Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-03-12 Planning & Transportation Commission Agenda PacketPLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Wednesday, March 12, 2025 Council Chambers & Hybrid 6:00 PM Planning and Transportation Commission 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. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and minutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC.  VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499) Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    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 Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission 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 ten (10) 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 Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org 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. TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. 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 Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five(5) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN‐00341]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) on Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Deconstruction of Existing Medical Office Buildings, and Construction of a New Six‐Story Mixed‐ Use Building with 66 Residential Rental Units, Approximately 9,100 Square Feet of Office, and a Two Level Below‐Grade Parking Garage. CEQA Status: Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024 and Ending on May 17, 2024. Zoning District: RM‐20 (Multi‐ Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. 6:10 PM – 8:10 PM 3.Recommendation on an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (Chapter 18.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code), Implementing Program 3.4E of the Housing Element. CEQA Status: The Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), considered by the City Council on April 15, 2024, analyzed potential environmental impacts of the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element including Program 3.4E. 8:10 PM – 9:40 PM 4.Update Planning and Transportation Commission Procedural Rules 9:40 PM – 10:00 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutes of January 29, 2025 6.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutes of February 12, 2025 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT OTHER INFORMATION Public Comments PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, 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 Commission, 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 Commission. 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: 916 4155 9499   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@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, March 12, 2025Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPlanning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to ten(10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree notto speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for allcombined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction 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 onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices 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. TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. 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 Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five(5) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN‐00341]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) on Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Deconstruction of Existing Medical Office Buildings, and Construction of a New Six‐Story Mixed‐ Use Building with 66 Residential Rental Units, Approximately 9,100 Square Feet of Office, and a Two Level Below‐Grade Parking Garage. CEQA Status: Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024 and Ending on May 17, 2024. Zoning District: RM‐20 (Multi‐ Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. 6:10 PM – 8:10 PM 3.Recommendation on an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (Chapter 18.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code), Implementing Program 3.4E of the Housing Element. CEQA Status: The Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), considered by the City Council on April 15, 2024, analyzed potential environmental impacts of the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element including Program 3.4E. 8:10 PM – 9:40 PM 4.Update Planning and Transportation Commission Procedural Rules 9:40 PM – 10:00 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutes of January 29, 2025 6.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutes of February 12, 2025 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT OTHER INFORMATION Public Comments PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, 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 Commission, 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 Commission. 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: 916 4155 9499   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@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, March 12, 2025Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPlanning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to ten(10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree notto speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for allcombined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction 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 onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices 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 notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. 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 Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five(5) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN‐00341]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) on Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Deconstruction of Existing Medical Office Buildings, and Construction of a New Six‐Story Mixed‐ Use Building with 66 Residential Rental Units, Approximately 9,100 Square Feet of Office, and a Two Level Below‐Grade Parking Garage. CEQA Status: Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024 and Ending on May 17, 2024. Zoning District: RM‐20 (Multi‐ Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. 6:10 PM – 8:10 PM 3.Recommendation on an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (Chapter 18.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code), Implementing Program 3.4E of the Housing Element. CEQA Status: The Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), considered by the City Council on April 15, 2024, analyzed potential environmental impacts of the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element including Program 3.4E. 8:10 PM – 9:40 PM 4.Update Planning and Transportation Commission Procedural Rules 9:40 PM – 10:00 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutes of January 29, 2025 6.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutes of February 12, 2025 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT OTHER INFORMATION Public Comments PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, 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 Commission, 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 Commission. 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: 916 4155 9499   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@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, March 12, 2025Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPlanning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to ten(10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree notto speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for allcombined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction 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 onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices 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 notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATESListed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while themeeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items maybe heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to bestmanage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and AssignmentsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others:Five(5) minutes per speaker.2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN‐00341]:Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Community/PlannedHome Zoning (PC/PHZ) on Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Deconstruction of Existing Medical Office Buildings,and Construction of a New Six‐Story Mixed‐ Use Building with 66 Residential RentalUnits, Approximately 9,100 Square Feet of Office, and a Two Level Below‐Grade ParkingGarage. CEQA Status: Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public ReviewBeginning on April 2, 2024 and Ending on May 17, 2024. Zoning District: RM‐20 (Multi‐Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, atEmily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org.6:10 PM – 8:10 PM3.Recommendation on an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (Chapter18.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code), Implementing Program 3.4E of the HousingElement. CEQA Status: The Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental ImpactReport (EIR), considered by the City Council on April 15, 2024, analyzed potentialenvironmental impacts of the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element including Program 3.4E.8:10 PM – 9:40 PM4.Update Planning and Transportation Commission Procedural Rules9:40 PM – 10:00 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutes of January 29, 2025 6.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutes of February 12, 2025 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT OTHER INFORMATION Public Comments PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, 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 Commission, 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 Commission. 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: 916 4155 9499   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@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, March 12, 2025Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMPlanning and Transportation Commission meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Commission and availablefor inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you arereferencing in your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to ten(10) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree notto speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for allcombined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction 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 onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices 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 notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.TIME ESTIMATESListed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while themeeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items maybe heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to bestmanage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and AssignmentsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others:Five(5) minutes per speaker.2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN‐00341]:Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Community/PlannedHome Zoning (PC/PHZ) on Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Deconstruction of Existing Medical Office Buildings,and Construction of a New Six‐Story Mixed‐ Use Building with 66 Residential RentalUnits, Approximately 9,100 Square Feet of Office, and a Two Level Below‐Grade ParkingGarage. CEQA Status: Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public ReviewBeginning on April 2, 2024 and Ending on May 17, 2024. Zoning District: RM‐20 (Multi‐Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, atEmily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org.6:10 PM – 8:10 PM3.Recommendation on an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (Chapter18.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code), Implementing Program 3.4E of the HousingElement. CEQA Status: The Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental ImpactReport (EIR), considered by the City Council on April 15, 2024, analyzed potentialenvironmental impacts of the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element including Program 3.4E.8:10 PM – 9:40 PM4.Update Planning and Transportation Commission Procedural Rules9:40 PM – 10:00 PMAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutesof January 29, 20256.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutesof February 12, 2025COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s).ADJOURNMENTOTHER INFORMATION Public Comments PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. W r i t t e n   p u b l i c   c o m m e n t s  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, 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 Commission, 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 Commission. 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: 916 4155 9499   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@cityofpaloalto.org. 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 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: March 12, 2025 Report #: 2502-4190 TITLE Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND This document includes the following items: Upcoming PTC Agenda Items PTC Meeting Schedule PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments) Commissioners are encouraged to contact Veronica Dao (Veronica.Dao@CityofPaloAlto.org) to notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the availability of a PTC quorum. PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasijudicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council agendas (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/City-Council/Council-Agendas-Minutes) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are available online at https://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city- of-palo-alto/boards-and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission. Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 UPCOMING PTC ITEMS March 26, 2025 Parking Programs Update South El Camino Real Retail Nodes April 9, 2025 Crescent Park Traffic Calming ADU Ordinance Update ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2025 PTC Schedule & Assignments AUTHOR/TITLE: Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 7     Planning & Transportation Commission 2025 Meeting Schedule 2025 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/8/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 1/15/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Special 1/29/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 2/12/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 2/26/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Templeton 3/12/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 3/26/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 4/9/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 4/30/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 5/14/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 5/28/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/11/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/25/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 7/9/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 7/30/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 8/13/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 8/27/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/10/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Hechtman 9/24/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/8/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/29/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/12/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/26/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 12/10/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 12/31/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 2025 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Bryna Chang Bart Hechtman Allen Akin Doria Summa Doria Summa Cari Templeton Bart Hechtman Forest Peterson Cari Templeton Kevin Ji Bryna Chang Todd James July August September October November December Council Summer Break Allen Akin Forest Peterson Kevin Ji Bryna Chang Todd James Allen Akin Forest Peterson Cari Templeton Bart Hechtman Kevin Ji Item 1 Attachment A PTC 2025 Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 8     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 15 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: March 12, 2025 Report #: 2411-3803 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN-00341]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) on Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Deconstruction of Existing Medical Office Buildings, and Construction of a New Six-Story Mixed- Use Building with 66 Residential Rental Units, Approximately 9,100 Square Feet of Office, and a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. CEQA Status: Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024 and Ending on May 17, 2024. Zoning District: RM- 20 (Multi-Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following actions: 1. Consider the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and 2. Recommend Council approve the proposed project via adoption of the following: a. Resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element to modify the allowable uses in the Multiple Family Land Use Designation; b. PC/PHZ Ordinance describing the development plan, allowed uses, and public benefits; and c. Record of Land Use Action with approval findings and conditions of approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant proposes to deconstruct two existing medical office buildings (9,216 square feet) at 511 Byron Street and 680 University and construct a new six-story mixed-use building with 66 multi-family residential rental units and 9,115 square feet of office space, plus ground floor resident common space, an office lobby, and a fitness area for residents and office tenants. In order to proceed with this project the applicant requests approval of the following actions: Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 9     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 15 1. Rezone three existing parcels (511 Byron Street, 660 University Avenue, and 680 University Avenue/500 Middlefield Road) from RM-20 to Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.38 (Planning Community Zoning); and 2. Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan to allow office use in the Multiple-Family Land Use Designation in limited circumstances as part of a housing development project. The parcels would be merged under a separate application. The proposed ordinance includes a reduction in the required parking (30% less than would otherwise be required in accordance with the municipal code) in conjunction with implementation of a proposed TDM plan. The City and the public have reviewed multiple versions of the proposed project in various hearings, as described in the Background section below. The most recent Architectural Review Board (ARB) hearing on this project was on December 5, 2024. The ARB recommended approval of the project. The design has been modified since the previous PTC hearing to increase the unit count from 63 to 66 units, to modify the mix of units and their affordability level, and to maintain the full 24-foot special setback on Middlefield Road above grade. Some ARB members raised concerns about the usability of the special setback with the parking below it. It is possible, but this must be specifically engineered. On May 14, 2024, the applicant submitted an SB 330 pre-application for an alternative project on this site in accordance with Builder’s Remedy, followed by a formal application on September 3, 2024. The applicant elected to continue to pursue the PHZ project as the primary application, while putting the Builder’s Remedy application on hold. If the application is not approved, the applicant has the option of reverting to the Builder’s Remedy application, which includes a proposed 88-unit development with the same amount of office in a six-story building and without maintaining the special setback. A Draft Environmental Impact Report circulated for a 45-day review period beginning on April 2, 2024 and ending on May 17, 2024. The Draft EIR found there are no significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. A response to comments and Final EIR maintained there are no significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the revisions made to the design. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:Shachi Bahl, DMD Architect:Amanda Borden, KSH Architects Representative:Lund Smith, Smith Development Legal Counsel:N/A Property Information Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 10     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 15 Address:511 Byron Street, 660 University Avenue, 680 University Avenue, 500 Middlefield Road; Lots to be combined and use 660 University Avenue Neighborhood:Downtown/University South Lot Dimensions & Area:100 feet by 225 feet 2 inches, 22,526 square feet 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):None, Department of Parks and Recreation form has been completed Flood Zone: AH46.9 Existing Improvement(s):511 Byron Street: 5,260 square feet, two-story, built 1950 680 University Avenue: 3,955 square feet, 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) Special Setbacks:24 feet along Middlefield Road. Encroachments proposed. Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 11     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 15 Comp. Plan Designation:MF 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) 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 PC 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. HRB:None ARB:December 1, 2022, to review the plans and continued the project to a date uncertain.3 April 18, 2024,4 to review the plans and recommended the plans be approved by Council, and recommended Ad Hoc items to be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. December 5, 2024,5 to recommend approval of the revised plans. 1 October 25, 2021, Council Report: bit.ly/3NTpv3J 2 November 16, 2022, PTC Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=15500 3 December 1, 2022, ARB Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=15521 4 April 18, 2024, ARB Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=13830 5 December 5, 2024, ARB Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13940 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 15 Project Review Timeline As summarized above, City Council initially held a prescreening to review a conceptual plan for the proposed project at this site on October 25, 2021. The applicant submitted a formal application for a substantially similar project on December 21, 2021. Following the staff review, the applicant resubmitted plans in May 2022 and again in August 2022 responding to various department comments. PTC reviewed the project on November 16, 2022, and recommended that the project be forwarded to the ARB for review in accordance with the PC rezoning process. On December 1, 2022, the ARB held a hearing to provide initial comments on the plans. Following this hearing, the applicant made modifications to the project design, including changing the parking garage driveway entry from Middlefield Road to Byron Street. Additional revisions were made in response to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) suspension of processing for all LOMR-F (Letter of Map Revisions based on fill) applications. The project modifications resulted in a revised transportation analysis and an updated arborist report, which were then incorporated into the Draft EIR prior to publication. The ARB reviewed the revised project on April 18, 2024, during the Draft EIR circulation period and recommended Council approve the project with conditions. Following this ARB hearing, the applicant requested to pull this item from the scheduled PTC hearing on June 12, 2024, in order to propose a further revised design, which included two additional stories in height among other modifications. The applicant submitted the further revised design on October 1, 2024. On December 5, 2024, the ARB reviewed the revised design and unanimously recommended approval to Council. Initial PTC Review Comments PTC reviewed the project on November 16, 2022, and recommended that the project be forwarded to the ARB for review in accordance with the PC rezoning process. The PTC provided the following feedback on the conceptual plans: •Some commissioners noted that the below market rate (BMR) units are the same rent regardless of size, which may make the smaller units less desirable; •Suggested increased setbacks, particularly on the Middlefield Special Setback side; •Suggested increasing the parking; and •Expressed split opinions regarding the proposed office use, height, and overall size. ARB Review Comments Following the latest voluntary redesign, the ARB unanimously recommended approval of the project to Council with a list of items that they recommended return to an ARB Ad Hoc Committee as a condition of approval, two additional conditions of approval, and additional feedback for consideration. Recommended item to return to an ARB Ad Hoc included: Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 15 1. Ensure the approved plans do not further increase activity in the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) more 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, reduce the LRV level of the white paint finish to 83 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. Conditions of approval to: 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 three feet of soil depth. The Ad Hoc item to reduce the LRV level of the white paint finish to 83 or lower has been incorporated in the plans. The two conditions of approval have been incorporated into the draft RLUA (Attachment D, Conditions 13, and 14). Some ARB members provided the following additional feedback that the PTC may consider: •They expressed support for Conditions #40-41, Urban Forestry’s requirement to put a 200% tree value bond on the protected Oak tree. •Noted that the sixth-floor office deck is less impactful to neighbors than the previous residential roof deck. •Noted that the six-story massing is appropriate for a “gateway” project, even with the daylight plane protrusion. Additionally, a sample of bird safe glass has been provided by the applicant, but the plans do not specify that that is the proposed material. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project includes deconstruction of the existing medical office buildings (9,216 square feet of medical office use) and rezoning of three existing parcels (511 Byron Street, 660 University Avenue, and 680 University Avenue/500 Middlefield Road) from RM-20 to “Planned Home Zone” (PHZ). The parcels would be merged under a separate subdivision map process, and the resulting parcel would be redeveloped, providing a new six-story mixed-use building with 10,583 square feet of ground floor common space, 66 multiple-family residential units, and Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 15 9,115 square feet of office space. The office space is primarily located on the sixth floor, with a small ground floor lobby. The project also includes a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow office use in the Multiple-Family Land Use Designation in limited circumstances (Attachment B). As of October 2024, the project was modified to move the proposed building out of the Middlefield Special Setback above grade. As a result, the project provides more one- to two- bedroom units and fewer studios as well as increases the overall unit count from 63 to 66 units. The project also adjusts the mix of affordability levels as detailed below. 2022 Proposal 2024 Proposal Studio One bed Two bed Total Studio One bed Two bed Total Extremely- Low 0 2 1 3 Very-Low 4 4 2 1 3 Low 4 4 2 2 4 Mod 4 1 5 2 2 4 Market 36 11 3 28 19 5 52 Total 48 12 3 63 36 24 6 66 The building has increased from four stories to six. It also now includes the fitness/amenity space, as additional non-residential floor area was required to meet FEMA requirements. The applicant intends to submit a separate application for a Parcel Map to merge the lots and to create a vertical condominium subdivision of the office space from the residential space. The office has been relocated from the ground level to the sixth level, leaving space on the ground floor for a lobby to serve both the sixth-floor office use and the residential amenities, including but not limited to a fitness room for resident use. Parking spaces for both uses would be provided in a two-story below-grade parking garage. Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to PTC purview: •Planned Community (PC/PHZ): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.38. Planned Community is intended to accommodate all types of developments, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The planned community district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments that are of substantial public benefit and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The application requires initial review by the Planning and Transportation Commission, followed by review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Upon recommendation from the ARB, the draft ordinance for the project is presented along with the development plan to the Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 15 Planning and Transportation Commission for recommendation to the City Council for final action. •Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The steps for processing a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment are set forth in PAMC 19.04. The PTC considers the amendment and forwards its recommendation to the City Council for final action. This is done in parallel with the PC application. ANALYSIS Neighborhood Setting and Character The proposed project site is located at the northern end of Downtown, on the east side of University Avenue, and on the block frontage between Byron Street and Middlefield Road. The site faces Lytton Gardens senior apartments across University Avenue (on the west side) and is in a neighborhood with a mix of one- and two-story office buildings, single-family houses (some of which have been converted to office use), as well as The Hamilton senior condominiums, and the First United Methodist Church (on Hamilton Ave). Residents colloquially refer to the area as “Senior Corner” due to the two large senior residences. The two large senior apartment complexes are zoned PC and have residential densities of 104.3 and 30.5 du/ac, respectively. The other surrounding offices and houses are located on parcels zoned RM-20, -30, or -40. The office uses in the RM zones are considered “grandfathered” under PAMC 18.13.070 and are out of compliance with the Multiple Family Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. This property is in Flood Zone AH46.9. This means the finished floor of the building must be at an elevation at least 47.9 feet above sea level to meet FEMA and local regulations. The proposed finished floor height is 48.16 feet. The surrounding grade is approximately 45-45.5 feet around the site, so the building will be on a foundation that is approximately three feet taller than the adjacent sidewalk. The design has incorporated built-in planters, as well as stairs and ramps where appropriate. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines6 The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Multiple-Family Residential, which prescribes a density range of eight to 40 dwelling units per acre, with higher densities allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, and services and facilities are available. The project has a density of 132 dwelling units per acre, and the Downtown location is sufficient to support this density. Further analysis is provided in the Findings (Attachment D). This project is within the boundaries of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (Guidelines), as a part of the “Residential Edge” and the Middlefield Road entrance to Downtown. The Guidelines for this area focus on sidewalk and landscaping design. The project includes retention, or replacement where needed, of existing street trees and includes landscape planters along the building within the street side setback. The Guidelines set forth a preference 6 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 15 for a double row of street trees in this location. However, the landscape planters will be elevated compared to groundcover landscaping and would not provide sufficient room for tree plantings. The project’s sidewalk paving will be consistent with the Guidelines. The project site is designated Multiple-family. The Multiple-family land use designation states: The permitted number of housing units will vary by area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping and environmental problems. Net densities will range from 8 to 40 units and 8 to 90 persons per acre. Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single-family residential areas. Densities higher than what is permitted may be allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Population densities will range up to 2.25 persons per unit by 2030. The project is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to allow existing nonconforming commercial square footage to be replaced. The Resolution in Attachment B would allow for existing commercial square footage to be replaced on sites zoned planned community when part of a housing development project. The project would removed 9,216 sf of medical office use and proposes to replace 9,115 sf of office as part of the proposed mixed- use housing development project. The proposed language to be added to this land use designation is included in underline. Zoning Compliance7 As a PHZ project, the project proposes to deviate from the RM-20 Zoning Development Standards and Parking Standards in the following ways: •Proposed land use (allowing non-conforming office to remain as a compliant use); •Encroachment into the setbacks as follows: o 15-foot, 8-inch setback for stairs along Middlefield Road where a 24-foot Special Setback is required. The building is setback 24 feet, however the stairs to the garage and a raised patio area encroach to the 15 feet, 8 inches. o Six-foot setback along University Avenue where 16 feet is required. o 10-foot setback along Byron Street where 16 feet is required. The stairs to the garage are placed at the property line. o No setbacks proposed for the basement, which extends to all property lines, with the exception that the basement respects the neighboring Oak tree TPZ. •Height (73 feet, 6 inches where 30 feet is allowed); •Lot Coverage (53.5% where 35% is allowed); •Floor Area (2.96:1 where 0.5:1 is allowed); •Reduced Useable Common Open Space (735 square feet where 4,950 square feet is required; 7 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 10 of 15 o (Note, 6,137 square feet of private open space is provided where 3,300 square feet is required. However, this is not distributed equally to all units, and the ARB recommended removal of some of these balconies as they are in the TPZ). •No off-street residential loading space; •Daylight plane encroachment adjacent to the 517 Byron dental office and 524 Middlefield single-family house; and •A TDM plan is proposed to allow a 30% reduction in the number of parking spaces provided, when typically only a 20% reduction is allowed. In the RM-20 zoning district, office is a grandfathered use but would not normally be allowed to be redeveloped in a manner that changes the building footprint. As a part of the rezoning process, the applicant is proposing that office be considered a permitted use. Staff recommends the exception be limited to medical office. Height The building would have a height of 73 feet and 6 inches, with rooftop elevators extending the height to 81 feet and 11 inches, where the typical maximum building height is 30 feet. This property is in a flood zone, with the base flood elevation 1 foot, 9.5 inches above existing grade. The proposed height accommodates non-residential plate heights of 13 feet, 6 inches to 14 feet, and residential plate heights varying from 9 feet, 9 inches to 12 feet, 3 inches. While this is significantly taller than what is allowed in the RM-20 zone, it is not out of scale within the surrounding context of PC properties. Lytton Gardens is four stories, with a maximum height of 40 feet, plus rooftop equipment. The Hamilton is four stories, with a maximum height of 44 feet, plus rooftop equipment. The building is stepped back in height where the property abuts a single-family house. However, the upper two stories protrude significantly into the required RM-20 daylight plane. The project exceeds the allowable lot coverage and floor area. However, these increases are necessary to facilitate the high-density housing project. In the prior ARB and PTC meetings, the project received positive feedback for its overall size as a “gateway” project for Downtown. Open Space The project as currently proposed has limited residential open space, as the roof deck was eliminated. The plans provide balconies (approximately 60 square feet each) for most units. Two of the units have balconies which are 484 square feet and 735 square feet. Both of these larger balconies face towards the single-family neighbor, however they are set far enough back from the property line that this is not considered a privacy concern. Additionally, the ARB recommended removal of the nine balconies proposed within the canopy of the protected Oak tree. However, this modification would further reduce useable open space and make the project non-complying for private open space where it currently complies with the private open space requirement. Moreover, the arborist report provides measures to ensure protection of the Oak tree while maintaining these balconies. Therefore, staff requests that PTC provide Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2. Page 11 of 15 specific feedback on whether the balconies should be removed as part of its review of the plans and related PC Ordinance. Special Setbacks At the initial PTC meeting on November 16, 2022, the PTC expressed concern over the encroachment into the 24-foot Special Setback along Middlefield Road. The required and proposed setbacks are reflected in the zoning consistency analysis in Attachment E. While these setbacks are less than standard, the urban Downtown neighborhood and ground floor office use can be taken into consideration in evaluation of the requested modifications proposed through the PC rezoning. The applicant has prepared a contextual analysis of setbacks on Middlefield Road and University Avenue (Attachment H, plan pages A1.1B and A1.1C). Although the Special Setback along Middlefield Road is 24 feet, most buildings are setback 15-22 feet, and some have a setback of as little as 7-12 feet. No Variances were found for these addresses, the buildings appear to pre-date the Special Setback requirement. On University Avenue, the proposed setback of 6 feet is less than the existing building’s 12-foot setback. Additionally, one block away beginning at Webster Street and heading southwest, the Downtown properties do not require any front setback. As proposed, the project’s stair access to the garage, raised planters, as well as portions of the underground garage are within the setback areas on all street sides of the building. This is typically not allowed by the RM-20 zoning. Along the interior property line, the minimum setback is two feet two inches for the garage ramps, and approximately 26 feet for the building above grade. It is as large at 30 feet adjacent to the Oak tree. The increased interior setback is beneficial to protect the neighboring Oak tree, and to provide privacy separation to the adjacent structures. The context of the Special Setback along Middlefield Road is notably different than other locations. For the recently approved 800 San Antonio Road project, there was support from City staff, ARB, PTC, Council, and the community to maintain the special setback in preparation for a future San Antonio Road plan that could result in future multi-modal improvements along the corridor. The San Antonio Special Setback is also currently met by most existing properties. In contrast, there are many existing buildings encroaching into the Middlefield Road Special Setback, and there are no Council or PTC goals or priorities that propose to utilize the special setback. Nevertheless, given that the design has been revised with the specific intent of maintaining more of the special setback, staff recommends that the PTC consider whether an easement over the proposed setback area be requested as a public benefit to provide more flexibility for future multi-modal improvements. Public Benefit Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 2. Page 12 of 15 The PHZ process offers developers the option to provide affordable units as the “public benefit” of a PC/PHZ project, as described in the June 23, 2020 Council Staff Report.8 In this report, Option #2 is a weighted calculation to incentivize developers to provide very low- and low income units, rather than the minimum moderate units required. Table 1 below calculates weighted values for the BMR units provided, equivalent to 28.2%. This is in excess of the minimum 20% required for a PHZ project. It is important to note the referenced report did not discuss Extremely-Low Income unit weights. Therefore Staff has weighted them the same as Very-low Income for the purpose of this report. At the prior PTC hearing, commissioners discussed how rental prices were calculated and the fact that affordable rent is determined based on the renter’s income level and household size (which factors in unit bedroom count) and not based on the square footage of the units. This has been raised as a topic of debate for other projects as well. However, the calculation method is standardized by the State, and it is not within the purview of the PTC to modify these calculations. 660 University Below Market Rate Unit Calculation Income Level Area Median Income Weighted Value Number of Units % of Actual Units Weighted % Extremely- low Income 16-30%1.9 3 4.5%9% Very-low Income 31-50%1.9 3 4.5%9% Low Income 51-80%1.2 4 6.1%7%Below Market Rate Units Moderate Income 81-120%0.6 4 6.1%4% Typical Units Above Moderate & Market Rate 121% +0 52 Total 66 21.2%28.2% Overall, this project will provide necessary rental housing units, on a Housing Element Inventory Site with an anticipated capacity of 65 units. At the prior PTC hearing it was noted that 63 units 8 Link to the June 23, 2020 City Council Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports- cmrs/year-archive/2020/id-10715.pdf Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 2. Page 13 of 15 is approximately 1% of Palo Alto’s RHNA allocation. It will help the City work towards our RHNA housing goals and contribute as a gateway to the Downtown area. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The proposed project requests a 30% parking reduction, providing 78 spaces when 111 is required. A transportation demand management (TDM) plan has been prepared (a link to this document is included in Attachment H). Some of the TDM policies include: •Transit subsidies are made available to all employees; •Carpool/vanpool spaces for the office use; •An information kiosk and webpages for multi-modal transportation options including clipper card discounts for low-income residents; and •On-site bike repair tools for residents. The TDM plan requires coordinators for both the office and residential components of the building, as well as annual user surveys, and annual monitoring reports submitted to the Office of Transportation. The project is located within walking distance of Downtown businesses; is 0.6 miles from the Caltrain station; and is near to a SamTrans bus stop at University Avenue and Middlefield Road and a VTA bus stop at Channing Avenue and Middlefield Road. This project is not located along a Safe Route to School, but future residents could easily access Webster Street, which is a Safe Route to School for Addison Elementary School and Greene Middle School. Tree Protection Protecting the existing 50-inch Coast Live Oak tree is considered a key part of this project. Three arborist reports have been prepared for this project, including a LIDAR root scan. The plans maintain a minimum distance of 30 feet from the tree, though the TPZ for this tree is 41 feet Per Urban Forestry review, the expected impacts are within acceptable parameters of industry standards, provided that all mitigation measures in the EIR’s Arborist Report are followed. Additionally, Urban Forestry has included a Condition of Approval for a security bond for the tree, to further hold the applicant accountable for protecting the tree. This security bond, put in place at the time of building permits, will be placed on the tree for 200% of the appraised replacement value of the tree as specified in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. This is also subject to a three-year monitoring period after construction is completed. See the Draft RLUA Conditions #40-41 for full text of these conditions. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Processing of this application has no fiscal impact as applicants are responsible for staff and consultant costs through applicable fees through the deposit-based cost recovery program. This project is also subject to Development Impact Fees, currently estimated at $2,824,179.60 plus the Public Art fee. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 21     Item No. 2. Page 14 of 15 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 February 21, 2025, which is 20 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 26, 2025, which is 14 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Neighbors at The Hamilton and the surrounding neighborhood have been involved in this process, primarily through emails from attorneys Leigh Prince and Christopher Ream. Concerns are primarily regarding traffic, circulation, and the TDM plan; noise, disruption to existing neighbors, and protection of the neighboring Oak tree. Staff also received letters of support of the project. All comment letters are included in Attachment G. Staff has also responded to questions regarding application processing, hearing dates, and comparing the PHZ project and process to the Builder’s Remedy project and process. 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. Specifically, a Draft Environmental Impact Report is in circulation for a 45-day review period beginning on April 2, 2024, and ending on May 17, 2024. The Draft EIR found there are no significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. Any potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project can be mitigated as further discussed in the document, see Attachment H. A response to comments and Final EIR has been prepared, including consideration of the revisions made to the design. No new or more significant impacts were identified in this analysis, and therefore a revised Draft EIR is not required. See Attachment H. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Planning and Transportation Commission 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: Draft Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan Attachment C: Draft PC Ordinance Attachment D: Draft Record of Land Use Action Attachment E: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment F: Applicant’s Program Statement and Development Schedule Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 22     Item No. 2. Page 15 of 15 Attachment G: Public Comments Attachment H: Link to Environmental Documents, Project Plans, and TDM Plan AUTHOR/TITLE: Report Author & Contact Information PTC9 Liaison & Contact Information Emily Kallas, AICP, Senior Planner Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2191 emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org jennifer.armer@cityofpaloalto.org 9 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: ptc@cityofpaloalto.org Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 23     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' 578 642-652630-640 600-610 415 405 434 765 750-798 482 486 490 483 547 526 649 625523 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 UNI 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 ALocation Map 660 University CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CALIFORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Altoekallas, 2024-03-21 09:04:52Attachment A. Location Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 2 Attachment A Location Map     Packet Pg. 24     4 7 2 1 *Not Yet Adopted* Resolution No. ____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element Text to Amend the Description of the Multiple Family Land Use Designation. R E C I T A L S A. On December 21, 2021, Architect Amanda Borden, on behalf of Smith Properties and Palo Alto Dental Research A Corp (“Applicant”) submitted an application for Rezoning to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) and Major Architectural Review to redevelop the 511 Byron Street – 680 University Avenue project site with 63 rental residential units and 9,115 sf of office space (the “660 University Project”). B. The project requires an amendment to the description of the Multiple Family Land Use Designation in the Land Use and Community Design Element of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to permit the retention of existing commercial uses on the project site. C. Whereas the Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing on June 12, 2024, recommended that the City Council amend the text of the Land Use and Community Design Element of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth below. D. Whereas the City Council considered said recommendation after a duly noticed public hearing held on ___________, 2024 and now desires to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Design Element as set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region would be furthered by a Text Amendment to the Land Use and Community Design Element. SECTION 2. The proposed Land Use and Community Design Text Amendments is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: Policy L-1.1: Maintain and prioritize Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. The proposed amendment would allow for expansion of allowable land uses, to maintain the existing office land use and facilitate construction of 63 new rental apartment units. Item 2 Attachment B Draft Reso Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment     Packet Pg. 25     4 7 2 1 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. The proposed amendments would allow for implementation of the PC Ordinance, which provides a mix of new housing, amenity space, and retention of commercial (medical office) uses. Policy L-1.4: Commit to creating an inventory of below market rate housing for purchase and rental. Work with neighbors, neighborhood associations, property owners and developers to identify barriers to infill development of below market rate and more affordable market rate housing and to remove these barriers, as appropriate. Work with these same stakeholders to identify sites and facilitate opportunities for below market rate housing and housing that is affordable. The proposed amendments would allow for implementation of the PC Ordinance, which includes 13 below market rate rental units. Policy L-1.5: Regulate land uses in Palo Alto according to the land use definitions in this Element and Map L-6 The proposed amendments ensure compliance with this policy and modify the land use map to align with past, current, and future uses of the site in order to address current inconsistencies between the map and existing uses and to facilitate housing and office as the future use on a portion of the site Policy L-1.6: Encourage land uses that address the needs of the community and manage change and development to benefit the community. The proposed amendments provide a plan for the site that takes into consideration the needs of the community for maintaining existing medical office in the vicinity of senior housing facilities; while providing a solution that the property owner is amenable to. 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. The amendments allow for implementation of the PC ordinance. The PC ordinance would add housing to the walkable downtown area, provide jobs in the office space that are walkable from downtown residents, and is consistent with the City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Policy L-2.6: Create opportunities for new mixed-use development consisting of housing and retail. The comprehensive plan amendment would allow for a mix of uses on a site where currently only residential uses are allowed. Item 2 Attachment B Draft Reso Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment     Packet Pg. 26     4 7 2 1 SECTION 3. The City Council hereby amends the description of the Multiple-Family Land Use Designation in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element to read as follows: Multiple-Family Residential: The permitted number of housing units will vary by area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping and environmental problems. Net densities will range from 8 to 40 units and 8 to 90 persons per acre. Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single-family residential areas. Densities higher than what is permitted may be allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Population densities will range up to 2.25 persons per unit by 2030. As part of a Planned Community zone, or in accordance with retail preservation requirements, existing commercial square footage may be maintained or rebuilt, as part of a housing development project. SECTION 4. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the environmental impacts of this Resolution were evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report for the 660 University Project, which the Council considered and adopted, together with the related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) on________, 2024. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor __________________________ __________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Assistant City Attorney City Manager Item 2 Attachment B Draft Reso Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment     Packet Pg. 27     *NOT YET APPROVED* 1 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Located at 511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd from RM-20 Low Density Multiple-Family Residential (RM-20) to Planned Community (PC) The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. (a) On December 21, 2021, Lund Smith of Smith Development (“Applicant”) submitted an application for Rezoning to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) to deconstruct two existing medical office buildings (9,216 square feet) and redevelop the site at 511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd (the “Subject Property,” more particularly described in Exhibit A) with a mixed use development including 9,115 square feet of office space and 66 multi-family residential units, fourteen of which would be below market rate (the “Project”). The applicant proposes to merge the three existing lots at the Subject Property through a separate application. (b) Following Staff Review, the Planning and Transportation Commission (“PTC” or “Commission”) reviewed the project on November 16, 2022 and forwarded the project to the Architectural Review Board. (c) The Architectural Review Board (“ARB” or “Board”) initially reviewed the project on December 1, 2022 and, following applicant modifications, reviewed the project again on April 18, 2024 and recommended approval of the project to the City Council. (d) Following the ARB’s April 2024 recommendation, the applicant again made initiated modifications to the plans. The ARB reviewed further revised plans on December 5, 2024 and recommended approval of the project to the City Council. (e) The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the revised project on March 12, 2025; and recommended approval of the project to the City Council. (f) Approval of the Planned Community Project would constitute a project under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with related state and local implementation guidelines promulgated thereunder (“CEQA”). (g) The City is the Lead Agency pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067 as it has the principal responsibility to approve and regulate the Planned Community Project. Item 2 Attachment C Draft 660 University PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 28     *NOT YET APPROVED* 2 (h) The City, in compliance with CEQA, prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review from April 2, 2024 to May 17, 2024. The Draft EIR found there are no significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. A response to comments and Final EIR maintained there are no significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the revisions made to the design. (i) The Council is the decision-making body for approval of the Planned Community Project. (j) The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. Specifically, the project proposes mixed use development with a XXX FAR and a 73.6 foot height, setbacks ranging from zero to sixteen feet, reduced open space and a parking reduction in excess of what is permitted by code. The existing RM-20 zoning does not allow the proposed commercial use and no other existing zoning district would permit the project as proposed. In order to provide the floor area, lot coverage, setbacks, and other standards that allow for development of the project as proposed, a planned community rezoning is necessary. (k) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts, as set forth in Section 6 of this ordinance. (l) The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive plan, as amended, and compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity, as set forth in the Record of Land Use Action (Exhibit B) accompanying this ordinance. SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the “Zoning Map,” is hereby amended by changing the zoning of Subject Property from Low Density Multiple-Family Residential (RM-20) to “Planned Community Zone (PC) _____”. SECTION 3. Project Description. The Project as a whole is described in the Development Plan, titled “660 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA” and uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on March 3, 2025. With respect to the Subject Property, the project comprises the uses included in this Ordinance, depicted on the Development Plans, incorporated by reference, including the following components: (a) Redevelopment of the Subject Property, as described in more detail in the Development Plan, including deconstruction of two existing medical office buildings, and construction of a new six-story mixed- use building with 66 residential rental units, approximately 9,100 square feet of Item 2 Attachment C Draft 660 University PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 29     *NOT YET APPROVED* 3 office, and a two level below-grade parking garage. Fourteen of the proposed residential units will be deed restricted to be rented at below market rates as follows: Studio Unit One Bedroom Two Bedroom Extremely Low Income 2 1 Very Low Income 2 1 Low Income 2 2 Moderate Income 2 2 Totals 8 5 1 (b) Merger of three existing lots through a separate application. SECTION 4. Land Uses (a) The following land uses shall be permitted: (1) Multi-family residential; (2) Up to 9,115 square feet of office, as depicted in the project plans; (3) Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses. SECTION 5. Site Development Regulations and Development Schedule (a) Development Standards: Development standards for the Subject Property shall be those conforming to the Development Plans. (b) Parking and Loading Requirements: The Owner shall provide parking and loading as set forth in the Development Plan. Specifically, the Owner shall provide 78 parking spaces. (c) Modifications to the Development Plan, Land Uses and Site Development Regulations: Item 2 Attachment C Draft 660 University PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 30     *NOT YET APPROVED* 4 Once the project has been constructed consistent with the approved Development Plan, any modifications to the exterior design of the Development Plan or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or the site development regulations contained in Section 5 (a) – (b) above shall require an amendment to this Planned Community zone. Any use not specifically permitted by this ordinance shall require an amendment to the PC ordinance, as required by Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.38.050. (g) Development Schedule: The project is required to include a Development Schedule pursuant to PAMC §18.38.100. The applicant has indicated that development is anticipated to begin in October 2026 and conclude in September 2027. Notwithstanding the above, construction of the project shall commence within two years of the effective date of this ordinance. Prior to expiration of this timeline, the Owner may seek a one year extension from the Director of Planning and Development Services. All construction and development of the project shall be complete within 3 years of the start of construction. SECTION 6. Public Benefits. (a) Public Benefits Development of the Project Site under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. The public benefit provided by the Project is fourteen dwelling units at below market rates as further described in Section 3. This exceeds the base requirement in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.65. SECTION 7. Environmental Review The City, in compliance with CEQA, prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review from April 2, 2024 to May 17, 2024. The Draft EIR found there are no significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. A response to comments and Final EIR maintained there are no significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the revisions made to the design. SECTION 8. Effective Date This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption (second reading). Item 2 Attachment C Draft 660 University PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 31     *NOT YET APPROVED* 5 INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: __________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Assistant City Attorney _________________________ Mayor _________________________ City Manager __________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services Item 2 Attachment C Draft 660 University PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 32     *NOT YET APPROVED* 6 Exhibit A Plat and Legal Description Item 2 Attachment C Draft 660 University PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 33     *NOT YET APPROVED* 7 Exhibit B Record of Land Use Action Item 2 Attachment C Draft 660 University PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 34     Page 1 of 17 6 2 2 7 APPROVAL NO. 2024-____ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 511 BYRON STREET, 660 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, 680 UNIVERSITY AVENUE/500 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND PLANNED COMMUNITY REZONING [FILE NO 21PLN-00341] On _______, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) approved a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment and Planned Community Rezoning, making the following findings, determinations, and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. A. On December 21, 2021 Architect Amanda Borden, on behalf of Smith Properties and Palo Alto Dental Research A Corp (“Applicant”) applied for a Planned Community Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to construct a new six-story mixed-use building with 66 multi-family residential units and 9,115 square feet of office space, plus ground floor resident common space, an office lobby, and a fitness area for residents and office tenants. The 66 units include 38 studios, 24 one-bedroom and six two-bedroom units (42,189 sf) and a two level below-grade parking garage. This project also includes a Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow Medical Office in to replace existing Medical Office abutting Middlefield Road in the Multiple Family Residential Land Use Designation. B. The project site consist of three existing parcels located at 511 Byron Street, 660 University Avenue, and 680 University-500 Middlefield (APNs 120-03-042, 120-03-043, 120-03-044) totaling 0.52 acres. Existing improvements include two existing medical office buildings totaling 9,216 sf, and associated parking. C. On October 25, 2021 Council conducted a prescreening review of the proposed legislative actions in accordance with PAMC 18.79 D. On November 16, 2022 the Planning and Transportation Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended that the applicant submit the proposed plans to the Architectural Review Board based on the conceptual design and proposed project in accordance with the Planned Community Rezoning process. After responding the ARB and PTC comments, the plans were resubmitted in October and December 2023, and February and May 2024. E. Following the Planning and Transportation Commission’s initial review, the Architectural Review Board held a duly noticed public hearing on December 1, 2022 to provide feedback and allow for public comment on the proposed project. On April 18, 2024 the ARB held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended approval of the proposed project. F. On October 1, 2024 the applicant submitted revised plans. On December 5, 2024, the ARB held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended approval of the revised plans. G. On March 12, 2025 PTC reviewed the project plans and the associated Planned Community Ordinance, and recommended approval. H. On _________, the City Council reviewed the request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Community rezoning. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to Item 2 Attachment D Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 35     Page 2 of 17 6 2 2 7 approve/adopt: •Resolution _______adopting the EIR; •Resolution _______amending the Comprehensive Plan Text; and •Ordinance________ amending the zoning of the proposed resulting parcel to Planned Community •This Record of Land Use Action I. This application is subject to the conditions set forth in Section 6 of this Record of Land Use Action. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project to provide an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of approving and constructing the Project. A Draft EIR was circulated for public review for a 45-day period from April 2, 2024, through May 17, 2024. A Final EIR was prepared to respond to comments and published on _______. The City Council certified and made related findings by Resolution No ________on ________, prior to approval of the decision that is the subject of this RLUA. All mitigation measures as stated in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The MMRP is included in Exhibit A of this Record of Land Use Action. SECTION 3. PLANNED COMMUNITY FINDINGS Finding #1: The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed project includes a density of units for the site that exceed what is allowed by the RM-20 zoning. It has street frontage on three sides, and a protected Oak tree overhanging the fourth side, which results in larger setbacks and a smaller buildable area than other (interior) lots of a similar size. Finding #2: Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the planning commission and city council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The primary public benefit for this project is additional housing units to assist the City in reaching their Regional Housing Needs Assessment goals. Under the RM-20 zoning, the maximum development potential of this property would be 10 units, but through this PC application, the project proposes 66 units. The project proposes 20% (14) of the units to be designated Below Market Rate, half of which are allocated to Extremely Low Income and Very Low Income households. Item 2 Attachment D Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 36     Page 3 of 17 6 2 2 7 Finding #3: The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: This project requires approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to maintain the proposed to remain medical office use. The project is otherwise compatible with the Comprehensive Plan as detailed further in Section 4 Finding #1 below. The proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, as it is primarily multiple-family housing and small offices. Additional care has been taken to ensure viability of the neighboring Oak tree. SECTION 4. 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 This project includes 14 BMR units, which is 20% of the 66 provided housing units. Item 2 Attachment D Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 37     Page 4 of 17 6 2 2 7 school district employees, as feasible. 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. 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: Item 2 Attachment D Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 38     Page 5 of 17 6 2 2 7 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.). 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. SECTION 5. 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. Item 2 Attachment D Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 39     Page 6 of 17 6 2 2 7 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 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. Item 2 Attachment D Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 40     Page 7 of 17 6 2 2 7 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 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 Item 2 Attachment D Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 41     Page 8 of 17 6 2 2 7 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. 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. Item 2 Attachment D Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 42     Page 9 of 17 6 2 2 7 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 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 Item 2 Attachment D Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 43     Page 10 of 17 6 2 2 7 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. 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 Item 2 Attachment D Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 44     Page 11 of 17 6 2 2 7 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. 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 Item 2 Attachment D Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 45     Page 12 of 17 6 2 2 7 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 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. Item 2 Attachment D Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 46     Page 13 of 17 6 2 2 7 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: 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 Item 2 Attachment D Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 47     Page 14 of 17 6 2 2 7 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. 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. Item 2 Attachment D Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 48     Page 15 of 17 6 2 2 7 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. 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 Item 2 Attachment D Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 49     Page 16 of 17 6 2 2 7 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. 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. Item 2 Attachment D Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 50     Page 17 of 17 6 2 2 7 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 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. Item 2 Attachment D Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 51     Page 18 of 17 6 2 2 7 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. 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. Item 2 Attachment D Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 52     Page 19 of 17 6 2 2 7 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. 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: Item 2 Attachment D Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 53     Page 20 of 17 6 2 2 7 ___________________________ ___________________________ 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 D Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 54     6 1 0 8 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 660 University Avenue, 21PLN-00341 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-20 DISTRICT) AND PROPOSED Regulation Required RM-20 ARB Recommended Plans New Proposed Minimum/ Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth 103 feet by 225 feet; 22,526 sf (0.52 acre) 103 feet by 225 feet; 22,526 sf (0.52 acre) Minimum Front Yard (Middlefield) 24 foot Special Setback along Middlefield Road 10 feet above grade 0 feet below grade 24 feet above grade 0 feet below grade Street Rear Yard (Byron) 16 feet 10 feet 0 feet below grade 10 feet 0 feet below grade Street Side Yard (University) 16 feet 6 feet 0 feet below grade 6 feet 0 feet below grade Interior Side Yard (for lots greater than 70 feet in width) 10 feet 19 feet 6 inches 2’2” for garage ramps 27 feet 6 inches 2’2” for garage ramps Max. Building Height 30 feet 50’8” at four story parapet 57’2” at roof deck 62’8” at elevator overrun 73’6” at six story parapet 82’ at elevator overrun Interior Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle Partial 4th floor encroachment Partial 4th floor – 6th floor encroachment Max. Site Coverage 35% (plus an additional 5% for covered patios or overhangs) (7,884 + 1,126 = 9,010 sf) 58% (13,071 sf)53.3% (12,001 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.5:1 (11,263 sf) 2.18:1 (48,991 sf) Mixed-Use; Replacement Office: 9,115 sf Residential: 39,806 sf Other: 1,091 sf 2.96:1 (66,669 sf) Mixed-Use; Replacement Office: 9,115 sf Residential: 46,993 sf Other: 10,583 sf Residential Density 11 to 20 units per acre (5 to 10 units) 63 DU on 0.52 acre = 123.5 units per acre 66 DU on 0.52 acre = 126.9 units per acre Minimum Site Open Space 35% 7,884 sf 42% Ground level open space: 9,455 sf 49.7% Ground level open space: 11,189 sf Item 2 Attachment E Zoning Table     Packet Pg. 55     6 1 0 8 Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit 9,450 sf Roof terrace: 4,642 sf Balconies: ~60 sf per unit (typical), 5,230 sf total Total ~156 per unit The office ground level deck area: ~1,120 sf does not count towards the residential open space requirement Ground level patio: 735 sf Balconies: ~60 sf per unit (typical), 5,623 sf total Total ~85 per unit The office 6th floor deck area: ~1,146 sf does not count towards the residential open space requirement Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit Roof terrace: 4,642 sf 73.7 sf per unit Ground level patio: 735 sf 11.1 sf per unit Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit 3 units do not have private open space All other units have balconies ranging from 60 sf to >400 sf 6 units do not have private open space All other units have balconies ranging from 60 sf to >400 sf *Bold indicates modification in comparison to base zoning Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.38.150 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PC Requirement when Adjacent to RE, R-1, R-2, RM or applicable PC district Proposed (b) The maximum height within 150 feet of any RE, R-1, R-2, RMD, RM, or applicable PC district shall be 35 feet 73’6” at six story parapet (c) A minimum interior yard of 10 feet shall be required, and a solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed and maintained along the common site line. Interior setback 19’6”, project shall include interior fence (d) A minimum street-side or front yard of 10 feet shall be required. For housing projects, the minimum yard requirement shall be at least as restrictive as the yard requirements of the most restrictive residential district opposite such site line. The minimum yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen, excluding areas required for access to the site. Setbacks on street frontages range from 6 ft to 20 ft above grade, all are 0 ft below grade (e) A maximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of ten feet at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasing at a slope of three feet for each six feet of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district; for housing projects, the daylight planes may be identical to the daylight plane requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or rear site line until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district. If the residential daylight plane, as allowed in this section, is selected, the setback regulations of the same adjoining residential district shall be imposed. Because the setback is over 6 feet, the project may use the RM-20 daylight plane. However, this project does not comply with PC or RM-20 daylight plane for the interior side Item 2 Attachment E Zoning Table     Packet Pg. 56     6 1 0 8 Table 3: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 Off-Street Parking for Multiple-Family Residential Type ARB Recommended Plans New Proposed Office 14 regular/carpool 4 ADA = 8 spaces 22 provided, 40% reduction 13 regular/carpool 4 ADA = 8 spaces 21 provided, 43% reduction Housing 48 – Studio; 36 spaces 12 - 1-bedroom; 8 spaces 6 - 2-bedroom; 6 spaces Plus 5 unassigned ADA spaces that count as 10 towards the minimum parking requirement 60 provided, 10% reduction 46 stacker spaces Plus 5 unassigned ADA spaces that count as 10 towards the minimum parking requirement 56 provided, 24% reduction Vehicle Parking Total 22 Commercial 60 Residential 82 total, 20% reduction 21 Commercial 56 Residential 77 total, 30.6% reduction Loading Space for Office None Proposed None Proposed Loading Space for Residential None Proposed None Proposed Bicycle Parking Short Term 5 short term rack spaces 100 space long-term enclosure spaces, 80 residential, 20 office 5 short term rack spaces 100 space long-term enclosure spaces, 80 residential, 20 office Item 2 Attachment E Zoning Table     Packet Pg. 57     Item 2 Attachment F Applicant’s Program Statement and Development Schedule     Packet Pg. 58     Item 2 Attachment F Applicant’s Program Statement and Development Schedule     Packet Pg. 59     Item 2 Attachment F Applicant’s Program Statement and Development Schedule     Packet Pg. 60     Item 2 Attachment F Applicant’s Program Statement and Development Schedule     Packet Pg. 61     Item 2 Attachment F Applicant’s Program Statement and Development Schedule     Packet Pg. 62     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 63     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 64     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 65     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 66     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 67     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 68     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 69     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 70     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 71     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 72     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 73     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 74     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 75     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 76     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 77     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 78     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 79     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 developer’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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 80     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 81     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 82     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 83     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 84     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 85     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 86     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 87     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 88     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 89     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 90     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 91     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 92     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 cautious of 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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 93     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 94     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 cautious of 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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 95     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 cautious of 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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 96     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 97     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 98     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 99     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 100     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 101     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 102     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 103     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 104     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 105     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 106     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 107     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 108     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 109     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 110     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 111     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 112     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 113     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 114     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 115     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 116     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 117     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 118     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 119     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 120     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 121     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 122     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 123     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 124     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 cautious of 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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 125     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 cautious of 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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 126     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 127     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 128     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 129     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 130     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 131     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 132     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 133     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 134     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 135     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 136     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 developer’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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 137     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 138     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 139     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 140     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 141     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 142     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 143     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 144     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 145     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 146     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 147     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 148     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 149     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 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 150     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 cautious of 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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 151     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 cautious of 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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 152     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 153     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 cautious of 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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 154     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 cautious of 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 site boundary; therefore, in accordance with Valley Water’s Water ResourcesProtection Ordinance, a Valley Water encroachment permit will not be required for the project. 2. Valley Water previously commented on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) that underground 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 ground surface, 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 subject property. 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 registered with 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) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 006085C0010H, effective May 18, 2009, the projectsite is within FEMA Flood Zone AH, an area with 1% annual chance of shallow flooding (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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 155     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 156     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 157     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 158     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 159     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 cautious of 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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 160     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 cautious of 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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 161     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 162     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 163     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 164     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 165     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 166     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 167     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 168     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 169     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 170     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 171     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 developer’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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 172     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 173     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 174     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 175     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 176     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 177     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 178     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 179     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 180     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 181     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 182     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 183     Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 184     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 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 185     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 cautious of 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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 186     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 cautious of 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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 187     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 188     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 cautious of 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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 189     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 cautious of 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 site boundary; therefore, in accordance with Valley Water’s Water ResourcesProtection Ordinance, a Valley Water encroachment permit will not be required for the project. 2. Valley Water previously commented on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) that underground 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 ground surface, 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 subject property. 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 registered with 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) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 006085C0010H, effective May 18, 2009, the projectsite is within FEMA Flood Zone AH, an area with 1% annual chance of shallow flooding (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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 190     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 191     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.pngimage002.pngimage004.pngimage005.pngimage006.pngimage007.pngimage008.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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 192     From:Foley, Emily To:Klicheva, Madina Subject:FW: 660 University Project comments Date:Wednesday, November 16, 2022 8:56:39 AM Attachments:image001.pngimage002.pngimage004.pngimage005.pngimage006.pngimage007.pngimage008.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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 193     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 cautious of 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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 194     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 . F E N T O N C A R A E . S I L V E R K I M B E R L Y J . B R U M M E R C A M A S J . S T E I N M E T Z P H I L I P S . S O U 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 JORGENSON, SIEGEL, McCLURE & FLEGEL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 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 K E N T M I T C HE L L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ R E T I R E D J O H N D . J O R G E N S O N M A R G A R E T A. S L O A N 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 , 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 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 o, including Lytton Gardens and Webster House (and Channing House). 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 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 Project be reduced to be more consistent with the existing residential zoning and compatible with the surrounding senior communities. Item 2 Attachment G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 195     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 -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 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 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 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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 196     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 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, 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 in 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 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 , 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 ts 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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 197     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 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 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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 198     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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 199     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; PlanningCommission; 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 G Public Comments(1)     Packet Pg. 200     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 H 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. Environmental Document NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of Palo Alto for the project listed below. In accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15073, this document will be available online for review during a minimum 30-day circulation period beginning November 4, 2022 and Ends on December 5, 2022. The environmental document is available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Events- Directory/Planning-and-Development-Services/660-University-Avenue Directions to review project plans, TDM plan, and environmental documents 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 H Project Plans TDM and Environmental Review     Packet Pg. 201     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 9 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: March 12, 2025 Report #: 2501-4005 TITLE Recommendation on an Ordinance to Amend the El Camino Real Focus Area (Chapter 18.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code), Implementing Program 3.4E of the Housing Element. CEQA Status: The Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), considered by the City Council on April 15, 2024, analyzed potential environmental impacts of the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element including Program 3.4E. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend the City Council amend Chapter 18.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) (Attachment A) to implement Program 3.4E of the Housing Element regarding the El Camino Real Focus Area. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Adopted in December 2023, the El Camino Real Focus Area offers more generous development standards in a small portion of properties fronting El Camino Real near Page Mill Road, in exchange for projects providing 20 percent of residential units at up to 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). The Focus Area developed as an alternative to State Density Bonus Law and Builder’s Remedy. This report presents an approach for implementing Housing Element Program 3.4E, which calls for amendments to the El Camino Real Focus Area. The amendments include two changes to the El Camino Real Focus Area: (1) geographic expansion to add parcels to the Focus Area, and (2) modifications to Focus Area development standards to enable viable development projects that are contextually appropriate based on surrounding uses, and proximity to transit and services. The draft ordinance also offers incentives for lot consolidation, below-market rate housing, and the use of the Focus Area program as opposed to State Density Bonus Law and Builder’s Remedy. BACKGROUND El Camino Real Focus Area Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 202     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 9 The existing El Camino Real Focus Area extends along the west side of El Camino Real, between Page Mill Road and Matadero Avenue. Within this area—and as an alternative to State Density Bonus Law—applicants may elect to utilize more generous development standards in exchange for providing 20% of units at up to 80% of Area Median Income (i.e., “low income”). The Focus Area was created as both a response to several proposed housing project applications submitted under State Density Bonus Law and Builder’s Remedy, and a proactive effort to create a set of regulations to encourage transit-oriented mixed-income housing in a way that allows for more predictability through compliance with the City’s design and development standards. The El Camino Real Focus Area zoning was adopted in late 2023 and became effective January 17, 2024, as part of the Housing Element Program 1.1 rezoning to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. As a second step, Housing Element Program 3.4E anticipated further changes to the Focus Area: E. Expand the geographic boundaries of the El Camino Real Focus Area (adopted in 2023) to incentivize housing production at appropriate locations. Increase building height and floor area ratios and apply other objective standards, such as transitional height restrictions, to address single family zoning district adjacencies. The proposed standards will be an alternative to the state density bonus. To explore expansion areas, City staff and consultants analyzed the characteristics of properties along El Camino Real and divided the corridor into four tiers, with Tier 1 representing the highest potential for inclusion in the expanded Focus Area and Tier 4 having the lowest potential. Staff arranged sites into these tiers based on the following criteria: lot size/shape, lot consolidation potential, developer interest, Housing Element opportunity site status, proximity to public transit, and lack of R-1 zone adjacencies. Feedback from study sessions with the PTC and Architectural Review Board (ARB) are described below. Planning & Transportation Commission Feedback On December 17, 2025, the PTC held a study session to consider criteria for geographic expansion, and potential for modifications to development standards in existing and potential Focus Area boundaries. The PTC provided the following feedback: Generally supported expansion within Tier 1 and Tier 2 sites. Recommended modulated standards for different locations, (e.g., sites with more development potential closer to transit would have more generous development standards compared to sites with lower development potential further from transit). Recommended providing incentives for lot consolidation so that larger sites could take advantage of Focus Area standards. Generally supported modifications to height transition standards to allow more massing, while still creating transitions to lower height structures. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 203     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 9 Supported maintaining adequate sidewalk widths and bike facilities. Architectural Review Board Feedback On December 19, 2024, the ARB held a study session to consider potential modifications to development standards: In contrast with the PTC, the ARB supported expansion to Tiers 1, 2, 3 and 4. ARB members were split between modulating standards (specifically building height) for smaller lot sizes and in the middle of the corridor vs. maintaining the same standards throughout the whole corridor believing that the corridor is wide enough to accommodate proposed building heights. ARB members generally agreed on refining the daylight plane standard to an initial height of 16 feet and 45 degrees. ARB members generally agreed that the daylight plane should regulate transitions and that the height transition standard should be removed. ARB members supported refining the upper story stepback (on the El Camino Real frontage) to: 10 feet over 75% of facade above 55 or 65 feet in height. The draft ordinance implements PTC and ARB feedback, with the exception of the geographic expansion area, as discussed in the next section. For further background information on the El Camino Real Focus Area and discussion of potential tiers for expansion, see the December 17, 2024 PTC staff report1. ANALYSIS Geographic Expansion of the Focus Area City staff recommend expanding the Focus Area to include primarily Tier 1 sites at this time, as shown in Figure 1, below. These sites have the highest potential for development based on site conditions and location, and could generate approximately 500 dwelling units based on the draft zoning standards (depending on the number of sites that turn over). These sites are close to services and Caltrain, several have developer interest and/or Housing Element opportunity site status, and several sites exceed ½ acre, which allows for higher density projects with parking. Although classified as a Tier 2 site originally, staff recommend including 3781 El Camino Real and associated properties into the expanded Focus Area. While located further down the corridor, given the Builder’s Remedy project located on the site, it is a candidate to utilize these alternate development standards. Inclusion of other Tier 2 sites is not recommended at this time, as it would trigger additional environmental review since this tier could generate more than 1,000 additional housing units, which was not accounted for in the Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan EIR completed to 1 December 17, 2024 PTC staff report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=6713&meetingTemplateType=2&comp iledMeetingDocumentId=12701 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 204     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 9 analyze impacts of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. This additional environmental review would take approximately 10 months to complete, extending the timeline of implementation of Program 3.4E beyond the June 2025 deadline in the Housing Element. For this reason, staff recommend addressing Tier 2 sites as a separate effort. This potential future work effort could also consider other sites that stakeholders and community members have mentioned, such as those further south off Hansen Way. City staff recommended, and the PTC expressed support for, higher development standards for both Tier 1 and Tier 2. The ARB went further, supporting inclusion of the entire corridor in the expanded Focus Area. The City Council has provided direction to prepare an area plan for El Camino Real. However, this is not yet scheduled due to resource limitations. Figure 1: Existing and Proposed El Camino Real Focus Area Draft Zoning Modifications City staff have prepared a draft ordinance in Attachment A based on the feedback provided by the PTC, ARB, and stakeholders. The proposed amendments contained in the draft ordinance include the following key changes: Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 205     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 9 Refine Daylight Plane: The daylight plane (required when adjacent to R-1 zoned properties) is standardized to have an initial height of 16 feet at the property line and 45 degrees. This generally allows two stories of building height (approximately 20 feet) abutting R-1 zoning districts, which have a height limit of 30 feet. For adjacencies to other zoning districts, the current regulations for daylight planes will continue to apply. Remove Height Transition: The height transition, which has proved too restrictive, has been removed. Instead, the Focus Area relies on setbacks and the daylight plane, described above, to facilitate height transitions. Simplified Upper Story Setback: The upper story stepback standard was modified to allow more massing to require a 10-foot step back above 55 feet in building height along at least 70% of the façade. This standard allows more massing on the El Camino Real frontage, while still requiring relief above the fifth story. Some developers within the Focus Area have expressed concerns that upper story setbacks will reduce the number of units feasible on a site and add costs due to construction inefficiencies and waterproofing needs. Standardize Setbacks: The front, side, and rear setbacks are standardized for the Focus Area (generally consistent with typical El Camino Real standards for the CN/CS zones), rather than deferred to the underlying base district standards which have a broad range. Provide Incentives for Consolidation: Two sets of FAR and building height standards, depending on lot size are proposed, to acknowledge that larger sites can accommodate more density and building height and to provide incentives for lot consolidation. The ordinance identifies a threshold lot size of 10,000 square feet to trigger more generous development standards. This lot size—as long as it has sufficient lot width—can generally accommodate a two-way parking aisle. This standard is intended to encourage property owners of the smaller lot sizes around the California Avenue intersection to consolidate parcels. Provide Incentives for BMR Units: For projects with at least 20% of units at below- market rate levels, BMR units would be exempted from development impact fees. This would align with the existing incentive for 100% affordable housing projects where those units are also exempted, per PAMC Section 16.58.030. Hansen Way Special Setbacks Southwest of the Focus Area, on Stanford University Lands, the City’s zoning map requires special setbacks of 50 feet on numerous streets in the Research Park, as shown in Figure 2 below. These setbacks are intended to preserve right-of-way for future circulation, including vehicle travel lanes, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The project sponsors at 3300 El Camino Real received approval for an office development in 2023, but based on the Focus Area opportunity are considering a revised development application that would add multifamily housing to the site in addition to the proposed office use. As shown in Figure 3 below, the northern (plan left) portion of the site that could accommodate housing and corner retail is Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 206     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 9 constrained by both the 50-foot special setback and a PG&E no-build easement that crosses the site. Reducing or removing this special setback would improve feasibility for the site. As noted on Figure 2 and the accompanying caption, there is precedent for removing this setback. It does not apply to mixed use hotel uses on the opposite side of the street at 3200 El Camino Real. Approaching the intersection with El Camino Real, this segment of Hansen Way measures 40 feet curb-to-curb. Westbound, it includes one travel lane and a buffered bicycle lane; eastbound, it includes on travel lane and a shared right-turn lane/shared bicycle route. As a result, Hansen Way is shown as a bicycle facility in the February 2025 Draft Bicycle Plan. The Transportation Division is exploring whether to reduce or remove this setback requirement. 50-foot special setback symbolized with dotted green line along Hansen Way. Note small text along the Hansen Way frontage of the 3200 El Camino Real property which reads: NO_SPECIAL_SETBACK_FOR_MIXEDUSE_HOTEL_USES_3200_ECR_PAMC 20.08.20 Figure 2: Excerpt of Palo Alto Zoning Map (p. 8): Hansen Way Special Setbacks Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 207     Item No. 3. Page 7 of 9 Figure 3: 3300 El Camino Real Site Constraints Affordable Housing Requirements: Builder’s Remedy – AB 1893 The original Focus Area included an affordability requirement to match the “Builder’s Remedy” section of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Gov. Code Section 65589.5) as it existed at that time. However, Assembly Bill (AB) 1893, which went into effect January 1, 2025, modifies the HAA to allow alternate and reduced affordability requirements, including for Builder’s Remedy applications that have already been submitted. Existing Builder’s Remedy applicants with projects located at 3150 El Camino Real and 3400 El Camino Real (within the existing Focus Area), and 3606 El Camino Real and 3781 El Camino Real (within the proposed expansion area) have the option to reduce their affordability requirements under the Builder’s Remedy to: 7% of units are affordable to extremely low-income households (<30% AMI) 10% of units are affordable to very low-income households (<50% of AMI) 13% of units are affordable to lower-income households (<80% of AMI) 100% of units are affordable to moderate-income households (<120% of AMI) For an applicant to choose the El Camino Real Focus Area rules (currently set at 20% of units at <80% of AMI) over the Builder’s Remedy, there needs to be an incentive to do so. The PTC should consider whether or not to revise the affordable requirements for the Focus Area to be comparable to what State law allows. Options include reducing the affordable requirements to match State law or allowing developers in the Focus Area to pay a portion of the requirement as an in-lieu fee. The PTC could also consider whether to include a separate affordability requirement for ownership projects (e.g., up to 120% of AMI). 470 Olive Avenue Rezoning The property owner of 2951 El Camino Real and surrounding parcels, within the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP), has expressed interest in a multifamily redevelopment project. While the owner’s parcels abutting El Camino Real were rezoned as part of the NVCAP process to support this redevelopment, an abutting parcel at 470 Olive Avenue retained its R-1 designation despite being in continuous commercial use. Moreover, the 470 Olive Avenue site is part of a series of sites subject to ongoing groundwater Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 208     Item No. 3. Page 8 of 9 monitoring following discovery of an underground tank on Page Mill Road found to be leaking volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) into the soil and groundwater in the 1980s. As a result, redevelopment of the site will require mitigation, such as vapor barriers and a soil and groundwater management plan. This level of mitigation is unlikely to be financially feasible or conducive to construction of a single-family home expected in an R-1 zoning district, but is more common for larger residential or commercial developments. As the 470 Olive Avenue site abuts existing R-1 zoned single-family uses, it would be subject to daylight plane requirements. While this site may be recommended to be included in the expanded focus area, it has not been properly noticed to be rezoned as part of this action. If so directed, staff can return to the PTC with a separate ordinance rezoning 470 Olive Avenue from R-1 to NV-MXM. Topics for Discussion/Recommendation As part of the PTC recommendation to City Council the following components should be considered: 1. Draft Ordinance: a. Proposed expansion areas; b. Development regulation changes; c. Affordable housing requirements; and d. Special setbacks on Hansen Way. 2. Additional future action in regards to the remainder of the corridor. 3. Future rezoning of 470 Olive Avenue. POLICY IMPLICATIONS As part of the implementation of Program 3.2 (Monitor Constraints to Housing) of the Housing Element, the City needs to prepare an analysis in staff reports for initiatives proposing new regulations. This analysis should detail how the regulations may impact housing production, if at all, and recommend solutions to address any adverse impacts. The draft ordinance implements Housing Element Program 3.4E to expand the geographic boundaries of the El Camino Real Focus Area to incentivize housing production though increases in building height and FAR, and application of other objective standards, as an alternative to State Density Bonus Law. Based on quantified objectives in the Housing Element, this program is anticipated to generate 500 housing units, beyond the existing Focus Area boundaries. In this way, the draft ordinance supports implementation of Housing Element Goal 2.0 (Affordable Housing), Goal 3.0 (Housing Development), and goals to affirmatively further fair housing by locating new housing in a resource-rich area near high-quality transit, services, and jobs. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 209     Item No. 3. Page 9 of 9 Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on February 21, 2025, which is 19 days in advance of the meeting. City staff and consultants have met with eight property owners and/or developers on the El Camino Real corridor to explain the Focus Area program and solicit their feedback on existing and potential standards and affordability requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW On April 15, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10155, approving an Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The addendum analyzed potential environmental impacts of the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element. This includes implementation of Housing Element Program 3.4E and associated increase in housing production including the RHNA, Housing Element sites inventory, and other Housing Element programs. Specifically, Housing Element Program 3.4E indicates that an additional 500 units could be generated through expansion of the Focus Area. Buildout of the proposed expanded Focus Area falls within this threshold. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Amendments to Title 18 to Implement Housing Element Program 3.4E AUTHOR/TITLE: Jean Eisberg, Consultant Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 210     1 Ordinance No. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending: Chapter 18.14 (Housing Incentives) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Program 3.4E of the 2023-2031 Housing Element to Expand and Revise Regulations for the El Camino Real Focus Area; Making Conforming Amendments to Chapter 16.58 (Development Impact Fees) SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. On May 8, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10107, approving an Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), making various findings, and adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element for the City of Palo Alto. B. On November 13, 2023, the City Council approved a Revised Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan EIR and introduced Ordinance No. 5608, rezoning sites in the 2023- 2031 Housing Element Sites Inventory to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation. C. On April 15, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10155, making various findings, adopting a Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element, and authorizing the Director of Planning and Development Services to take further actions necessary to achieve certification of the Housing Element by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). D. On August 19, 2024, HCD found that the Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element, as further modified on July 17, 2024, was substantially compliant with state law. E. Program 3.4E of the City’s Revised 2023-2031 Housing Element directs the City to expand the geographic boundaries of the El Camino Focus Area to incentivize housing production in appropriate locations. F. On ________, 2025, the Planning and Transportation Commission considered and recommended that the City Council adopt this ordinance to implement the 2023-2031 Housing Element. SECTION 2. Section 18.14.020 (Housing Element Opportunity Sites) of Chapter 18.14 (Housing Incentives) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (additions underlined; deletions struck through; and unchanged text omitted with bracketed ellipses): 18.14.020 Housing Element Opportunity Sites and Focus Areas This subsection implements the rezoning required to meet the RHNA in the 2023-2031 Housing Element, pursuant to Appendix D. Regulations identified in Table 1 and Table 2 modify and replace development standards provided in base zoning district and applicable combining district Item 3 Attachment A Amendments to Title 18     Packet Pg. 211     2 regulations. This section additionally provides regulations for Housing Focus Areas in portions of El Camino Real and in the GM/ROLM districts that further the goals of the Housing Element. (a) Applicability: This subsection applies to Housing Development Projects, as defined in Cal. Gov’t Code § 65589.5, on Housing Element opportunity sites listed in Appendix D and on sites within the GM/ROLM and El Camino Real Focus Areas depicted in Figure 1 and Figure 3. [. . .] (c) Development Standards: Refer to base zoning district and applicable combining districts for development standards except: (i) Residential uses on R-1 zoned sites (faith-based institutions) shall be subject to the development standards for the RM-30 zoning district, pursuant to Chapter 18.13.040, except that Maximum FAR shall be 1.25 and minimum density shall be 20 units per acre. (ii) RM-20, RM-30, RM-40, CN, CS, CC, CC(2), CD-C, and CD-N zoned sites as modified by Table 1. (iii) GM, ROLM, and RP zoned sites as modified by Table 2. (iv) PF zoned sites shall meet the following development standards: (A) Downtown sites: CD-C standards, pursuant to Table 1 below. (B) California Avenue sites: CC(2) standards, pursuant to Table 1 below. (v) Specific Stanford University-owned sites and El Camino Real Focus Area sites may, as an alternative to State Density Bonus Law, meet base district regulations as modified by Table 3. Housing Development Projects that utilize State Density Bonus Law shall be subject to base district standards or standards provided in Tables 1 and 2, as applicable. Additionally, El Camino Real Focus Area sites shall: (A) Complete Major Architectural Review pursuant to Section 18.77.020. (B) Provide 20% of total units as on-site below-market rate housing affordable to households earning up to 80% of AMI. This requirement shall apply in place of the basic requirements set forth in Sections 16.65.030 and 16.65.040. The below-market rate units and/or their square footage shall be exempt from payment of development impact fees. (vi) Combining district design and development standards shall not apply to exclusively residential projects on housing opportunity sites designated in Appendix D of the Housing Element to accommodate lower income households. [. . .] Item 3 Attachment A Amendments to Title 18     Packet Pg. 212     3 Table 3 Site- Specific Development Standards (Stanford-Owned Sites & and El Camino Real Focus Area) Location Pasteur Dr. & and 1100 Welch Rd. (1)(3) (Figure 2) El Camino Real Focus Area(1) (Figure 3) Minimum Setbacks (feet) Minimum Front Setback 15 feet 0 – 10 feet to create a 12-foot effective sidewalk width See base district regulations Rear and Interior Side See base district regulations: 18.13.040 Abutting low density residential (RE, R2, NV-R2, RMD), R1, or NV-R1 zone district: 20 feet Abutting other residential zone district: 10 feet Abutting non-residential zone district: 10 feet for residential use; none for non-residential use Street Side 5 feet Maximum FAR 3.5 (Total) Lot size => 10,000 square feet: 4.0 (Total) Lot size < 10,000 square feet: 3.0 (Total) Maximum Site/ Landscape Coverage (2) (2) Maximum Lot Coverage 60% Lot size => 10,000 square feet: 80% Lot size < 10,000 square feet: 70% Maximum Density (du/ac) None None Maximum Height(6) (feet) 85 Lot size => 10,000 square feet: 85 Lot size < 10,000 square feet: 65 Daylight Plane Sand Hill Rd. frontage only: initial height 60 feet above grade at the Sand Hill Rd. setback line and a 45- degree angle For lot lines abutting an R1 or NV-R1 zoning district: Initial height: 16 feet, measured at the property line Slope: 45 degrees Other locations: See base district regulations for standards for daylight planes Height Transitions n/a Within 100 ft. of low density residential (RE, R2, or RMD) or R1 single family zone district property line: 35 ft. Between 100 and 150 ft. of low density or R1 zone district property line: 45 ft. Item 3 Attachment A Amendments to Title 18     Packet Pg. 213     4 Upper Story Step Back None El Camino Real frontage above 55 feet in height: minimum 106-foot step-back from lower facade, for a minimum 70% of the facade length.; and average setback from the property line for the entire facade shall be 20 feet(7). See Figure 4. Open Space 100 sq. ft. square feet/unit (any combination of common and/or private) 100 sq. ft. square feet/unit (any combination of common and/or private) Minimum Residential Parking(5) 0.5 spaces/unit 1 space/unit (Per AB2097: 1 0 space/unit within ½ mile of Caltrain) Other Development Standards See base district regulations: 18.13.040 See base district regulations Design Criteria/Standards Compliance with Objective Design Standards pursuant to 18.24(4) Architectural Review and compliance with either Objective Deign Standards pursuant to Chapter 18.24 or Context-Based Design Criteria pursuant to base district regulations(4). Notes: [. . .] (7) Average setback from the property line may be calculated by taking the area between the property line and the upper facade. This area, in square feet, shall be greater than or equal to the facade length multiplied by 20. Example: 200-foot facade length x 20-foot average setback + minimum 4,000 sq. ft. area of setback per floor. For purposes of this calculation, portions of the upper facade with a setback greater than 40 feet shall be treated as if the facade is located at 40 feet from the property line. For purposes of this calculation, roof projections and eaves up to four feet in depth shall be excluded. For the purposes of this development standards table, the following definitions apply: “Abutting” refers to parcels that share a property line, exclusive of parcels with intersecting corners, parcels separated by a street, or parcels under common ownership. “Lot Size” refers to the total lot area of a proposed project, which may be composed of one or more parcels, generally under common ownership, which may include parcels developed in phases over time. [. . .] Item 3 Attachment A Amendments to Title 18     Packet Pg. 214     5 Figure 3: El Camino Focus Area Item 3 Attachment A Amendments to Title 18     Packet Pg. 215     6 Figure 4: Upper Story Step Back (El Camino Real Focus Area) portions of buildings more than 49 feet from the property line shall be counted as 40 feet Figure 4b SECTION 3. Section 16.58.030 (Exemptions) of Chapter 16.58 (Development Impact Fees) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (additions underlined): 16.58.030 Exemptions. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following: (a) City buildings or structures; (b) Public school buildings or structures; (c) Residential housing, either for sale or rental, which, by recordable means, is permanently obligated to be 100% affordable; (d) Retail service, eating and drinking service, personal service, or automotive service when the total additional square footage is 1,500 square feet or less. This exemption shall apply only when the additional square footage of new development does not exceed 1,500 square feet. New development that is larger than 1,500 square feet shall pay a fee for all square footage, including the first 1,500 square feet; Item 3 Attachment A Amendments to Title 18     Packet Pg. 216     7 (e) Day care centers used for child care, nursery school or preschool education; (f) Below market rate housing units above and beyond the minimum number required for projects subject to the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing program. The additional units must be offered and constructed in a manner consistent with all requirements of the BMR program; (g) Accessory dwelling units (ADU) less than 750 square feet in size. Any impact fees to be charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be proportional to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit; (h) Junior accessory dwelling units (JADU); (i) Any residential subdivision for which land dedication or fees in lieu thereof are required pursuant to Chapter 21.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This exemption shall only apply to the park development fee described in Section 16.58.020(a). (j) Below market rate housing units constructed pursuant to the El Camino Focus Area standards set forth in Section 18.14.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 5. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared an Addendum to the 2017 Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the 2023-2031 Housing Element. On May 8, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10107, and on November 17, 2023, the City Council approved a Revised Addendum, finding that the Addendum, as revised, and the 2017 EIR adequately analyzed the environmental impacts of the Housing Element, including the Programs implemented by this ordinance. // // // // // // // // Item 3 Attachment A Amendments to Title 18     Packet Pg. 217     8 SECTION 12. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Assistant City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Development Services Item 3 Attachment A Amendments to Title 18     Packet Pg. 218     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 2 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: March 12, 2025 Report #: 2503-4301 TITLE Update Planning and Transportation Commission Procedural Rules RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) modify the procedural rules regarding time limit for public speakers. ANALYSIS Section I.B.4.b of the Planning and Transportation Commission Procedural Rules1 provides: b) Other Agenda Items. Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes per speaker unless additional time is granted by the presiding officer. The presiding officer may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes if necessary to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Staff recommends that the PTC modify the rule to allow the Chair to reduce time per speaker to two minutes, if needed, to accommodate a large number of speakers. This change would align the PTC procedures with those of the Architectural Review Board and Historic Resources Board. In addition, the PTC could discuss and make other changes. For example, in the same Section I.B.4.b (item (2)) the time limits for applicants and/or appellants is 15 minutes. The same procedural item has recently been updated for both the Architectural Review Board (ARB)2 and Historic Resources Board (HRB)3 to now be a 10-minute time limit. 1 PTC Procedural Rules: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development- services/file-migration/bc/ptc/ptc-procedural-rules-2018.pdf 2 ARB Procedural Rules: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development- services/file-migration/bc/arb-procedural-rules-updated-february-5-2015.pdf 3 HRB Procedural Rules: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development- services/historic-preservation/0131307-hrb-procedural-rules-updated-february-4-2015.pdf Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 219     Item No. 4. Page 2 of 2 AUTHOR/TITLE: Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 220     Item No. 5. Page 1 of 1 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: March 12, 2025 Report #: 2503-4238 TITLE Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutes of January 29, 2025 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the meeting minutes. BACKGROUND Draft summary and verbatim minutes from the January 29, 2025 Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting were made available to the Commissioners prior to the March 12, 2025 meeting date. The draft PTC minutes can be viewed online on the City’s website at bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments. AUTHOR/TITLE: Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate Item 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 221     Item No. 6. Page 1 of 1 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: March 12, 2025 Report #: 2503-4239 TITLE Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Summary & Verbatim Minutes of February 12, 2025 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the meeting minutes. BACKGROUND Draft summary and verbatim minutes from the February 12, 2025 Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting were made available to the Commissioners prior to the March 12, 2025 meeting date. The draft PTC minutes can be viewed online on the City’s website at bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments. AUTHOR/TITLE: Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate Item 6 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 222