu ~qlyn wqx oksy k owkyoqsr kwlqrr ~lqx ynjw}lljsy ‚mp ~qw}r kljk‹šnoj ‘ ‡q}v oŠj yq rjj xqlj nq}rosu qs ynj ‚mp royjr ~}lynjl rq}ynz os qlvjl yq nk‰j k wnkswj kyxjjyosu q}l ›}sj … …† wqxxoyxjsyz ‘ kx ljrylowyosu x| krŠ yq royjr kv–kwjsy yq ksv kwlqrr ~lqxynj ~qw}r kljk‹•nksŠr kukos ~ql wqxtososu |q}l klwnoyjwy}lk j€ jlyorj ‡oyn ~oskswok ~jkrotooy| wqsrovjlkyoqsr yqxq‰j lq–jwyr ~ql‡klv‹œyj njs šj‰| Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 99                 ! "#$ %&#'()*+ ,-!&&'.#,#/01 2' 345654748 9:6; <=> ?#-@!'-# A' !'. B#+ %#C*-!)D(,#/0EFGHIJKL HMNO PQRNS TUNVNWRXPY ZUTQ T[XONYP TZ XMP TUVRWN\RXNTW] ^P _R[XNT[O TZ T`PWNWVRXXR_MQPWXO RWY _SN_aNWV TW SNWaO]bcde fdge bcde fdge heiijkkjelmnkop ci qrdds krtteng gum uerkjlv tnewmxg cg yyz {lj|mnkjgs f|m jl }e~lge~l bcde fdge €ujk tnewmxg~jdd m c gnmiml}erk ckkmg ge gum xeiirljgs cl} gum nmvjel ck c ~uedm€um c}}jgjel eq yy rljgk ge gum cnmc jk c mcxel eq uetm jl c}}nmkkjlv bcde fdge‚k tnmkkjlvuerkjlv kuengcvm €um tnewmxg‚k tneƒjijgs ge }e~lge~l cimljgjmko jlxdr}jlv hcdgncjl kgcgjel cl}citdm j„m tcn„jlvo ic„mk gum tnewmxg cl cggncxgj|m tdcxm ge dj|mo ~ujdm tneiegjlv ml|jnelimlgcdkrkgcjlc jdjgs…enme|mno p ci tcngjxrdcnds jitnmkkm} s gum tnewmxg‚k xeiijgimlg ge jlxdrkj|jgs †mggjlv ckj}m ‡ztmnxmlg eq gum rljgk qen de~mnˆgjmnm} cqqen}c dm uerkjlv kue~xckmk c }m}jxcgjel ge tne|j}jlvettengrljgjmk qen jl}j|j}rcdk qnei }j|mnkm kexjemxeleijx cx„vnerl}k ge gunj|m jl gum xeiirljgs‰s tnjenjgjŠjlv cqqen}c dm uerkjlv cl} rn cl }m|mdetimlgo ~m xcl xnmcgm ienm krkgcjlc dm cl}jlxdrkj|m xeiirljgjmk qen m|mnselm pg jk lmxmkkcns qen bcde fdge ge mƒtcl} uerkjlv etgjelk cl}cxxeiie}cgm gum lmm}k eq c vne~jlv tetrdcgjel cl} p rnvm ser ge gc„m cxgjel s krttengjlv gujktnewmxg ~jgu le qrngumn }mdcsp dee„ qen~cn} ge ~jglmkkjlv gum kueng gmni cl} delv gmni tekjgj|m jitcxgk gucg gujk tnewmxg ~jdduc|m el bcde fdge cl} gum krnnerl}jlv xeiirljgs €ucl„ ser†jlxmnmdso†c|jgc ‹†c|jgc ‹cgcncwijdegjxxevŒvicjdxei z Žmlg f|mlrmo †cl ‘ekmo hcdjqenljc ’ Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 100                     !"# $#%# &"'()*+#,-.#/!""(0'.'123  4( 56787696: ;<98 =>? @'/A!(/'# B(-!(0 C#', &#'D+/!*E)##.'12FGHIJKLM INOP QRSOT UVOWOXSYQZ [VUR U\YPOZQ U[ YNQ UVWSXO]SYOUX^ _Q `S\YOU\P U[ UaQXOXWSYYS`NRQXYP SXZ `TO`bOXW UX TOXbP^Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 101                        !  ! "    ! #      #      !#     "$          #        "%                          "&!    '                  #       #               "(           )  #  !               "                    "$   #      !         !  *      !         "$ !               )  #  "     !  '      #         !    !      #'   '     #   "          #        +, #    !      #    !  #          !         ! "$ '+- .   /  "   01 Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 102                 !" #$ %&'!()*+,-./&&!0'-'1234 5! 678987:7; <=6> ?@A B'.$/!.' C!,/!0 D'+ %'E*./)F(-'12GHIJKLMN JOPQ RSTPU VWPXPYTZR[ \WVS V]ZQP[R V\ ZOR VWXTYP^TZPVY_ `R aT]ZPV]Q V\ VbRYPYXTZZTaOSRYZQ TY[ aUPacPYX VY UPYcQ_defg hfig defg hfig jgkklmmlgnopmqr ek splilnt ig ouvpomm kw mxvvgpi ygp izo vpgvgmo{ zgxmlnt vpg|o}i ei ~~ €nl opmliw h o ln{gsnigsn defg hfig‚ hm e ƒ„woep defg hfig poml{oniq r …oflo o e vpg|o}i mx}z em izlm lm …gizno}ommepw en{ slff …o e ipokon{gxm emmoi ig gxp }gkkxnliw en{ ig izo potlgnef zgxmlntmzgpieto‚†opw yos kxfil„yeklfw zgxmlnt vpg|o}im toi …xlfi noep szopo izow epo mgpofw noo{o{q ln izo{gsnigsn }gpo‚ ‡zo e{{lilgn gy ~~„xnlim sliz lkko{leio vpgulkliw ig ekonlilom en{ sefˆlnt{lmien}o ig izo jefipeln lm izo pltzi sew ig vpgkgio mxmielne…fo en{ pomlfloni {o ofgvkoni‚‰oiilnt eml{o ƒ vop}oni gy izo xnlim ygp fgsop„ilopo{ eyygp{e…fo zgxmlnt lm e sof}gko}gkklikoni ig mipontizonlnt defg hfigŠm mg}lgo}gngkl} {l opmliw en{ o‹xliw‚ ri lm no}ommepw ygpdefg hfig ig ouven{ zgxmlnt gvilgnm en{ e}}gkkg{eio izo noo{m gy e tpgslnt vgvxfeilgn en{ rxpto wgx ig mxvvgpi en{ evvpg o izlm vpg|o}i sliz ng yxpizop {ofew‚r fggˆ ygpsep{ ig moolnt izlm vpg|o}i …xlfi en{ kgpo flˆo li ln izo noep yxixpo‚ defg hfig noo{m kx}zkgpo zgxmlnt en{ kgpo {onmliw ln evvpgvpleiofw vfenno{ epoem gy izo jliw‚ ‡zenˆ wgx‚‰ln}opofwqŒekom ‰xzŒekom ‰xz|ekomwmxz tkelf‚}gkdefg hfigq jeflygpnle Ž ~ Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 103     1 660 University Avenue Development Issues An Executive Summary for ARB Meeting December 5, 2024 Need to consider the following: 1. Inadequacy of 78 stalls for 66 units plus businesses. 2. How brochures and passes get people out of their cars. 3. If we don’t know compliance for 2 years, there is no going back. 4. Insist on two-year data from previous TDM Specialists, Inc. to prove effectiveness. 5. History of This Project Nearby residents of the proposed 660 University development have been opposed to several aspects of the development and have made our objections known to every city committee that held a hearing. It started with shoe-horning in too much building on too small a property which was 4 stories tall with 70 units and size remains an issue. October 25, 2021 Council held a prescreening to review a conceptual plan for the proposed project on October 25, 2021. The formal PHZ application was submitted on December 21, 2021. Following staff’s initial review and subsequent resubmittal, the PTC reviewed the project on November 16, 2022 and recommended that the project be forward to the ARB for review in accordance with the PC rezoning process. December 1, 2022 The ARB reviewed the same plan set on December 1, 2022. Since this time, the applicant made significant modifications to the project, including changing the parking garage driveway entry from Middlefield Road to Byron Street, as well as removing residential uses from the ground floor to meet FEMA flood zone requirements and address ARB comments related to privacy for ground floor units. This submittal was received on September 1, 2023, ten months after the last public hearing. The plans have been further refined over three rounds of staff review in the last seven months to address various staff comments. Key comments from Board members and the applicant’s response to those comments are summarized in the Exhibit file found separately. Dec. 1, 2022 ARB Meeting A previous Architecture Review Board hearing listened to our objections and sent Smith Development away to make some amendments that would be more suitable for your board and nearby residents on Dec. 1, 2022. Key comments from Board members and the applicant’s response to those comments were summarized. Only change was drive-way moved to Byron St. all others were left alone. You can see Exhibit results separately. April 18, 2024 ARB Meeting Further recommendations by 3 Board members were adjustments be made to the plans. 1. Remove extended balconies from units B1, B1, and A2 from Historic Oak tree. 2. 6 foot screening on 4th floor roof deck to reduce noise and maintain privacy. 3. Inadequate parking remained an issue. 4. Consider the Draft Environmental Impact Report The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and has been modified to reflect recent project changes. Following the ARB’s recommendation, the project will return to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) for a formal recommendation of a Planned Community Ordinance. Both of these recommendations will be forwarded to Council for a final decision. At that point the number of units was 63. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 104     2 Builder’s Remedy May 2024 6 stories and initially 110 units. The revised application that Smith Development submitted last month for its planned project 660 University Ave. calls for a six-story building with office space on the lowest and highest floors and then 66 apartments in between. The proposal is just the latest iteration of a downtown project that has already gone through multiple revisions since Smith first applied in 2021 under the “planned home zoning” process, which allows residential builders to negotiate with the city over zoning exemptions. The four-story project that the company had previously proposed was narrowly approved by the Architectural Review Board in April. While both the builder’s remedy and the PHZ applications are currently on file, the applicant has requested that the City place the Builder’s Remedy application on hold while the City continues to process the PHZ application November 26, 2024 ARB Meeting re: TDM Plan The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan includes measures and programs to achieve a reduction in single-occupancy vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 45%. New residents will have to sign an acknowledgment that they are aware there is a goal to reduce commuter trips and maximize use of all other sources. This is not a legal pledge. The TDM plan includes an annual monitoring plan to document their traffic. The first data will not be known until 2 years hence. In summary, a TDM plan sounds great, but it only works for Smith Development who will make too few parking places available for residents. With no adjacent streets permitting parking and limited parking on Byron, do you really think this will work? In TDM’s own words, “We have a proven track record of getting employees out of their cars. As projects are built and occupied, TDM Specialists can develop the, outreach, and campaigns necessary to implement and manage employee Commute Programs or parking management programs. The initial start-up, implementation, and ongoing management of the Commute Program are designed to meet employee benefits for businesses.” It is incumbent on this board to request some proven results that TDM has been able to achieve after two years before making any decision on this project. Exhibit Follows which shows various ARB directions with applicant’s responses. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 105     3 Exhibit File Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 106     From:Kathleen Rotow To:Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: 660 University Draft EIR - Now Circulating Date:Wednesday, April 3, 2024 11:52:55 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png Thanks Emily. I'm glad the review concluded that the Byron Ave entry and exit for this project made more sense than further slowing down Middlefield and University. It also keeps some of the inevitable noise from this project from disturbing the senior project across the street on University. On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 8:28 AM Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Kathleen, After the initial ARB review, the driveway was relocated to the Byron frontage, to reduce potential conflict on Middlefield. Thanks, Emily Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 107     From: Kathleen Rotow <kathleenrotow@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 4:46 AM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: 660 University Draft EIR - Now Circulating CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good Morning Emily, I have an initial question that you may be able to answer quickly. Given that I live within two blocks from the project on University Avenue, one of my concerns is the amount of additional traffic this project will generate on an already very congested corner. Probable additional traffic backups on both University Ave and Middlefield Ave. Will the entry and exits for parking be on University or Middlefield? Will there be any left turn entry into the parking for the project while heading west on University? Thank you, Kathleen Rotow Sent from my iPhone On Apr 2, 2024, at 5:58 PM, Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Good afternoon, This e-mail is to inform you that the Draft EIR for the 660 University project is now available here on our Planning Department website. The Notice of Availability is attached and has further information regarding the proposed project. The comment period for the Draft EIR begins today, Tuesday, April 2nd and will end on May 17, 2024. This e-mail is being provided to you because you are a neighboring jurisdiction, your agency has expressed an interest in the proposed project or because your agency may have an interest in the proposed project, or because you have been requested to be contacted regarding any project within the City of Palo Alto’s jurisdiction. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or to send comments. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 108     Regards, Emily <image001.png>Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org <image002.png> Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped <660_University_NOA signed.pdf> Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 109     From:Christopher Ream To:Kallas, Emily Subject:660 University Project Date:Wednesday, April 10, 2024 3:38:35 PM Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Emily, Chris Ream here, the President of the Hamilton Homeowners Association. I intend to prepare a letter to the Architectural Review Board outlining The Hamilton’s objections to the planned project at 660 University, and I also intend to attend and comment at the ARB Hearing new week on April 18. I have done a quick review of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR addresses many of the points I had previously brought up to the ARB along with some new points, including in particular, the danger of killing Tree #10 (the protected coastal oak) and the alternative of adding a fifth above-ground story to the building, and the alternative of eliminating the second floor of the underground garage. These are not shown in the developer’s current plans, but are obviously issues that need to be addressed at some point. My question is: Would it be proper for me to address in my letter to the ARB and at the Hearing points raised in the Draft EIR but not yet appearing in the developer’s plans. I will call you to have a brief discussion on this. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 110     From:Mimi and Eric Carlson To:Christopher Ream; Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: 660 University Project Date:Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:02:35 AM You don't often get email from mimianderic@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Chris et al. Please note that the proposed project will create a traffic nightmare, espesciallly if the entrance is on Byron.- which is effectively a one wao street during the day. Eric Carlson From: Christopher Ream <ream@reamlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 3:38 PM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: 660 University Project Emily, Chris Ream here, the President of the Hamilton Homeowners Association. I intend to prepare a letter to the Architectural Review Board outlining The Hamilton’s objections to the planned project at 660 University, and I also intend to attend and comment at the ARB Hearing new week on April 18. I have done a quick review of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR addresses many of the points I had previously brought up to the ARB along with some new points, including in particular, the danger of killing Tree #10 (the protected coastal oak) and the alternative of adding a fifth above-ground story to the building, and the alternative of eliminating the second floor of the underground garage. These are not shown in the developer’s current plans, but are obviously issues that need to be addressed at some point. My question is: Would it be proper for me to address in my letter to the ARB and at the Hearing points raised in the Draft EIR but not yet appearing in the developer’s plans. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 111     I will call you to have a brief discussion on this. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 112     THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: ream@reamlaw.com April 16, 2024 Via email: Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org Re: 660 University Project Architectural Review Board Hearing on April 18, 2024 Draft EIR April 2024 Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree Dear Emily, Please consider the comments in this letter as you continue to work on the Draft EIR for the 660 University Project and pass on these comments to members of the Architectural Review Board and to others where appropriate. There is an Attachment A and an Attachment B to this letter. The Hamilton is a senior living (55+) condominium development with 36 residential units and the average age of the residents in The Hamilton is mid-80’s. The Hamilton shares the same small block with the proposed development at 660 University Avenue. Lytton Gardens, Webster House and Webster House Health Center are within a block and directly across the street from the proposed development. Channing House is two blocks away. Because of this concentration of elderly citizens, the area is frequently referred to as “Senior Corner.” I am Christopher Ream. My wife Anne and I have been Palo Alto residents for 53 years and have been residents of The Hamilton for the past five years. The Hamilton community strongly opposes the proposed development at 660 University, and the Board of Directors of the Hamilton Homeowners Association (the “HHA”), with the support of its members/residents, has resolved to fight against the proposed development. I am the President of the HHA and am personally committed to significantly revising the proposed building that will materially adversely affect us and all of our neighbors. There is a majestic, beautiful Coast Live Oak tree (the “Tree”) in the middle of our block and is listed as Tree #10 on Applicant’s plans. Applicant’s arborist reports that the Tree’s trunk is 50 inches in diameter and its limbs stretch out 90 feet in diameter “in a mostly balanced canopy.” The Tree abuts the back property line of the 660 University project and so its limbs reach out approximately 45 feet over the project’s property, and its root structure is larger than that. The Tree brings shade and joy to us and everyone else on the block. The Tree is several hundred Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 113     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 Page 2 of 4 years old and is deemed a Protected Heritage Tree by the City of Palo Alto. Applicant’s arborist rates the Tree “High” for suitability for preservation. This proposed project puts this beautiful Tree in grave danger: “It is WLCA’s professional opinion that the tree’s vigor would be negatively impacted to a severe degree as a direct result of proposed site work as currently described on the 10/31/2023 set of plan sheets, resulting in tree #10 falling into a spiral of condition decline from which it cannot recover.” Walter Levison Consulting Arborist Impact Analysis dated 12/18/2023, p.6 Please see Attachment A to this letter for the full Impact Analysis by Walter Levison Consulting Arborist. Tree Protection Zone Applicant’s plans recite that the City’s Tree Technical Manual (TTM) ¶1.36 specifies a “Tree Protection Zone” (TPZ) for a protected tree with a radius equal to the ten times the trunk’s diameter. For the Tree, that would be 10 x 50” = 500” = 41 feet. Another rule is that the TPZ should be equal to the foliage, so here that would be a radius of 45 feet based upon the arborist’s report of a 90-foot canopy spread. I am not an arborist, but I am told that one common rule of thumb is that a tree’s roots are one and a half to three times wider than the canopy. For the Tree’s 45-foot limbs, that would be 67 to 135 feet of roots out under the parking lot where the new building would go. Robert Booty, arborist retained by Rincon Consultants on behalf of the City, reports that his LIDAR root scan of the existing asphalt parking lot at 600 University Avenue shows that the Tree’s roots are still dense and going out strong at his 51-foot scan, the furthest extent of his investigation. (See Attachment B.) Applicant has drawn a TPZ of only 30 feet on its plans and has the new building right next to and touching that 30 feet. That is 11 to 15 feet less than required. And the 30 feet is just what the building is supposed to look like – you don’t have to be an experienced contractor to know that there will be plenty of damaging construction work done on the exterior side of the two-story underground garage walls, and that will be much closer than 30 feet to the Tree. Robert Booty’s report points out that the roots are going to be sliced off at his scan of 31 feet. (See Attachment B.) Now, look up at the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors, there are residential units with balconies sticking out 6 feet into the TPZ. Applicant’s arborist admits that pruning will be required, including a 17-inch limb. The Tree has to be pruned back to clear those balconies. Then be realistic: Applicant is going to prune the Tree even further back so that there is at least 5 feet of clearance between those balconies and the Tree. We are now cutting the Tree back to only 19 feet of foliage left. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 114     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 Page 3 of 4 If 660 University is allowed to be built as now proposed, the Tree’s canopy will be severed on one side, disrupting the Tree’s balance, potentially allowing strong gravitational forces to push the Tree over. In addition, the roots needed to hold the Tree back from tipping over will have been cut and lost their gripping force. How soon will the Tree topple over and crash into The Hamilton and others. It would destroy the dental offices at 517 Byron, and badly injure and maybe kill anyone in those offices at the time. The neighborhood will lose this beautiful tree. The privacy of the seniors in the sixteen apartments in The Hamilton on that side of our development will be exposed to the 36 units with balconies on our side of the 660 University building as well as the noisy crowds on the roof top party deck. Security The Staff Report for the Architectural Review Board Hearing to be held April 18, 2024 reported that the Urban Forestry Section has requested that any building permit be conditioned upon the Applicant obtaining an appraisal of the replacement value of the Tree and posting security for that amount. What does that mean in this situation? It will be completely impossible to replace the Tree, thus how can anyone come up with a replacement value. And, if the Tree “dies” within three years of the completion of the project, then the money from the security will go into the Forestry Fund to plant trees elsewhere. So much for the owner of 517 Byron and thus the person who was the owner of the Tree and the one most damaged by its death. This might make sense if the permit was conditioned upon obtain an appraisal value using the Trunk Formula Method (TTM 6.45B) rather than the Replacement Cost Method (TTM 6.45A). Solution At the Architectural Review Board hearing in December 2022, everyone, including the Applicant’s architect and its landscaper actively agreed that the Tree had to be protected; but the Applicant did not suggest that a 41-45 foot TPZ should be observed. No, their answer was that they knew of a tree in Mountain View that has so far survived a small TPZ (although they did not say how long it has survived). One tree surviving for an unknown time is not a valid argument to ignore the universally accepted rule of a TPZ equal to 10 times the trunk’s diameter or the extent of the canopy. The only solution here to save this Protected Heritage Tree is that the proper 41-foot TPZ must be imposed and complied by both the proposed building and its construction. This is not an unfair burden on the Applicant: They have known all along that their 30-foot TPZ was in violation of TTM regulations, and that the building could not be constructed without violating even that reduced TPZ because of the necessity to have construction closer to the Tree than that artificial 30 feet. The first time they showed a TPZ on their plans was their C3 filing on October 6, 2022 when they showed a TPZ with a radius of 29’11-½” (strange number for a TPZ). C3_660 University Ave_PLAN1.pdf, p.24. This was later updated to the 30 feet we see now. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 115     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 Page 4 of 4 Applicant’s arborist David L. Babby discusses the size of the TPZ in §5.3 of his Tree Protection Report, 660 University Avenue, February 7, 2024: “The CPA's Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) standard is a radial distance from the trunk equal to 10 times its diameter, which for oak #10, identifies a TPZ of 41 feet from the trunk. The proposed project establishes the TPZ to be 30 feet from the trunk, which equates to a multiplier of 7 times the trunk diameter (and 11 feet inside).” He then goes on to say that the small 30-foot TPZ only applies to the finished building and garage, and sets up an even smaller, undisclosed zone where all sorts of construction work can tear up the ground and destroy the Tree’s roots: “The architectural design substantially conforms to my recommendations provided in January 2021, which stipulates a minimum 30-foot setback from the oak's trunk to construct the future building and parking garage, and a minimum setback of 20 feet from the trunk for all ground disturbance beneath the existing asphalt surface. “Roots The 20-foot setback from #10's trunk for ground disturbance applies to any soil compaction, grading, subexcavation, overexcavation, trenching, drilling/auguring, storm drains, swales, etc.” In other words, once you are 20 feet or more from the Tree, you can go at it, tear up the ground and destroy the Tree’s roots anyway and as much as you want. It appears to me that the Applicant didn’t have a thought when they started about Palo Alto’s desire to protect its beautiful Heritage Trees. They just saw some land, put together plans to fill that land with rental opportunities, and moved forward. When they discovered that Palo Alto wanted to protect the Tree, they drew a TPZ to accommodate their plans, rather than drawing their plans to accommodate the Tree. As Chair David Hirsch so succinctly stated at the December, 2022 Architectural Review Board Hearing on this project: “This is too much building in too small of a space.” Thank you for your consideration, Christopher Ream Christopher Ream Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 116     Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 117     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 1 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Date: 12/18/2023 Impact Analysis of Proposed 660 University, Palo Alto Site Plan Project Work on One (1) Off-Site Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Specimen (Project Tree #10, Palo Alto City Tree Tag #1572) at 517 Byron Palo Alto, CA Mr. Chris Ream, President The Hamilton Homeowners Association 555 Byron Palo Alto, CA ream@reamlaw.com Dear Mr. Ream, The following written letter report is the single deliverable prepared by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) per your request as an association with members residing at The Hamilton, in close proximity to the proposed multi-story 660 University project. Background and Assignment The proposed private development project stated above proposes to demolish various existing office buildings and parking lot areas, and build an underground parking garage, with residential and commercial office facility directly over the garage footprint. WLCA’s assignment was to determine whether the site work as currently proposed per the set of plan sheets (dated October 2023) would cause severe or otherwise irreversible injury to the subject oak specimen to such as degree that it would be expected to fall into a spiral of decline from which it could not recover, as a direct result of the site work. WLCA visited the site on 12/13/2023 to archive digital images, create a tree map markup showing actual site-verified canopy dimensions (rough approx.), and confirm existing site conditions. The project encompasses three lots, 660 University, 680 University, and 511 Byron. An adjacent lot at 517 Byron just south of the proposed work area exhibits a relatively very large “veteran tree” coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) referenced by David L. Babby, author of the Tree Protection Report filed by the developer, as tree #10 (City tag #1572), a specimen in good overall condition (62% out of 100% possible) as visually assessed by WLCA, with a canopy spread that is equal to the largest coast live oak specimens ever assessed in the author’s entire 25 year professional consulting career (see digital images below in this report showing the 90 foot diameter canopy). WLCA reviewed the private development proposed plan sheets dated 10/31/2023 (planning resubmittal #5) which were downloaded from the City of Palo Alto website, and an arborist report by David Babby dated 11/19/2021, which does not actually contain any site plan sheets (Mr. Babby used a topographic survey sheet for his site tree map markup). Multiple marked-up tree location maps, color-coded by WLCA, show expected construction-related impacts in relation to the tree #10 existing canopy dripline and in relation to the standard tree protection zone (TPZ) of 10 x diameter as an offset radius from mainstem edge. These markups are attached to the end of this letter report for reference (view document using Adobe Pro, Adobe CS, or other paid form of Adobe Acrobat, to maintain the visibility of the color-coded markups). Digital images archived by WLCA in December 2023 are also included in this report for reference of pre-project conditions. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 118     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 2 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Basic Data Diameter: 50 inches, per Babby report. Spread: Approximately 90 feet total diameter, per David Babby report and WLCA. Health (Vigor): 70% per Babby, 80% per WLCA. Structure: 40% per Babby, 50% per WLCA. Overall Condition Rating: 50% (fair) per Babby, 62% (good) per WLCA. Live Twig Density and Live Foliar Density: Good. Additional Tree Information per WLCA’s Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) 12/13/2023 and Research Foliage hangs down to 15 to 25 feet above grade at 45 feet radius north of mainstem edge. Multiple mainstems exhibit wide angle saddle shaped (i.e.”normal”) attachment forks between 10 and 15 feet elevation above grade. These stems are somewhat upward oriented. Buttress root flares at root crown appear normal, though root system extent and condition are essentially unknowable due to hardscape presence over a large percentage of actual root zone. It is hypothesized that the actual extent of root zone is at least 2x to 3x the 45 foot canopy radius in terms of lateral distance in most directions out from trunk1, based on both Arboriculture 4th Edition (2004), and on WLCA’s past 25 years of construction site consulting experience with coast live oak specimens on older sites with older less-compacted root zone conditions, where historical building foundations and parking lot baserock base sections were constructed to far less strict standards than modern engineer specifications. There may be extensive rooting occurring out through various private lots that adjoin the 517 Byron lot on which tree #10 stands, with lateral woody roots extending from tree #10 underneath various retaining wall footings and building footings, out to underneath existing asphalt parking lot surfacing, etc. Per USGS local quadrangle soils map, tree #10 is growing in the “Qoa” unit, which is defined as an older alluvium (oa): a gravelly riparian soil that is derived from stream associated movements, and typically contains smooth rocky material that drains relatively well, and is excellent for development of deep, elongated native oak tree root systems (based on WLCA’s professional experience and research). This Palo Alto site probably has one of the best soils in the entire Bay Area in terms of allowing for fast growth of native oaks. See the digital images section of this report for an overlay map created by WLCA using various online sources and the USGS soil map shows how groundwater at this location is relatively high in elevation (25 foot groundwater contour), and shows existing roads, historical streams, and red dot plots where a past survey by others indicated locations of extremely old native valley oak specimens for reference. What this all means is that the proposed project site has very good growing conditions for native oaks with a high groundwater table elevation contour and gravelly alluvium soil associated with historical waterways which drains relatively quickly and may also exhibit relatively good aeration related to the larger material components of the soil. 1 Per Harris et. al. 2004. Arboriculture 4th Edition. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 119     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 3 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Expected Tree Root Zone and Canopy Impact Analysis / Based on October 2023 Set of Proposed Plan Sheets • Canopy: Expect 20 to 30% of canopy live wood and foliage to be removed to clear southward-extended balcony construction, garage vertical wall construction, foundation footing construction for main building structure, vertical exterior walls along the south side of the residential structure, and an additional +/- 10 feet of horizontal width required to be totally cleared up to roof peak elevations as a “construction corridor” airspace for exterior work, scaffold erection, and bucket lift machinery use (based on WLCA’s past projects to date, which required between 6 feet and 15 feet of horizontal clearance as construction corridors around building exterior walls, between soil surface grade and the roof peaks). Note that the curvilinear section of garage entry ramp, although it is below grade elevation, may actually require tall vertical machinery clearance directly above the proposed wall cut locations, resulting in further clearance pruning of the tree #10 northwest corner of canopy (not verified). This information is based on past projects overseen by WLCA involving underground parking garage retaining wall construction in the Bay Area. Total expected canopy loss will likely result in a remnant canopy with 20 to 25 feet of north, northeast, and northwest extension from mainstem base, whereas existing canopy is +/- 45 feet radial extension in those directions. Refer to the attached WLCA tree map markup for a graphic representation of the various impacts indicated as color-coded lines. • Roots: Expected subgrade work will encroach to within the City of Palo Alto “10 times diameter” tree protection zone on the north side of tree, inside which special methods/materials/monitoring is required for site construction work. Extent of root zone compromised by the various elements of proposed work (garage wall excavation using vertical shoring, landscape decking, landscape irrigation, landscape plant and tree installation, etc. is expected to be moderate to severe, depending on actual cut depths and depending on whether machinery and personnel are allowed to enter into the TPZ and compact the root zone in the north area of TPZ. Note that the actual extent of roots may or may not be 2x to 3x the tree canopy dripline radius distance northward from trunk, and is currently obscured by hardscape and not able to be verified in terms of lateral distance of growth. Critical Root Zone (i.e. “CRZ”) or “Tree Protection Zone”, in terms of structural root plate, lateral woody roots, and absorbing root mass retention during work on one or more sides of a tree, is ten times the diameter of trunk (10 x 50 inch diameter as noted in the David Babby report). Therefore, it is WLCA’s understanding that the required TPZ work offset radius for tree #10 is approximately 10 x 50 inches = 41.6 feet radius2), unless site work at offset distances less than 10 x diameter is specifically authorized by City Urban Forestry Staff. Note that in the case of the 660 University project, the severe extent of clearance pruning creates a cumulative impact in terms of loss of tree condition, such that the combined root zone and canopy impacts are relatively severe or extremely severe (see attached WLCA markups showing deep excavation work impacts, for example, expected to within 30 feet offset from trunk, which is far less than the 41.6 foot official TPZ offset). 2 Reference the developer’s Tree Disclosure Statement, which notes that the official TPZ is 10 x diameter of trunk, per City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (TTM) standards. Blue link to full TTM below shows up erroneously as a hyperlink to “Appendix A”, but is actually the full TTM document: APPENDIX A (cityofpaloalto.org) Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 120     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 4 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Note also that there is no guarantee that site work will be performed by the developer in a manner consistent with specific conditions of project approval as set forth by Palo Alto Urban Forestry Staff, even if those special conditions were mandated by the City. There is no way for an arborist monitoring site work, for instance, to be on site during every stage of the work. The arborist monitor, if retained to inspect site work near to tree #10 during the development phase of the project, would only be able to visibly inspect the site once a month or so, leaving him/her with a limited snapshot of what below-ground impacts occurred in relation to the tree #10 root zone. Soil Compaction within the CRZ/TPZ: Note that proposed driving of machinery, foot traffic, extensive landscape footing development, and extensive planting and (possibly also) extensive irrigation pipe trenching are expected to occur within the CRZ/TPZ of 41.6 feet radius from trunk edge of tree #10. Consulting Arborists will typically specify use of robust “ground protection” in these cases, covering the ground with a thick mat of geotextile overlaid with 6 or more inches of wood chips, and finally covered with steel trench plates or full sheets of exterior grade plywood strapped together with steel strap plates to create a soil buffer. But given that there is planned intense landscaping and decking, etc. to be developed in the area between the garage retaining wall and the south property line abutted up against the 517 Byron lot, WLCA expects that it would be virtually impossible for the developer to actually implement use of robust ground protection and maintain it for any length of time, without causing a major problem in terms of ground logistics (staging, storage, movement of tools and materials, performance of landscape related development between 517 Byron and the underground parking garage wall, etc.). Therefore, it is expected that soil compaction of a high degree will likely occur in the north section of the tree #10 root zone, within the CRZ/TPZ offset radius, causing additional reduction in overall tree health and structural condition as soil oxygen pore space is compacted and root zone root growing conditions end up suffering as a result of loss of oxygen pore spaces within the tree root growth section of the soil profile (i.e. mainly the uppermost two feet of the soil profile, but potentially down to 4 or 5 feet or more below soil surface grade elevation in native Palo Alto area historical riparian cobble type soils). • TRAQ Risk: The removal of 20% to 30% of the canopy of tree #10 for clearance as noted above, will cause southward lopsidedness of the currently-symmetrical canopy tree specimen of extremely large spread radius (45 feet radius), resulting in increased load forces acting on the north side (“tension” side) of the root system. The root system will have been compromised to an unknown degree during site work (underground parking garage wall excavation, landscape development, and possible adjustments to or demolition of the existing brick retaining wall that separates 517 Byron from the proposed 660 University project site. Risk of whole tree failure mode and impact with targets to the south of the mainstem location will be necessarily increased and elevated due to these site plan work activities. Risk of stem failure and impact with various ground targets will over time be increased and elevated, due to the required clearance pruning through the north side of the canopy to clear scaffolding, bucket lift machinery, balconies, and the new building exterior wall plus underground parking retaining wall work that requires vertical machinery airspace clearance. Very large diameter pruning cuts will be made to accomplish the work, ranging from a few inches diameter each, up to 17 or more inches diameter each3, on some stems that extend northward into the proposed project airspace area. Pruning cuts of this relatively large diameter will allow for fungal wood decay-causing pathogen entrance into the stems via these open cut wounds, resulting in extensive decay column formation over time that progresses down into the stems from the cut wounds. 3 David Babby’s arborist report notes that a 14” and a 17” diameter stem will require pruning. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 121     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 5 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture • Heritage Tree Designation in City of Palo Alto There are currently +/- eight (8) trees listed on the City heritage tree list maintained by the City. Per the following information, trees are apparently not required to meet any specific “approval criteria” in terms of species, size, condition, or other relevant parameters, to be selected as formal heritage tree specimens in City of Palo Alto, other than that the trees are native oak species or redwoods located on private property: (Excerpt from a City Staff Report Online): “In 1996, Council enacted the Tree Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 8.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, to preserve and maintain specified native oaks, redwoods, and heritage trees on private property, and to protect them from disfigurement or removal, except in certain circumstances. Section 8.10.090 of the ordinance allows persons to nominate a tree on their property forheritage tree status. After Council approval of such designation, the tree is added to the heritage tree listing, which includes specific location, overall size, and canopy spread. The list is maintained by the Department of Public Works and available to the public on the City’s Urban Forestry website. Once designated, a heritage tree is protected by the provisions of the Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, unless removed from the heritage tree list by subsequent Council action at the request of the property owner.” Per the above information, protected size tree #10 (City tree tag #1572) appears to be an excellent candidate for inclusion in the City’s heritage tree designation program which protects native oaks on private properties. It is a specimen in good overall condition, with exceptional size in terms of both mainstem diameter (est. 50 inches), and canopy spread (90 feet total diameter), with good vigor, good buttress root flares, and good saddle-shaped wide angle forks of mainstem attachment. • David Babby Report 11/19/2021 Page 6 Per page 6 of the dev eloper’s arborist report by David Babby, tree #10 exhibits a “high” rating in terms of suitability for preservation (see below excerpt from page 6 of Babby report): Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 122     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 6 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Conclusion If the proposed 660 University site plan project were built out as currently proposed per the 10/31/2023 planning resubmittal #5 versions of the plan sheets, WLCA expects that tree #10 would experience relatively moderate to severe root loss, and relatively severe pruning, which combined as a cumulative below-ground and above-ground negative impact would necessarily result in loss of vigor (health) and structure to a severe degree. The tree’s safe and useful life expectancy in its current condition rating of “good” (+/- 62% overall condition rating) may be reduced as a result of site plan project work from (EXISTING: no-construction scenario) 50 to 100 years remaining, to (PROPOSED: post-construction scenario) 10 to 20 years remaining, or less, depending on the tree’s response to very significant project clearance canopy and root pruning as described above in this letter report. It is WLCA’s professional opinion that the tree’s vigor would be negatively impacted to a severe degree as a direct result of proposed site work as currently described on the 10/31/2023 set of plan sheets, resulting in tree #10 falling into a spiral of condition decline from which it cannot recover. There would also necessarily be a corresponding elevation of the TRAQ risk rating in terms of risk of whole tree and/or tree part failure and impact with various static and moving targets with moderate to high occupancy ratings within the target zone and a reasonable time frame such as 12 to 24 months, starting as of the proposed site construction completion date (this would need to be assessed at a future time, and is outside the scope of WLCA’s initial pre-project assignment). The tree is located in the an area known to have high water table elevations and gravelly (gravel-laden) riparian type alluvium soil that tends to support excellent native oak tree root growth in terms of both rooting depth and root lateral extension. It is highly recommended that this exceptionally large native oak specimen in good overall condition be designated by the City Council as a City of Palo Alto Heritage Tree on private land, and formally added to the list maintained by the City on their official website, with the added tree protection guarantees that this tree special protection status includes (tree specimens are typically nominated for such designation by the owner of the property on which the tree stands). Refer also to David Babby’s arborist report dated 11/19/202, page 6, which notes that tree #10 is rated as “high” suitability for preservation, appearing healthy and structurally stable per his assessment, presenting “good potential for contributing long-term to the site”. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 123     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 7 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Digital Images by WLCA 12/13/2023 / Tree #10 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) View looking eastward while standing on 517 Byron. Note the excellent buttress root flaring at the root crown of tree #10 which is considered normal and desirable. View of the relatively wide angle fork attachments between 10 and 15 feet elevation above grade at which the tree #10 codominant mainstems arise. These saddle shaped forms are normal and desirable from a structural stability standpoint. Although it is not “optimal” to have codominant mainstems forking in a tree, the best case scenario would be for all of the forks to exhibit wide saddle-shaped attachments like this tree. It is actually extremely unusual for a coast live oak to exhibit saddle-shaped forks at every bifurcation of the codominant mainstems. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 124     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 8 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture View of subject oak #10 looking northward from 517 Byron. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 125     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 9 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture View of oak #10 lower 50% of canopy/mainstem architecture, with the adjoining asphalt parking lot area west of 517 Byron visible at left half of the image. The root system is assumed to be extended through most or all adjoining lots surrounding 517 Byron (not verified), as is assumed to reach as much as 2x to 3x the 45 foot canopy radius (again, not verified, but very possible, per WLCA’s past experience with older oaks in Palo Alto and Menlo Park area, especially if the soil is a historical cobble-based riparian soil profile with fast drainage (not verified). Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 126     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 10 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Per WLCA’s multi-layer mockup created for a valley oak location comparison with groundwater depths and soil types, the tree #10 location has a 25 foot depth groundwater table, and nearby Palo Alto study-noted red dots which indicate very large older valley oak specimens surveyed in the past and included on internet maps for reference. The Qoa soil type at the 660 University site is defined as “older alluvium” (hence the “oa” designation): a Pleistocene soil of gravels, sand, and silt that is unconsolidated to consolidated, interspersed with alluvial materials from stream action. See next page of this report for the United States Geological Survey legend pertaining to this soil unit, clipped from the local Palo Alto soil map, obtained from USGS Menlo Park headquarters. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 127     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 11 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Above was excerpted from the USGS Quadrangle (soil unit map) which includes the City of Palo Alto area. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised and evaluated as through free and clean, under responsible ownership and competent management. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinance, statutes, or other government regulations. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement. Unless required by law otherwise, the possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any other purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser. Unless required by law otherwise, neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the prior expressed conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initiated designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualifications. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant’s/appraiser’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report, being intended for visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys unless expressed otherwise. The reproduction of any information generated by engineers, architects, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of said information on any Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 128     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 12 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Walter Levison to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless expressed otherwise: • information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the conditions of those items at the time of inspection; and • the inspection is limited to ground-based visual examination of accessible items without climbing, dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. • There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. Arborist Disclosure Statement: Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Tree are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborist cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees. Certification I hereby certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. Signature of Consultant DIGITAL BADGES: ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST CREDENTIAL: https://certificates.isa-arbor.com/f1918723-df46-48cc-ace2-c12625530fec#gs.v54om6 (Renewed through June, 2026) ISA TREE RISK ASSESSMENT QUALIFIED (TRAQ): https://certificates.isa-arbor.com/d180515f-ab75-440b-9c66-106005e3cf10?record_view=true#gs.hpb30w (Renewed through March, 2028) Attached: Tree Map Markups by WLCA 12/18/2023 (View Using Adobe or Adobe CS in Order to Allow for Full Visibility of the Markups Created Using Adobe Pro Software). Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 129     Item 2Attachment C - PublicComments    Packet Pg. 130     Item 2Attachment C - PublicComments    Packet Pg. 131     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 A"achment B Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 132     Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 133     Item 2Attachment C - PublicComments    Packet Pg. 134     May 8, 2022 660 University Avenue Palo Alto, California. Scan #7 Line scan over parking lot 31 feet away from Oak tree #1572 Asphalt Thickness Root Depth in inches Excavation point for below-ground garage. This involves this whole cross section. All roots will be removed; beginning with the following scans 7-12 May 23, 2023 Root Study Oak Tree #1572 660 University Avenue Palo Alto, California Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2022 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. www.arboristonsite.com 34 Item 2Attachment C - PublicComments    Packet Pg. 135     From:Christopher Ream To:Kallas, Emily Subject:660 University, ARB Hearing Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2024 12:27:59 AM Attachments:660 - Ream Letter re Tree - 20240416 w Attachments.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Emily, Please find attached my letter which I wish the Architectural Review Board will have a chance to review before the Hearing Thursday morning. Please share it with each Member and with anyone else for whom you think would be appropriate. Please point out to them that Walter Levison’s Impact Analysis is attached. Thank you. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 136     Some people who received this message don't often get email from faithwb3@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important From:Kallas, Emily To:Kallas, Emily Subject:FW: New Construction at 511 Byron Street, and more, Palo Alto Date:Tuesday, May 21, 2024 4:22:00 PM From: Faith Brigel <faithwb3@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 5:21 PM To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Faith Brigel <faithwb3@yahoo.com>; greg.stone@cityofpaloalto.org; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: New Construction at 511 Byron Street, and more, Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council of City of Palo Alto, This morning I attended an Architectural Review Board meeting to discuss the new construction that is being proposed for 511 Byron Street, 660 University Ave., 680 University Ave., and 500 Middlefield Road. Once all of these buildings will be demolished they will construct an immense four story, mixed usage of many offices and many residential rentals, and a two story basement for parking, though the parking spaces will be much reduced from what is needed. And I assume a lot of water will need to be drained since our water level is shallow. Their presentation talked about several of the other buildings in that area that are large, though not as large as this one: the Hamilton project, Lytton Gardens, The Webster House and there is the 3 story 2 condo on Webster and University Ave. There are already several large buildings in this area. And I think none of them have a two story basement. That intersection is already very congested. And there is rarely any parking on Byron Street. One person opposed to this project this morning stated that constructing this building into that area is like squeezing it into a lot that is much too small. I have owned the single, story Victorian that is more than 100 years old, for almost 40 years. My building was not mentioned this morning. And I will lose some of my daylight plan, which was also not mentioned. Byron Street and University Ave. in Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 137     that area has always been a quiet, professional area for the past 40 years. My building has a psychiatrist, and a psychologist. They work in my building because it is quiet. Adding many residential apartments with balconies to those structures will totally change the nature of this area. And I more than likely will lose at least some of my tenants, if not all of them. I understand that the State is requiring more housing. But a very large building with offices and apartments right downtown on University Ave. beside Middlefield is not a good spot for it. There should be some consideration for people like myself who have been in that area for many years- not just the developers who are not concerned that they are overbuilding the downtown area. I ask and hope that you who represent all of us on the City Council and will take into consideration all of us not just the developers. Thank you for your consideration, Faith W. Brigel Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 138     From:Mathews, Marley@DOT To:Kallas, Emily Cc:Luo, Yunsheng@DOT Subject:660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project Caltrans Comment Date:Wednesday, May 8, 2024 1:06:33 PM You don't often get email from marley.mathews@dot.ca.gov. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Emily, Thank you for including Caltrans in this review of the 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project DIER. At this time, Caltrans has no comments on the material provided. Please note this correspondence does not indicate an official position by Caltrans on this project and is for informational purposes only. Please continue to include Caltrans in discussions regarding this Project to stay informed. We encourage multi-agency collaboration and welcome any potential opportunities. Any future material or correspondence regarding this Project can be submitted to LDR-D4@dot.ca.gov. Thank you, Marley Mathews Transportation Planner (she/her) D4 Caltrans 510-960-0841 Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 139     From:Gennifer Wehrmeyer To:Kallas, Emily Cc:CPRU-Dropbox; Shree Dharasker Subject:VW File 34811 – Comments on DEIR for 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project Date:Friday, May 17, 2024 4:14:49 PM Attachments:image001.png You don't often get email from gwehrmeyer@valleywater.org. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Emily, The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project to merge three parcels to construct a four-story mixed-use building at 511 Bryon Street, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd in Palo Alto, received on April 2, 2024, and has the following comments: 1. Valley Water does not have any right of way or facilities within the project siteboundary; therefore, in accordance with Valley Water’s Water ResourcesProtection Ordinance, a Valley Water encroachment permit will not be requiredfor the project. 2. Valley Water previously commented on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) thatunderground structures should be designed for waterproofing that avoids theneed for permanent dewatering after construction is complete. As stated inSection 10-a, construction will involve excavation up to 38 feet below groundsurface, during which time dewatering will be used. It is unclear if dewatering willoccur after construction. Underground structures should be designed forwaterproofing and permanent dewatering should be avoided once constructionis finished. 3. Valley Water records indicate that no active wells are located on the subjectproperty. While Valley Water has records for most wells located in the County, itis always possible that a well exists that is not in the Valley Water’s records. Ifpreviously unknown wells are found on the subject property during development,they must be properly destroyed under permit from Valley Water or registeredwith Valley Water and protected from damage. For more information, please callthe Valley Water’s Well Ordinance Program Hotline at 408-630-2660. 4. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) FloodInsurance Rate Map (FIRM) 006085C0010H, effective May 18, 2009, the projectsite is within FEMA Flood Zone AH, an area with 1% annual chance of shallowflooding (usually areas of ponding), located between base flood elevations of 46feet and 47 feet. The project is required to follow the flood plain ordinance andnational flood insurance requirements. If you have any questions or need further information, you can reach me at gwehrmeyer@valleywater.org or at (408) 694-2069. Please reference Valley Water File 34811 on further correspondence regarding this project. Thank you, Gennifer Wehrmeyer ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CIVIL Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 140     Community Projects Review Unit Watershed Stewardship and Planning Division GWehrmeyer@valleywater.org Tel. (408) 630-2588 Cell. (408) 694-2069 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose CA 95118 www.valleywater.org Clean Water . Healthy Environment . Flood Protection Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 141     From:Kathleen Rotow To:Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: 660 University Draft EIR - Now Circulating Date:Wednesday, April 3, 2024 11:52:55 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png Thanks Emily. I'm glad the review concluded that the Byron Ave entry and exit for this project made more sense than further slowing down Middlefield and University. It also keeps some of the inevitable noise from this project from disturbing the senior project across the street on University. On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 8:28 AM Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Kathleen, After the initial ARB review, the driveway was relocated to the Byron frontage, to reduce potential conflict on Middlefield. Thanks, Emily Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 142     From: Kathleen Rotow <kathleenrotow@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 4:46 AM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: 660 University Draft EIR - Now Circulating CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good Morning Emily, I have an initial question that you may be able to answer quickly. Given that I live within two blocks from the project on University Avenue, one of my concerns is the amount of additional traffic this project will generate on an already very congested corner. Probable additional traffic backups on both University Ave and Middlefield Ave. Will the entry and exits for parking be on University or Middlefield? Will there be any left turn entry into the parking for the project while heading west on University? Thank you, Kathleen Rotow Sent from my iPhone On Apr 2, 2024, at 5:58 PM, Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Good afternoon, This e-mail is to inform you that the Draft EIR for the 660 University project is now available here on our Planning Department website. The Notice of Availability is attached and has further information regarding the proposed project. The comment period for the Draft EIR begins today, Tuesday, April 2nd and will end on May 17, 2024. This e-mail is being provided to you because you are a neighboring jurisdiction, your agency has expressed an interest in the proposed project or because your agency may have an interest in the proposed project, or because you have been requested to be contacted regarding any project within the City of Palo Alto’s jurisdiction. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or to send comments. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 143     Regards, Emily <image001.png>Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org <image002.png> Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped <660_University_NOA signed.pdf> Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 144     From:Christopher Ream To:Kallas, Emily Subject:660 University Project Date:Wednesday, April 10, 2024 3:38:35 PM Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Emily, Chris Ream here, the President of the Hamilton Homeowners Association. I intend to prepare a letter to the Architectural Review Board outlining The Hamilton’s objections to the planned project at 660 University, and I also intend to attend and comment at the ARB Hearing new week on April 18. I have done a quick review of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR addresses many of the points I had previously brought up to the ARB along with some new points, including in particular, the danger of killing Tree #10 (the protected coastal oak) and the alternative of adding a fifth above-ground story to the building, and the alternative of eliminating the second floor of the underground garage. These are not shown in the developer’s current plans, but are obviously issues that need to be addressed at some point. My question is: Would it be proper for me to address in my letter to the ARB and at the Hearing points raised in the Draft EIR but not yet appearing in the developer’s plans. I will call you to have a brief discussion on this. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 145     From:Mimi and Eric Carlson To:Christopher Ream; Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: 660 University Project Date:Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:02:35 AM You don't often get email from mimianderic@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Chris et al. Please note that the proposed project will create a traffic nightmare, espesciallly if the entrance is on Byron.- which is effectively a one wao street during the day. Eric Carlson From: Christopher Ream <ream@reamlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 3:38 PM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: 660 University Project Emily, Chris Ream here, the President of the Hamilton Homeowners Association. I intend to prepare a letter to the Architectural Review Board outlining The Hamilton’s objections to the planned project at 660 University, and I also intend to attend and comment at the ARB Hearing new week on April 18. I have done a quick review of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR addresses many of the points I had previously brought up to the ARB along with some new points, including in particular, the danger of killing Tree #10 (the protected coastal oak) and the alternative of adding a fifth above-ground story to the building, and the alternative of eliminating the second floor of the underground garage. These are not shown in the developer’s current plans, but are obviously issues that need to be addressed at some point. My question is: Would it be proper for me to address in my letter to the ARB and at the Hearing points raised in the Draft EIR but not yet appearing in the developer’s plans. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 146     I will call you to have a brief discussion on this. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 147     THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: ream@reamlaw.com April 16, 2024 Via email: Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org Re: 660 University Project Architectural Review Board Hearing on April 18, 2024 Draft EIR April 2024 Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree Dear Emily, Please consider the comments in this letter as you continue to work on the Draft EIR for the 660 University Project and pass on these comments to members of the Architectural Review Board and to others where appropriate. There is an Attachment A and an Attachment B to this letter. The Hamilton is a senior living (55+) condominium development with 36 residential units and the average age of the residents in The Hamilton is mid-80’s. The Hamilton shares the same small block with the proposed development at 660 University Avenue. Lytton Gardens, Webster House and Webster House Health Center are within a block and directly across the street from the proposed development. Channing House is two blocks away. Because of this concentration of elderly citizens, the area is frequently referred to as “Senior Corner.” I am Christopher Ream. My wife Anne and I have been Palo Alto residents for 53 years and have been residents of The Hamilton for the past five years. The Hamilton community strongly opposes the proposed development at 660 University, and the Board of Directors of the Hamilton Homeowners Association (the “HHA”), with the support of its members/residents, has resolved to fight against the proposed development. I am the President of the HHA and am personally committed to significantly revising the proposed building that will materially adversely affect us and all of our neighbors. There is a majestic, beautiful Coast Live Oak tree (the “Tree”) in the middle of our block and is listed as Tree #10 on Applicant’s plans. Applicant’s arborist reports that the Tree’s trunk is 50 inches in diameter and its limbs stretch out 90 feet in diameter “in a mostly balanced canopy.” The Tree abuts the back property line of the 660 University project and so its limbs reach out approximately 45 feet over the project’s property, and its root structure is larger than that. The Tree brings shade and joy to us and everyone else on the block. The Tree is several hundred Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 148     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 Page 2 of 4 years old and is deemed a Protected Heritage Tree by the City of Palo Alto. Applicant’s arborist rates the Tree “High” for suitability for preservation. This proposed project puts this beautiful Tree in grave danger: “It is WLCA’s professional opinion that the tree’s vigor would be negatively impacted to a severe degree as a direct result of proposed site work as currently described on the 10/31/2023 set of plan sheets, resulting in tree #10 falling into a spiral of condition decline from which it cannot recover.” Walter Levison Consulting Arborist Impact Analysis dated 12/18/2023, p.6 Please see Attachment A to this letter for the full Impact Analysis by Walter Levison Consulting Arborist. Tree Protection Zone Applicant’s plans recite that the City’s Tree Technical Manual (TTM) ¶1.36 specifies a “Tree Protection Zone” (TPZ) for a protected tree with a radius equal to the ten times the trunk’s diameter. For the Tree, that would be 10 x 50” = 500” = 41 feet. Another rule is that the TPZ should be equal to the foliage, so here that would be a radius of 45 feet based upon the arborist’s report of a 90-foot canopy spread. I am not an arborist, but I am told that one common rule of thumb is that a tree’s roots are one and a half to three times wider than the canopy. For the Tree’s 45-foot limbs, that would be 67 to 135 feet of roots out under the parking lot where the new building would go. Robert Booty, arborist retained by Rincon Consultants on behalf of the City, reports that his LIDAR root scan of the existing asphalt parking lot at 600 University Avenue shows that the Tree’s roots are still dense and going out strong at his 51-foot scan, the furthest extent of his investigation. (See Attachment B.) Applicant has drawn a TPZ of only 30 feet on its plans and has the new building right next to and touching that 30 feet. That is 11 to 15 feet less than required. And the 30 feet is just what the building is supposed to look like – you don’t have to be an experienced contractor to know that there will be plenty of damaging construction work done on the exterior side of the two-story underground garage walls, and that will be much closer than 30 feet to the Tree. Robert Booty’s report points out that the roots are going to be sliced off at his scan of 31 feet. (See Attachment B.) Now, look up at the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors, there are residential units with balconies sticking out 6 feet into the TPZ. Applicant’s arborist admits that pruning will be required, including a 17-inch limb. The Tree has to be pruned back to clear those balconies. Then be realistic: Applicant is going to prune the Tree even further back so that there is at least 5 feet of clearance between those balconies and the Tree. We are now cutting the Tree back to only 19 feet of foliage left. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 149     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 Page 3 of 4 If 660 University is allowed to be built as now proposed, the Tree’s canopy will be severed on one side, disrupting the Tree’s balance, potentially allowing strong gravitational forces to push the Tree over. In addition, the roots needed to hold the Tree back from tipping over will have been cut and lost their gripping force. How soon will the Tree topple over and crash into The Hamilton and others. It would destroy the dental offices at 517 Byron, and badly injure and maybe kill anyone in those offices at the time. The neighborhood will lose this beautiful tree. The privacy of the seniors in the sixteen apartments in The Hamilton on that side of our development will be exposed to the 36 units with balconies on our side of the 660 University building as well as the noisy crowds on the roof top party deck. Security The Staff Report for the Architectural Review Board Hearing to be held April 18, 2024 reported that the Urban Forestry Section has requested that any building permit be conditioned upon the Applicant obtaining an appraisal of the replacement value of the Tree and posting security for that amount. What does that mean in this situation? It will be completely impossible to replace the Tree, thus how can anyone come up with a replacement value. And, if the Tree “dies” within three years of the completion of the project, then the money from the security will go into the Forestry Fund to plant trees elsewhere. So much for the owner of 517 Byron and thus the person who was the owner of the Tree and the one most damaged by its death. This might make sense if the permit was conditioned upon obtain an appraisal value using the Trunk Formula Method (TTM 6.45B) rather than the Replacement Cost Method (TTM 6.45A). Solution At the Architectural Review Board hearing in December 2022, everyone, including the Applicant’s architect and its landscaper actively agreed that the Tree had to be protected; but the Applicant did not suggest that a 41-45 foot TPZ should be observed. No, their answer was that they knew of a tree in Mountain View that has so far survived a small TPZ (although they did not say how long it has survived). One tree surviving for an unknown time is not a valid argument to ignore the universally accepted rule of a TPZ equal to 10 times the trunk’s diameter or the extent of the canopy. The only solution here to save this Protected Heritage Tree is that the proper 41-foot TPZ must be imposed and complied by both the proposed building and its construction. This is not an unfair burden on the Applicant: They have known all along that their 30-foot TPZ was in violation of TTM regulations, and that the building could not be constructed without violating even that reduced TPZ because of the necessity to have construction closer to the Tree than that artificial 30 feet. The first time they showed a TPZ on their plans was their C3 filing on October 6, 2022 when they showed a TPZ with a radius of 29’11-½” (strange number for a TPZ). C3_660 University Ave_PLAN1.pdf, p.24. This was later updated to the 30 feet we see now. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 150     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 Page 4 of 4 Applicant’s arborist David L. Babby discusses the size of the TPZ in §5.3 of his Tree Protection Report, 660 University Avenue, February 7, 2024: “The CPA's Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) standard is a radial distance from the trunk equal to 10 times its diameter, which for oak #10, identifies a TPZ of 41 feet from the trunk. The proposed project establishes the TPZ to be 30 feet from the trunk, which equates to a multiplier of 7 times the trunk diameter (and 11 feet inside).” He then goes on to say that the small 30-foot TPZ only applies to the finished building and garage, and sets up an even smaller, undisclosed zone where all sorts of construction work can tear up the ground and destroy the Tree’s roots: “The architectural design substantially conforms to my recommendations provided in January 2021, which stipulates a minimum 30-foot setback from the oak's trunk to construct the future building and parking garage, and a minimum setback of 20 feet from the trunk for all ground disturbance beneath the existing asphalt surface. “Roots The 20-foot setback from #10's trunk for ground disturbance applies to any soil compaction, grading, subexcavation, overexcavation, trenching, drilling/auguring, storm drains, swales, etc.” In other words, once you are 20 feet or more from the Tree, you can go at it, tear up the ground and destroy the Tree’s roots anyway and as much as you want. It appears to me that the Applicant didn’t have a thought when they started about Palo Alto’s desire to protect its beautiful Heritage Trees. They just saw some land, put together plans to fill that land with rental opportunities, and moved forward. When they discovered that Palo Alto wanted to protect the Tree, they drew a TPZ to accommodate their plans, rather than drawing their plans to accommodate the Tree. As Chair David Hirsch so succinctly stated at the December, 2022 Architectural Review Board Hearing on this project: “This is too much building in too small of a space.” Thank you for your consideration, Christopher Ream Christopher Ream Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 151     Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 152     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 1 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Date: 12/18/2023 Impact Analysis of Proposed 660 University, Palo Alto Site Plan Project Work on One (1) Off-Site Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Specimen (Project Tree #10, Palo Alto City Tree Tag #1572) at 517 Byron Palo Alto, CA Mr. Chris Ream, President The Hamilton Homeowners Association 555 Byron Palo Alto, CA ream@reamlaw.com Dear Mr. Ream, The following written letter report is the single deliverable prepared by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) per your request as an association with members residing at The Hamilton, in close proximity to the proposed multi-story 660 University project. Background and Assignment The proposed private development project stated above proposes to demolish various existing office buildings and parking lot areas, and build an underground parking garage, with residential and commercial office facility directly over the garage footprint. WLCA’s assignment was to determine whether the site work as currently proposed per the set of plan sheets (dated October 2023) would cause severe or otherwise irreversible injury to the subject oak specimen to such as degree that it would be expected to fall into a spiral of decline from which it could not recover, as a direct result of the site work. WLCA visited the site on 12/13/2023 to archive digital images, create a tree map markup showing actual site-verified canopy dimensions (rough approx.), and confirm existing site conditions. The project encompasses three lots, 660 University, 680 University, and 511 Byron. An adjacent lot at 517 Byron just south of the proposed work area exhibits a relatively very large “veteran tree” coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) referenced by David L. Babby, author of the Tree Protection Report filed by the developer, as tree #10 (City tag #1572), a specimen in good overall condition (62% out of 100% possible) as visually assessed by WLCA, with a canopy spread that is equal to the largest coast live oak specimens ever assessed in the author’s entire 25 year professional consulting career (see digital images below in this report showing the 90 foot diameter canopy). WLCA reviewed the private development proposed plan sheets dated 10/31/2023 (planning resubmittal #5) which were downloaded from the City of Palo Alto website, and an arborist report by David Babby dated 11/19/2021, which does not actually contain any site plan sheets (Mr. Babby used a topographic survey sheet for his site tree map markup). Multiple marked-up tree location maps, color-coded by WLCA, show expected construction-related impacts in relation to the tree #10 existing canopy dripline and in relation to the standard tree protection zone (TPZ) of 10 x diameter as an offset radius from mainstem edge. These markups are attached to the end of this letter report for reference (view document using Adobe Pro, Adobe CS, or other paid form of Adobe Acrobat, to maintain the visibility of the color-coded markups). Digital images archived by WLCA in December 2023 are also included in this report for reference of pre-project conditions. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 153     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 2 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Basic Data Diameter: 50 inches, per Babby report. Spread: Approximately 90 feet total diameter, per David Babby report and WLCA. Health (Vigor): 70% per Babby, 80% per WLCA. Structure: 40% per Babby, 50% per WLCA. Overall Condition Rating: 50% (fair) per Babby, 62% (good) per WLCA. Live Twig Density and Live Foliar Density: Good. Additional Tree Information per WLCA’s Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) 12/13/2023 and Research Foliage hangs down to 15 to 25 feet above grade at 45 feet radius north of mainstem edge. Multiple mainstems exhibit wide angle saddle shaped (i.e.”normal”) attachment forks between 10 and 15 feet elevation above grade. These stems are somewhat upward oriented. Buttress root flares at root crown appear normal, though root system extent and condition are essentially unknowable due to hardscape presence over a large percentage of actual root zone. It is hypothesized that the actual extent of root zone is at least 2x to 3x the 45 foot canopy radius in terms of lateral distance in most directions out from trunk1, based on both Arboriculture 4th Edition (2004), and on WLCA’s past 25 years of construction site consulting experience with coast live oak specimens on older sites with older less-compacted root zone conditions, where historical building foundations and parking lot baserock base sections were constructed to far less strict standards than modern engineer specifications. There may be extensive rooting occurring out through various private lots that adjoin the 517 Byron lot on which tree #10 stands, with lateral woody roots extending from tree #10 underneath various retaining wall footings and building footings, out to underneath existing asphalt parking lot surfacing, etc. Per USGS local quadrangle soils map, tree #10 is growing in the “Qoa” unit, which is defined as an older alluvium (oa): a gravelly riparian soil that is derived from stream associated movements, and typically contains smooth rocky material that drains relatively well, and is excellent for development of deep, elongated native oak tree root systems (based on WLCA’s professional experience and research). This Palo Alto site probably has one of the best soils in the entire Bay Area in terms of allowing for fast growth of native oaks. See the digital images section of this report for an overlay map created by WLCA using various online sources and the USGS soil map shows how groundwater at this location is relatively high in elevation (25 foot groundwater contour), and shows existing roads, historical streams, and red dot plots where a past survey by others indicated locations of extremely old native valley oak specimens for reference. What this all means is that the proposed project site has very good growing conditions for native oaks with a high groundwater table elevation contour and gravelly alluvium soil associated with historical waterways which drains relatively quickly and may also exhibit relatively good aeration related to the larger material components of the soil. 1 Per Harris et. al. 2004. Arboriculture 4th Edition. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 154     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 3 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Expected Tree Root Zone and Canopy Impact Analysis / Based on October 2023 Set of Proposed Plan Sheets • Canopy: Expect 20 to 30% of canopy live wood and foliage to be removed to clear southward-extended balcony construction, garage vertical wall construction, foundation footing construction for main building structure, vertical exterior walls along the south side of the residential structure, and an additional +/- 10 feet of horizontal width required to be totally cleared up to roof peak elevations as a “construction corridor” airspace for exterior work, scaffold erection, and bucket lift machinery use (based on WLCA’s past projects to date, which required between 6 feet and 15 feet of horizontal clearance as construction corridors around building exterior walls, between soil surface grade and the roof peaks). Note that the curvilinear section of garage entry ramp, although it is below grade elevation, may actually require tall vertical machinery clearance directly above the proposed wall cut locations, resulting in further clearance pruning of the tree #10 northwest corner of canopy (not verified). This information is based on past projects overseen by WLCA involving underground parking garage retaining wall construction in the Bay Area. Total expected canopy loss will likely result in a remnant canopy with 20 to 25 feet of north, northeast, and northwest extension from mainstem base, whereas existing canopy is +/- 45 feet radial extension in those directions. Refer to the attached WLCA tree map markup for a graphic representation of the various impacts indicated as color-coded lines. • Roots: Expected subgrade work will encroach to within the City of Palo Alto “10 times diameter” tree protection zone on the north side of tree, inside which special methods/materials/monitoring is required for site construction work. Extent of root zone compromised by the various elements of proposed work (garage wall excavation using vertical shoring, landscape decking, landscape irrigation, landscape plant and tree installation, etc. is expected to be moderate to severe, depending on actual cut depths and depending on whether machinery and personnel are allowed to enter into the TPZ and compact the root zone in the north area of TPZ. Note that the actual extent of roots may or may not be 2x to 3x the tree canopy dripline radius distance northward from trunk, and is currently obscured by hardscape and not able to be verified in terms of lateral distance of growth. Critical Root Zone (i.e. “CRZ”) or “Tree Protection Zone”, in terms of structural root plate, lateral woody roots, and absorbing root mass retention during work on one or more sides of a tree, is ten times the diameter of trunk (10 x 50 inch diameter as noted in the David Babby report). Therefore, it is WLCA’s understanding that the required TPZ work offset radius for tree #10 is approximately 10 x 50 inches = 41.6 feet radius2), unless site work at offset distances less than 10 x diameter is specifically authorized by City Urban Forestry Staff. Note that in the case of the 660 University project, the severe extent of clearance pruning creates a cumulative impact in terms of loss of tree condition, such that the combined root zone and canopy impacts are relatively severe or extremely severe (see attached WLCA markups showing deep excavation work impacts, for example, expected to within 30 feet offset from trunk, which is far less than the 41.6 foot official TPZ offset). 2 Reference the developer’s Tree Disclosure Statement, which notes that the official TPZ is 10 x diameter of trunk, per City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (TTM) standards. Blue link to full TTM below shows up erroneously as a hyperlink to “Appendix A”, but is actually the full TTM document: APPENDIX A (cityofpaloalto.org) Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 155     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 4 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Note also that there is no guarantee that site work will be performed by the developer in a manner consistent with specific conditions of project approval as set forth by Palo Alto Urban Forestry Staff, even if those special conditions were mandated by the City. There is no way for an arborist monitoring site work, for instance, to be on site during every stage of the work. The arborist monitor, if retained to inspect site work near to tree #10 during the development phase of the project, would only be able to visibly inspect the site once a month or so, leaving him/her with a limited snapshot of what below-ground impacts occurred in relation to the tree #10 root zone. Soil Compaction within the CRZ/TPZ: Note that proposed driving of machinery, foot traffic, extensive landscape footing development, and extensive planting and (possibly also) extensive irrigation pipe trenching are expected to occur within the CRZ/TPZ of 41.6 feet radius from trunk edge of tree #10. Consulting Arborists will typically specify use of robust “ground protection” in these cases, covering the ground with a thick mat of geotextile overlaid with 6 or more inches of wood chips, and finally covered with steel trench plates or full sheets of exterior grade plywood strapped together with steel strap plates to create a soil buffer. But given that there is planned intense landscaping and decking, etc. to be developed in the area between the garage retaining wall and the south property line abutted up against the 517 Byron lot, WLCA expects that it would be virtually impossible for the developer to actually implement use of robust ground protection and maintain it for any length of time, without causing a major problem in terms of ground logistics (staging, storage, movement of tools and materials, performance of landscape related development between 517 Byron and the underground parking garage wall, etc.). Therefore, it is expected that soil compaction of a high degree will likely occur in the north section of the tree #10 root zone, within the CRZ/TPZ offset radius, causing additional reduction in overall tree health and structural condition as soil oxygen pore space is compacted and root zone root growing conditions end up suffering as a result of loss of oxygen pore spaces within the tree root growth section of the soil profile (i.e. mainly the uppermost two feet of the soil profile, but potentially down to 4 or 5 feet or more below soil surface grade elevation in native Palo Alto area historical riparian cobble type soils). • TRAQ Risk: The removal of 20% to 30% of the canopy of tree #10 for clearance as noted above, will cause southward lopsidedness of the currently-symmetrical canopy tree specimen of extremely large spread radius (45 feet radius), resulting in increased load forces acting on the north side (“tension” side) of the root system. The root system will have been compromised to an unknown degree during site work (underground parking garage wall excavation, landscape development, and possible adjustments to or demolition of the existing brick retaining wall that separates 517 Byron from the proposed 660 University project site. Risk of whole tree failure mode and impact with targets to the south of the mainstem location will be necessarily increased and elevated due to these site plan work activities. Risk of stem failure and impact with various ground targets will over time be increased and elevated, due to the required clearance pruning through the north side of the canopy to clear scaffolding, bucket lift machinery, balconies, and the new building exterior wall plus underground parking retaining wall work that requires vertical machinery airspace clearance. Very large diameter pruning cuts will be made to accomplish the work, ranging from a few inches diameter each, up to 17 or more inches diameter each3, on some stems that extend northward into the proposed project airspace area. Pruning cuts of this relatively large diameter will allow for fungal wood decay-causing pathogen entrance into the stems via these open cut wounds, resulting in extensive decay column formation over time that progresses down into the stems from the cut wounds. 3 David Babby’s arborist report notes that a 14” and a 17” diameter stem will require pruning. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 156     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 5 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture • Heritage Tree Designation in City of Palo Alto There are currently +/- eight (8) trees listed on the City heritage tree list maintained by the City. Per the following information, trees are apparently not required to meet any specific “approval criteria” in terms of species, size, condition, or other relevant parameters, to be selected as formal heritage tree specimens in City of Palo Alto, other than that the trees are native oak species or redwoods located on private property: (Excerpt from a City Staff Report Online): “In 1996, Council enacted the Tree Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 8.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, to preserve and maintain specified native oaks, redwoods, and heritage trees on private property, and to protect them from disfigurement or removal, except in certain circumstances. Section 8.10.090 of the ordinance allows persons to nominate a tree on their property forheritage tree status. After Council approval of such designation, the tree is added to the heritage tree listing, which includes specific location, overall size, and canopy spread. The list is maintained by the Department of Public Works and available to the public on the City’s Urban Forestry website. Once designated, a heritage tree is protected by the provisions of the Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, unless removed from the heritage tree list by subsequent Council action at the request of the property owner.” Per the above information, protected size tree #10 (City tree tag #1572) appears to be an excellent candidate for inclusion in the City’s heritage tree designation program which protects native oaks on private properties. It is a specimen in good overall condition, with exceptional size in terms of both mainstem diameter (est. 50 inches), and canopy spread (90 feet total diameter), with good vigor, good buttress root flares, and good saddle-shaped wide angle forks of mainstem attachment. • David Babby Report 11/19/2021 Page 6 Per page 6 of the dev eloper’s arborist report by David Babby, tree #10 exhibits a “high” rating in terms of suitability for preservation (see below excerpt from page 6 of Babby report): Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 157     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 6 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Conclusion If the proposed 660 University site plan project were built out as currently proposed per the 10/31/2023 planning resubmittal #5 versions of the plan sheets, WLCA expects that tree #10 would experience relatively moderate to severe root loss, and relatively severe pruning, which combined as a cumulative below-ground and above-ground negative impact would necessarily result in loss of vigor (health) and structure to a severe degree. The tree’s safe and useful life expectancy in its current condition rating of “good” (+/- 62% overall condition rating) may be reduced as a result of site plan project work from (EXISTING: no-construction scenario) 50 to 100 years remaining, to (PROPOSED: post-construction scenario) 10 to 20 years remaining, or less, depending on the tree’s response to very significant project clearance canopy and root pruning as described above in this letter report. It is WLCA’s professional opinion that the tree’s vigor would be negatively impacted to a severe degree as a direct result of proposed site work as currently described on the 10/31/2023 set of plan sheets, resulting in tree #10 falling into a spiral of condition decline from which it cannot recover. There would also necessarily be a corresponding elevation of the TRAQ risk rating in terms of risk of whole tree and/or tree part failure and impact with various static and moving targets with moderate to high occupancy ratings within the target zone and a reasonable time frame such as 12 to 24 months, starting as of the proposed site construction completion date (this would need to be assessed at a future time, and is outside the scope of WLCA’s initial pre-project assignment). The tree is located in the an area known to have high water table elevations and gravelly (gravel-laden) riparian type alluvium soil that tends to support excellent native oak tree root growth in terms of both rooting depth and root lateral extension. It is highly recommended that this exceptionally large native oak specimen in good overall condition be designated by the City Council as a City of Palo Alto Heritage Tree on private land, and formally added to the list maintained by the City on their official website, with the added tree protection guarantees that this tree special protection status includes (tree specimens are typically nominated for such designation by the owner of the property on which the tree stands). Refer also to David Babby’s arborist report dated 11/19/202, page 6, which notes that tree #10 is rated as “high” suitability for preservation, appearing healthy and structurally stable per his assessment, presenting “good potential for contributing long-term to the site”. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 158     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 7 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Digital Images by WLCA 12/13/2023 / Tree #10 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) View looking eastward while standing on 517 Byron. Note the excellent buttress root flaring at the root crown of tree #10 which is considered normal and desirable. View of the relatively wide angle fork attachments between 10 and 15 feet elevation above grade at which the tree #10 codominant mainstems arise. These saddle shaped forms are normal and desirable from a structural stability standpoint. Although it is not “optimal” to have codominant mainstems forking in a tree, the best case scenario would be for all of the forks to exhibit wide saddle-shaped attachments like this tree. It is actually extremely unusual for a coast live oak to exhibit saddle-shaped forks at every bifurcation of the codominant mainstems. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 159     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 8 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture View of subject oak #10 looking northward from 517 Byron. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 160     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 9 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture View of oak #10 lower 50% of canopy/mainstem architecture, with the adjoining asphalt parking lot area west of 517 Byron visible at left half of the image. The root system is assumed to be extended through most or all adjoining lots surrounding 517 Byron (not verified), as is assumed to reach as much as 2x to 3x the 45 foot canopy radius (again, not verified, but very possible, per WLCA’s past experience with older oaks in Palo Alto and Menlo Park area, especially if the soil is a historical cobble-based riparian soil profile with fast drainage (not verified). Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 161     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 10 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Per WLCA’s multi-layer mockup created for a valley oak location comparison with groundwater depths and soil types, the tree #10 location has a 25 foot depth groundwater table, and nearby Palo Alto study-noted red dots which indicate very large older valley oak specimens surveyed in the past and included on internet maps for reference. The Qoa soil type at the 660 University site is defined as “older alluvium” (hence the “oa” designation): a Pleistocene soil of gravels, sand, and silt that is unconsolidated to consolidated, interspersed with alluvial materials from stream action. See next page of this report for the United States Geological Survey legend pertaining to this soil unit, clipped from the local Palo Alto soil map, obtained from USGS Menlo Park headquarters. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 162     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 11 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Above was excerpted from the USGS Quadrangle (soil unit map) which includes the City of Palo Alto area. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised and evaluated as through free and clean, under responsible ownership and competent management. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinance, statutes, or other government regulations. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement. Unless required by law otherwise, the possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any other purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser. Unless required by law otherwise, neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the prior expressed conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initiated designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualifications. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant’s/appraiser’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report, being intended for visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys unless expressed otherwise. The reproduction of any information generated by engineers, architects, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of said information on any Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 163     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 12 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Walter Levison to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless expressed otherwise: • information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the conditions of those items at the time of inspection; and • the inspection is limited to ground-based visual examination of accessible items without climbing, dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. • There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. Arborist Disclosure Statement: Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Tree are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborist cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees. Certification I hereby certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. Signature of Consultant DIGITAL BADGES: ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST CREDENTIAL: https://certificates.isa-arbor.com/f1918723-df46-48cc-ace2-c12625530fec#gs.v54om6 (Renewed through June, 2026) ISA TREE RISK ASSESSMENT QUALIFIED (TRAQ): https://certificates.isa-arbor.com/d180515f-ab75-440b-9c66-106005e3cf10?record_view=true#gs.hpb30w (Renewed through March, 2028) Attached: Tree Map Markups by WLCA 12/18/2023 (View Using Adobe or Adobe CS in Order to Allow for Full Visibility of the Markups Created Using Adobe Pro Software). Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 164     Item 2Attachment C - PublicComments    Packet Pg. 165     Item 2Attachment C - PublicComments    Packet Pg. 166     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 A"achment B Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 167     Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 168     Item 2Attachment C - PublicComments    Packet Pg. 169     May 8, 2022 660 University Avenue Palo Alto, California. Scan #7 Line scan over parking lot 31 feet away from Oak tree #1572 Asphalt Thickness Root Depth in inches Excavation point for below-ground garage. This involves this whole cross section. All roots will be removed; beginning with the following scans 7-12 May 23, 2023 Root Study Oak Tree #1572 660 University Avenue Palo Alto, California Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2022 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. www.arboristonsite.com 34 Item 2Attachment C - PublicComments    Packet Pg. 170     From:Christopher Ream To:Kallas, Emily Subject:660 University, ARB Hearing Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2024 12:27:59 AM Attachments:660 - Ream Letter re Tree - 20240416 w Attachments.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Emily, Please find attached my letter which I wish the Architectural Review Board will have a chance to review before the Hearing Thursday morning. Please share it with each Member and with anyone else for whom you think would be appropriate. Please point out to them that Walter Levison’s Impact Analysis is attached. Thank you. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 171     Some people who received this message don't often get email from faithwb3@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important From:Kallas, Emily To:Kallas, Emily Subject:FW: New Construction at 511 Byron Street, and more, Palo Alto Date:Tuesday, May 21, 2024 4:22:00 PM From: Faith Brigel <faithwb3@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 5:21 PM To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Faith Brigel <faithwb3@yahoo.com>; greg.stone@cityofpaloalto.org; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: New Construction at 511 Byron Street, and more, Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council of City of Palo Alto, This morning I attended an Architectural Review Board meeting to discuss the new construction that is being proposed for 511 Byron Street, 660 University Ave., 680 University Ave., and 500 Middlefield Road. Once all of these buildings will be demolished they will construct an immense four story, mixed usage of many offices and many residential rentals, and a two story basement for parking, though the parking spaces will be much reduced from what is needed. And I assume a lot of water will need to be drained since our water level is shallow. Their presentation talked about several of the other buildings in that area that are large, though not as large as this one: the Hamilton project, Lytton Gardens, The Webster House and there is the 3 story 2 condo on Webster and University Ave. There are already several large buildings in this area. And I think none of them have a two story basement. That intersection is already very congested. And there is rarely any parking on Byron Street. One person opposed to this project this morning stated that constructing this building into that area is like squeezing it into a lot that is much too small. I have owned the single, story Victorian that is more than 100 years old, for almost 40 years. My building was not mentioned this morning. And I will lose some of my daylight plan, which was also not mentioned. Byron Street and University Ave. in Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 172     that area has always been a quiet, professional area for the past 40 years. My building has a psychiatrist, and a psychologist. They work in my building because it is quiet. Adding many residential apartments with balconies to those structures will totally change the nature of this area. And I more than likely will lose at least some of my tenants, if not all of them. I understand that the State is requiring more housing. But a very large building with offices and apartments right downtown on University Ave. beside Middlefield is not a good spot for it. There should be some consideration for people like myself who have been in that area for many years- not just the developers who are not concerned that they are overbuilding the downtown area. I ask and hope that you who represent all of us on the City Council and will take into consideration all of us not just the developers. Thank you for your consideration, Faith W. Brigel Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 173     From:Mathews, Marley@DOT To:Kallas, Emily Cc:Luo, Yunsheng@DOT Subject:660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project Caltrans Comment Date:Wednesday, May 8, 2024 1:06:33 PM You don't often get email from marley.mathews@dot.ca.gov. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Emily, Thank you for including Caltrans in this review of the 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project DIER. At this time, Caltrans has no comments on the material provided. Please note this correspondence does not indicate an official position by Caltrans on this project and is for informational purposes only. Please continue to include Caltrans in discussions regarding this Project to stay informed. We encourage multi-agency collaboration and welcome any potential opportunities. Any future material or correspondence regarding this Project can be submitted to LDR-D4@dot.ca.gov. Thank you, Marley Mathews Transportation Planner (she/her) D4 Caltrans 510-960-0841 Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 174     From:Gennifer Wehrmeyer To:Kallas, Emily Cc:CPRU-Dropbox; Shree Dharasker Subject:VW File 34811 – Comments on DEIR for 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project Date:Friday, May 17, 2024 4:14:49 PM Attachments:image001.png You don't often get email from gwehrmeyer@valleywater.org. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Emily, The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project to merge three parcels to construct a four-story mixed-use building at 511 Bryon Street, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd in Palo Alto, received on April 2, 2024, and has the following comments: 1. Valley Water does not have any right of way or facilities within the project siteboundary; therefore, in accordance with Valley Water’s Water ResourcesProtection Ordinance, a Valley Water encroachment permit will not be requiredfor the project. 2. Valley Water previously commented on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) thatunderground structures should be designed for waterproofing that avoids theneed for permanent dewatering after construction is complete. As stated inSection 10-a, construction will involve excavation up to 38 feet below groundsurface, during which time dewatering will be used. It is unclear if dewatering willoccur after construction. Underground structures should be designed forwaterproofing and permanent dewatering should be avoided once constructionis finished. 3. Valley Water records indicate that no active wells are located on the subjectproperty. While Valley Water has records for most wells located in the County, itis always possible that a well exists that is not in the Valley Water’s records. Ifpreviously unknown wells are found on the subject property during development,they must be properly destroyed under permit from Valley Water or registeredwith Valley Water and protected from damage. For more information, please callthe Valley Water’s Well Ordinance Program Hotline at 408-630-2660. 4. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) FloodInsurance Rate Map (FIRM) 006085C0010H, effective May 18, 2009, the projectsite is within FEMA Flood Zone AH, an area with 1% annual chance of shallowflooding (usually areas of ponding), located between base flood elevations of 46feet and 47 feet. The project is required to follow the flood plain ordinance andnational flood insurance requirements. If you have any questions or need further information, you can reach me at gwehrmeyer@valleywater.org or at (408) 694-2069. Please reference Valley Water File 34811 on further correspondence regarding this project. Thank you, Gennifer Wehrmeyer ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CIVIL Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 175     Community Projects Review Unit Watershed Stewardship and Planning Division GWehrmeyer@valleywater.org Tel. (408) 630-2588 Cell. (408) 694-2069 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose CA 95118 www.valleywater.org Clean Water . Healthy Environment . Flood Protection Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 176     You don't often get email from kathleenrotow@gmail.com. Learn why this is important From:Foley, Emily To:Klicheva, Madina Subject:FW: 660 University Ave Date:Wednesday, November 16, 2022 8:56:46 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png Emily Foley, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. From: Kathleen Rotow <kathleenrotow@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 1:43 PM To: Foley, Emily <Emily.Foley@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: 660 University Ave CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I am the owner of 789 University Ave and have feedback regarding The Notice of Preparation for the 660 University proposed project. I have several concerns about this project. I am opposed to rezoning from Low Density Multiple Family Residence (RM-20) to high density Planned Community (PC). It is inappropriate in the proposed location given the foreseeable increase in traffic, noise and pollution. All of the aforementioned will negatively affect public safety and quality of life for nearby residents. As we are all aware, this expansive project is directly across the street from an elderly senior living facility that necessarily includes a population that cannot respond to the public safety, pollution, traffic and noise issues in the same manner as other populations. On the other side of the proposed project, there is another senior living development. Additionally, many residential homes are located in close proximity and the increased traffic, pollution and noise would be prohibitive for the residential nature of the area. This project is clearly adjacent to low density residential and senior living facilities. It would dramatically change the character of the area and should not be approved. It is my understanding that this development is trying to squeeze approximately 65 dwellings onto an area zoned for up to 20 dwellings per acre. In addition, it includes office space that is comparable to the total square footage on the site as it stands currently. You would be allowing an increase from the current 9,216 square feet to 42,189 square feet. This increase does not adhere to the current zoning parameters or to the nature of the area. This project should not be approved. As the city is aware, the Middlefield/University intersection is already heavily congested with traffic and the noise currently generated is unacceptable. This large scale project will exacerbate an already busy and dangerous intersection and increase the noise level for area residents, including many seniors. Maybe the city should consider asking the developers to move the project next to one of their homes. I'm sure they would like the increase in traffic, noise and pollution not to mention the public safety issues it will generate. This project should be implemented elsewhere. This is the wrong project, in the wrong place and the wrong size. Respectfully, Kathleen Rotow P.S. The link provided for The Notice of Preparation is inaccurate. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 177     From:Foley, Emily To:Klicheva, Madina Subject:FW: 660 University Project comments Date:Wednesday, November 16, 2022 8:56:39 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png Emily Foley, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. From: Alan Brauer, M.D. <drbrauer@totalcare.org> Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2022 6:52 PM To: Foley, Emily <Emily.Foley@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: 660 University Project comments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Emily, As we are located directly across the street from the proposed 660 University project, we are concerned about 2 main issues:: 1. What are the noise mitigation measures that will be required? Our building is occupied primarily by mental health professional who engage in psychotherapy. This requires a quiet environment and we are concerned about intrusions into the ability of our professionals to conduct therapy sessions. 2. What measures will be required to permit unrestricted access to our driveway on Byron? 3. Additionally, should this project receive final approval, can you provide any time frame for the possible start of any demolition? Thanks for your attention to this important matter. Alan & Donna Brauer Owners, 630 University Ave., Palo Alto Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 178     From:Janet L. Billups To:Planning Commission Cc:Foley, Emily; Lait, Jonathan; Stump, Molly; Christopher Ream; Leigh F. Prince Subject:Opposition to Project Proposed at 660 University Avenue Date:Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:38:07 AM Attachments:Letter to PTC re 660 University 11.15.22.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from jlb@jsmf.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City of Palo Alto Planning Commission, The attached letter, submitted by Leigh Prince, on behalf of the Homeowner’s Association for The Hamilton, a continuing care retirement community for seniors located at 555 Byron Street, expresses opposition to the project proposed at 660 University Avenue. The Hamilton encourages the Planning Commission to consider several of the alternatives outlined in the letter. Kind regards, Janet Billups, Legal Assistant to Leigh F. Prince, Esq. Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel LLP 1100 Alma Street, Ste. 210 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Ph. 650-324-9300 jlb@jsmf.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and contain information that may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this communication by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 179     W I L L I A M L. M c C L U R E J O H N L. F L E G E L D A N K. S I E G E L J E N N I F E R H. F R I E D M A N M I N D I E S. R O M A N O W S K Y L E I G H F. P R I N C E D A V I D L. A C H G R E G O R Y K. K L I N G S P O R N N I C O L A S A. F L E G E L K R I S T I N A A. FENT O N C A R A E. SILVER KIMBERLY J. BRUMMER C A M A S J . S T E I N M E T Z PHILIP S. SOU S A ____________ B R I T T N E Y L. S T A N D L E Y C H R I S T I A N D. P E T R A N G E L O J O S E P H H. F E L D M A N J O R G E N S O N, S I E G E L, M c C L U R E & F L E G E L, L L P A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W 1 1 0 0 A L M A S T R E E T, S U I T E 2 1 0 M E N L O P A R K, C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 0 2 5 -3 3 9 2 (6 5 0 ) 3 2 4 -9 3 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (6 5 0 ) 3 2 4 -0 2 2 7 w w w .j s m f .c o m November 15, 2022 O F C O U N S E L KENT MITCHELL ____________ R E T I R E D J O H N D. J O R G E N S O N MARGARET A. SLOAN D I A N E S. G R E E N B E R G ____________ D E C E A S E D M A R V I N S. S I E G E L (1 9 3 6 - 2 0 1 2 ) J O H N R.C O S G R O V E (1 9 3 2 - 2 0 1 7 ) Sent Via Email: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org Planning and Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Opposition to Project Proposed at 660 University Avenue Dear Honorable Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission, This letter is written on behalf of the Homeowner’s Association for The Hamilton, a continuing care retirement community for seniors with 36 units located at 555 Byron Street. The Hamilton is adjacent to the proposed mixed-use project which would consist of 65 residential units and 9,115 square feet of office (“Project”) at 660 University Avenue (“Property”). The residents of The Hamilton, whose average age is in the mid-80s, will be significantly impacted by the proposed Project. In addition, the Project will impact a number of other senior communities in this “Senior Corner” of Palo Alto, including Lytton Gardens and Webster House (and Channing House). Rather than proposing something compatible with the “Senior Corner,” the Project proposes a density and intensity far in excess of any surrounding development and in excess of what is allowed by the current residential zoning or the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This letter will highlight concerns with the merits of the Project as well as environmental impacts, and should be considered a comment letter on the Notice of Preparation. The Hamilton is concerned about impacts to transportation, air quality, noise, parking, pedestrian safety, land use/planning and the loss of a significant tree presented by Project with its unprecedented density and intensity. The Hamilton requests that the Planning and Transportation Commission (“PTC”) recommend that the Project be reduced to be more consistent with the existing residential zoning and compatible with the surrounding senior communities. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 180     Planning and Transportation Commission Re: Opposition to Project Proposed at 660 University Avenue November 15, 2022 Page 2 Density Significantly Exceeds that Allowed by the Zoning or the Comprehensive Plan. The Project proposes 65 units (47 studios, 12 one-bedroom and 6 two-bedroom units). Although this is a reduction of five units from the preliminary proposal reviewed by the City Council during the Planned Home Zoning (“PHZ”) pre-screening, this is still significantly above the density allowed by the Property’s RM-20 multifamily zoning. The maximum number of units allowed by the zoning would be 10 units. Thus, the Project is proposing six and a half times the maximum allowable zoning density. Furthermore, the Project also far exceeds the allowable residential density identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan would allow a density of 40 units per acre. On this approximately half-acre site, the maximum Comprehensive Plan density would be 20 units. Thus, the Project is proposing 45 units more (or more than three times the density) anticipated by the highest density identified for the Property in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. With 65 units on approximately one-half acre, the Project density is approximately 126 units per acre for this multifamily residential area. The highest density identified in the Housing Element for any property is 81.25 units per acre for general manufacturing and research, office and limited manufacturing zones. Thus, the proposed Project density is one and one-half times the highest density identified anywhere in the City in the draft Housing Element. This is also far in excess of other planned communities in this area. The Hamilton is located on approximately 1.18 acres and has 36 units for a density of is 33 units per acre. Thus, the proposed Project is well over three times more dense than the neighboring development. Because by any measure this Project is proposed at an unreasonably high density, The Hamilton encourages the PTC to recommend the Project’s density be significantly reduced. Inadequate Public Benefit Provided in Exchange for Increased Density. The Project does not provide a substantial public benefit adequate to justify the significant increase in density. The Project proposes to provide 20 percent affordable housing units (four very-low, four low and five moderate income units) consistent with the City Council direction on the minimum affordability necessary to support a rezoning to PHZ. However, given the significant increase in density, this is a woefully inadequate public benefit. To put it into perspective, a project that proposes 20 percent low-income units would be entitled to a 35 percent density bonus under state density bonus law (Government Code Section 65915). With a maximum Comprehensive Plan density of 20 units, a 35 percent density bonus would result in a 27-unit project.1 In fact, the highest density bonus a project can receive using state density bonus law is 50 percent, which would allow a 30-unit project. Thus, although the PHZ does not require strict adherence to state law, it is important to note that if approved the City would be allowing a far greater density increase than mandated by state law in exchange for far less affordable housing. 1 Strict compliance with the state density bonus law would result in a density bonus of less than 35 percent. State law generally requires one income category be selected to determine the density bonus; however, many jurisdictions as a policy matter will count units at lower affordability toward the higher category. With four very-low income units, the density bonus percentage would be 20 percent which would be a total project of 24 units. Four low income units would not quality the Project for a density bonus. If the four very- low income were counted toward the low income category, with eight low income units, the Project would quality for a 23 percent density bonus. This would allow a 25-unit project. With five moderate income units, the Project would not qualify for a density bonus. If the four very-low and four low income units were counted toward the moderate income category, the Project would qualify for a 15 percent density bonus. This would allow a 23-unit project. Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 181     Planning and Transportation Commission Re: Opposition to Project Proposed at 660 University Avenue November 15, 2022 Page 3 Giving away this increased density also does not provide the City significant progress toward meeting its Regional Housing Need Allocation (“RHNA”) for the current Housing Element cycle. The City needs to plan for 1,556 very-low income units, 896 low income units and 1,013 moderate income units. For more than triple the allowable density, the City obtains only four very-low income units (0.2% of the need), four low income units (0.4% of the need) and five moderate units (0.4% of the need). Understanding that the City needs to plan to develop housing to meet its RHNA goals, the City should not “throw the baby out with the bath water.” Increased housing density should be approved within reasonable limits and certainly not so far in excess of that allowed by the zoning or the Comprehensive Plan, even with state law mandates layered on top. Approving this Project as proposed would unfairly put the burden on the seniors living at The Hamilton to allow the City as a whole to make negligible progress toward its RHNA goals. Therefore, The Hamilton encourages the PTC to recommend the density of this Project be substantially reduced. Office Use Adds Intensity Without Benefit. Not only does the Project far exceed the residential density, it also includes office. The Project proposes 9,115 square feet of general office. Office is not a permitted or conditional use in the RM-20 multifamily residential zoning district. Office uses are inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for this residential area. Further, general office is a departure from the existing non-conforming medical office. While medical office might serve the “Senior Corner,” general office does not. Instead, general office uses would add intensity and traffic congestion and create additional housing need without benefiting the surrounding community. Thus, The Hamilton urges the PTC to recommend removal of the office use from this Project. In addition, the City should prepare a housing needs assessment (“HNA”), including consideration of the multiplier effect, as part of the environmental impact report. A HNA would help the City to understand how many employees will occupy the office space and the housing demand that will be generated by those workers. This is especially important in an era where office space per worker is declining, and the number of employees may be higher than anticipated (the average tech worker uses less than 250 square feet of office space). Finally, the office vacancy rate in Palo Alto is currently at approximately 14 percent indicating there is no need for the development of office in this location where it is neither permitted, nor beneficial.2 Thus, The Hamilton urges the PTC to recommend office be removed from this Project. Transportation Impacts Potentially Significant. The environmental impact report and the City in its deliberation regarding the merits of this Project should carefully consider the impact of the additional trips generated by the residential units and office use. The multifamily residential zoning anticipated 20 units per acre and no office. The Comprehensive Plan anticipated a maximum of 40 units per acre and no office. The intensity of this Project with approximately 126 units per acre and office will far exceed the transportation impacts presented in any environmental review for existing planning documents. The transportation impact analysis and environmental impact report should not focus only on the impact during peak commute hours, but should consider the impact throughout the day. Such an analysis is important in this “Senior Corner” because many residents are home throughout the 2 https://www.nmrk.com/storage-nmrk/uploads/fields/pdf-market-reports/1Q22-SPeninsula-Office- Market_2022-05-31-174425_nzty.pdf Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 182     Planning and Transportation Commission Re: Opposition to Project Proposed at 660 University Avenue November 15, 2022 Page 4 day. The Hamilton is concerned that the additional traffic generated by the Project will impact their ability not only to drive, but also to walk safely in the neighborhood. One related issue that should be studied in the transportation impact analysis and environmental impact report is the design of the Project’s entry/exit for the garage onto Middlefield Road. The garage entry/exit is close to the traffic light at University Avenue and may cause significant queuing, which will likely lead to traffic jams on Middlefield Road. This congestion will lead people to try to bypass the traffic by cutting down Byron Street. Byron Street is narrow, and the fully utilized parking on either side makes it impossible for two moving cars to pass each other safely. Thus, cut through traffic down Byron Street should be analyzed. This is in addition to analyzing the impacts to University Avenue and Middlefield Road that are main arteries in Palo Alto. Finally, the transportation impact analysis and environmental impact report should carefully consider the impacts on parking. The Project is proposing 82 spaces, which is 28 spaces less than the 110 spaces required. One of the two levels of parking proposes stackers, which can be difficult to operate and maintain. With inadequate and complicated parking, it is reasonable to conclude that many residents, workers and visitors will park off the Property. Consideration of the Project should include parking impacts such as additional miles travelled in search of parking and parking intrusion into surrounding areas. Air Quality Impacts Should Be Carefully Analyzed. Closely related to the transportation impacts, are the potential air quality impacts. As noted, this is an area referred to as “Senior Corner.” Seniors are sensitive receptors who are at a heightened risk of negative health outcomes due to exposure to air pollution. The environmental impact report should include a health risk assessment and mitigate the Project to avoid negative health impacts to this sensitive community. Tree Preservation is of Substantial Importance. There is a beautiful Coastal Live Oak tree with a trunk diameter of 50 inches growing just over the property line. The canopy stretches approximately 45 feet over the Project site. It provides beauty and shade for the entire block and likely habitat for biological resources such as nesting birds. Careful consideration needs to be given to ensuring that this tree is adequately protected and survives and is in good health after the redevelopment of the Property to minimize the impact of the Project on aesthetics and biological resources. A professional arborist should consider not only the roots, but to how much of the canopy may need to be cut to allow the Project and how this can be limited to avoid impacting the environment. Other Considerations Impacting Aesthetics, Land Use and Planning. The setbacks on all streets and sidewalks proposed by the Project are greatly reduced from required setbacks. The required setback along Middlefield is a minimum of 24 feet. The required setback along University Avenue and Byron Street are both 16 feet. The Project would reduce each of these setbacks down to only 10 feet. These setbacks impact the pedestrian experience and may impact safety. These potential impacts should be considered. The residential portion of the building is 50 feet tall and it is higher for mechanical and elevator equipment. This exceeds the height allowed in the multifamily zoning district. Plans for the Project reveal that a majority of the rooftop will be opened up as a social gathering common area with multiple barbeques, lounges, tables and chairs, including a TV mounted on one of the walls. The Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 183     Planning and Transportation Commission Re: Opposition to Project Proposed at 660 University Avenue November 15, 2022 Page 5 aesthetic impacts of the height of the building, any noise impacts from rooftop activities or mechanical equipment should be considered. Alternatives to Consider. The Hamilton encourages the environmental impact report to consider a number of alternatives to the proposed Project. One alternative that could considered is a project that complies with the current zoning and Comprehensive Plan, including density, uses, setbacks, height, etc. This alternative could include additional density based on state density bonus law. Even with the additional density allowed by state law, such a project would likely be more responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development. Another alternative would be a senior project with low income senior housing. Not only is there a need for senior housing and low income senior housing in Palo Alto, such a project may also have reduced impacts (e.g. seniors drive less). The Hamilton urges the PTC to consider either of these alternatives as preferable to the proposed Project. The Hamilton thanks you for your time and attention to this matter and strongly encourages the PTC not to support moving this Project forward as proposed. The Project should be consistent with or a modest modification to the existing multifamily residential standards, should not include office and should consider providing senior housing. Sincerely, Leigh Prince Leigh F. Prince Cc: Emily Foley, Planner (Emily.Foley@CityofPaloAlto.org) Jonathan Lait, Planning Director (Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org) Molly Stump, City Attorney (Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org) Christopher Ream, President, The Hamilton HOA (ream@reamlaw.com) Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 184     From:Aram James To:Binder, Andrew; Tony Dixon; KEVIN JENSEN; Jeff Rosen; Sean Allen; Filseth, Eric (Internal); mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; Foley, Michael; Afanasiev, Alex; Lee, Craig; Council, City; Planning Commission; GRP-City Council; Bains, Paul; Winter Dellenbach; Shikada, Ed; Gennady Sheyner; Jay Boyarsky; Joe Simitian; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg Subject:minor-traffic-stops-plummet-in-months-after-lapd-policy-change? Date:Monday, November 14, 2022 11:31:11 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.  But why is PAPD Chief Andrew Binder unwilling to stop racially loaded pretext stops? and adopt a program similar to the LAPD ? See Binder’s answer on pretext stops- to Weekly reporter Gennady Sheyner in his Battling Bias in Policing piece dated Nov 4, 2022 ( see below the latines piece below) https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-11-14/minor-traffic-stops- plummet-in-months-after-lapd-policy-change?_amp=true https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/11/04/battling-bias-in-law- enforcement-what-data-reveals-about-the-palo-alto-police?utm_source=express- 2022-11-04&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=express Item 2 Attachment C - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 185     If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on- Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Attachment D Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review project plans, TDM plan, and environmental documents, including the Draft and Final EIR online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “660 University” and click the address link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/660- University-Avenue Item 2 Attachment D - Project Plans     Packet Pg. 186     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 8 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 21, 2025 Report #: 2507-4926 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2280 El Camino Real [24PLN-00339]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow Façade Modifications to an Existing Restaurant, Jack in the Box. CEQA Status: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: Neighborhood Commercial (CN). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Provide feedback on the proposed design and continue to a date uncertain. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project includes a request for Major Architectural Review to remodel an existing 2,476-square-foot, two-story restaurant with a drive-through, located at 2280 El Camino Real. The project includes exterior façade modifications such as removal of the existing mansard roof, installation of new parapets, updated exterior finishes. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the project, with the proposed conditions, is consistent with applicable City plans, policies, and regulations. Therefore, staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend approval of the project, with selected modifications, to the Director of Planning and Development Services. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner: Frank J. and Kerry M. Hagan Family Trust Owner Representative: Marlene Hamilton Architect: PM Design Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 187     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 8 Property Information Address:2280 El Camino Real Neighborhood:Evergreen Park Lot Dimensions & Area:~153 feet x 110 feet; 16,500 square feet (0.38 acres) Housing Inventory Site:Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume:Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees:Two street trees and one site tree (see discussion below) Historic Resource(s):Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s):2,476 square feet; 2 stories; 1969 Existing Land Use(s):Neighborhood Commercial Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial); existing General and Professional Business Office Uses West: CN (Neighborhood Commercial); existing Office Use East: CN (Neighborhood Commercial); existing Retail Use South: CN (Neighborhood Commercial); existing Residential Use Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Comp. Plan Designation:Neighborhood Commercial Zoning Designation:CN (Neighborhood Commercial) Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 188     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 8 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:None PTC:None HRB:None ARB:None Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and are subject to ARB review: Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. Site Context and Background The project site is located at the corner of El Camino Real and Cambridge Avenue, at 2280 El Camino Real. The existing 2,476-square-foot restaurant building was constructed in 1969 and has not undergone any substantial modifications since its original development. The primary drive-through access is located along the El Camino Real frontage. A secondary driveway, which also provides utility access, is located along Cambridge Avenue. A 555-square-foot enclosed outdoor dining area is situated along the street-facing side of the property, attached to the Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 189     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 8 main structure via the drive-through lane. This outdoor area is proposed to be repainted and maintained in its current configuration. Architecturally, the existing restaurant is a two-story structure featuring wood trim, a wood- shingled mansard roof, and insulated aluminum-framed glass doors and windows. The materials and design of the enclosed outdoor dining area are consistent with those of the main structure. Rooftop mechanical equipment is currently screened by the mansard roof, and signage is located both on the building and throughout the site. Project Description The applicant is requesting approval for exterior façade modifications to an existing 2,476- square-foot restaurant building located at 2280 El Camino Real. The building’s primary entry façade, which faces El Camino Real, currently features a prominent mansard roof that incorporates signage and screens existing rooftop mechanical equipment. As part of the proposed project, selective demolition will be performed to remove the sloped portions of the mansard roof and associated structural elements. The existing vertical structural framing will be preserved and utilized to support new branding panels, which will also serve to screen the existing mechanical equipment, which is to remain in place. Additional exterior upgrades include the replacement of existing single-pane windows and drive-through storefront systems with new, energy-efficient double-pane storefront and drive- through glazing systems. Existing wood shingles and siding boards will be removed and replaced with a combination of porcelain wall tiles, aluminum panels, and Hardie architectural panels with a sand finish. While new signage and signage placeholders are illustrated in the site plan and elevation drawings, no new signage is being proposed or approved as part of this application. Site improvements are limited to the repair and maintenance of the existing parking lot, including paving, landscaping, signage, outdoor furniture, lighting, and trees. The existing trash and electrical enclosures will remain unchanged with no modifications proposed. ANALYSIS1 Staff reviewed the proposed project for conformance with relevant plans, policies, and regulations and finds that the project is mostly in conformance with these requirements as well as the Architectural Review findings as detailed further in this section. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend approval of the project, subject to a condition that the project plans be revised to reduce the overall building height. Specifically, staff recommends removal of the proposed projecting branding panels that currently exceed 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 190     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 8 the building’s roofline and are designed to draw attention through their scale and bright coloration. These elements are considered inconsistent with the design guidelines. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines3 The Comprehensive Plan designates the project site as Neighborhood Commercial (CN), intended to support neighborhood shopping areas that accommodate retail, personal services, eating and drinking establishments, and office uses of moderate scale. The CN designation emphasizes compatibility with surrounding residential areas through appropriate regulation and design. The applicant proposes to retain and remodel an existing restaurant with a drive-through, which is consistent with the CN land use designation. The project supports Comprehensive Plan goals by maintaining a neighborhood-serving use that promotes pedestrian activity and provides accessible dining options for nearby residents and businesses. Program L2.2.1: Explore whether there are appropriate locations to allow small scale neighborhood-serving retail facilities such as coffee shops and corner stores in residential areas. Policy L-2.2: Enhance connections between commercial and mixed-use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting walkable and bikeable connections and a diverse range of retail and services that caters to the daily needs of residents. Policy L-2.9: Facilitate reuse of existing buildings. Policy L3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Policy L-4.2: Preserve ground-floor retail, limit the displacement of existing retail from neighborhood centers and explore opportunities to expand retail. Policy L-4.15: Recognize El Camino Real as both a local serving and regional serving corridor, defined by a mix of commercial uses and housing. A summary of the complete project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. El Camino Real and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines The proposed project is subject to both the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, which provide direction for enhancing the visual quality and functionality of the corridor. The South El Camino Design Guidelines emphasize creating a more pedestrian-friendly and visually cohesive corridor. The project site is within walking distance of the California Avenue Pedestrian Node, an area already experiencing notable pedestrian activity. The proposed façade improvements along El Camino Real will enhance the building’s street presence, encourage pedestrian engagement, and support multi-modal access to the site. The upgraded restaurant, located at the prominent corner of El Camino Real and Cambridge Avenue, will help 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 191     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 8 define the intersection while offering improved indoor and outdoor dining spaces that contribute to a more inviting and active streetscape. In accordance with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines, the building’s exterior color palette is limited to three primary body colors, consistent with the guideline recommendations. Accent colors and materials are incorporated in alignment with the Objective Design Standards. Within the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zoning district, the design intent is to prioritize pedestrian orientation and discourage automobile-dominant signage and detailing. The proposed site and building improvements generally reflect these objectives by creating a balanced design that is attractive and accessible to pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike. However, the proposed red parapet at the corner has been increased in height, which appears to solely be for the purpose of adding signage in a more prominent location as an auto-oriented design. With the incorporation of conditions of approval (see Attachment C) which require that the applicant remove the additional panels to match the parapet height around the building, all building elevations will feature a cohesive architectural character, durable and high-quality materials, and a restrained use of red tones associated with the business’s branding. Zoning Compliance5 Staff prepared a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards (Attachment D) and found that the proposed project complies with all applicable codes. Sign Code The proposed plans include conflicting information that shows signage but indicates that the signage is not part of the project scope. Information to verify compliance of these signs has not been provided, but per discussions with the applicant, which stated their intent to not include these in the scope, staff has added Conditions of approval to reinforce that a separate planning entitlement is required for these. Code compliant wall signs may be processed as an Over the Counter Architectural Review application (OTC). The signage shown on the extended panel above the parapet does not appear to be code compliant regardless of whether the panel remains. The sign code PAMC Section 16.20.130 (b) would not allow a wall sign to extend above the top level of the wall on which the proposed sign is situated. In this case the wall appears to be extended solely for the purpose of adding a sign. Multi-Modal Access and Parking The site currently provides 24 parking spaces, including two ADA-compliant spaces. Based on the existing and continued use of the property as an eating and drinking establishment with a drive-through, the zoning code requires 74 parking spaces (calculated at a rate of 3 spaces per 100 square feet of gross floor area). No changes to the building’s floor area, site layout, or configuration are proposed as part of this project. As such, the existing 24 parking spaces will remain, and the current parking shortfall will continue as a legal nonconforming condition. 5 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 192     Item No. 3. Page 7 of 8 Access to and from the site occurs at both the El Camino Real and Cambridge Avenue frontages. Any vehicle queueing is expected to occur on the project site out of the public right-of-way in the drive-through lanes. There are no existing bike lanes on El Camino Real in the vicinity of the project, however, the planned improvements by Caltrans on El Camino Real will add a bike lane on El Camino Real along the project frontage. Existing bike racks will remain along the primary El Camino Real frontage. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT There is no fiscal or resource impact associated with this application. The application is a cost recovery project and staff time is charged to the applicant. 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 August 8, 2025, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on August 6, 2025, which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related public comments were received. 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. The City, acting as the lead agency, finds the project to be exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities), because the proposed project includes modifications to an existing building and the changes in use will involve no expansion of the existing use. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Continue the project to a date (un)certain with specific direction; or 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: ARB Findings Attachment C: Conditions of Approval Attachment D: Zoning Consistency Analysis Attachment E: Project Plans Report Author & Contact Information Kristina Dobkevicius, Associate Planner (650) 496-6945 Kristina.Dobkevicius@PaloAlto.gov ARB7 Liaison & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 7 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@paloalto.gov Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 193     Item No. 3. Page 8 of 8 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 194     COL LEGE AVE NUE YALE STREET CAMB RIDGE AVE NUE CAL IFOR NIA A VE NUE WILLIAMS STREET UE EL CA MINO RE AL SEDRO LANE COL LEG E AV E NU E OXFOEL CAMINO REA L LE STREET STAUNTON COURTOXFORD AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAM INO REA L 424 432 435 441 570 531 2123 550 560 2 2100 2209 2305 2325 2390 610 566 572 445447 580 2174 39 2145- 2153 715- 727 2175 66 -668 634 642 2145 2305 2310 2103- 2127 436-446 22 478-4842071-2087 421-429 2227-2233 2160-2178 564 657- 665 546 314- 40 2282-2288 2285-2295 2251- 2271 2343- 2347 576-592 2251- 2263 454- 460 2317 2331 2330 2324 2337 2333 23952385 2342 2344 624 642 644 658 550 2310 23312315 570 568 577 599 2280 2200 555 559 2290 2260 2277 2262 2270 2301 2264 643 645 615 552 55021722170 560 2345 2133 2139 233 560 558 556 554 552 449 457 223722252221 417 463 470 431433 439 437 4432137 465 475 448 447 43 455 501 2091 730 2 720 2239 587 2111 575 21502140 2152 2154 2156 2158 2160 2162 2164 2166 2280 2260 2147 2149 20982086 2080 2095 2000 582 580 551 2130 2110 2241 2252 2254 707 703 739 757 2211 2215 2130 589 2346 456 2171 2275 2310A 566A 545 555 500 572 2177 2179 2176 2178 2239A 2301A 2301B 546A California Stat CC(2) R-2 RM-30 424 432 435 441 570 531 2123 550 560 2 2100 2209 2305 2325 2390 610 566 572 445447 580 2174 39 2145- 2153 715- 727 2175 66 -668 634 642 2145 2305 2310 2103- 2127 436-446 22 478-4842071-2087 421-429 2227-2233 2160-2178 564 657- 665 546 314- 40 2282-2288 2285-2295 2251- 2271 2343- 2347 576-592 2251- 2263 454- 460 2317 2331 2330 2324 2337 2333 23952385 2342 2344 624 642 644 658 550 2310 23312315 570 568 577 599 2280 2200 555 559 2290 2260 2277 2262 2270 2301 2264 643 645 615 552 55021722170 560 2345 2133 2139 233 560 558 556 554 552 449 457 223722252221 417 463 470 431433 439 437 4432137 465 475 448 447 43 455 501 2091 730 2 720 2239 587 2111 575 21502140 2152 2154 2156 2158 2160 2162 2164 2166 2280 2260 2147 2149 20982086 2080 2095 2000 582 580 551 2130 2110 2241 2252 2254 707 703 739 757 2211 2215 2130 589 2346 456 2171 2275 2310A 566A 545 555 500 572 2177 2179 2176 2178 2239A 2301A 2301B 546A This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Assessment Parcel Palo Alto Assessment Parcel Palo Alto Assessment Parcel Outside Palo Alto abc Road Centerline Small Text (TC) Curb Face (RF) Pavement Edge (RF) Address Label Points (AP) Current Features Zone Districts abc Building Roof Outline (BL) abc Zone District Labels Address Label Points (AP) 0'98' ATTACHMENT A 2280 El Camino Real Location Map CITYOF PALO ALTOI N C O R P O R A T E D CAL I F OR N I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f A P R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto kpaulau, 2025-07-24 16:54:53 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) PC-5069 CN CN CC(2)(R) RMD (NP) Item 3 Attachment A - Location Map     Packet Pg. 195     8 7 1 2 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 2280 El Camino Real/24PLN-00339 The design and architecture of the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in PAMC Chapter 18.76. Finding 1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed exterior modifications to the existing restaurant building at 2280 El Camino Real are consistent with the goals and policies of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Code for the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) district, and the applicable El Camino Real and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Comprehensive Plan Consistency: The project supports key policies, including Policy L-2.2 and L- 2.9, by enhancing the existing commercial use without expanding the building footprint, promoting walkability, and facilitating the reuse of an aging structure. The restaurant continues to serve neighborhood needs, aligning with the CN land use designation. Zoning Code Compliance: The proposal does not increase floor area and retains all existing site conditions, maintaining legal noncomplying parking while adhering to current CN district standards. The scope of work is limited to façade improvements and upgrades to energy efficiency and material quality, which fall within the permitted parameters. Design Guideline Alignment: The design is guided by the El Camino Real and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, which emphasize pedestrian-oriented architecture, durable materials, and restrained signage and branding. The project, as conditioned, enhances the building’s street presence with a more cohesive and updated façade, upgraded glazing systems, and appropriate material transitions. The removal of the projecting branding panels, as recommended by staff, further ensures compatibility with the visual character of the corridor. As designed, subject to the recommended condition to scale back branding elements, the project achieves a context-sensitive upgrade that aligns with the City’s regulatory framework and design expectations. Finding 2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: (a) Creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, (b) Preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, (c) Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, (d) Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, (e) Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: Item 3 Attachment B - ARB Findings     Packet Pg. 196     8 7 1 2 The project presents a unified and coherent design that enhances the visual quality and function of the site while respecting its existing structure and surrounding context. The updated façade and material improvements create a more attractive and orderly environment for patrons and the public, while preserving the building’s scale and structural framework. The design aligns with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines by using high-quality, durable materials and maintaining a pedestrian-friendly streetscape. With no increase in building height or mass, and the recommended removal of oversized branding panels, the project provides a harmonious transition to nearby uses and supports the character of the adjacent neighborhood. Finding 3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project incorporates high-quality, durable materials such as porcelain wall tiles, aluminum panels, and sand-finish Hardie architectural panels that contribute to a modern and refined appearance. The proposed material palette, limited to a restrained selection of three primary body colors with subtle accent tones, aligns with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and complements the surrounding commercial context. The replacement of aging wood siding and single pane glazing with updated systems improves both energy efficiency and visual appeal. These integrated design elements, combined with clean lines and a simplified roof profile, result in a cohesive and contemporary aesthetic that enhances the site's prominence and contributes positively to the overall character of the area. Finding 4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building's necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The project maintains the existing site layout, which includes clearly defined vehicle access points from both El Camino Real and Cambridge Avenue, as well as on-site drive-through circulation that avoids impacts to the public right-of-way. The existing 24 parking spaces, including two ADA-compliant spaces, will remain in place, preserving accessibility for all users. Pedestrian access is supported through maintained sidewalk connections and outdoor dining that encourages walk-in activity. Bicycle racks along El Camino Real are retained, and future improvements by Caltrans will enhance bike access along the corridor. Operational needs, such as utility access and trash enclosures, are preserved in their current locations without disruption. While no new signage is proposed at this time, placeholders are integrated into the design in a manner consistent with functional and aesthetic goals. Finding 5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: Item 3 Attachment B - ARB Findings     Packet Pg. 197     8 7 1 2 The project includes landscape maintenance and minor site improvements that complement the updated building design while preserving existing site functions. Although no major changes to landscaping are proposed, the continued use of drought-tolerant plantings and site-appropriate vegetation supports sustainability goals and aligns with regional water conservation practices. The landscaping enhances the site’s visual appeal along El Camino Real and Cambridge Avenue, providing a more attractive edge for pedestrians and softening the commercial character of the property. Finding 6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: The project incorporates sustainable design principles through the use of energy-efficient, double-pane glazing systems that improve thermal performance and reduce energy consumption. The replacement of outdated materials with durable, low-maintenance finishes such as porcelain tiles, aluminum panels, and Hardie architectural panels supports long-term sustainability and reduces the need for frequent repairs or replacements. Existing drought-tolerant landscaping is retained, promoting water conservation in line with regional best practices. Additionally, the preservation and adaptive reuse of the existing building structure reduces construction waste and supports resource efficiency in site planning. Item 3 Attachment B - ARB Findings     Packet Pg. 198     ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2280 El Camino Real 24PLN-00339 _________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Store #0455, MK3 – Reimage, 2280 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on August 14, 2025, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Transportation, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit and shall incorporate the following changes: a. On Sheet TS1.0 under the building data, local jurisdiction must be changed to Santa Clara County. b. On Sheets A4.0 through A6.0 projecting branding panel height shall be reduced to not exceed the top of the parapet. c. On Sheets A4.0 through A6.0 references to new signage and any proposed signage shall be removed, unless otherwise approved through a separate entitlement, as it is not part of the approved project scope. 4. COLORS AND MATERIALS. The final colors must align with the colors and materials approved by the architectural review board. 5. SIGNAGE. This approval does not include any signage or modifications to the approved signs on site. New signage or modifications to existing signage would be required to submit for a separate review and approval by the Planning Department. 6. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 7. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 8. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning. Contact your Project Planner, Kristina Dobkevicius at Kristina.Dobkevicius@PaloAlto.gov to schedule this inspection. BUILDING DEPARTMENT Item 3 Attachment C - Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 199     9. A building permit is required for the scope of work shown. At the Building Permit stage, please provide the following information: 1. Before and after site and floor plans to clearly define the scope of work 2. Show full compliance to CBC 11B-202.4, CBC 3. Structural calculations/plans/details 4. T24 5. Green building compliance 6. Health Dept approval plans and letter URBAN FORESTRY 10. As stated in the C1 planset, a T1 sheet with a filled out and signed tree disclosure statement MUST BE SUBMITTED. See link to the T1 sheet: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/4/public-works/tree-section/t1-sheet-special- tree-protection-instructions.pdf 11. Show the outline of type II tree protection fencing around all street trees. Show all tree 4" and greater on site. ZERO WASTE 12. Breakroom needs to have refuse containers for staff to dispose of their waste. Show on plan three types of waste containers - blue for recycling, green for compost and black for landfill. Each refuse bin must be properly labeled. See comments below. 13. Internal/External Refuse Bins. If the scope of work involves installing internal and/or external refuse bins, then following requirements apply. Refer to Palo Alto Municipal Code 5.20.108 - Requirements for owners or managers of multifamily properties and commercial premises. Any location where refuse bins will be installed shall have three bins - recycle (blue container), compost (green container), and garbage (black container). Show on the plans where the bins will be placed. The three types of refuse bins must be placed right next to each other. Provide cut sheets for the types of refuse bins (recycle, compost, and landfill) that will be used, any related millwork and colored signage. 14. Locations where refuse bins may be located include common area such as entrances, lobbies, conference rooms, back of the house kitchen, cafés, breakrooms, and dining areas (if applicable). The only exceptions are restrooms, copy areas, and mother’s room. • Restrooms must have a green compost container for paper towels and an optional black landfill container if applicable. For wall mounted bins, signage must be placed on the bin. • Copy areas and mail areas must have either a recycle bin only or all three refuse receptacles (green compost, blue recycle, and black landfill container). • Mother’s room must minimally have a green compost container and black landfill container. • Laboratory sinks need at least a compost container. A recycling container and a landfill container may also be required depending on waste generated in the lab. 15. If refuse bins will be placed inside a cabinet, then provide cut-sheets for the millwork. The front of the cabinet doors shall have a minimum of four inches in height worth of color-coding, extending the full width of the cabinet door. If there are openings on top of the millwork then the holes need be colored. Signage must also be provided on the containers and on front of the cabinet doors. 16. Signage must be color coded with photos or illustrations of commonly discarded items that are acceptable to place into the bin and words or text of items which are not acceptable to be placed into the bin. Please refer to PAMC 5.20.108 and the Internal Container Guide. Examples of appropriate signage can be found in the Managing Zero Waste at Your Business Guide. Electronic Item 3 Attachment C - Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 200     copies of these signage can be found on the Zero Waste Palo Alto’s website, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Zero-Waste/What-Goes- Where/Toolkit#section-2 and hard copies can be requested from the waste hauler, GreenWaste of Palo Alto, (650) 493-4894. 17. Restroom. Need to show that restroom will have a bin to collect paper towels. Bin needs to be labeled with green compost sticker. Show on plans where this bin be placed and indicate which sticker will be used. See comments below. Item 3 Attachment C - Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 201     Page 1 of 2 2 6 3 9 ATTACHMENT D ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 2280 El Camino Real, 24PLN-00339 Table 3: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CN DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-Residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Specifications 0.38 acres (16,500 sf)No Change 62.4’No Change Site Area (ft2) Site Width (ft) Site Depth (ft)None Required 146.83’No Change Minimum Setbacks Front Yard (El Camino Real)0 - 10' to create an 8' - 12' effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) Not Clear No Change Rear Yard None Required Not Clear No Change Interior Side Yard None Required Not Clear No Change Street Side Yard (Cambridge Ave)20' (2)Not Clear No Change Minimum yard (ft) for the site lines abutting or opposite residential district or residential PC districts 10' (2)Not Clear No Change Build-To-Lines 50% of frontage built to setback (7) 33% of side street built to setback (7) Not Clear No Change Maximum Site Coverage 50 % (8,250 sf) 15.3 % (2,528 sf)No Change Maximum Height (ft) Standard 25' and 2 stories 20’-9” and 2 stories 24’-8 ½” and 2 stories Portions of a site within 150 ft of an abutting residential district (other than a PC zone) (9) 25' and 2 stories 20’-9” and 2 stories 24’-8 ½” and 2 stories Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)0.4:1 (6,600 sf)0.15:1 (2,476 sf)No Change Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC zone Initial Height - (6)Not Applicable Not Applicable Slope - (6)Not Applicable Not Applicable Notes (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. Item 3 Attachment D - Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 202     Page 2 of 2 2 6 3 9 (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line. (3) No setback from an alley is required for a public parking garage. (4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane. (5) See additional regulations in subsection (e) of this Section 18.16.050. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage. (9) Distance shall be measured from the property line of the subject site. 150-foot measurement may be reduced to 50 feet at minimum, subject to approval by the Planning Director, upon recommendation by the Architectural Review Board pursuant to criteria set forth in Chapter 18.76. Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52.040 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) Type Required Existing Proposed Conforms? RETAIL USES Drive-up windows providing services to occupants in vehicles Queue line for 5 cars, not blocking any parking spaces, in addition to other applicable requirements Queue line for 5 cars No change Yes Eating and Drinking Services: (a) With drive-in or take-out facilities Vehicle Parking 3 per 100 sf of gross floor area 26 No Change No; legal noncomply ing Bicycle Parking 3 per 400 sf (6 spaces) 40% - LT 60% - ST 2 spaces 0% - LT 100% - ST No Change No; legal noncomply ing Loading Space Eating and Drinking Services between 5,000 -29,999 sf in size require 1 loading space 0 0 No; legal noncomply ing Item 3 Attachment D - Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 203     ATTACHMENT E Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Architectural Review Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Scroll down to find “2280 El Camino Real” and open the record by clicking on the blue dot 3. Review the record details on the left side and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. You will find links to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/2280-El-Camino-Real Item 3 Attachment E - Project Plans     Packet Pg. 204     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 21, 2025 Report #: 2508-5071 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 17, 2025 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of July 17, 2025 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1& Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 205     Page 1 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/17/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: July 17, 2025 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Board Member David Hirsch Absent: Board Member Mousam Adcock, Board Member Marton Jojarth Chair Rosenberg called the meeting to order. The clerk called roll and declared there was a quorum. Oral Communications There were no requests to speak. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer announced that the Ad Hoc Committee for Item 4 consist of Chair Rosenberg and Vice Chair Chen. City Official Reports 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer announced that Chair and Vice Chair elections will be held in August and 762 San Antonio Road, a builder’s remedy project, will be heard. Ten meetings remain for the year. A slide was provided showing planned absences. He asked that any additional planned absences be directed to him or staff. There will be a Boards and Commissions recognition event on August 28. The required antiharassment training is due on July 30. He asked to be contacted if there are problems accessing the training portal. Action Item 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [25PLN-00027]: Recommendation on the Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review Application for exterior storefront revisions and improvements, including a redesigned outdoor dining area, façade revisions and signage for a new tenant, Cedar & Sage (Space #1301, Building DD), at the Stanford Shopping Center. CEQA Status: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 206     Page 2 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/17/25 Chair Rosenberg requested disclosures. She commented that she had visited the site previously but not recently. Vice Chair Chen stated she had visited the site. Board Member Hirsch disclosed that he had visited the site for a second time. Baker International Tamara Harrison shared slides. The project is located in Building DD, Suite 1301. The project was heard by the ARB on May 15, and today they return by request of the ARB to address pathway clearance, sustainable design to explore alternatives to gas heating, high-quality design for better integration of the proposed canopy with the building, and information related to the plaster material that will be used on the building. The proposal has been revised to address these comments. The team agrees to relocate the existing bollards closer to the curb, which will allow for 8-foot clearance around the tenant area. The existing electrical service for the building will accommodate 4 heaters for the patio space, which is not adequate, so gas heaters are still being proposed. As for the revised patio design, the existing metal canopy will be removed and the canopy will follow the façade of the building and awnings will be fixed and in place (not retractable). She explained that there will still be retractable sunshades. Regarding the plaster, hard copy samples were provided to the Board to address additional information about the plaster being provided. The parking spreadsheet has been updated and will be updated in the final plan set. Staff recommends the ARB provide direction and approve the project. LandShark Development Jason Smith voiced they had thoroughly reviewed the items requested and have a comprehensive response to them. Cedar & Sage JC Clow expressed that the 4 items had been addressed, and he hopes this will be the last meeting with the ARB so they can start construction. Arcanum Architecture Chris Canney noted that they had taken the ARB’s comments to heart and updated the design. Slides were provided showing the details of the changes made, which include the building footprint, the awning, parking, patio covering, windscreens, sunshades, plaster, seating, and bollard relocation for the pathway. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak. Chair Rosenberg requested a sample of or information on the dropdown shades. She questioned what the protection standard will be for the fireplace. She referenced a slide and asked the distance from the glass fire screen to the edge of fireplace and why the bollard will be shifted a certain direction. Arcanum Architecture Canney stated the material will be a similar color but with a 3- to 4-percent perforation. There will be a 12-inch glass windscreen encompassing the perimeter of the fireplace. The top will be open. The distance from the glass fire screen to the edge of the fire place is 6 inches. He explained why the bollard will be shifted. Chair Rosenberg remarked that she may still have concerns related to the fireplace. Arcanum Architecture Canney replied that the glass could be 18 inches. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 207     Page 3 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/17/25 Vice Chair Chen inquired if there will be certain patterns for the plaster materials and if the gas heaters could be perpendicular (not only along the edge). Arcanum Architecture Canney displayed a slide showing the patterns of the plaster materials. They could explore mounting the gas heaters on the linear. Mounting them on posts will conceal them more than hanging them from rods. The lighting and fan layouts will need to be adjusted if the heaters are hung from rods. Board Member Hirsch commented that he is concerned about raising the glass. Diffused glass may improve the character of the inside more than clear glass. He queried why have removable rather than fixed glass. Arcanum Architecture Canney explained the concept of removeable glass. Cedar & Sage Clow added that removeable glass is safe and a wow factor for guests. The glass can be tinted if desired. He explained that they will not be a hindrance to foot traffic. He strongly requested they remain. Vice Chair Chen asked if each glass panel can be individually controlled and if the dropdown shade is inside the glass and if will go to the low wall or stop at the glass level. Cedar & Sage Clow answered that each glass panel can be individually controlled. Arcanum Architecture Canney responded that the dropdown shade will be inside the glass and go to the low wall. It can be raised and lowered via remote control. Board Member Hirsch requested information on the fabric on the sloping and questioned how the plaster wall will be done, if the planters can be built-in, and if the general plantings and aesthetics of the passageway can be improved. Arcanum Architecture Canney answered that the fabric on the sloping will be fixed, below the steel, and consistent all the way through the space. He discussed the rain gutter system and how the plaster wall will be done. LandShark Jason Smith addressed built-in planters and a concern with creating an additional egress issue. Board Member Hirsch stated that there appears to be enough space for built-in planters and requested that it be considered but he wants to know if the restaurant is interested in that. He discussed the signage for Anthropologie and asked how it worked with signage being on a particular wall and if there could be plantars against the wall to lead into the entryway. LandShark Jason Smith answered that the signage requirements are being met for Stanford Shopping Center, and he did not think Simon or the tenant had issues with placement of the current Anthropologie signage. As for plantars being against the wall, the space is outside of their purview. Chair Rosenberg expressed that she thinks plantars being against the wall is beyond the scope of the project. Board Member Hirsch requested investigating plantars being against the wall. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 208     Page 4 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/17/25 LandShark Jason Smith replied that it can be discussed with Planning staff for future projects and for the shopping center in all. Chair Rosenberg remarked that the applicant had addressed all questions and concerns. She is pleased with the canopy redesign. The small planters are going to benefit the corner. She has concerns about the firepit and requested that the applicant consider a buffer. Vice Chair Chen stated she appreciates the 8-foot walkway and the redesign of the canopy. The materials meet high-quality design standards. It is reasonable to have gas heaters outside. The applicant did a great job on sustainable design. Board Member Hirsch seconded Vice Chair Chen’s comments. He suggested painting the ground utility covers to make them less observable. MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to approve the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on the findings in Attachment B and subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment C. Board Member Hirsch seconded. VOTE: Motion carries, 3-0-2 (Adcock, Jojarth absent) [The Board took a 5-minute break] Study Session 3. Study Session on Conceptual Site Layouts and Circulation for the Cubberley Master Plan at 4000 Middlefield Road. CEQA Status: Master Plan will undergo CEQA Review Assistant Director Community Services Amanda Deml discussed the project background, including milestones met. Attachment A provides a comprehensive background summary of actions to date. The item will be presented to Council on August 18. The final community meeting will be on September 17. On September 23, the item will be presented to PRC. The packet contains a full summary of community meetings 1 and 2. She highlighted the key themes and priorities gathered in the meetings, including flexibility, inclusivity, sustainability, affordability, multipurpose spaces, wellness access, greenspace, and community gathering areas. Meeting 2 showed a strong preference for partially underground parking and concerns about the above-ground parking structure, a general preference for new construction, some support for partial renovation if it results in significant cost savings, an emphasis to separate the bike and pedestrian paths for safety, an appreciation for the direct bike connection from Nelson to Middlefield, and strong support for large, flexible public gathering spaces to encourage community interaction. The community rated Concept 1 the best with Concept 3 following closely in second place. Concordia Principal Steven Bingler introduced himself. Concordia Architect Elizabeth Chen introduced herself. Three concept designs had been presented at the community meeting on June 12. A slide was furnished showing a visual representation of where the design process started. All 3 designs have an equal amount of outdoor and indoor space and parking, and all spaces will be increased from what exists currently. There are 3 options for each design, which include options for all new construction, partial renovation of 3 existing structures, and above-ground structured parking in lieu of partially underground parking. An outline of the concept design key was provided. The pavilion, theater, and Building I could possibly be renovated under the partial renovation option. Slides were furnished showing the concept designs presented in community meeting 2. Positive Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 209     Page 5 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/17/25 responses for Concept 1 includes the outdoor spaces being a generous scale to the buildings and the connection to the bike routes. All concepts follow the guidelines for building height, and setbacks are more generous than the guidelines. Design 2 had received fewer positive comments from the community. Design 3 received positive community feedback as it relates to outdoor amenity space. Taking the community feedback into account, the applicant chose Concept 1 as a basis for the design but also featuring a community gathering space similar to Concept 3 and flow diagrams of Concept 2. Slides were supplied incorporating community feedback into Concept 1 as it relates to new construction and partial renovation, which she detailed. Some folks want more presence on Middlefield, so a place marker is shown for possible further development. A slide was displayed showing a possible design for the promenade. An amenities parklet could include bike racks, picnic tables, etc. Assistant Director Deml mentioned that the next steps in the Master Planning process will include collecting and analyzing the ARB’s feedback and input from the community, PRC, and PTC meetings. On September 17, Concordia will present 1 refined concept plan for additional public input, which will lead to their final presentation to the community and Council on December 8, which will include the proposed Master Plan, cost estimates, and phasing scenarios. Staff requests that the ARB provide feedback on the 3 conceptual designs, the updated designs presented by Concordia Chen, renovation versus new construction, and the triangular greenspaces at the promenade entry points and additional comments to help inform the refinement of the preferred concepts. Chair Rosenberg requested disclosures. She had visited the site. Vice Chair Chen disclosed that she had visited the site and that she is familiar with it. Board Member Hirsch commented that he had been a table host at the first study and he had visited the site numerous times during that time and recently. He had met with Concordia Bingler privately and had a recent phone conversation with him about the project. PUBLIC COMMENT Elizabeth A. stated she has been interested in Cubberley for many years, which is an incredible organization. She requested an accessible and visible book drop-off space and short-term parking. Eli R. represented North Cal Carpenters Local 405 in San Jose and urged the ARB to consider the ethics of strong labor standards, dignity, and safety in addition to the aesthetics and function of the environment. Board Member Hirsch stated that he is interested in seeing projects early in the process. The list of potential future uses of Cubberley should include the needs of the many present tenants. Use facilities are critical. It is important that Concordia and the City refine and prioritize the new list. Publicly preferred uses are critical. It is important to house activities in spaces compatible with each other and to consider future growth. It is most important to determine phasing construction based on the retention of active tenants. He wants to preserve and enhance Cubberley’s uniqueness. The phasing will effect a priority in terms of what building will be built first and how the remainder of the campus will remain for those who are there. He wants to preserve the present variety and interest in Cubberley. Landscape and landscape uses are important. He discussed priorities and worker space being a high priority to allow the facility to continue operating. Below-grade parking is reasonable, and there could also be exposed parking at the back of the site. He asked if there will be a program/design for the landscaping areas within the courtyards as the project progresses. Open spaces need to be programmed. He discussed Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 210     Page 6 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/17/25 staging as there will be priorities and plans for the future. He prefers Concept 1, which he wants to elaborate on later in the meeting. Chair Rosenberg addressed the latest site plan, which is based on Concept 1 with elements from Concepts 2 and 3. She expects to address the full landscape plan at a later date. She appreciates the promenade renderings and the islands between the bike and pedestrian paths. She inquired if the applicant will promote certain areas for crossovers to prevent yak trails. Concordia Bingler responded, regarding crossovers, that one approach is to wait and see where people will travel. It is too early to determine where the crossovers should be. They intend to design the system in a modular way. The sheetrock walls or even moveable partitions could be reconfigured in many ways over the lifespan of the project. They desire an extruded concept versus generic proportions and layouts. He wants it to be as fluid and as flexible as possible. Until the design starts to take place, the uses will probably move around a little. Flexibility is key. He requested that the ARB provide feedback related to parking. Parking space could eventually be converted to program space. Chair Rosenberg voiced that she finds the mobility space to be a brilliant idea. She appreciates the existing surface parking lot remaining. The concept of putting tenants on the roof of a parking structure is brilliant. It will be safe to have a mobility hub at the end. It has not yet been determined whether traffic will be 1- or 2-way. Since there will be 3 hubs, she requested that each be named individually, that it be clearly noted with signage, and that it be on Google Maps, etc. She likes the concept of the half-height parking lot. The pedestrian circulation in the promenade is fantastic. She encouraged the applicant to consider a secondary bike path to get from the promenade to the back. The building scale and organization make sense. There may need to be a through access between the 2 buildings. The triangular element can be a showpiece and could involve public art. The landscape organization and balance of buildings and greenspace is lovely. She understands that the pool will be for public use and that it will be fenced. She requested that the fencing for the tennis courts and pool be shown on future renderings. She suggested giving consideration to relocating the pool or shifting it so it will be more cohesively engrained, as it feels disconnected. The applicant is addressing being a good neighbor. Regarding new construction versus renovation, renovation may not maintain the grandeur and history of the site. She is impressed with the overall direction. Vice Chair Chen noted that the pedestrian and bicycle circulation is thoughtful, which will be refined in a later phase. The elevated tennis court will help with vehicle circulation. If the fire lane is required by building code, there needs to be a loop with height and width meeting minimum standards. As for trash collection circulation, there should be a plan for a trash room within a building or a separate trash enclosure. Regarding renovation and new construction, she agreed with Chair Rosenberg’s comments. She inquired how it will be determined which structures will remain. Concordia Bingler responded that cost will determine which structures will remain. No one was clamoring to save the buildings because of their architectural heritage. Concordia Chen added that the 3 buildings being considered for renovation are the more substantial existing buildings, which features concrete construction of the framing and exterior walls. The other buildings are wood frame and less substantial. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 211     Page 7 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/17/25 Concordia Bingler added there is a feasibility study for all the existing buildings and their expected life is about 5 more years. The larger buildings have a more substantial structure. However, there will be a delta in the cost. Their professional cost estimator suggested new construction. Vice Chair Chang noted that the indoor space will increase by 100,000 square foot, and she queried what the function will be of the increased indoor space and if the City has a vision for a larger theater or an increase in programming space. Regarding parking, there is a need for pick-up and drop-off space and space for longer term parking. If underground parking is being considered for longer term parking, she requested that thought be given to it being closer to the theater/field facilities/where larger events take place. She suggested the plans include phases of building. Concordia Bingler answered that the theater folks want more seating, which need to include the addition of a fly loft. The consultants and City agencies have indicated that the underground utilities need to be rebuilt. Working around existing structures may increase that cost. Assistant Director Deml added that renovating the theater could include making it a more useable space. There is a need to improve and add capacity. Chair Rosenberg stated the parking structure appears to be long and linear, so she expects there to be multiple egress points, which should be welcoming and with more spaces along the path rather than just concrete tunnels. Chair Rosenberg questioned what is intended for the flexible rental space and if there is a nearby bus stop. Concordia Chen answered that Cubberley rents out uses, which is the intent for the flexible rental space. It is multiuse space that tenants can use for classes, etc. It is for use in the community, and people that are already on site. There is a nearby bus stop. Chair Rosenberg asked if the bus stop will have a bump-out or extra space. Concordia Chen replied that will be the next stage for discussion. They had discussed the triangle being a good place for a transit stop. However, it needs to be further addressed with the transportation consultant. Concordia Bingler stated the bus stop could be moved a couple hundred feet and that having transit on Middlefield could be powerful. Concordia Chen added that moving the bus stop would not be taken lightly and there would be coordination with the appropriate agencies. Concordia Bingler asked for input related to a rooftop pool being to the right of the recreation wellness. Chair Rosenberg stated a rooftop pool is an interesting idea and worth considering. It is a good way to capture greenspace, but it would detach the public from the pool. A determining factor may be how many months a year the pool will be open. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 212     Page 8 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/17/25 Board Member Hirsch stated that the major diagonal would be enhanced if it was functionally more useful. For example, it could have a bus stop layby. It would be nice to have a destination building at the far end. He asked if the building shown on the side is a FOPAL building. There is a space in the back of the site that is not part of the function. Director Community Services Kristen O’Kane answered that the front of the Palo Alto Library has a space there. It is not included because that area will not be purchased from the School District. Board Member Hirsch noted that getting to that parking lot requires many left and right turns and has bad circulation. If access to the rear parking area and the connection left to right could be smoothed out to go through that area, there would be a larger piece at that end where something could be done. Concordia Bingler voiced that he loves that idea. There are constraints because the existing surface parking lot and the referenced building are not on the site. If it possible to collaborate with the School District, that is preferable. Chair Rosenberg remarked that she agrees, but she argues that landscaping could break up the gunshot view going down the promenade. Board Member Hirsch mentioned that it is important to have a bump-in to the site for a drop-off at the midpoint on Middlefield and that it may be more urban at that point. It will add more character to the promenade concept. He addressed the red line through the parking lot at whatever street it is going to be, and he commented that making the parcel at the end more useful to the center itself will make a huge difference. He is worried that what is shown will impact existing facilities, and he suggested that 1 of the drawings in the final presentation indicate that. He does not want the concept of the diagonal idea to be lost, so it has to be part of the realistic planning from the point at which someone else picks it up and decides what goes where. Concordia Bingler asked if he is addressing the phasing. Board Member Hirsch confirmed that he is referring to the phasing to understand the impact. Concordia Bingler stated they will produce those plans. Board Member Hirsch remarked that he does not know where a possible rooftop pool should be. He is concerned that what is being shown is not indicating that the pavilion and the theater will be replaced or that an alternative to that will be decided in the future. Flexibility in programming affects existing facilities and projected uses. The theater function is useful. He thinks folks desire a pool. His table indicated that the present theater is active and works. The pavilion is a great facility with a lot of flexibility. He wants to consider something like that and where it will go. He agrees with the through- traffic concept but that extra onsite parking should be considered, such as for the playing fields. It is a shame that the rectangular area in the back is not part of the site, which he hopes can be addressed. Concordia Bingler mentioned that surface parking with only air above it is inefficient use of the land. There is enough room on the parking deck so that all the tennis/pickleball courts could be on the back of the slab and an elevated athletic promenade across the front of the slab. The social output of such a promenade may be very different than the bicycle promenade and the courtyards, for example. The community likes the idea of people gathering for communication and playing, and it is an important part Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 213     Page 9 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/17/25 of what the applicant is considering. The square footage of the tennis/pickleball courts and outdoor recreation could be doubled if extended above the parking lot they do not own. Board Member Hirsch voiced that he agrees that a raised structure could be very useful. Advantage could also be taken of the passageway through it by making a cut in the raised area for people going through to the open field, bleachers, etc. The FOPAL area could be better organized. There should be truck acces for the books/goods going in and out. Flex outdoor space could increase. Concordia Bingler remarked that it is an awkward set of spaces in a very prominent location, which deserves more attention. Chair Rosenberg voiced her agreement that it would be a beneficial element. She is excited to move forward and to hear more about phasing, landscaping, and architecture. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas Chair Rosenberg announced there will be an offline Ad Hoc Committee meeting for 3265 El Camino Real after this ARB meeting. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 11:00 a.m. Ad Hoc Committee 4. 3265 El Camino Real [24PLN-00012]: Ad Hoc Committee Review of the Proposed Final Material Selection for a 100% Affordable, Six-Story, 55-Unit Multi-Family Rental Development. Environmental Assessment: Initial Study/15183 Streamlined CEQA Review. Zoning District: CS (Commercial Service). Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 214