Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-10-08 Planning & Transportation Commission Agenda PacketPLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Wednesday, October 08, 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@paloalto.gov 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@paloalto.gov at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. 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: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave [21PLN-00341]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) on Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), to Demolish Existing Buildings and Provide a New Six Story Mixed-Use Building with Approximately 1,900 Square Feet of Office, 70 Multi-Family Residential Units, and a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. CEQA Status: A Draft Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024, and Ending on May 17, 2024. The City published a Final EIR in March 2025 and a revised Final EIR in October 2025. Zoning District: RM-20 (Multi-Family Residential). 3.Request for a Zoning Text Amendment to Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning) Section 18.18.120 [Noncomplying (Grandfathered) Uses and Facilities] to allow existing floor area to be replaced in new buildings without increasing the degree of existing non- compliance. CEQA Status: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15061 (b)(3) (Common Sense). COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).   ADJOURNMENT  PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to Planning.Commission@paloalto.gov. 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@paloalto.gov. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 8, 2025 Report #: 2509-5263 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 Samuel Tavera (Samuel.Tavera@PaloAlto.gov) 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.   UPCOMING PTC ITEMS October 29, 2025 Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 Grand Boulevard Presentation from SamTrans PA Link Update Retail Revitalization ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2025 PTC Schedule & Assignments Attachment B: 2026 PTC Schedule AUTHOR/TITLE: Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Planning & Transportation Commission 2025 Meeting Schedule 9 0 2 7 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 Canceled 6/25/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 7/9/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 7/30/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular James, Ji 8/13/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Canceled 8/27/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/6/2025 10:00 AM Hybrid Special Retreat 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 Cancelled 12/10/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 12/31/2025 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 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 - 2025 PTC Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 7     Planning & Transportation Commission 2026 Meeting Schedule 9 3 3 9 2026 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/14/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 1/28/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 2/11/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 2/25/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 3/11/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 3/25/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 4/8/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 4/29/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 5/13/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 5/27/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/10/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/24/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 7/8/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 7/29/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 8/12/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 8/26/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/9/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/30/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/14/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/28/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/11/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 11/18/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Special 11/25/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 12/9/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 12/30/2026 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled Item 1 Attachment B - 2026 PTC Schedule     Packet Pg. 8     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 13 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 8, 2025 Report #: 2507-4974 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave [21PLN-00341]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) on Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), to Demolish Existing Buildings and Provide a New Six Story Mixed-Use Building with Approximately 1,900 Square Feet of Office, 70 Multi-Family Residential Units, and a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. CEQA Status: A Draft Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024, and Ending on May 17, 2024. The City published a Final EIR in March 2025 and a revised Final EIR in October 2025. Zoning District: RM-20 (Multi-Family Residential). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following actions: 1. Consider the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and 2. Recommend that Council approve the project via adoption of the following: a. Resolution to certify the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); b. Resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element to modify the allowable uses in the Multiple Family Land Use Designation; and c. Planned Community (PC) Ordinance rezoning the subject property and approving the development plan and uses, public benefits, and incorporating a 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 rezone three existing parcels (511 Byron Street, 660 University Avenue, and 680 University Avenue/500 Middlefield Road) from RM-20 to Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.38 (Planning Community Zoning). The parcels would be merged under a separate application, and the resulting parcel would be redeveloped with a new six-story mixed-use building with 1,894 Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 9     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 13 square feet of ground floor office and 59,121 square feet of multiple-family residential use. The residential component will include 70 units (eight studios, 33 one-bedroom, and nine two- bedroom units). One unit will be designated as a manager’s unit. Parking spaces will be provided in a two-story below-grade parking garage with 78 parking spaces. Fourteen of the units would be provided as below market rate units (20%). This is comprised of two Very-Low Income, five Low Income, and seven Moderate Income units. The project also includes a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow office use in the Multiple-Family Land Use Designation in limited circumstances. The City and the public have reviewed multiple versions of the proposed project in various hearings, as described in the Background section below. The current design includes several modifications since the previous PTC hearing including, but not limited to, increasing the unit count from 66 to 70 units, modifying the overall height, reducing the total square footage of office, and moving all office the ground floor. This report focuses on changes made to the project since the previous PTC meeting, and information requested by PTC at that meeting. The ARB reviewed the current proposed design on August 21, 2025, and recommended approval of the revised project with conditions. The proposed project serves as an alternative to a Builder’s Remedy application that includes 88 units and 9,215 square feet of office, for which a Senate Bill (SB) 330 pre-application was filed on May 14, 2024, and for which the applicant submitted a formal application for on September 3, 2024. The Builder’s Remedy application has been paused in accordance with a tolling agreement between the Applicant and the City. The City, acting as the lead agency, circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Report for a 45-day review period beginning on April 2, 2024, and ending on May 17, 2024. The Draft EIR found there are no significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. A Final EIR was published on March 2025, which included a response to comments. To reflect the recent modifications to the project, the City published a Revised Final EIR on October 1, 2025. The Revised Final EIR concludes that the project, with the proposed modifications, would have no significant and unavoidable impacts. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:Shachi Bahl, DMD Architect:Amanda Borden, KSH Architects Representative:Lund Smith, Smith Development Legal Counsel:N/A Property Information Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 10     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 13 Address:511 Byron Street, 680 University Ave, 500 Middlefield Road (APNS 120-03-042, -043, and -044); Lots to be combined and use 660 University Ave Neighborhood:Downtown/University South Lot Dimensions & Area:100 feet by 225 feet 2 inches, 22,526-square-foot total lot area Housing Inventory Site:Yes, 65 units, 20 designated for lower income Located w/in a Plume:No Protected/Heritage Trees:Protected street trees, Protected Oak tree overhanging from adjacent property. No Heritage trees. Historic Resource(s):No, Department of Park and Recreation form has been completed Flood Zone: Yes, AH46.9 Existing Improvement(s):511 Byron: 5,260 square feet, two-story, built 1950 680 Byron: 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-foot setback along Middlefield Road. Encroachments proposed. Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Satellite Maps Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 11     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 13 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Comp. Plan Designation:Multi-Family (MF) Zoning Designation:RM-20 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential) 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 PTC process.2 The applicant requested to pull this item from the scheduled PTC hearing on June 12, 2024, following publication of the report, in order to propose a revised design. Following ARB recommendation on the revised design, the PTC held a hearing on March 12, 2025,3 and recommended to continue the project to a date uncertain. In its motion, the PTC recommended that the FEMA requirements related to mixed-use buildings be further 1 October 25, 2021, Council Report: bit.ly/3NTpv3J 2 November 16, 2022, PTC Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=15500&compileOutputType =1 3 The March 12, 2025 PTC Staff Report is available online at: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16498 Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 13 evaluated, which triggered further investigation into the FEMA requirements. The PTC also recommended two additional items relevant to the ARB’s purview. These included: 1) a request for balconies to also include bird safe glass; and 2) encouraged the applicant to address the engineering and potential use of the special setback. HRB:None ARB:The ARB held a hearing on December 1, 2022, to review the plans and continued the project to a date uncertain.7 The ARB held a hearing on April 18, 2024,8 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. Following applicant proposed revisions, the ARB held a hearing on December 5, 2024,9 and recommended approval of the revised plans. Following additional applicant proposed revisions, the ARB reviewed the newest version of the plans on August 21, 2025,10 and recommended approval. Project Review Timeline A complete history of this project is summarized in the March 12, 2025, PTC report.4 Prior PTC Motion On March 12, 2025, the PTC voted 4-2 (Hechtman and Peterson no) for staff to continue the project to a date uncertain and return with more information and analysis on the following items: 1. Consideration of the impacts of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 2. Consideration of tying the price of the parking spaces to the cost of a Residential Parking Permit (RPP). 3. Consideration of the engineering and potential use of the special setback for multi- modal use. 4. Consideration to remove asphalt around Tree #10 after construction. 5. Consideration of bird friendly glass on 6th floor and balconies. 7 December 1, 2022, ARB Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=15521&compileOutputType =1 8 April 18, 2024, ARB Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=13830&compileOutputType =1 9 December 5, 2024, ARB Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13940 10 August 21, 2025 ARB Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16792 Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 13 6. Clarification from Public Works Engineering on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements. These topics are each discussed in the analysis section below. Hechtman and Peterson spoke to their no votes, stating they would have preferred to incorporate those comments into a recommendation of approval to Council, and were not concerned by the scope of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. ARB Recommendation Following the voluntary redesign, the ARB voted 3-2 (Jojarth and Hirsch no) to recommend approval of the project to Council with one additional recommendation for a condition of approval to, “Remove the balconies within the H2 units on the 2nd-6th floor (5 units) facing the Oak tree, or stepping the units back to reduce the encroachment into the TPZ if balconies are provided within the 30-foot radius of the tree.“ Although Jojarth and Hirsch voted no, they both would like to see the project move forward conceptually, but not without additional architectural changes. 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 St, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd) 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 70 residential rental units and 1,984 square feet of office on the ground floor. The project would continue to be a six-story project with two levels of below grade parking. A location map is included in Attachment A and the project plans are included in Attachment G. The project also includes a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow office use in the Multiple-Family Land Use Designation in limited circumstances. Design Changes The applicant states that the proposed design changes were precipitated by updated guidance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). On the basis of NFIP documents reflecting the definitions in 44 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R) Section 59.1, staff previously provided direction to the applicant that the NFIP standards (and, accordingly, PAMC Chapter 16.52) required that a mixed-use building devote at least 25 percent of its floor area to non- residential uses. In April 2025, staff received email correspondence from FEMA representatives stating that the percentage thresholds for building types stated in 44 C.F.R. Section 59.1 are used only for setting NFIP insurance rates and are not used when applying NFIP building standards. The FEMA representatives confirmed, however, that this distinction is not expressly stated in any FEMA documentation; it may simply be inferred from the absence of a percentage threshold in the NFIP technical bulletins. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 13 As a result of this correspondence with FEMA representatives, staff has determined that a 25 percent non-residential floor area threshold is not a requirement under PAMC Chapter 16.52 to construct a basement in a flood hazard zone. However, in accordance with NFIP technical bulletins, the building must still be mixed-use and the presence of some commercial or other non-residential use in the building is required; ancillary areas that serve only residents, such as laundry facilities, mail rooms, and exercise facilities are not considered a non-residential use. In addition, all residential uses must be located at or above base flood elevation plus one foot. The project has thus been modified to eliminate the office use on the sixth-floor level, providing office only on the ground floor. The sixth floor has been modified to accommodate residential uses. This change modified the design by increasing the protrusions into the daylight plane on a portion of the building and changing the privacy context. Specifically, the sixth-floor level no longer has a common open space facing the interior lot line. Instead, on the Byron side, the sixth-floor steps out in line with the levels below. The interior side yard façade closer to Middlefield Road remains the same on levels one through five but has been modified slightly on the sixth level to align more with levels one through five. Private balconies have also been added on the sixth floor. These modifications also resulted in the following key changes to the project, which are also compared in Attachment E: A reduction of the proposed office use from 9,115 square feet to 1,984 square feet. An increase in number of proposed residential units from 63 units to 70 units An increase in the number of one- and two-bedroom units and decrease in the number of studio units. A decrease in the number of parking stalls required for the project under PAMC Section 18.52 resulting in a reduction in the requested parking exception from the previously proposed 30% reduction to the 12% reduction in the current proposal. A modified design to include balconies on all units. A modified garage design to accommodate future public improvements within a portion of the special setback at the corner of University Avenue and Middlefield. 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 Chapter 18.38. The Planned Community Zone District is intended to accommodate all types of developments, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The planned community district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments that are of substantial public benefit and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The application requires initial review by the PTC, followed by review by the ARB. Upon recommendation from the ARB, the draft ordinance for the project is presented along with the development plan to the PTC for recommendation to the City Council for final action. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 13 Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The steps for processing a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment are set forth in PAMC Chapter 19.04. The PTC considers the amendment and forwards its recommendation to the City Council for final action. This is done in parallel with the application to rezone the subject property. ANALYSIS Overall, staff’s analysis concludes that the project, with the proposed modifications, would comply with relevant plans, policies, and regulations or otherwise deviate in a manner that is consistent with the code and Comprehensive Plan through the Planned Community Rezoning process and the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Additional context is provided in response to previous comments raised by the PTC. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Multiple-Family Residential, which prescribes a density range of eight to 40 dwelling units per acre, with higher densities allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, and services and facilities are available. The project has a density of 132 dwelling units per acre, and the Downtown location is sufficient to support this density. Further analysis is provided in the Findings (Attachment D). The project is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to modify the allowable uses in the Multiple Family Land Use Designation. The project proposes ground floor office use, to retain some of the existing office square footage. In its previous review the PTC requested additional information on how the Comprehensive Plan amendment could affect other neighboring properties. As written, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is narrow as it would be limited to Planned Community Zone Districts proposing a housing development project. Any future proposals would be considered based on the individual context and appropriateness of commercial in each specific location, with fully discretionary review by both PTC and Council. It also limits the use of this provision to sites that have existing nonconforming office within the Multiple Family Comprehensive Plan designation. The proposed language is shown in underline below: Multiple-Family Residential: The permitted number of housing units will vary by area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping and environmental problems. Net densities will range from 8 to 40 units and 8 to 90 persons per acre. Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single- family residential areas. Densities higher than what is permitted may be allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Population densities will range up to 2.25 persons per unit by 2030. As part of a Planned Community zone, or in accordance with retail preservation requirements, existing commercial square footage may be maintained or rebuilt, as part of a housing development project. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 13 There are approximately 1,730 property addresses within the Multiple Family Comprehensive Plan designation, and the vast majority do not contain non-residential use(s). Approximately 35 properties have been identified as having a non-conforming non-residential use. The majority of these properties have a medical office use (including dental offices). The majority of these properties are also located around the periphery of Downtown, on Byron Street, Cowper Street, Forest Avenue, Homer Avenue, Middlefield Road, and University Avenue. Some are also located around the California Avenue area on Park Boulevard, Sheridan Avenue, and El Camino Real. A handful of these properties are already in a PC. However, existing PCs would require a PC amendment if proposing a new use for the site, which would be a legislative action subject to PTC and ARB review as well as Council approval. Similarly, new planned communities are a legislative action subject to Council’s discretionary approval. Given the limited number of sites that this could apply to and the public review process required for this change, this modification to the Comprehensive Plan is therefore anticipated to have limited impacts on neighboring properties. It would not increase commercial use in the Multiple Family land use designation above what is existing, and would allow for a mixed-use project, providing jobs and/or services in a location that would otherwise be limited to 100% residential. As a PC is required, the project must overall improve the city’s jobs-to-housing ratio. Zoning Compliance As a PHZ project, the project proposes to deviate from the RM-20 Zoning Development Standards and Parking Standards. A complete analysis of this is available in Attachment E. The proposed project modifications resulted in the following changes to the project with respect to consistency with the underlying zoning: The proposed height reduced from 73 feet 6 inches to 71 feet 2 inches The proposed FAR increased from 2.96:1 to 3.1:1 The proposed density increased from 126.9 dwelling units per acre to 134.6 dwelling units per acre The average amount of usable open space increased from 85 square feet per unit to 97 square feet per unit The requested parking reduction reduced from 30% to 12.4%. In the RM-20 zoning district, Office is a non-conforming use that 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 requests that office be a permitted use, consistent with the development plans. The Resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan (Attachment B) would ensure alignment between the proposed zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. Price of the parking spaces to the cost of an RPP permit Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 10 of 13 The PTC and neighbors noted that if the cost of an RPP permit was cheaper than the cost of parking available to the tenants in the below grade garage, and that tenants may therefore be discouraged from parking in the building and would instead compete for the limited street parking. The applicant’s response, available in Attachment F, states that the current cost of an RPP permit is $56/year and the estimated cost of on-site parking will be $150/month. Due to the cost of building below grade parking, and anticipated costs related to maintenance and security, the applicant asserts it is not feasible to match the RPP price. The applicant states in their experience “residents will want to utilize the stalls provided even with the option of the RPP program available.” Future Use of the Special Setback One of the primary topics of discussion at the prior PTC meetings has been the usability of the portion of the special setback where the below grade parking garage encroaches. The plans now designate a portion of the site as, “area to accommodate possible future city improvements” (approximately 425 square feet). The plans include a tree, building support/storage spaces, and three parking spaces in this area. Because two of the spaces are stackers, removing this area from the building could potentially result in a loss of up to five parking spaces. Staff recommends the PTC considers adding a recommendation for a condition of approval to dedicate this area as an easement. It is still unclear what the usability of this space would be. However, without adopted plans or anticipation of a plan for the Middlefield Special Setback, the applicant is not choosing to redesign to leave this portion of the site open. Tree #10 At the prior PTC meeting,15 the Project Arborist and Landscape Architect stated that the asphalt below the proposed wooden deck, within the dripline of the Oak tree, would remain to minimize root disturbance. Urban Forestry Manager Peter Gollinger stated it is important for the asphalt to remain during construction, but could ideally be removed once the project construction is completed. The applicant team maintains their position that it will be better for the tree to keep the asphalt in place, including after project completion. Bird Friendly Glass The PTC asked the applicant to consider bird safe glass for the 6th floor office space and for the balconies, as the railing material is glass. The 6th floor is now proposed as residential rather than office, and the residential unit windows are proposed to be clear glass. However, the plans now show all balcony railings would be bird safe glass. FEMA Requirements As discussed above, based on feedback from the PTC, staff and the applicant sought and obtained further guidance from FEMA relating to requirements for projects seeking to add a 15 March 12, 2025 PTC Meeting Minutes: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=16499&compileOutputType= 1 Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2. Page 11 of 13 basement in the flood zone. As detailed above, the project is required to have a commercial component to provide a basement (i.e. must be mixed-use); however, the 25% non-residential requirement stated in 44 C.F.R. Section 59.1 is used only for setting NFIP insurance rates and is not used when applying NFIP building standards. As a result of this correspondence with FEMA representatives, staff has determined that a 25 percent non-residential floor area threshold is not a requirement under PAMC Chapter 16.52 to construct a basement in a flood hazard zone. Therefore, the 1,984 square feet of office is sufficient to allow the below grade parking for this project and the project was modified accordingly to reduce the total office square footage and increase the number of residential units Affordability With the change in the unit count, the applicant proposed a change in the BMR units. The project now proposes to provide two Very-Low Income, five Low Income, and seven Moderate Income units; 20% of the total 70 units. The PHZ process offers developers the option to provide affordable units as the public benefit of a PC project, as described in the September 21, 2020, Council Staff Report.17 The proposed meets the weighted 20% as shown below. At a prior PTC hearing, the way the rental price is calculated was discussed. For most projects in the City, BMR rents are calculated in accordance with the requirements PAMC Chapter 16.65 and state law (Health and Safety Code Section 50053). While the City has discretion to alter these calculations for PHZ projects, staff does not recommend deviation from the formulae set forth in state law for this project. 660 UNIVERSITY BELOW MARKET RATE UNIT CALCULATION Income Level Area Median Income Weighted Value Number of Units % of Actual Units Weighted % Very-low Income 31-50%1.9 2 2.9%5% Low Income 51-80%1.2 5 7.1%9% Below Market Rate Units Moderate Income 81-120%0.6 7 10.0%6% Typical Units Above Moderate & Market Rate 121% +0 56 Total 70 20%20% 17 September 21, 2020, Council Staff Report - https://bit.ly/PHZ-CouncilReport Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 2. Page 12 of 13 Multi-Modal Access & Parking The reduction in office space resulted in an overall reduction in parking demand, even with the three additional housing units. As detailed in Attachment E, the prior proposal required 111 parking spaces, the revised design requires 89. Compared to the prior parking reduction request of 30%, the project now requests a reduction of 13%. The number of parking spaces provided did not change. A transportation demand management (TDM) plan has been prepared (Attachment G). Some of the TDM policies include: Transit subsidies are made available to all employees Carpool/vanpool spaces for the office use An information kiosk and webpages for multi-modal transportation options including clipper card discounts for low-income residents On site bike repair tools for residents The project is not subject to AB 2097, though future residents may walk or bike 0.6 miles to the Caltrain station. There is a SamTrans bus stop at University Avenue and Middlefield Road and a VTA bus stop at Channing Avenue and Middlefield Road. This project is not located along a Safe Route to School, but future residents could easily access Webster Street, which is a Safe Route to School for Addison Elementary School and Greene Middle School. It is within walking distance of many Downtown businesses, shops, and restaurants. 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 $3,063,197.53 plus the Public Art fee. 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 September 26, 2025 which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on September 24, 2025 which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Neighbors at The Hamilton have been involved in this process, primarily through emails from attorneys Leigh Prince and Christopher Ream. Comments raised by stakeholders primarily relate to noise, traffic and the TDM plan, construction-related disruptions, and protection of the neighboring Oak tree. Staff also received letters of support of the project. All comment letters are included in Attachment H. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 2. Page 13 of 13 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. A Draft Environmental Impact Report has been published and was circulated from April 2, 2024, to May 17, 2024. The Draft EIR found there are no significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, any potentially significant impacts can be mitigated as further discussed in the document, see Attachment G. The City published a Final EIR in March 2025, which evaluated a 63-unit development with 9,115 sf of office. On October 1, 2025 the City published a Revised Final EIR to reflect the project, as revised, would not result in any new or more significant impacts, beyond what was assessed in the previously published Draft and Final EIR. 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 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Attachment C: Draft PC Ordinance Attachment D: Draft Record of Land Use Action Attachment E: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment F: Applicant’s Response to PTC Comments Attachment G: Project Plans and Environmental Review Attachment H: Public Comments Report Author & Contact Information PTC19 Liaison & Contact Information Emily Kallas, AICP, Senior Planner Jennifer Armer Assistant Director (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2191 emily.kallas@paloalto.gov jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov 19 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: ptc@cityofpaloalto.org Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 21     30 24 24 24 24 30 24 24 First United_Methodist Church Alain Pinel Realtor Lytton Gardens 50.0'200.0' 50.0'200.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 200.0' 100.0' 100.0' 250.0' 225.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 200.0' 152.5' 19.3'3.0' 47.7' 25.2' 67.0' 22.2' 100.0' 125.0' 140.0' 112.5'140.0' 112.5' 160.0' 112.5'160.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 100.0'100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0'100.0' 59.0' 100.0' 59.0' 100.0' 66.0' 100.0' 66.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 95.0' 50.0' 95.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0'100.0' 100.0' 147.5' 400.0' 174.7' 47.8' 3.0'19.3'22.2' 133.0' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 75.0' 125.0' 50.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 48.5' 7.0'1.5' 150.0' 50.0' 143.0' 75.0' 125.0' 75.0' 125.0' 48.5' 82.0' 48.5' 82.0' 35.0' 100.0' 35.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0'100.0' 35.0' 100.0' 57.5' 125.0' 57.5' 125.0' 67.5' 125.0' 67.5' 125.0'50.0' 90.0' 75.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0'250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 25.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0'75.0' 75.0' 578 642-652630-640 600-610 415 405 434 765 750-798 482 486 490 483 547 526 649 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 theCity of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project SiteCurrent 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. 22     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 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment     Packet Pg. 23     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 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment     Packet Pg. 24     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 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment     Packet Pg. 25     *NOT YET APPROVED* 1 0160177_20251001_AY16 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 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 PTC reviewed the revised project on March 12, 2025; and continued the hearing to date uncertain. (f) Following the PTC’s March 2025 hearing, the applicant made substantial modifications to the plans. The ARB again reviewed further revised plans on August 21, 2025 and recommended approval of the project to the City Council. (g) The PTC reviewed the revised project on October 8, 2025 and recommended approval of the project to the City Council. Item 2 Attachment C - Draft PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 26     *NOT YET APPROVED* 2 0160177_20251001_AY16 (h) 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”). (i) 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. (j) 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, published in March 2025, maintained there are no significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the revisions made to the design. A revised Final EIR, published in September 2025, did not result in any change to these conclusions. (k) The Council is the decision-making body for approval of the Planned Community Project. (l) 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. (m) 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. (n) 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 ______, 2025. With respect to the Subject Property, the project comprises the uses included in this Item 2 Attachment C - Draft PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 27     *NOT YET APPROVED* 3 0160177_20251001_AY16 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 70 residential rental units, approximately 1,984 square feet of 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 Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Totals (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 1,984 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 PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 28     *NOT YET APPROVED* 4 0160177_20251001_AY16 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 ______and conclude in _______. 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 and the onsite rental requirement set forth in Ordinance 5623, Section 3. 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. // // // // Item 2 Attachment C - Draft PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 29     *NOT YET APPROVED* 5 0160177_20251001_AY16 SECTION 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption (second reading). 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 PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 30     *NOT YET APPROVED* 6 0160177_20251001_AY16 Exhibit A Legal Description REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Parcel 1: All of Lots 59 and 60, and the Southwesterly 9 feet, front and rear measurements of lot 58, as shown on the map of MAP OF NELSON J. BIRD'S SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 42, UNIVERSITY PARK (NOW PALO ALTO), which map was filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, November 23, 1889 in Book D of Maps, Page 149. Parcel 2: All of Lots 56 and 57, and the Northeasterly 16 feet, front and rear measurements of lot 58, as shown on the MAP OF NELSON J. BIRD'S SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 42, UNIVERSITY PARK (NOW PALO ALTO), which map was filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, November 23, 1889 in Book D of Maps, Page 149. Parcel 3: Lots 52, 53, 54 and 55, MAP OF NELSON J. BIRD'S SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 42, UNIVERSITY PARK, filed November 23, 1889 in Book D of Maps, Page 149, Santa Clara County Records. APN: 120-03-042 (Affects Parcel 1); 120-03-043 (Affects Parcel 2); and 120-03-044 (Affects Parcel 3) Item 2 Attachment C - Draft PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 31     *NOT YET APPROVED* 7 0160177_20251001_AY16 Exhibit B Record of Land Use Action Item 2 Attachment C - Draft PC Ordinance     Packet Pg. 32     Page 1 of 17 6 2 2 7 APPROVAL NO. 2025-____ 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 June 23, 2025 the applicant submitted revised plans. On August 21, 2025, the ARB held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended approval of the revised plans. Item 2 Attachment D - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 33     Page 2 of 17 6 2 2 7 I. On October 8, 2025 PTC reviewed the project plans and the associated Planned Community Ordinance, and recommended approval. J. On _________, the City Council reviewed the request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Community rezoning. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to 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 K. 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 October 1, 2025. 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 Item 2 Attachment D - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 34     Page 3 of 17 6 2 2 7 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. 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 Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: With approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Community Rezoning in accordance with Ordinance _______ and Resolution _______, the proposed project complies with the zoning code and Comprehensive Plan. The project is not located within a coordinated area plan area. The proposed project is consistent with relevant goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Below is an analysis of the applicable goals and policies: Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Multiple Family Residential. The project proposes high-density housing in an area designated for high-density housing. The project includes a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to allow for existing non-conforming office uses to be redeveloped when part of a new mixed-use development. This would align the proposed project with the underlying comprehensive plan land use designation. Land Use Element Policy L-1.3 Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. This project proposes to redevelop two existing medical office buildings into a mixed-use, office and multiple-family residential rental building within the Downtown neighborhood. Policy L-2.5 Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as feasible. This project includes 14 BMR units, which is 20% of the 66 provided housing units. Item 2 Attachment D - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 35     Page 4 of 17 6 2 2 7 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. 36     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 August 8, 2025, as modified by these conditions of approval. Item 2 Attachment D - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 37     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. 38     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 number (#) BMR units shall be executed and recorded prior to final map approval or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. All BMR units constructed under this condition shall be Item 2 Attachment D - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 39     Page 8 of 17 6 2 2 7 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 June 23, 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 46 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 $3,063,197.53 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. 40     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 d. Fire-rating and protection of opening at roof, floors, and walls Item 2 Attachment D - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 41     Page 10 of 17 6 2 2 7 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. MECHANICAL LIFT: The applicant shall submit an analysis and report, prepared by a qualified professional for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Development Services, that demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed parking lift system with respect to operational details, identifies a regular and emergency maintenance schedule, and procedures and backup systems for tenants prior to building permit issuance. The applicant agrees to maintain a maintenance service contract with a certified individual/organization that will provide a prompt response (same day) to address system issues. An annual audit of the system must be provided to Planning/Transportation staff of the system to ensure the system operates effectively. If the audit or performance reports reveal that the system is not functioning or is failing to meet required operational standards, the applicant will be required to take corrective measures. Failure to address identified issues may result in penalties or restrictions, including but not limited to enforcement actions under local code enforcement procedures. 35. 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) Item 2 Attachment D - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 42     Page 11 of 17 6 2 2 7 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 36. 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. 37.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. 38. TREE-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. The property owner shall follow all conditions from the Urban Forester and all recommendations and guidelines listed in Section 6.1 of the February 7, 2024 Arborist Report prepared by David L. Babby, including but not limited to: a. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION INSPECTION REQUIRED. Prior to any site work, contractor must call Uriel Hernandez at 650-329-2450 to schedule an inspection of any required protective fencing. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. b. Prior to mobilizing equipment to the site, install tree protection fencing for tree #10, utilize Type I Protection, which includes affixing 5- to 6-foot tall chain link onto 2-inch diameter steel posts spaced apart as needed to remain upright. c. Digging for any bollards or permanent fencing within a TPZ, such as for #10, shall be manually performed using a shovel or post-hole digger. For any root encountered during the process with a diameter ≥2 inches, shift the hole over by 12 inches and repeat the process. d. All pruning shall be performed under the direction of the Project Arborist, conducted in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal code 8.10.020 regarding the prohibited use of excessive pruning for Quercus agrifolia species, in addition to the best management practices outlined in ANSI A300, and implemented by a California licensed tree-service contractor (D-49) with an ISA certified arborist in a supervisory role. e. All pruning work on oak #10 shall be supervised directly by the project arborist. Any authorized digging within the TPZ should be retained and protect roots encountered with diameters of ≥2 inches. Once exposed, cover with wet burlap and keep continually moist until they can be assessed by the project arborist; once assessed, cleanly sever at 90° to the angle of root growth against the cut line using a fine tooth saw, and then immediately after, bury the cut end with soil or keep continually moist by burlap until the dug area is backfilled. Roots encountered with diameters <2 inches can be cleanly severed at a 90° angle to the direction of root growth. f. Removing existing asphalt and base material located beyond the proposed deck and within #10's TPZ shall be performed under direct supervision by the project arborist. g. Once work is completed, restrict heavy equipment from traveling over the newly exposed ground, manually spread a 4- to 6-inch layer of coarse wood chips (or as determined by the project arborist), and expand protection fencing. The removal of any existing plant material within a TPZ must be manually performed, and the work reviewed with the project arborist beforehand. 39. 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 Item 2 Attachment D - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 43     Page 12 of 17 6 2 2 7 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: 40. TREE APPRAISAL & SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. (Reference: CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.25). Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall work with the Urban Forestry Section to prepare and secure a tree appraisal and security deposit agreement stipulating its duration and a monitoring program. For the purposes of a security deposit agreement, the monetary market or replacement value shall be determined using the most recent version of the “Guide for Plant Appraisal”. The appraisal shall be performed at the applicant’s expense, and the appraiser shall be subject to the approval of the Urban Forester. a. SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. Prior to grading or building permit issuance, as a condition of development approval, the applicant shall post a security deposit for 200% of the appraised replacement value of the following protected status tree: Tree #10, 50" DBH Quercus agrifolia on the neighboring property. The security may be a cash deposit, letter of credit, or surety bond and shall be filed with the Revenue Collections/Finance Department or in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. b. SECURITY DEPOSIT & MONITORING PROGRAM. The applicant (or new property owner should the property change hands) shall provide to the City of Palo Alto an annual tree evaluation report prepared by the project arborist or other qualified certified arborist, assessing the condition and providing recommendations to correct potential tree decline. The monitoring program shall end three years from date of final occupancy. c. SECURITY DEPOSIT DURATION. The security deposit duration period shall be five years from the date of final occupancy. Return of the security guarantee shall be subject to City approval of the final monitoring report. A tree shall be considered dead when the main leader has died back, 25% of the crown is dead or if major trunk or root damage is evident. Should the tree die, a new tree of equal or greater appraised value shall be planted in the same area by the applicant (or new property owner should the property change hands) with permission of the tree owner at 517 Byron Street. Landscape area and irrigation shall be adapted to provide optimum growing conditions for the replacement tree at applicants expense. The replacement tree that is planted shall be subject to a new three-year establishment and monitoring program. The applicant shall provide an annual tree evaluation report as originally required. d. FORFEIT OF DEPOSIT. The City may determine that if the tree should die (as defined above) and an agreement on a replacement tree cannot be reached with the tree owner at 517 Byron Street, it will constitute a forfeit of the deposit equal to the appraised value. Any forfeit will be deposited into the Forestry Fund to plant new trees elsewhere. Issues causing forfeit of any portion of the deposit may also be subject to remedies described in Palo Alto Municipal Code. Item 2 Attachment D - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 44     Page 13 of 17 6 2 2 7 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 41. 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 42. 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. 43. 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. 44. STREETWORK PERMIT: The applicant shall obtain a Streetwork Permit from the Department of Public Works for all public improvements. 45. 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.” 46. 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. 47. CIVIL ENGINEER CERTIFICATION: Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, applicant shall provide an as-graded grading plan prepared by the civil engineer that includes original ground surface elevations, as-graded ground surface elevations, lot drainage patterns and locations and elevations of all surface and subsurface drainage facilities. The civil engineer shall certify that the work was done in accordance with the final approved grading plan. 48. 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 Item 2 Attachment D - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 45     Page 14 of 17 6 2 2 7 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. 49. 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. 50. 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”. 51. 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. 52. 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. 53. DRY-FLOODPROOFING PLAN INSERT: Insert the “Plan Insert for Dry Floodproofed Non-Residential and Mixed-Use Buildings” sheet into the plan set. 54. 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. 55. 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. 56. 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. 57. 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. 58. 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 Item 2 Attachment D - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 46     Page 16 of 17 6 2 2 7 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. 59. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: All improvement plan sets shall include the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” sheet. 60. 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. 61. 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. 62. 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. 63. 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. 64. 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. 65. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. To determine the impervious surface area that is being disturbed, provide the quantity on the site plan. 66. 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 Item 2 Attachment D - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 47     Page 17 of 17 6 2 2 7 Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. 67. 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 68. 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. 69. 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. 70. Stormwater quality protection g. Temporary and permanent waste, compost and recycling containers shall be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. h. Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed). i. Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping. j. Offsite downgrade storm drain inlets shall also be identified on this plan set and protected. If City staff removes protection from an inlet in the ROW during a rain event, the contractor shall replace the inlet protection by the end of the following business day. 71. All proposed Stormwater treatment measures should have a detail on this detail sheet. Provide a standard detail for the pervious pavers 72. 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 Item 2 Attachment D - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 48     Page 18 of 17 6 2 2 7 FIRE 73. 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. ELECTRICAL UTILITIES 74. UTILITIES APPLICATION. Changes to existing electric utilities equipment on site, such as the transformer, will require a utilities application. Submit a utilities application and obtain City of Palo Alto Utilities Electrical Engineering approval for the modifications to the electrical system. 75. UTILITY EASEMENT REQUIRED. Prior to energization, a public utility easement is required to provide access to the proposed transformer. This can either be provided through separate instrument and documented on the tentative and final map or dedicated through the tentative and final map process. 76. UTILITY DISCONNECT. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services proposed for removal, including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and, as applicable, removed. 77. SPECIAL STREET LIGHT: This project is located within the Downtown area and shall install decorative streetlights as shown in the Special Street Light Style Placement Guide. https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/current- planning/pw-style-placement-guide-2020.pdf 78. Install 1-2" conduit from the MPOE to existing CPAU cabinet. WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER UTILITIES PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 79. 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) 80. 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). 81. 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 Item 2 Attachment D - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 49     Page 19 of 17 6 2 2 7 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. 82. 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). 83. 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. 84. 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. 85. 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. 86. 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. 87. 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. 88. 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. 89. 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 Item 2 Attachment D - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 50     Page 20 of 17 6 2 2 7 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. 90. All existing water and wastewater services/laterals that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per the latest WGW utilities standards. 91. 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. 92. 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. 93. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas, & wastewater. 94. 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: _________________________ ____________________________ Item 2 Attachment D - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 51     Page 21 of 17 6 2 2 7 City Clerk Mayor APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ ___________________________ Director of Planning and Assistant City Attorney Development Services PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: 1. Those plans prepared by KSH Architects titled “660 University Ave., Palo Alto, CA,” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on August 8, 2025. Item 2 Attachment D - Draft Record of Land Use Action     Packet Pg. 52     6 1 0 8 ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 660 University Avenue, 21PLN-00341 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-20 DISTRICT) AND PROPOSED Regulation Required RM-20 Last Reviewed 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 24 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 27 feet 6 inches 2’2” for garage ramps 27 feet 6 inches 2’2” for garage ramps Max. Building Height 30 feet 73’6” at six story parapet 82’ at elevator overrun 71’2” at six story parapet 79’8” at elevator overrun Interior Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle Partial 4th floor – 6th 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) 53.3% (12,001 sf)53.3% (12,001 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.5:1 (11,263 sf) 2.96:1 (66,669 sf) Mixed-Use; Replacement Office: 9,115 sf Residential: 46,993 sf Other: 10,583 sf 3.1:1 (68,738 sf) Mixed-Use; Replacement Office: 1,984 sf Residential: 66,754 sf Residential Density 11 to 20 units per acre (5 to 10 units) 66 DU on 0.52 acre = 126.9 units per acre 70 DU on 0.52 acre = 134.6 units per acre Minimum Site Open Space 35% 7,884 sf 49.7% Ground level open space: 11,189 sf 49.7% Ground level open space: 11,189 sf Item 2 Attachment E - Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 53     6 1 0 8 Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit 9,450 sf 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 Ground level patio: 735 sf Balconies: ~60 sf per unit (typical), 6,187 sf total Total ~97 per unit Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit Ground level patio: 735 sf 11.1 sf per unit Ground level patio: 735 sf 10.5 sf per unit Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit 6 units do not have private open space All other units have balconies ranging from 60 sf to >400 sf Every unit has a balcony 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 71’2” 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 27’6”, 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 24 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. This 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 Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 54     6 1 0 8 Table 3: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 Off-Street Parking for Multiple-Family Residential Type Last Reviewed Plans New Proposed Office 37 required, 21 proposed 43% reduction 8 required, 7 proposed 12.5% reduction Housing 74 required, 56 provided 24% reduction 81 required, 71 proposed 12.3% reduction Vehicle Parking Total 21 Office 56 Residential 77 total, 30.6% reduction 7 Office 71 Residential 78 total, 12.4 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 Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 55     349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 KSH Architects | 349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 | 415.954.1960 PROJECT DESCRIPTION – 660 UNIVERSITY AVE, PALO ALTO Located on a prominent site in Palo Alto, the 660 University project is situated on University Avenue between Middlefield Road and Byron Street. The project proposes a mixed-use 6-story building with two (2) levels of below-grade parking and includes the following: 1,984 square feet of office space on the ground floor; 70 residential units (1 employee unit + 69 rentable units) with an entry lobby; a shared fitness center for office and residential uses; and parking to service both uses. The residential and office entrances are located on University Avenue with recessed alcoves designed to welcome tenants, connected to the sidewalk grade via ramps and stairs. Separate elevators are also provided for each use and are accessible from the below grade parking levels. Natural finishes have been selected for the exterior of the building, including clear glass, board- formed concrete, simulated wood panels and horizontal siding. The residential elevator tower on University Avenue, as well as the stair towers on Middlefield Road and Byron Street, are expressed as sculptural forms highlighted by extensive landscaping at the edges of the site. Changes in plane, setbacks, and projecting balconies further contribute to the character and texture of the proposed building. Three parcels will be combined and two existing office buildings on the site will be demolished in order for this project to proceed. We are estimating that the approximate start date for construction will be 06/01/2027, and the approximate end date for construction will be 05/01/2028. On sheet A0.1 of this submittal package (Project Information), detailed information is provided regarding Land Use, FAR, Unit Counts, Building Area, Density, Parking Counts, Site Coverage, Open Space, Building Height and Setbacks, which is also summarized below for reference. Context The project is designed to be a high-quality addition to Palo Alto. Features include changes in plane, the expression of varied heights in the building volumes, material and color variation, recessed windows and projecting balconies with glass railings. In addition to the private balconies, a terrace for residents is proposed at the roof, to provide common open space. The project has taken steps to respond to the surrounding context of the site. The form of the building steps down toward the adjacent residence located at 524 Middlefield Road and responds to the context of the neighboring single-family use lot through setbacks along the common property line. The shared fence between the neighboring property and the site will be updated based on multiple discussions with the resident of 542 Middlefield Road, and the proposal has been received positively by the neighbor. To avoid heavy congestion along Middlefield Road, trash staging has been located on Byron Street for both residential and office uses. The vehicular entry to the parking garage is also located on Byron Street to avoid further congestion along Middlefield Road. The preservation of a large oak tree, located on an adjacent parcel, is incorporated into the design, and conforms to all recommendations and setbacks prescribed by a city approved arborist. An outdoor deck will also be constructed beneath the existing oak tree without disturbing the existing Item 2 Attachment F - Applicant's Response to PTC Comments     Packet Pg. 56     349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 KSH Architects | 349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 | 415.954.1960 conditions of the root system. The team for this project successfully designed & constructed a similar project at 250 Bryant in Mountain View (3 stories with two levels of below grade parking) around an existing oak tree and has experience with this type of installation. The project front yard (Middlefield Rd) has a special 24 ft. setback that is required per the current zoning map. The design seeks to comply with the 24 ft. setback, but proposes added height in order to deliver the needed housing to Palo Alto. The current 25 ft. setback consists of a landscaped area with trees to transition between the sidewalk and the building. Combined with the 12 ft. sidewalk width, the proposed building is located approximately 37 ft. from the face of the curb on Middlefield Road. The street side yard setback (University Ave.) requires a 16 ft. setback per zoning, or a 0-20’ setback on arterial roadways. The project proposes a 7 ft. setback, and combined with a 12 ft. wide sidewalk, places the building 19 ft. from the face of curb on University Ave. Similarly, the street rear yard (Byron St) proposes a 11 ft. setback where 16 ft. is required. With the 10 ft. sidewalk width, the face of the proposed building is 21 ft. from the face of the curb on Byron Street. The interior side yard requires a 10 ft setback. To accommodate the existing oak tree canopy, our building proposes a 26.5 ft. minimum setback, and a 28.5 ft. maximum setback with additional insets. In addition, while the form of the building steps down to respond to the single family residence at 534 Middlefield Rd., it does not fully comply with the daylight plane condition. This is shown on Sheets A3.3B and A3.3C in the drawing set. Open Space – 35% min. required The proposed design provides 11,144 SF (49.5%) ground level open space as well as the following: 735 SF of private (residential) common terrace area at the ground floor; 5,040 SF of private (residential) balcony area; and 1,067 SF of private (residential) terrace area on the fourth floor (subdivided for the 2 units adjacent). In total, 6,842 SF of private residential balcony & private/common terrace area is provided where 10,500 SF is required. All units are provided with private balconies of minimum 60 square feet each. The ground floor terrace will provide a private space that allows for small and large gatherings, and acts as an extension of the indoor residential lounge directly adjacent. FAR – 0.5:1 max, min. 11 units – max 20 units / acre The proposed non-residential FAR is 0.398 & the proposed residential FAR is 2.697 (70 units for ~ 0.5 acres where 10 are allowed) for a combined proposed FAR of 3.1. This residential FAR calculation includes the proposed units, stairs, elevators, MEP rooms, lobby, and other residential amenities to support the residential units. The project seeks to exceed the allowable FAR in order to provide much needed housing within the downtown community. Item 2 Attachment F - Applicant's Response to PTC Comments     Packet Pg. 57     349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 KSH Architects | 349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 | 415.954.1960 Jobs/Housing Ratio The existing combined office area (to be removed) on the subject parcels is 9,216 SF, of which 1,984 SF (7,232 SF decrease) is proposed to be replaced within the current project. In addition, the project seeks to provide 70 new housing units (combination of studios, 1-BRs & 2-BRs) to the community. Parking With the proposed project being less than a mile from the University Ave. Caltrain station, the project has proposed a TDM plan to allow for a parking reduction of 13% overall. In addition, the residential parking is composed primarily of independent mechanical stackers with pits (2 vehicles per stall) to limit the below grade scope to two levels and minimize the amount of below grade excavation and potential dewatering that may be required. Affordability The project sponsor is also including the housing affordability component for this project and was planning to distribute the 20% inclusionary requirement across three income levels. Here would be the breakdown of the 14 affordable units (20% of total rentable units): Income Level A1 (STU) A2 (STU) C (1BR) D (1BR) E (2BR) G (STU) H1 (1BR) Total BMR Units (20%, 14 total) Very low income 1 1 2 Low Income 1 1 1 1 1 5 Moderate Income 2 1 2 1 1 7 Total 14 Unit Typology Studio: Unit Type A1-2, B, G, J (435 – 589 SF) 1 Bedroom: Unit Type C, D, F1, H1-2 (517 – 878 SF) 2 Bedroom: Unit Type E, F2-3 (802 – 966 SF) Item 2 Attachment F - Applicant's Response to PTC Comments     Packet Pg. 58     349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 KSH Architects | 349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 | 415.954.1960 Unit Design A large variety of different unit plans will be provided, ranging from 435 SF to 966 SF. All units will be provided with at least one private balcony of minimum 60 SF. Two units at the fourth floor (1 1BR unit and 1 2BR unit) provided with larger private terraces of at least ~375 SF each. Each unit will include a full-size ADA compliant bathroom & kitchen with a full-size stacking or side-by-side washer/dryer. Approximately 60% of the units will be 1BR & 2BR, with the remainder provided as studios. Floor Unit A1 STU Unit A2 STU Unit B STU Unit C 1BR Unit D 1BR Unit E 2BR Unit F1 1BR Unit F2 2BR Unit F3 2BR Unit G STU Unit H1 1BR Unit H2 1BR Unit J STU Total per Floor Second 5 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 16 Third 5 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 16 Fourth 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 13 Fifth 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 13 Sixth 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 12 Total per Unit 15 5 2 5 7 5 2 3 1 5 10 9 1 70 RM-20 Zoning compliance The proposed project requests City Council consideration of the following adjustments under a PC application, to approve 70 new units to the RM-20 district: 1. Increased height: The max building height allowed for RM-20 is 30’. The proposed project seeks to provide a 6-story building with max. 54’-11” height to the top of the occupied sixth floor (56’-8 ½” from grade), or 67’-11” height to top of the roof slab (69’-8 ½” from grade). 2. Increased FAR: 0.5 to 3.1 as noted above, including increased density of 70 units from 10/0.5 acre allowed. 3. Reduced parking: 88 stalls are required (8 office + 81 residential, which includes assigned + 2 unassigned ADA). The proposed project seeks to provide a minimum of 78 stalls utilizing a 13% TDM reduction. 4. Open Space: 10,500 SF of private and common residential open space is required. The proposed project seeks to provide less open space than required for the residential tenants (6,842 SF). 5. Daylight Plane: Allowance to not comply with the daylight plane condition adjacent to the single family residence at 534 Middlefield Rd. Item 2 Attachment F - Applicant's Response to PTC Comments     Packet Pg. 59     349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 KSH Architects | 349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 | 415.954.1960 ARB Ad Hoc Responses During the December 2024 ARB meeting, the project was approved with conditions of approval to return to an ARB ad hoc committee. The applicant has provided responses to the items as follows: 1. (a) Ensure the approved plans do not further increase activity in the TPZ than currently shown in the plans without Arborist review. (b) Remove balconies from within the Oak tree canopy. (c) Support Urban Forestry’s COA for the 200% tree value bond. Answer: Project complies with items (a) and (c). 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. Answer: Project complies. 3. Provide at least 25% of the long-term bicycle parking readily accessible at grade. Answer: Project provides 25% of the long-term bicycle parking readily accessible at the ground floor. 4. All residential units shall comply with the City’s private open space requirements, excluding the units within the Oak tree canopy. Answer: All residential units comply with the City’s private open space requirements. 5. Revise the tree planting plan to eliminate or relocate proposed new trees under the Oak tree canopy, with review from the City Arborist. Answer: Proposed trees will be in planters placed on top of existing asphalt. The city arborist has confirmed that this will not have negative impacts on the existing oak tree. 6. Reduce the height and total transparent area of glazing on the sixth floor. Answer: The height of the sixth floor has been reduced from 14’-0” to 13’-0”. The transparent area of glazing on the sixth floor has been reduced from 4,153 SF to 2,898 SF, or an approximate 30.2% decrease. 7. Review and revise the elevations to eliminate or mitigate co-planar situations with different building materials. Answer: Project has revised the elevations to mitigate co-planar situations with different building materials. Item 2 Attachment F - Applicant's Response to PTC Comments     Packet Pg. 60     349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 KSH Architects | 349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 | 415.954.1960 PTC Motion Responses During the March 2025 PTC meeting, the committee passed a motion of continuance proposed by Commissioner Summa to provide clarification on items of interest. The applicant has provided responses to the items as follows: 1. Give Staff the time to bring back the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan with more of an analysis of the impacts citywide, with a map of effected properties, their existing conditions and nearby uses. Answer: The information requested will be provided by staff. 2. Consider restructuring the monthly parking fees to align with the RPP cost in the neighborhood. Answer: The applicant has studied the possibility of restructuring the project's monthly parking fees to align with the RPP program of the neighborhood. The proposed project is located within the Downtown RPP District area, where annual parking permits cost $56 compared to the project's proposed monthly parking fee of $150. Upon further investigation, it was concluded that matching the Downtown RPP cost would not be financially feasible for the project. The project's parking fees will help to cover significant underground parking costs but will also provide residents with the convenience and security of covered parking within the building. In the applicant's experience, residents will want to utilize the stalls provided even with the option of the RPP program available. 3. Address the engineering and potential use of the 24 ft setback regarding facilitating multi- modal use. Answer: Approximately ~425 SF on each level within the below-grade garage has been allocated for future city improvements at the corner of University Ave. and Middlefield Road. The provided area will be designed to accommodate a future retrofit and improvements in the event that it is needed. The designated area would provide 20' depth from the sidewalk grade for future improvements and would remove 3 residential parking stalls for an overall stall count of 75. 4. Incorporate removing the asphalt around the tree after construction is complete. Answer: The project proposes the installation of a wood deck on pedestals, built on top of the existing asphalt area adjacent to the coast live oak tree. The recommendation to maintain the existing asphalt surface throughout and following construction is to avoid the inevitable loss of roots underlying the asphalt and/or base material. The proposed design feature has been thoughtfully and thoroughly deliberated by the project arborist and landscape architect, and effectively eliminates the risk of damaging those roots. It represents the optimal measure to ensure those roots remain intact, and will best ensure the continued preservation and health of the tree. Item 2 Attachment F - Applicant's Response to PTC Comments     Packet Pg. 61     349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 KSH Architects | 349 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94108 | 415.954.1960 5. Require bird safe glass for the balconies. Answer: The applicant agrees to incorporate bird-safe glass at all balconies. 6. Clarify whether the office square footage is a Public Works requirement or only required to qualify for FEMA insurance. Answer: The office square footage was set based on the following assumptions and direction from the city: (a) per PAMC 16.52.130, basement constructions in a special flood hazard area are permitted in non-residential buildings; (b) per PAMC 16.52.130, basement constructions in a special flood hazard area are prohibited in residential buildings; (c) per 44 C.F.R Section 59.1, mixed-use buildings may be classified as non-residential if at least 25% of the total building area consists of non-residential use. City staff has since determined that the previous 25% threshold is not a requirement under PAMC Chapter 16.52 to construct a basement in a flood hazard zone. The project must instead meet the mixed-use classification defined by FEMA/NFIP, which states that the building must include the presence of some commercial or other non- residential use in the building, and that all residential uses are located above the base flood elevation. The project has been revised to meet these updated standards. The office area has been reduced to the ground floor, totaling 1,984 SF. The previous sixth floor office space has been removed and replaced with additional residential units, increasing the total count from 66 to 70 units. Item 2 Attachment F - Applicant's Response to PTC Comments     Packet Pg. 62     If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on- Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Attachment D Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review project plans, TDM plan, and environmental documents, including the Draft and Final EIR online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “660 University” and click the address link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/660- University-Avenue Item 2 Attachment G - Project Plans and Environmental Review     Packet Pg. 63     From:Armer, Jennifer To:Kallas, Emily; Raybould, Claire Cc:Tavera, Samuel Subject:Fw: HAC support for 660 University Ave. Date:Thursday, September 18, 2025 8:18:22 AM Attachments:660 University Ave Letter of Support-7.pdfOutlook-Logo__Desc.pngOutlook-h2w13w1h.png FYI Sincerely, Jennifer JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Assistant Director Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2191 | jennifer.armer@paloalto.gov www.paloalto.gov From: Ali Sapirman <ali@housingactioncoalition.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 6:37 PM To: Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@PaloAlto.gov>; Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov> Cc: brandon.yung@hcd.ca.gov <brandon.yung@hcd.ca.gov>; Irvin.Saldana@hcd.ca.gov <Irvin.Saldana@hcd.ca.gov>; Coy, Melinda@HCD <melinda.coy@hcd.ca.gov>; Witt Turner <witt@housingactioncoalition.org>; Brianna Morales <brianna@housingactioncoalition.org> Subject: HAC support for 660 University Ave. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Commissioners, Staff, and HCD: Please see the attached letter of support on behalf of The Housing Action Coalition. Pleasenote HCD is copied on this email due to the history of delays the project has faced. Feel free toreach out with any questions or concerns. In solidarity, -- Ali Sapirman | Pronouns: They/Them Advocacy & Policy Manager| Housing Action Coalition555 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94111 Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 64     Cell: (407) 739-8818 | Email: ali@housingactioncoalition.org To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all". Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 65     September 8, 2025 Dear Commissioners, The Housing Action Coalition is a member-supported nonprofit that advocates for creating more housing for residents of all income levels to help alleviate the Bay Area and California’s housing shortage, displacement, and affordability crisis. Our endorsement committee had the opportunity to review Smith Development’s proposal at 660 University, and we proudly endorsed the project. Smith Development’s proposal would bring 66 much-needed new units to Palo Alto. We were impressed with the project's dedication to affordable housing, with 20 percent of the units for lower-tiered affordable housing, which is high especially considering current economic conditions. By prioritizing affordable housing and urban development, we can create more sustainable and inclusive communities for everyone. In terms of Land Use and Density, the project site's central location with its proximity to essential downtown amenities, including the Caltrain station, and the inclusion of ample bike parking facilities underscore a commitment to promoting environmental sustainability and reducing reliance on automobiles. In terms of parking, our committee would like to see a reduction on the amount of parking provided for the project, and have the project redirect those costs to increasing the overall density of the project. In terms of overall design, we commend the steps Smith Development has taken to preserve the Oak tree on site, and even incorporated it into the design. This project will be critical to support Palo Alto, and the Bay Area’s housing needs. Please move this project forward without delay. Corey Smith, Executive Director Housing Action Coalition (HAC) Ali Sapirman, Advocacy and Policy Manager Housing Action Coalition (HAC) Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 66     From:Tran, Vickie To:Kallas, Emily; Raybould, Claire Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer Subject:FW: 660 University Ave., Palo Alto Date:Monday, August 25, 2025 8:36:23 AM Hi Emily and Claire, Please see below for public comment on 660 University. Vickie -----Original Message-----From: Velasquez, Ingrid <Ingrid.Velasquez@paloalto.gov>Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 8:23 AMTo: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov>; Armer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Armer@paloalto.gov>; Tran, Vickie<Vickie.Tran@paloalto.gov>Cc: Nose, Kiely <Kiely.Nose@paloalto.gov>; Gaines, Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@paloalto.gov>; City Mgr<CityMgr@paloalto.gov>Subject: FW: 660 University Ave., Palo Alto Good morning, Forwarding the comment below for awareness. Thanks, Ingrid Ingrid VelásquezAdministrative AssistantOffice of the City Manager(650) 329-2354| Ingrid.Velasquez@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov -----Original Message-----From: Faith Brigel <faithwb3@yahoo.com>Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2025 9:05 PMTo: city.council@cityofpaloalto.gov; Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov>Cc: Faith Brigel <faithwb3@yahoo.com>Subject: 660 University Ave., Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clickingon links. Dear City Council of Palo Alto, Re 660 University Ave. Construction Project I sent an email regarding 660 University Ave, a few days ago, but I would like to express a few more objections tothis project that I hope you will consider. I have great concern that the size and a few other issues related to thisconstruction will detrimentally affect my property, and several of the other neighbors. 1- I understand that the State is mandating that housing be increased in California. But we have several newprojects being considered already, not just 660 University, and several of those other areas do not have as many Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 67     serious problems that this one has. There is the 17 story building on Mollie Stones, there is the project just 2 blocks up from 660 University on University Ave, one on San Antonio I believe it is 197 apartments, and I think one on El Camino Real. And probably more will be submitted.2-At the Architectural Board Review Thurs. Aug. 21 several of the members of this Board questioned such issues asthe lack of parking, and the high-level of congested traffic in that area, and other issues. When questioned theresponses that the developer gave were rather disappointing. Such as, when asked about parking and trafficcongestion- he said that they assume that a lot of the residents will not drive cars. But that is an assumption notbased on any facts or analysis! It is very possible on the other hand, that most, or many of the residents will havecars. Public transit is quite scarce in this area, and the train is not close at all to this project.3- This construction was initially submitted for 4 stories. But when they were asked to increase the setback - theysaid fine they will do that but they will increase the height to 6 stories! If 6 stories is allowed this building will bethe highest in that location. It will take of course longer to build, and it will permanently overwhelm, and possiblynegatively affect the light plan of my building that has been there for about 120 years, and other neighbors.4- The traffic in that area is very dense most of the day. The location is at the corner of University Ave., andMiddlefield which is the entrance to the downtown of Palo Alto. The City has not had an official traffic analysisdone. Only the developer of this project had one done. It would be important for the City to hire a neutral party to doone.5-They will only be providing 78 parking spots for the whole building in a 2 level parking garage. This is toaccommodate 70 multi-family residential units, plus 1900 sq. ft of offices, where tenants, and outsiders also will becoming and going and certainly needing parking spaces.6-There are rarely parking spots available on Byron, University or Middlefield, any time of day. And it has beenlike this for the 37 years that I have frequented that area. In fact, on 8/21 right after attending most of the ARBmeeting I went over to my property on 518 Byron Street and there was a car parked blocking my driveway. Whenshe came out of the dentist’s office she said she didn’t realize it was a driveway( it is very clear) and she was in ahurry. I hope this is not a prediction of things to come.7-There has been a great deal of discussion about protecting a tree that would be adjacent to the building. That isvery good. However, I would like equal attention to the neighboring houses. 8- As one of the ARB members expressed -this large building will only have 2 common spots in the front ( onByron Street). With various delivery trucks coming by - that is- Amazon, Door Dash, etc ., there will not be enoughparking spots for them. So will they park in the middle of the street and block it for the neighbors? He suggested thatthis building of this size needs more spots for this type of parking. Very true. But will there be any follow up on thisand other issues mentioned since the vote was 3-2 and passed by the ARB members.9- Apparently, recently the developer has added more balconies to the residential units. He said: “Everybody lovesbalconies.” But what about the neighbors? Since I have been there that area has been dominated by professionals:dentists, attorneys, and therapists: that is, Psychiatrists, Psychologists, and Clinical Social Workers. This location iseast of downtown. Byron is not quite in the downtown area. It is a quieter area. That very large building of officesand residents, and balconies will change the atmosphere.10- It is my understanding that the developers of this project have not built in Palo Alto before. These developersare from San Francisco or Sacramento. Palo Alto is unique. Please help hold onto some of its character.11- Please if no other changes are required, please do not allow 6 stories. They themselves at first submitted 4stories. Pls go back to the 4 stories. It will take less time to build, and it will be less overwhelming for houses suchas mine, which is a beautiful Victorian style that has been there for 120 years. Once this huge construction project isbuilt the developer will leave -but this very tall and massive building will be there forever. It will be permanent. Please show consideration, respect and appreciation for the already established Palo Alto buildings by not voting inthis mammoth structure as it is.I much appreciate your time to read my email and consider my points. Thank you,FaithFaith W. Brigel518 Byron Street Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 68     From:Christopher Ream To:Kallas, Emily; Architectural Review Board Subject:660 University- SECOND LETTER other than Tree Date:Monday, August 18, 2025 4:07:42 PM Attachments:Ream - SECOND LETTER - Comments on Other Than Tree - 20250308.pdf Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Emily, Attached is my letter “SECOND LETTER – Comments on Other than the Tree”. Please distribute it to the Members of the Architectual Review Board, and to others as may be appropriate, in time for their review before the ARB Meeting this coming Thursday morning. Thank you. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 69     THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: ream@reamlaw.com August 18, 2025 Members Architectural Review Board City of Palo Alto, California Via: ARB@PaloAlto.gov Emily.Kallas@PaloAlto.gov Re: ARB Meeting on August 21, 2025 660 University Project SECOND LETTER – Comments on Other than the Tree Board Members, The Hamilton is a senior living (55+) condominium development which shares the small block with the proposed development at 660 University Avenue. The Board of Directors of the Hamilton Homeowners Association (the “HHA”), with the support of its residents, has resolved to push for revising the proposed building that will materially adversely affect us and all our neighbors. • Balconies over University Avenue • Parking • Parking for Office Size Adjustment ? • No Parking for Fitness Center • Balconies in the Canopy • Setbacks • Daylight Plane Balconies over University Avenue Applicant shows 6-foot to 7-foot setbacks for the above-ground building along University Avenue. There are 36 balconies from the Second Floor to the Sixth Floor sticking out six feet into that “setback” so they come right to the edge of the public sidewalk or within one foot of it. They will have a clear glass railing set 3½ feet off the deck, with a clear glass sheet between the railing and the deck of the balcony. Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 70     Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project August 18, 2025 Page 2 of 5 On warm, sunny Friday or weekend afternoons and evenings, there are going to be young people socializing on these balconies. The 3½ foot railing is an inviting place to rest your forearm as you hold a soft drink, a beer or a glass of wine. Geometry dictates that the drink is now another 6 - 12 inches closer to the sidewalk floors below. Many residents in The Hamilton get some exercise by walking around our small block and their walk will pass under these balconies. I frequently see seniors from other parts of “Senior Corner” including this sidewalk as part of their walk. Please don’t drop a glass – you may kill someone. This is a grave, inexcusable, unnecessary danger. Those balconies must be removed. Parking Parking in downtown Palo Alto is a problem the City has been dealing with for years and continues to deal with. There is no parking on either University Avenue or Middlefield Road near the project. The Hamilton is on the short block of Byron between University and Hamilton and sees the parking problem every day. It is a narrow street to start with, but on every workday, every single parking spot on both sides of the street is filled all day long. This narrows the drivable room so that two cars going in opposite directions cannot pass; one must slowly pull into a driveway to make room for the other to pass. Every time a delivery vehicle stops on Byron Street during the day, it clogs and backs up Byron. The project does not provide any short-term parking for delivery vehicles, so Byron is going to get backed up many times a day. Applicant calculates that according to PAMC 18.52.040 a total of 81 parking stalls are required to serve the residents of the 70 residential units and 8 parking stalls to serve the workers in the non- residential office space on the ground floor, for a total of 89 stalls. But then Applicant invokes several arguments to reduce the number of stalls it is required to provide, starting with a 13% reduction claimed by TDM, down to only 69 actual parking stalls. Has the city staff carefully reviewed the TDM Applicant has submitted? Will it actually reduce the need for parking or is it only designed to reduce the daily use of cars: Is it designed to reduce the number of daily automotive commutes a person takes, while that person still owns a car to be used for weekend activity. Even though it may reduce daily congestion, that car still needs a place to park. Bottom Line – Applicant has cleverly eliminated 20 parking stalls (89 – 69 = 20). Those 20 stalls may have been eliminated in the project’s garage, but the cars have not been eliminated and the 20 cars that can’t find an empty stall in the project’s garage will be driving around downtown, commercial and residential, looking for a parking space and causing congestion that the TDM was supposed to reduce. My granddaughters and other family members might not come to visit me because of the inability to park nearby and friends will not want to come over as much as they used to. Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 71     Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project August 18, 2025 Page 3 of 5 Parking for Office Size Adjustment ? Applicant has shown only 1,984 ft2 of non-residential office space on the First Floor (see Sheet A2.1) and has calculated that the code requirement for that is the 8 parking stalls I referred to in the above section. Last year, up until Applicant added a Fifth and a Sixth Floor in October 2024, the non-residential office space on the First Floor was 9,115 ft2 which calculated to a code requirement of 37 parking stalls, 29 more stalls than the current plans call for (37–8 = 29). I accept Applicant’s calculation of only 8 parking stalls as the First Floor is configured now. Last Year – 9,115 ft2 Light blue is office space Current – 1,984 ft2 Light blue is office space But, there is a warning flag – Applicant has inserted a notice on Sheet A2.1: ALL INTERIOR DEMISING AND PARTITION WALLS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO PERMIT SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL If Applicant’s plans get approved, will Applicant then go back to the configuration of the First Floor it had last year and collect a lot of monthly rent on the additional 7,131 ft2 of office space without incurring the obligation for the additional 29 parking stalls? It will be tempting to Applicant. Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 72     Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project August 18, 2025 Page 4 of 5 Emily Kallas, the City Planner on this project has informally told me that Applicant could only make minor adjustments not to exceed a total of 100 ft2. If this project is going to be approved, I strongly urge that the City Attorney get a binding written contract that limits Applicant to Ms. Kallas’s understanding of a maximum of 100 ft2 in adjustments. Without such a contract, we might have another 29 cars wandering around in addition to the 20 cars in the prior section above. No Parking for Fitness Center Applicant has said that the 1,829 ft2 Fitness Center on the First Floor will be exclusively for use by tenants in the building (residential and office), and thus no need to calculate any additional parking stalls. So, while the City Attorney is at it, get a written contract affirming that the Fitness Center will remain exclusive to tenants. Balconies in the Canopy The approval of the Architectural Review Board at its December 5, 2024 meeting was subject to several conditions being met. The first condition was “Remove balconies from within the Oak tree canopy.” (This can be found in the Staff Report for the upcoming August 21, 2025 Meeting, Item No. 2. Page 5 of 9.). Applicant has ignored this for its plans show 31 balconies including 5- foot clearance would intrude into the canopy (45-foot radius), and none have been removed. They need to be removed. Setbacks At the April 18, 2024 and again at the December 5, 2024 ARB meetings on this project, there was a lot of discussion about the lack of proper setback along Middlefield Road. Applicant has moved the above grade portion of the building back to form a 25-foot setback along Middlefield as requested, but the underground garage still extends right up to the property line with ZERO setback and a minimal amount of soil fill above the garage structure. (See Sheet A3.3A.) Will the City of Palo Alto be able to make improvements to Middlefield Road in the future with this garage flush up against the road? Not likely. Applicant has offered to provide a small area at the Middlefield/University corner of the property as an “accommodation” if the City were to want to make improvements along Middlefield Road. Any improvement would most likely be to improve travel along Middlefield Road. But Applicant’s offer is only for 27 feet down Middlefield from the corner, leaving 46.5 feet still obstructed by the garage. (See Sheet A1.1A.) Applicant needs to make the offer to the City for the entire length of the property along Middlefield. This brings out the fact that the garage also abuts both University Avenue and Byron Street with zero setbacks. Is this standard and acceptable? Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 73     Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project August 18, 2025 Page 5 of 5 Daylight Plane There is a single family, one-story residence zoned RM-20 at 524 Middlefield Road adjacent to the project. Upon a 1/21/2022 review of Applicant’s initial filing, Samuel Gutierrez advised Applicant of the requirement to observe a 45° daylight plane. Applicant complied, and in the next submission of plans, cut back the portion of the Fourth Floor next to the neighboring house. The Fourth Floor has remained cut back and compliant with the daylight plane in all subsequent plans submitted by Applicant including the current submission; but Applicant has now added two additional stories onto the building raising the height up to 82 feet and disregarded the fact that these additional floors egregiously violate the daylight plane. The following is from Applicant’s submission. I have enhanced it to make the line of the daylight plane and the location of the neighboring house more visible. Conclusion The Hamilton community strongly opposes this application for excessive development on our small block and urges the Board to require action to correct. Thank you for your consideration, Christopher Ream 3/32"=1'-0" PL PL OFFICE LOBBY SPEED RAMP DOWNTO P2 LEVEL UNIVERSITY AVE. 10'- 0 " 10'- 6 " OFFICE PARKING RESIDENTIAL PARKING STAIRBEYOND 7'-9" T Y P . 45.0° 55'-0 "LINE O F D A Y L I G H T P L A N E 3'-6 " 3'-6" 9'-9" 13'- 6 " 10'-6 " 14'-6 " 7'-0 " FEN C E 7'-0 " 9'-9 " EL. -1'-6" (NAVD 88 EL. 45.5') NEIGHBORINGPROPERTY GRADE P1 LEVEL P2 LEVEL LIFT PIT SECOND FLOOREL. 14'-8" THIRD FLOOR FOURTH FLOOR EL. 24'-5" EL. 34'-2" FIRST FLOOR EL. 1'-2" (NAVD 88 EL. 48.16') BASE FLOOD ELEV. EL. 0'-0" (NAVD 88 EL. 47') 1'-2" 12'- 8 1 / 2 " ± 8'-4 1 / 4 " 7'-6 " M I N . EL. -12'-1 1/8" ± EL. -26'-7 1/8" ± EL. -33'-7 1/8" ± CORR.TYP.9'-9" 12'- 3 " 55'- 5 " 1'-6 " FIFTH FLOOREL. 43'-11" SIXTH FLOOREL. 56'-2" T.O. ROOF SLABEL. 70'-2" 14'- 0 " T.O. PARAPET / ELEV. EL. 71'-8" OVERRUN / STAIRS T.O. RAILINGEL. 73'-8"T.O. MECH. SCREENEL. 80'-2" 3'-6 " 6'-6" MECHANICALSCREEN 54'- 6 " + / - 3'-6 " 2'-2" SHORING/SOLDIER BREAMS 1/32"=1'-0" 3/- UNIVERSITY AVE MID D L E F I E L D R O A D BYR O N S T R E E T 64G CARTCOMPOST64G CARTCOMPOST R C 64G CARTCOMPOST 64G CARTCOMPOST 96G CARTWASTE96G CARTRECYCLING 96G CARTWASTE 96G CARTRECYCLING ARCHITECTSKORTH SUNSERI HAGEY SHEET NUMBER SCALE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE DATENO. ISSUES AND REVISIONS DESCRIPTION ARCHITECTSKORTH SUNSERI HAGEY 21003 PLANNING SUBMITTAL12.01.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #105.13.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #208.15.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #408.28.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #510.31.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #612.20.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #702.07.24 AD HOC REVISIONS05.02.24 PLANNING RESUBMIITTAL #809.30.24 524 MIDDLEFIELD A3.3B ENHANCEMENT OF VISIBILITY OF LINE OF DAYLIGHT PLANE AND 524 MIDDLEFIELD MADE BY CHRISTOPHER REAM Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 74     Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 75     Please let me know if you have trouble opening either. Thank you, K Brown Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 76     Kay Brown August 16, 2025 Emily Kallas Senior Planner Planning and Development Dept. City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Ms. Kallas, I’m writing to you, once again, to express my concerns regarding traffic issues which will undoubtedly arise with the slated construction of 660 University. In my letter to you dated March 4, 2025, I outlined a number of already existing dangers on Byron St. as well as the potential for an exponential increase in traffic related accidents that will occur on Byron should 660 be given the go-ahead without a proper EIR traffic safety analysis and an in-depth mitigation plan to address said issues. (Below, I will attach my March 4th letter for reference). As you (inclusive of planning department) must be aware, a thorough traffic EIR analysis must include the potential for both pedestrian and vehicle accidents. Unless, I have missed some interaction at meetings or documentation in follow-up reports, I have not seen (within the constructs of the EIR report) any reference to this aspect of 660’s scheduled demolition and construction project. Nor, have I seen an analysis of how an increase in population and autos might impact the safety of existing residents, patients, church-goers and nursery school attendees. I was made aware at the last planning meeting that a few representatives from the planning commission visited the site one day to get a sense of the traffic situation. One representative stated that the lack of space on the narrow street, did present an issue. However, no mitigating solutions were presented that evening nor later in any documentation. A thorough EIR Traffic Safety Report encompasses multi-day and multi-time observations before an adequate analysis can me generated. Repeating, there is no formal EIR traffic safety analysis that has been completed that I can locate for 660. And, after such report has been submitted, there need be mitigating solutions to address said Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 77     hazards. The developer must provide in advance adequate alternatives (mitigating solutions ) for parking during construction. The City of Palo Alto Planning Commission must in good conscience provide adequate mitigating traffic solutions, as well, to address increased population/traffic upon project completion. 1. Again, where will the large construction vehicles park for demolition and building erection? Will they be parking on Byron, University or Middlefield? 2. When completed, where will all the new tenants of 660 park? According to the expected population of 660, 74 parking spaces are required. Yet, there’s a 30% reduction allowed under TDM. Only 52 stalls will be available. Clearly, the excess spaces required will overpopulate parking on Byron, University and adjacent streets. (While the TDM has a lofty ambition to encourage mass transportation, a 22 slot reduction in parking will undoubtedly exacerbate an already precarious narrow street scenario.) 3. Please take into consideration multimodal conflict points with the challenged population that exists in a 2 block radius of 660. There are 3 large elderly communities that surround 660. During the day, pedestrians with walkers, wheelchairs and canes regularly cross University to attend meals and activities at the Methodist Church across Byron from 660. 4. With, the increased residents and office workers at 660, what will be the impact on an already dangerous traffic situation? (Must be included in a formal EIR traffic safety report). And, appropriate mitigation steps need to be outlined by either developer or the City of Palo Alto Planning Commission in advance of a go-ahead for construction. A transportation analysis was completed by Hexagon Transportation, a private consultant corporation hired by the developer. Hexagon addresses safety transiently. Briefly, it states that Byron is a quiet street (ie. No danger factor ). The study does not address the width of the street, the traffic patterns on Byron, University nor the pedestrian population that traverses the streets. A legitimate EIR traffic safety analysis according to California codes) must be completed by a public agency, not a private corporation paid by the developer with a vested interest. Hexagon’s report is primarily an overview of traffic patterns in Santa Clara County. Where is the EIR traffic safety analysis that is required by the State of California? Appreciate your time and attention. Sincerely, Kay Brown Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 78     Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 79     Kay Brown March 4, 2025 Emily Kallas Senior Planner Planning and Development Dept. City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 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 frequently as an auto pass-through for traffic 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. Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 80     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 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 allotted to 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 they 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, KB Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 81     From:Christopher Ream To:Kallas, Emily; Architectural Review Board Subject:660 University - Letter re Tree Date:Monday, August 18, 2025 1:51:14 AM Attachments:Ream Letter re Tree - 20250818 w Attachments.pdf Importance:High Emily, Attached is my letter “Protect the Coast Live Oak”. Please distribute it to the Members of the Architectual Review Board, and to others as may be appropriate, in time for their review before the ARB Meeting this coming Thursday morning. Thank you.  Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 82     Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 83     660 University Project Protect the Coast Live Oak August 18, 2025 Page 2 of 3 The Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Section 1.36 requires a “Tree Protection Zone” (TPZ) for a protected tree with a radius equal to the ten times the trunk’s diameter. For the Tree, that would be 10 x 50” = 500” = 41 feet. In the most recent Tree Protection Report, Applicant acknowledges this 41-foot TPZ requirement on page 9 of David Babby’s February 4, 2024 Tree Protection Report it filed with its plans; but notwithstanding that, Applicant has gone ahead and arbitrarily drawn a deficient TPZ of only 30 feet on its plans and positioned its proposed building right next to that 30 feet. That is 11 feet less than the protection required by the City of Palo Alto. Notwithstanding Applicant drawing a 30-foot radius circle on its plans, its Tree Protection Report, pages 9 & 10 discloses that Applicant intends to disregard even that fake TPZ by reporting that there will be a 20-foot setback from the Tree’s trunk for any ground disturbance and that applies to any soil compaction, grading, subexcavation, overexcavation, drenching, and drilling/auguring. In other words, if the construction crew is at least 20 feet from the Tree, they are free to rip out as many roots as they like notwithstanding the deadly effect on the Tree. Robert Booty, arborist retained by Rincon Consultants on behalf of the City, reports that his LIDAR root scan of the existing asphalt parking lot at 600 University Avenue shows that the Tree’s roots are still dense and going out strong at his 51-foot scan, the furthest extent of his investigation. (See Attachment A). But those roots are going to cut off by the garage and ramps at 30 feet and still much closer to the trunk by the 20-foot rule during construction. Canopy The Tree has a beautiful canopy that stretches 45 feet over the site. The TPZ applies to the canopy as well as the root structure, but Applicant has used its fake 30-foot TPZ to bring the exterior wall of the building up to 30 feet from the trunk of the Tree, slicing off 15 feet of canopy. But then there are a large number of balconies sticking out six feet from the exterior wall. First, Applicant will need to slice off another 6 feet of the canopy to make room for those balconies. Then, the building’s residents are not going to tolerate the Tree intruding their balconies, so the Tree will be pruned back to provide a little fresh air to those enjoying the balconies and you can be sure the Applicant will prune the Tree back so that there is at least 5 feet of clearance between those balconies and the Tree. The result – Tree’s beautiful canopy stretching 45 feet over Applicant’s property will be cut back 26 feet or more (15 + 6 + 5) and will now be only 19 feet. It should be noted that you, the Architectural Review Board, held at your December 5, 2024 Meeting that your approval was conditioned upon “Remove balconies from within the Oak tree canopy.” Staff Report for the upcoming August 21, 2025 Meeting, Item No. 2. Page 5 of 9. Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 84     660 University Project Protect the Coast Live Oak August 18, 2025 Page 3 of 3 Tree Failure It gets worse – Page 4 of the current Tree Protection Report discloses that the canopy “does unfavorably displace limb and branch weight towards the canopy's edges.” This means that the loss of 26 feet of canopy will be the loss of a disproportionate, huge majority of the canopy’s weight on the side of the Tree closest to the proposed building. And what weight there will be remaining on that side of Tree will be centered much closer to the Tree than the canopy weight on opposite side and thus will have much less leverage to counter-balance the full, heavy canopy on the opposite side. There will be a huge force on one side of the Tree. A tree’s roots do more than just feed and water a tree, the roots stabilize the tree and hold it upright. As the weight and leverage of the canopy on the opposite side of the Tree strains to tip it over the next-door dental office at 517 Byron Street and onto The Hamilton, it is the job of the roots to fight back and hold the Tree up. But, these roots are going to be sliced off under where the canopy is going to be cut back and the roots will not be able to do their job after they have been sliced off. The Hamilton has retained an independent arborist to analyze the possible danger to the Tree. After extensive investigation and the preparation of a detailed analysis, it was that arborist’s professional opinion that the Tree’s vigor would be negatively impacted to a severe degree as a direct result of the proposed work at the 660 University site as described on Applicant’s plans, resulting in the Tree falling into a spiral of condition decline from which it cannot recover. Please review the Walter Levison Consulting Arborist Impact Analysis dated 12/18/2023 (See Attachment B). Notwithstanding that this report had been made public to Applicant well almost two years ago, Applicant has done nothing to minimize this serious danger. How soon will the Tree topple over and crash into The Hamilton and others. It would destroy that dental office and badly injure and maybe kill anyone in those offices at the time. Conclusion The Hamilton community strongly opposes this application for excessive development on our small block and urges the Commission to require action to correct Thank you for your consideration, Christopher Ream Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 85     660 University Project Ream – Protect the Coast Live Oak March 4, 2025 A"achment A Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 86     Item 2Attachment H - PublicComment    Packet Pg. 87     660 University Project Ream – Protect the Coast Live Oak March 4, 2025 A"achment B Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 88     Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 89     Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 90     Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 91     Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 92     Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 93     Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 94     Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 95     Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 96     Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 97     Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 98     Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 99     Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 100     From:Admin To:Architectural Review Board Subject:Re: 660 University Project Date:Sunday, August 17, 2025 3:47:25 PM Attachments:Letter to ARB Aug 17, 2025.pdf Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 101     Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 102     From:Kallas, Emily To:Christopher Ream Cc:Gilbert, Carol Subject:Re: 660 University Date:Monday, July 21, 2025 4:28:11 PM Attachments:Outlook-Logo__Desc.pngOutlook-po3batwi.pngOutlook-Logo__Desc.pngOutlook-tkzgy4nh.png Hi Chris, Thank you for letting me know you did not receive my email on July 14th. The revised plans are also available on the project webpage: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/660-University-Ave You are correct that the plans have been reuploaded with the changes you identified. They also made changes to how the BMR units are distributed, and minor changes to the Middlefield setback area. We are currently targeting ARB on August 21, PTC on September 24, and Council on October 20 or November 3 depending on agenda availability. Thanks, Emily Emily Kallas, AICP PlannerPlanning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.orgwww.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms &Applications | Planning Applications Mapped From: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@paloalto.gov> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 4:18 PM To: Christopher Ream <chrisshop@reamlaw.com> Cc: Gilbert, Carol <carol.gilbert@comcast.net> Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 103     Subject: Re: 660 University Hi Chris, Yes, we discussed this on July 14th. Please let me know if you did not receive my email that day. That information is correct. Thanks, Emily Emily Kallas, AICPPlannerPlanning and Development Services Department(650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.orgwww.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms &Applications | Planning Applications Mapped From: Christopher Ream <chrisshop@reamlaw.com> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 4:16 PM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@paloalto.gov> Cc: Gilbert, Carol <carol.gilbert@comcast.net> Subject: 660 University Emily, Please give me an update on the status of the 660 University Project. It is my understanding that the developer is moving forward with its original application 21PLN-00341. Two new sets of plans and supporting documents were filed on 6/23/2025, C12_660 University Ave_PLAN1.pdf, C12_660 University Ave_PLAN2.pdf, and C12_660 University Ave_DOCS.pdf. My brief review of these plans reveals a major change: The top floor (sixth) is no longer office space but has been changed to 12 new residential units, and the total number of residential units has increased from 66 to 70. I am assuming that these new plans and documents supersede the prior filings. Am I correct in my understanding? Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 104     Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 chrisshop@reamlaw.com Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 105     From:Faith Brigel To:Kallas, Emily Subject:Planning and Transportation Committee: 660 University Ave. Date:Wednesday, April 30, 2025 1:58:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Emily, I received a notice that there will be a public hearing tonight at City Hall re the construction project at 660 University Ave. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend. So I am writing this email to you in the hopes that you and the members of this committee will see it. I cannot state strongly enough how out of place, and cumbersome this huge building will be on University Ave and Byron Street. I have been on Byron St. for thirty years and so I feel that I have some knowledge of that area. It will be out of place in that no other buildings in that area are that large, that dense, nor that high. No other buildings are 6 stories high. Initially weren’t they describing it as 4 stories, which is still very high? I call it cumbersome in that there will be many people living there, and many people working there and most of them will need parking spots. And as they explained at one of the meetings though they will have a 2 level underground parking lot- there still will NOT be enough parking sports for all of their people. There is very little parking on University Ave, , and rarely are there any available parking spots on Byron Street. Similarly, finding parking on Middlefield is close to impossible. This lack of parking for their tenants, and clients or customers will be a serious problem once the construction is complete. I am quite sure that they are not yet aware of this. The fact that they are planning to build 6 stories is of a great concern to me. My building at 518 Byron Street is as I have explained a one story, and it has been there for more than 120 years. Having this construction 6 stories high right across the street will effect the light plan. It will be ominous. And it will detrimentally affect the quality of life of my tenants. I am hoping and would expect that the City Staff would help protect the Palo Alto community of already established buildings., like mine, from new developments coming in and overwhelming the area. I hope that you will not just focus on building more houses for Palo Alto, but also protect the character that older, Victorian buildings such as mine offer to our City. Thank you, Faith W. Brigel Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 106     From:Faith Brigel To:Planning Commission Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: The 511 Byron St., 660 University Ave. 680 University Ave., 500 Middlefield Ave.Complex Date:Friday, March 14, 2025 6:35:17 PM Attachments:image001.pngATT00001.txtimage002.pngATT00002.txt CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Panning Commission,I do not know if you got the email that I sent to you on March 12 right before the meeting. I am sorry that it was so late. I read some of what happened in the meeting and I would like to make a few comments. Firstly, I realize that these developers initially submitted their plans for this project in 2021.And I think that there may be the concern that since it has been such a long time- you should be more empathicto them, and just approve it. I would like to make the point that had their initial draft been different it may have gonethrough much faster and more smoothly. By different I mean more in line with the other buildings in this area. From the first draft thisbuilding has been mammoth, massive, and very out of character with this neighborhood. For several reasons this construction is wrong for that location. All the changes that they havemade over the past few years have not brought it down in scale or size. In fact, it has gotten larger! When they were told that they need more setback- they said fine we will just addanother story- so it went from four stories up to six stories! And so due to their own insistence that it remain massive in size - this process has lingered. And they have taken up your time. Secondly, I read that at least one of you believe that the final decision that was made at your meeting was wrong. And that you should have approved their current design.I want to say that you did the right thing. I am thrilled that their design was not approved. It is so wrong. I was fearing that only once it is built will you see how wrong it is. And by then ofcourse it is too late. Thirdly, to mention several of the reasons why it is wrong: 1- It will be huge, gigantic, massive and totally out of scale with the neighbor’s buildings. There are NO 6 story buildings here. The highest is 4 stories. 2- That intersection of University and Middlefield is the gateway to downtown Palo Alto, and it is always congested. To accept this current design will add more congestion and traffic than it can bear. It will be a constant nightmare. 3- At one of the meetings the developer himself stated that they will have a two level parkinggarage in their new basement. But he added, there will NOT be enough parking spots for them. There will be 66 apartments. And only 78 spaces. What about the parking needs of theiroffices? That is not near enough what they will need. So where will they park? They will not be able to park on Byron Street which is a small, narrow street and as I wrote 3/12 it is alwaysfull. Rarely are there available spots. There will be very few spots on University, and very few on Middlefield. So this will become a serious and ongoing problem. 4- This area mostly consists of office buildings with professionals, attorneys, dentists, and therapists. Aside from the traffic, it is a quiet area. Allowing this gigantic construction with 66 studio apartments that will have balconies, plus offices will effect the ambiance negatively. We have no restaurants, nor bars in our area. It is quiet. Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 107     5- By allowing this development company to build a 6 story, complex sets a precedent forothers to build that high in this area. A bad decision. 6- Personally, I have owned the small, one-story, beautiful, well maintained, 120 year oldVictorian building across the street. This massive development will totally overshadow my building, which will negatively affect the quality of living of my tenants. One tenant hasalready told me that she might move out. And I think it might affect my daylight plane. 7- I understand that due to some contract not being signed by Palo Alto the developers cannow build at their own discretion. But it seems that these developers realize the benefits of trying to get the Planning Commission and the City Council’s approval. But still this is not areason to approve such a phenomenally mammoth building. Pease continue to use your discretion, and integrity as you did at that last meeting, and do not let a developer destroy what has been a tasteful, professional area just for their own greed. Thank you for your consideration. I would be happy to meet any of you on Byron Street to discuss this further. I have spent a lotof time on Byron since 1987, which is 38 years. Best regards, Faith Faith W. Brigel518 Byron St. > On Mar 12, 2025, at 5:35 PM, Faith Brigel <faithwb3@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> Dear Planning Commission, >> I am not able to get to the meeting tonight. And I was not able to write any sooner. >> I hope that you see this email prior to the meeting. I have attended a couple of the other meetings on the construction on University Ave. and Byron. I own the building across thestreet. It is a single story Victorian house. I have been there since 1987. >> The construction submitted that is being discussed is much too large for this area. And Iunderstand that now they are asking for it to be six stories. This is much too tall for this area. No other buildings here are that high. There is also a lot of traffic at that corner. The 2 levelunderground parking will not be large enough for their needs. So their parking needs will spill out onto Byron that is already completely taken every day, all day, except maybe Sunday.>> Please consider the quality of life that will be detrimentally affected by the neighbors by allowing that project to be so massive. Please have them scale it back to a more moderate size.>> Thank you for your consideration. >> >> Faith W. Brigel >> >>> On Mar 6, 2025, at 2:01 PM, Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> You are receiving this email because you have expressed interest in the Planned HomeZoning (PHZ) project proposed at 511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd (aka 660 University). This project. is being presented to the Planningand Transportation Commission on March 12, 2025 at 6pm. Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 108     >>> The agenda, staff report, and attachments are available here:>>> https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16498 >>> The project plans, Draft EIR, Final EIR, and other project documents are available here:>>> https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/660-University-Ave>>> If you have any comments, please email them to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. There will also be the opportunity for publiccomments during the hearing. If you have any questions about the project you would like assistance with prior to the hearing, please email me at emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org.>>> Thanks, and see you next week, >>> Emily Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 109     From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Planning Commission Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:660 University Date:Monday, March 10, 2025 4:23:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Commissioners, Please add your comments and forward to the City Council. This application is now in its 4th year of review. They deserve a decision by council. I attended all the ARB hearings in which opponents made their objections after which the ARB approved the project. The applicant has worked hard to meet concerns while preserving feasibility and choosing a compliant not builder's remedy application. This to my knowledge is the only housing proposal downtown of any significant size. Also it brings with it BMR units that the applicant was able to weight toward lower income residents. Housing downtown is a major city goal in our HE and approval of this project will be a promising start and\ bring the many benefits of downtown living to residents (I am one), to local businesses and to the environment. I look forward to seeing this application approved and see the new housing in myneighborhood. Stephen Levy This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 110     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 111     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 112     THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: ream@reamlaw.com March 5, 2025 Commissioners Planning and Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto, California Via: Emily.Foley@CityofPaloAlto.org Re: 660 University Project SECOND LETTER – More Comments Commissioners, The Hamilton is a senior living (55+) condominium development which shares the small block with the proposed development at 660 University Avenue. The Board of Directors of the Hamilton Homeowners Association (the “HHA”), with the support of its residents, has resolved to push for revising the proposed building that will materially adversely affect us and all of our neighbors. Parking Parking in downtown Palo Alto is a problem the City has been dealing with for years and continues to deal with. There is no parking on either University Avenue or Middlefield Road near the project. The Hamilton is on the short block of Byron between University and Hamilton and sees the parking problem every day. It is a narrow street to start with, but on every workday, every single parking spot on both sides of the street is filled all day long. This narrows the drivable room so that two cars going in opposite directions cannot pass; one has to slowly pull into a driveway to make room for the other to pass. Every time a delivery vehicle stops on Byron Street during the day, it clogs and backs up Byron. The project does not provide short-term parking for delivery vehicles, so Byron is going to get backed up many times a day. Applicant calculates that according to PAMC 18.52.040 a total of 111 parking stalls are required to serve the residents of the 66 residential units and the workers in all the office space. But then Applicant invokes several arguments to reduce the number of stalls it has to provide, starting with a 30% reduction claimed by TDM, down to only 69 actual parking stalls. I have seen 20% reductions claimed for TDM, but never 30%. Is Applicant’s claim of 30% proper? Has the city staff carefully reviewed the TDM Applicant has submitted? Will it actually reduce the need for parking or is it only designed to reduce the daily use of cars: Is it designed to reduce the number of daily automotive commutes a person takes, while that person still owns a car to be used for weekend activity. Even though it may reduce daily congestion, that car still needs a place to park. Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 113     Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project November 26, 2024 Page 2 of 4 Bottom Line – Applicant has cleverly eliminated 42 parking stalls (111 – 69 = 42). Those 42 stalls may have been eliminated, but the cars have not been eliminated, and the 42 cars that can’t find an empty stall in the project’s garage will be driving around downtown, commercial and residential, looking for a parking space and causing congestion that the TDM was supposed to reduce. My granddaughter and other family members may not come to visit me because of the inability to park nearby; friends will not want to come over as much as they used to. Setbacks At the April 18, 2024 ARB meeting on this project, there was a lot of discussion about the lack of proper setback along Middlefield Road. Applicant has moved the above grade portion of the building back to form a 24’ setback along Middlefield as requested, but the underground garage extends right up to the property line with ZERO setback and a minimal amount of soil fill above the garage structure. (See Sheet A3.3A.) Will the City of Palo Alto be able to make improvements to Middlefield Road in the future with this garage flush up against the road? This brings out the fact that the garage also abuts both University Avenue and Byron Street with zero setbacks. Is this standard and acceptable? Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 114     Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project November 26, 2024 Page 3 of 4 Daylight Plane There is a single family, one-story residence zoned RM-20 at 524 Middlefield Road, adjacent to the project. Upon a 1/21/2022 review of the initial filing by Applicant, Samuel Gutierrez advised Applicant of the requirement to observe a 45° daylight plane. Applicant complied, and in the next submission of plans, cut back the portion of the fourth floor next to the neighboring house. The fourth floor has remained cut back and compliant with the daylight plane in all subsequent plans submitted by Applicant including the current submission; but Applicant has now added two additional stories onto the building raising the height up to 82 feet, and disregarded the fact that these additional floors egregiously violate the daylight plane. The following is from Applicant’s submission. I have enhanced it to make the line of the daylight plane and the location of the neighboring house more visible. Balconies in the Canopy The approval of the Architectural Review Board at its December 5, 2024 meeting was subject to several conditions being met. The first condition was “Remove balconies from within the Oak tree canopy.” (This can be found at the top of the fifth page of the document filed on 3/3/2025 under the name “C11_660 University Ave_DOCS_Revised for PTC.pdf”). Applicant’s plans show 24 balconies would intrude into the canopy (45-foot radius), and none have been removed. 3/32"=1'-0" PL PL OFFICE LOBBY SPEED RAMP DOWNTO P2 LEVEL UNIVERSITY AVE. 10'- 0 " 10'- 6 " OFFICE PARKING RESIDENTIAL PARKING STAIRBEYOND 7'-9 " T Y P . 45.0° 55'- 0 " LINE O F D A Y L I G H T P L A N E 3'-6 " 3'-6 " 9'-9 " 13'- 6 " 10'- 6 " 14'- 6 " 7'-0 " FEN C E 7'-0 " 9'-9 " EL. -1'-6" (NAVD 88 EL. 45.5') NEIGHBORINGPROPERTY GRADE P1 LEVEL P2 LEVEL LIFT PIT SECOND FLOOREL. 14'-8" THIRD FLOOR FOURTH FLOOR EL. 24'-5" EL. 34'-2" FIRST FLOOR EL. 1'-2" (NAVD 88 EL. 48.16') BASE FLOOD ELEV. EL. 0'-0" (NAVD 88 EL. 47') 1'-2 " 12'- 8 1 / 2 " ± 8'-4 1 / 4 " 7'-6 " M I N . EL. -12'-1 1/8" ± EL. -26'-7 1/8" ± EL. -33'-7 1/8" ± CORR.TYP.9'-9 " 12'- 3 " 55'- 5 " 1'-6 " FIFTH FLOOREL. 43'-11" SIXTH FLOOREL. 56'-2" T.O. ROOF SLABEL. 70'-2" 14'-0 " T.O. PARAPET / ELEV. EL. 71'-8" OVERRUN / STAIRS T.O. RAILINGEL. 73'-8"T.O. MECH. SCREENEL. 80'-2" 3'-6 " 6'-6 " MECHANICALSCREEN 54'- 6 " + / - 3'-6 " 2'-2" SHORING/SOLDIER BREAMS 1/32"=1'-0" 3/- UNIVERSITY AVE MID D L E F I E L D R O A D BYR O N S T R E E T 64G CARTCOMPOST64G CARTCOMPOSTRC64G CARTCOMPOST 64G CARTCOMPOST 96G CARTWASTE96G CARTRECYCLING 96G CARTWASTE 96G CARTRECYCLING ARCHITECTSKORTH SUNSERI HAGEY SHEET NUMBER SCALE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE DATENO. ISSUES AND REVISIONS DESCRIPTION ARCHITECTSKORTH SUNSERI HAGEY 21003 PLANNING SUBMITTAL12.01.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #105.13.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #208.15.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #408.28.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #510.31.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #612.20.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #702.07.24 AD HOC REVISIONS05.02.24 PLANNING RESUBMIITTAL #809.30.24 524 MIDDLEFIELD A3.3B ENHANCEMENT OF VISIBILITY OF LINE OF DAYLIGHT PLANE AND 524 MIDDLEFIELD MADE BY CHRISTOPHER REAM Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 115     Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project November 26, 2024 Page 4 of 4 Balconies over University Avenue Applicant shows six to seven foot setback for the above-ground building along University Avenue. There are 29 balconies from the second to the fifth floor sticking out six feet into that “setback” so they come right to the edge of the public sidewalk or within one foot of it. They will have a clear glass railing set 3½ feet off the deck, with a clear glass sheet between the railing and the deck of the balcony. The majority of these balconies are part of small studio apartments. On warm, sunny Friday or weekend afternoons, there are going to be young people socializing on these balconies. The 3½ foot railing is an inviting place to rest your forearm as you hold a soft drink, a beer or a glass of wine. Geometry dictates that the drink is now another 6 -12 inches closer to the sidewalk floors below. Many residents in The Hamilton get some exercise by walking around our small block and their walk will pass under these balconies. I frequently see seniors from other parts of “Senior Corner” including this sidewalk as part of their walk. Please don’t drop a glass – you may kill someone. Those balconies need to be removed. Conclusion The Hamilton community strongly opposes this application for excessive development on our small block and urges the Board to require action to correct. Thank you for your consideration, Christopher Ream Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 116     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 117     THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: ream@reamlaw.com March 4, 2025 Commissioners Planning and Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto, California Via: Emily.Foley@CityofPaloAlto.org Re: 660 University Project Protect the Coast Live Oak Commissioners, My wife Anne and I have been Palo Alto residents for more than 53 years and have been residents of The Hamilton for the past six years. The Hamilton is a senior living (55+) condominium development which shares the small block with the proposed development at 660 University Avenue. The Board of Directors of the Hamilton Homeowners Association (“HHA”), with the support of its residents, has resolved to push for revising the proposed building that will materially adversely affect us and all of our neighbors. There is a majestic, beautiful Coast Live Oak tree (the “Tree”) in the middle of our block. David Babby, Applicant’s arborist, reports the Tree’s trunk is 50 inches in diameter and its mostly uniform canopy stretches out 90 feet in diameter and is approximately 60 feet high. The Tree abuts the back property line of the 660 University project and so its limbs reach out approximately 45 feet over the project’s property, and its root structure is much larger. The Tree is several hundred years old and is deemed a protected tree by the City of Palo Alto. The Tree brings shade and joy to us and everyone else on the block. Applicant’s proposal to build a large building close to the Tree will put it in grave danger, and we need to protect it. TPZ – Tree Protection Zone The Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual requires a “Tree Protection Zone” (TPZ) for a protected tree with a radius equal to the ten times the trunk’s diameter. For the Tree, that would be 10 x 50” = 500” = 41 feet. Applicant acknowledges this 41-foot TPZ requirement in the Tree Protection Report it has filed with its plans, but then it has arbitrarily drawn a TPZ of only 30 feet on its plans and positions this building right next to that 30 feet. That is 11 feet less than required by the City of Palo Alto. Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 118     660 University Project Protect the Coast Live Oak March 4, 2025 Page 2 of 3 Notwithstanding Applicant drawing a 30-foot radius circle on its plans, its Tree Protection Report discloses that Applicant intends to disregard even that fake TPZ by reporting that there will be a 20-foot setback from the Tree’s trunk for any ground disturbance and that applies to any soil compaction, grading, subexcavation, overexcavation, drenching, and drilling/auguring. In other words, if the construction crew is at least 20 feet from the Tree, they are free to rip out as many roots as they like notwithstanding the deadly effect on the Tree. Robert Booty, arborist retained by Rincon Consultants on behalf of the City, reports that his LIDAR root scan of the existing asphalt parking lot at 600 University Avenue shows that the Tree’s roots are still dense and going out strong at his 51-foot scan, the furthest extent of his investigation. (See Attachment A). But those roots are going to cut off by the garage and ramps at 30 feet and much closer to the trunk by the 20-foot rule during construction. Canopy The Tree has a beautiful canopy that stretches 45 feet over the site. The TPZ applies to the canopy as well as the root structure, but Applicant has used its fake 30-foot TPZ to bring the exterior wall of the building up to 30 feet from the trunk of the Tree, slicing off 15 feet of canopy. But then there are a large number of balconies sticking out six feet from the exterior wall. Applicant will need to slice off another 6 feet of the canopy to make room for those balconies. The building’s residents are not going to tolerate the Tree intruding their balconies, so the Tree will be pruned back to provide a little fresh air to those enjoying the balconies and you can be sure the Applicant will prune the Tree back so that there is at least 5 feet of clearance between those balconies and the Tree. The Tree’s beautiful canopy stretching 45 feet over Applicant’s property will be cut back 26 feet or more (15 + 6 + 5) and will now be only 19 feet. Tree Failure A tree’s roots do more than just feed and water a tree, the roots stabilize the tree and hold it upright. These roots are going to be sliced off under where the canopy is going to be cut back. As the weight and leverage of the canopy on the opposite side of the Tree strains to tip it over the dental office and onto The Hamilton, it is the job of the roots to fight back and hold the Tree up. But the roots will not be able to do that after they have been sliced off. The Hamilton retained an independent arborist to analyze the possible danger to the Tree. After extensive investigation and the preparation of a detailed analysis, it was that arborist’s professional opinion that the Tree’s vigor would be negatively impacted to a severe degree as a Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 119     660 University Project Protect the Coast Live Oak March 4, 2025 Page 3 of 3 direct result of the proposed work at the 660 University site as described on Applicant’s plans, resulting in the Tree falling into a spiral of condition decline from which it cannot recover. Please review the Walter Levison Consulting Arborist Impact Analysis dated 12/18/2023 (See Attachment B). Notwithstanding that this report had been made public to Applicant over a year ago, Applicant has done nothing to minimize this serious danger. How soon will the Tree topple over and crash into The Hamilton and others. It would destroy the dental offices and badly injure and maybe kill anyone in those offices at the time. Conclusion The Hamilton community strongly opposes this application for excessive development on our small block and urges the Commission to require action to correct As David Hirsch so succinctly stated on December 1, 2022 at the first Architectural Review Board Meeting to consider this application: “This is too much building in too small of a space.” Thank you for your consideration, Christopher Ream Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 120     660 University Project Ream – Protect the Coast Live Oak March 4, 2025 A"achment A Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 121     Item 2Attachment H - PublicComment    Packet Pg. 122     660 University Project Ream – Protect the Coast Live Oak March 4, 2025 A"achment B Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 123     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 124     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 125     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 126     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 127     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 128     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 129     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 130     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 131     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 132     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 133     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 134     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 135     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 136     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 137     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 138     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 139     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 140     From:Austin Traver To:Kallas, Emily Subject:Neighbor, Opposed to 680 University Avenue Date:Friday, December 6, 2024 7:03:43 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Emily, My name is Austin, I own a home on Fulton St in downtown Palo Alto. I noticed that a developer has proposed to construct a massive building right next to my little condo. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current-Planning/Projects/680-University-Avenue I live one building away, in a 10-unit complex. Our condo is already pretty cramped as it is, in terms of parking spaces, density, etc., This project seems like it will be very disruptive to the character of the nearby neighborhoodcommunity. 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 myrepresentatives. Sincerely, Austin Traver Sent from my iPhone Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 141     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 142     From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Kallas, Emily; Lait, Jonathan Subject:660 Univeristy project Date:Saturday, November 30, 2024 10:57:53 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Chair Rosenberg and committee members, I hope you are having a joyful Thanksgiving holiday. Please move this application forward with your comments and any remaining concerns. As the housing project on this site enters its fourth year of review, I believe the applicant and community deserve a hearing before the city council and timely decision. My comments below are as a DTN resident and economist with experience in housingeconomics and more than a dozen HCD advisory committee member meetings. As I alwaysclarify before you, I have no expertise as an architect or arborist and will not comment onthese 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 issuescould be no project or in this case a builder's remedy application that the applicant hasshelved 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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 143     From:Greg Welch To:Architectural Review Board; Kallas, Emily Cc:Ann Lewnes Subject:Public Feedback on the proposed project "660 University Ave" project [21PLN-00341] Date:Wednesday, December 4, 2024 7:58:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. My wife and I are writing as we will be unable to attend the ARB meeting at 8:30am on 12-5-24 due to work conflicts. We own a unit on the north side, third floor of the Hamilton building ( at 555 Byron St.) just to the south of the proposed project. My house-bound, elderlymother-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 proposedproject 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 withthe surrounding neighborhood 2) at that height, the project threatens to loom over and literally overshadow the buildingsaround it. 3) Throughout Palo Alto, building standards preserve privacy by preventing neighbors frombuilding structures that look down into backyards, or directly into windows in existing structures. How will that be accomplished on this project? Greg WelchAnn Lewnes 560 Center DrivePalo Alto, CA Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 144     December 3,2024 Dear Committee Members, The Housing Action Coalition is a member-supported nonprofit that advocates for creating more housing for residents of all income levels to help alleviate the Bay Area and California’s housing shortage,displacement,and affordability crisis. Our endorsement committee had the opportunity to review Smith Development’s proposal at 660 University,and we proudly endorsed the project. Smith Development’s proposal would bring 66 much-needed new units to Palo Alto.We were impressed with the project's dedication to affordable housing,with 20 percent of the units for lower-tiered affordable housing,which is high especially considering current economic conditions.By prioritizing affordable housing and urban development,we can create more sustainable and inclusive communities for everyone. In terms of Land Use and Density,the project site's central location with its proximity to essential downtown amenities,including the Caltrain station,and the inclusion of ample bike parking facilities underscore a commitment to promoting environmental sustainability and reducing reliance on automobiles.In terms of parking,our committee would like to see a reduction on the amount of parking provided for the project,and have the project redirect those costs to increasing the overall density of the project.In terms of overall design,we commend the steps Smith Development has taken to preserve the Oak tree on site,and even incorporated it into the design. This project will be critical to support Palo Alto,and the Bay Area’s housing needs.Please move this project forward without delay. Corey Smith,Executive Director Housing Action Coalition (HAC) Ali Sapirman,Advocacy and Policy Manager Housing Action Coalition (HAC) Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 145                 !" #$"!%&'()*+,$$!-"*"./0 12 3345645758 6938 :;< ="+2,!+" >!),!- ?"( #"@'+,&A%*"./BCDEFGHI EJKL MNOKP QRKSKTOUMV WRQN QXULKVM QW UJM QRSOTKYOUKQTZ [M \OXUKQXL QW Q]MTKTSOUUO\JNMTUL OTV \PK\^KTS QT PKT^LZ_`ab cadb _`ab cadb ebffghhgbijkhlm `f nkgdgio db jpqkjhh fr jidsthg`hdgu htqqbkd vbk dsj qkbqbhjw sbthgio qkbxjud `d yyz{ig|jkhgdr c|j gi wbnidbni _`ab cadb} ~sgh qkbxjud ngaa j ` dkjfjiwbth `hhjd db dsj ubfftigdr`iw btk kjogbi `h ` nsbaj}~sj `wwgdgbi bv yy tigdh db dsj `kj` gh ` j`ubi bv sbqj gi `wwkjhhgio _`ab cadb€h qkjhhgiosbthgio hsbkd`oj} ~sj qkbxjud€h qkbpgfgdr db wbnidbni `fjigdgjhl giuatwgio e`adk`gi hd`dgbi nsgus m ab|j `iw kgwj w`gar‚ `iw `fqaj gƒj q`kƒgiol f`ƒjh dsj qkbxjud `i `ddk`udg|j qa`uj db ag|jlnsgaj qkbfbdgio ji|gkbifjid`a hthd`gi`gagdr}„bkjb|jkl m `f q`kdguta`kar gfqkjhhjw r dsj qkbxjud€h ubffgdfjid db giuathg|gdr} …jddgio `hgwj †zqjkujid bv dsj tigdh vbk abnjk‡dgjkjw `vvbkw`aj sbthgio hsbnu`hjh ` wjwgu`dgbi db qkb|gwgiobqqbkdtigdgjh vbk giwg|gwt`ah vkbf wg|jkhj hbugbjubibfgu `uƒokbtiwh db dskg|j gi dsj ubfftigdr}~sgh gh hb gfqbkd`id} ˆr qkgbkgdg‰gio `vvbkw`aj sbthgio `iw tk`i wj|jabqfjidl nj u`i ukj`djfbkj hthd`gi`aj `iw giuathg|j ubfftigdgjh vbk j|jkrbij} md gh ijujhh`kr vbk _`ab cadb db jpq`iwsbthgio bqdgbih `iw `uubffbw`dj dsj ijjwh bv ` okbngio qbqta`dgbi `iw m tkoj rbt db d`ƒj`udgbi r htqqbkdgio dsgh qkbxjud ngds ib vtkdsjk wja`r}m abbƒ vbkn`kw db ngdijhhgio dsj hsbkd djkf `iw abio djkf qbhgdg|j gfq`udh ds`d dsgh qkbxjud ngaas`|j bi _`ab cadb `iw dsj htkkbtiwgio ubfftigdr} ~s`iƒ rbt}e`f ebtadjku`fjkbi}i}ubtadjkŠof`ga}ubf‹Œ†‹ bio Žkg|j cq`kdfjid z …`i ‘bhjl e`agvbkig` ’‹ Œy Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 146                ! " # $ %& ' (  ' )*+, -./0+12 3+*+,*4./0+1256+/7.,8  91: ;;<=><=?=@ >A;B )C )1./:D.1+ EDF:D0 G+1* 3+1H5.:6IJ++71K8LMNOPQRS OTUV WXYUZ [\U]U^Y_W` a\[X [b_VU`W [a _TW [\]Y^UcY_U[^d eW fYb_U[bV [a [gW^U^]Y__YfTXW^_V Y^` fZUfhU^] [^ ZU^hVdij klm nmnompq jr klm stuj vukj vpwlxkmwkyptu zm{xm| }jtp~€pmmkx ‚qƒ „ |pxkm x qkpj ‚ …†ss‡zi jr klm ˆpjˆjqm~ ljyqx ‚ ˆpj‰mwktk ŠŠ‹ † x{mpqxkŒ v{m ym t‚m ~t xkmn Ž ‘ t ~ tuqj m’ˆt qxj jr klm“u ”tnx j zmtu •jyqx ‚ –jwyq vpmt t‚m ~t xkmn Ž— ƒ vk klm yˆwjnx ‚˜mwmnomp ™ nmmkx ‚ jr klm vz}‘ ˆumtqm tˆˆpj{m ojkl jr klmqmˆpjˆjqtuq‘ t ~ ˆumtqm pmwjnnm ~ kltk klm ”xkŒ ”jy wxu ~j qj‘ kjjƒ‡yp wxkŒ ltq t ljyqx ‚ wpxqxqƒ …j nt Œ jr nŒ rpxm ~q t ~ rtnxuŒ tpmomx ‚ ˆpxwm~ jykƒ ilm qjuykxj xq kj oyxu~ njpm ljnmq‘ rjp ˆmjˆum tk tuux wjnm um{muqƒ „ wuy~x ‚ x rxuu ~m{mujˆnm kq mtp jyp wxkŒšq tnm xkxmqƒilxq ˆpjˆjqtu tk ŠŠ‹ † x{mpqxkŒ v{m ym xq m’twkuŒ |ltk |m mm~ƒ „k xq tqljpk |tu› kj jyp ~j| kj| wjnnmpwxtu ~xqkpxwk‘ t ~ ‰yqk ‹ƒŠ nxumq kjklm ”tukptx ƒ „k |xuu x wuy~m qwjpmq jr m| ljnmq‘ x wuy~x ‚ nt Œtrrjp~toumƒœx›m|xqm‘ njpm ljnmq j “”z |xuu opx ‚ njpm mx‚lojpq kj stuj vukj‘{mpŒ wujqm kj qljˆˆx ‚ t ~ kpt qxkƒsumtqm umk klmqm ljnmq ‚mk oyxukš …x wmpmuŒ‘v~tn …wl|tpkž‘ ™ — ”lt x ‚ v{m Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 147          ! "#$%& ''()*(+*+, '*-./ 012 03453& 657 8&39 !&3:5;<&&3="> ?&&@ A 5 !A 5?&&5;<&&3="B C&5@ DE&4&E !DE&4&EC&5F5;G&03="HIJKLMNO KPQR STUQV WXQYQZU[S\ ]XWT W^[RQ\S W] [PS WXYUZQ_U[QWZ` aS bU^[QW^R W] WcSZQZYU[[UbPTSZ[R UZ\ bVQbdQZY WZ VQZdR`efgh ijgkh lmnfopfhq gor smttkuuff tftpfhnvw jmxf ymz ghf jg{koq g |my}z~ jgo€nqk{koq jm~krgy ‚~fgnf tm{f ujkn gxx~ksgukmo }mhƒghr ƒkuj ymzh smttfoun gor goy hftgkokoq smosfhon „n ujf jmznkoq xhm|fsu mo ujkn nkuf foufhn kun }mzhuj yfgh m} hf{kfƒv w pf~kf{f ujf gxx~ksgou gorsmttzokuy rfnfh{f g jfghkoq pf}mhf ujf skuy smzosk~ gor uktf~y rfsknkmo …y smttfoun pf~mƒ ghf gn g e† hfnkrfou gor fsmomtknu ƒkuj f‡xfhkfosf ko jmznkoq fsmomtksn gortmhf ujgo g rmˆfo ‰ie gr{knmhy smttkuuff tftpfh tffukoqn „n w g~ƒgyn s~ghk}y pf}mhf ymzv wjg{f om f‡xfhuknf gn go ghsjkufsu mh ghpmhknu gor ƒk~~ omu smttfou mo ujfnf knnzfn Š‹ w pf~kf{f ujkn kn ujf mo~y jmznkoq xhmxmng~ m} goy nkqok}ksgou nkˆf ko e†v go ghfg krfouk}kfr gnktxmhugou }mh grrkukmog~ jmznkoq ko mzh ‰mznkoq Œ~ftfou gor py ymz ko xhf{kmzn tffukoqn ‹ „n ƒkuj Ž gor ŽŠ ‘ Œilv ujkn szhhfou gxx~ksgukmo kn ujf hfnz~u m} sm~~gpmhgukmo pfuƒffo ujfgxx~ksgou gor nug}} um hfnxmor um „l’ smttfoun gor smosfhon ƒjk~f xhfnfh{koq ujf }kogoskg~}fgnkpk~kuy m} ujf gxx~ksgukmo w jg{f pffo x~fgnfr py ujf hfsmqokukmo gor gxxhfskgukmo py „l’tftpfhn m} ujfnf uƒko mp|fsuk{fn „n ƒkuj Ž v ujf gxx~ksgou jgn hfnxmorfr um smosfhon py grrkoq jfkqju gor mujfh smo}kqzhgukmosjgoqfn „orv gn ujf sjgkh omufr gu ujf ~gnu tffukoqv ujf g~ufhoguk{f um nzssfnn}z~ hfnm~zukmo m} knnzfn smz~rpf om xhm|fsu mh ko ujkn sgnf g pzk~rfh“n hftfry gxx~ksgukmo ujgu ujf gxx~ksgou jgn njf~{fr }mh omƒ ko}g{mh m} ujkn ntg~~fh xhm|fsu Ž‹ jf gxx~ksgou kn xhmxmnkoq g ~ghqf tg|mhkuy ”Š‘‹ m} ujf Š• ’…l zokun }mh ~mƒ kosmtf hfnkrfounkos~zrkoq }mh {fhy gor f‡uhftf~y ~mƒ kosmtf hfnkrfoun w gt x~fgnfr ujf gxx~ksgou k gp~f um sm ujknko ujf smouf‡u m} g }fgnkp~f xhmxmng~ •‹ jkn nkuf jgn grrkukmog~ pfof}kun gn ku ƒk~~ g~~mƒ nmtf–tgoy uhkxn um pf rmof ƒkujmzu rhk{koq gorujf hfnkrfoun ƒk~~ tg€f g ntg~~ pzu xmnkuk{f grrkukmo gn sznumtfhn }mh e† pznkofnnfn w ~mm€ }mhƒghr um jfghkoq smzosk~“n hf{kfƒ gngx gn ƒf pfqko ujf xhmsfnn m} grrkoq jmznkoq kogxxhmxhkguf e† ~msgukmon —ufxjfo ˜f{y Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 148             !"# $% & '()%(* +,%-%-.)*/01%2-314567 89:8:9;9< =>88 &?@# &(3A2B3(% CBD2B) E%(* +%(F/32G.,%%-(04HI &2 6%,2(1%7 +%2/AJ270%3273%227-(04K &GJ% (7 +%GJ%/J12A*BDB,1B7-314K 6BDG+JBDG/33J3B-3149 %%3A1B7J L8M ?ENOO; P72D 6,,( Q( L89-;8-9<N-,*.K &%3A & OO; P72D 6,,( R17J-,*.KSTUVWXYZ V[\] ^_`\a bc\d\e`f^g hcb_ bif]\g^ bh f[^ bcd`e\j`f\bek l^ m`if\bi] bh bn^e\ed`ff`m[_^ef] `eg ma\mo\ed be a\eo]kpBq$B%JB JBB $% & '()%(*rJ J,,( BB( .( AB OO; P72DB(J2G &DB7B ?2sB* PJB $(tB3 LuB1 vw7 AB 89:x &CE %0B7*%N %7* %JJ32%B* &%3A1B7 &q )A23A 273*BJ DB( 8;; ,%0BJ . ,(BD2JJ,,( BB(J .( AB ,(tB3- yA%7 Gqzz{|}~ {€ ‚ƒ„…~†‡ }ˆ~ ‰}Š~† ‚Š‹Œ Ž Ž ‘Ž’“Œ’”•–—˜™š›˜œ–š– Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 149     December 1, 2024 SUBJECT: Agenda Item #3 - 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project Dear Chair Rosenberg and Board Members, We urge quick action on the proposed mixed-use project at 660 University Avenue. The project has been positively modified based on previous Architectural Review Board comments. We are excited to see an additional floor has been added to the project for a total of 66 residential units as part of this mixed-use project We support this project because it is walking distance to downtown businesses, retail, and services . It is 0.6 mile from Caltrain and adjacent to major transit stops, thus reducing residents' climate emissions because they can drive less. In furtherance of our affordable housing goals, the project will provide 66 homes and 20% will be affordable (where normally 15% is required). We hear often from tenants in Palo Alto that there is not enough bike parking in their multi-family developments. This is especially true as more residents are adopting e-bikes and cargo bikes. We are excited to see accessible and plentiful bicycle parking being provided as part of the project – a huge bonus to future residents and office tenants. The proposed vehicle parking ratio is adequate based on recent development trends and given the project’s location near transit and retail. This modest 66-unit project has been through a long (but sadly typical) PHZ process since 2021, including an exhaustive Environmental Impact Report that is normally reserved for significantly larger projects. Please provide substantive comments so that the project can move towards approval. Palo Alto Forward has been working to strengthen community support for housing projects to end our housing crisis and strengthen our city. As such, we have included 100 pages of support letters written by residents on behalf of this project. Thank you for your service to our community! Amie Ashton Executive Director, and on behalf of the Board of Palo Alto Forward ATTACHMENT A: 100 Pages of Public Comment Comments Supporting the Project Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 150     ATTACHMENT A: 100 Pages of Public Comments Supporting the Project (link) Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 151              ! "#$%!&'()%*% +, -./0( 123232425 6718 90: 9 ;'!  <!='!> ? + " *$'%@A, -.BC 9%& ( "%&$&)';+!=!A)!(,).D ?%+ E)'; "*%+$&)';+!=!A)!(,).1 ;)!( FG2H I?J664 K('=! &'% 9=! L M((!+ N)! O('(- P)A'(,+QDRSTUVWXY UZ[\ ]^_[` ab[c[d_e]f gba^ ahe\[f] ag eZ] abc_d[i_e[adj k] l_he[ah\ ag am]d[dc_ee_lZ^]de\ _df l`[ln[dc ad `[dn\jo+ ) ('(-pM!&! @'(+ ;!+  !&A(+!(! @ ;! ? +q& )!!'(- ( r!!)*! s;,E'(! !%ptuvw xuyyz{{ |}~|€ ‚ƒ‚„…†‡ ˆ‰‰Š…‹‚Œ Ž ‘’ ‘‘“ Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 152     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 153     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 154     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 155              !" #$%& '#$%&(  !)*%&+,  (-./012 345454647 897: ;1< ;-*=%>*-  ?>@%>A B -C ' -D)*%&+,  (-./EEEEE-%.%2  1>!! .>EEEEEF-$9 F %= B-%.> '+ %=ADG)& =(*$/H>29 H2C &" I>*>$D>- 3" 4647 :943 J1K9   !" #$%& '#$%&(  !)*%&+,  (-./L*9 F %= B-%.> '+ %=ADG)& =(*$/HDM>*9 NN6 O2%@>-!%& ;@>( ,-M>* E  $ !!%@>L;OKPQ9 K=%! >$ % -%.%2 >C +-$ !%C> + => -. 2%R %2( B> * %! + ,>2%2.  *=$>2! 2C *%*%2. 2 %2!(S> #$%&"P ->*>%@>C => 2%*> -> => ;-*=%>*-  ?>@%>A B -C $>>%2. 2 I>*>$D>- T" =  A% C%!*!! =>*2!-*%2 !D$%>C +- NN6 O2%@>-!%& ;@>2>(P A% D>  + => ! > =  C & 2C ! P * 22 >2C( SA>@>-" P = @> !-2. +>>%2.! D =%!,-M>*( P $ A-%%2. & ! &- >$ % CC->!! %! => 2& 2> 2 => * -C =  A ! !>2  $> D =%!$>>%2.(P =,> =  & * 2 ,! +-A -C %  => ;-*=%>*-  ?>@%>A B -C A= A% D> *2C*%2. =%! $>>%2.(P D>%>@> =  A=>2 =%! ,-M>* A ! +%-! !D$%>C =>& A>-> C>!*-%D%2. % ! 7 !-& D%C%2.( ;2C=>2 A=>2 C =  =>& 2>>C>C  A A%C>- !>D * =>& ! %C =  =>& *C C =  D =>&AC =>2 D%C % T !-%>!( ;2C 2A -> C%2. =%! 2%*> P !>> =  =>& -> %2 + * ->U>!%2. %  D> N!-%>!V1! + => D%C%2.! %2 =  -> -> 2>" A - =->> !-%>!( Q2> -> T - N !-%>!( P = @> A2>C =>D%C%2. *-!! => !->> +- G6 &> -!( P %! D> %+" @>-& A> >, W%*-% 2 =  %! @>- 346 &> -! C(P %! 2> !-& D%C%2.( P+ => 2>A *2!-*%2 %! A>C  D> N !-%>! E % A% @>-!= CA $& 2>!-& D%C%2." 2C % A% 2>. %@>& >++>* 2C D!-* => C &%.= , 2 + $& D%C%2.(; =>%- ,->!>2 %2 =>& >X, %2>C =  =>& A% D%C A >@> 2C>-.-2C . - .> +- , -%2. D=>& >X, %2>C =  =>-> A% !% 2 D> >2.= , -%2. +- =>%- >2 2!( K=%! %! !>-%! ,-D>$" !>@>2 A%= => D%C%2.! =  -> =>-> *-->2& Y A=%*= -> $*= !$ >- = 2 A=  %! D>%2. !D$%>CZ, -%2. %! A &! @>-& C%++%*  +%2C( B&-2 H->> %! !$  !->> A%= @>-& %> , -%2. 2C $! A &! >@>-& , -%2. !, %!  >2( J>-!2! A-%2. %2 => -> 2 =>- !->>!" +>2  > , !$> +=> , -%2. !,! > -& %2 => $-2%2. 2C =>2 ! & =>->  C &(K=> %2>-!>*%2 + 1%CC>+%>C 2C O2%@>-!%& %! 2> + => >2- 2*>!  => CA2A2 -> 2C % %! A &! @>-& *2.>!>C( K=>-> %!  + - ++%*( K=> D%C%2. =  =>& = @> !D$%>C %! $*= $ !!%@> +- =%! -> ( P A% ++>* => -> %2 @>-& 2>. %@> A &( K=%! -> = ! $ 2& ,-+>!!%2 ! %2 =>D%C%2.! 2 O2%@>-!%& 2C 2 B&-2 H->>9 ,-+>!!%2  C>2%!!" -2>&! 2C =>- ,%!!( ;!%C> +-$=> - ++%* % %! U%> -> ( ;CC%2. =%! @>-&  -.> $%X>C !> + $ 2& ++%*>! 2C !C% , -$>2! = = @> D *2%>! @>-%2. O2%@>-!%& 2C B&-2 H->> A%  & *= 2.> => +>> + =%! -> ( Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 156                                                        Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 157                     !""# $!" %&"#'()!*+,!-.&&#/","012  3# 456765859 45:7; <=> ?"-@.#-"! A#+.#/ B!"* %!"C)-.(D'!!,"01EFGHIJKL HMNO PQRNS TUNVNWRXPY ZUTQ T[XONYP TZ XMP TUVRWN\RXNTW] ^P _R[XNT[O TZ T`PWNWVRXXR_MQPWXO RWY _SN_aNWV TW SNWaO]bcde fdge bcde fdge heiijkkjelmnkop ci qnjgjlr ge mstnmkk iu kgnelr kvtteng wen gxm tnetekmy tnezm{g cg ||} ~ljmnkjgu fmlvm€ fkc nm{mlg nmkjymlg ew bcde fdgeo p xcm tmnkelcddu mstmnjml{my gxm yjwwj{vdgu ew km{vnjlr vcdjguxevkjlr jl gxm yeqlgeql cnmco c {xcddmlrm wc{my ‚u iclu jl evn {eiivljgu€fk c nm{mlg dcq k{xeed rncyvcgmo p ƒleq kmmncd tmmnk qxeo ymktjgm km{vnjlr ze‚k jl bcde fdgeoqmnm vlc‚dm ge wjly kvjgc‚dm xevkjlr lmcn‚u€ „eim xcy ge djm wcn wnei gxmjn qenƒtdc{mo qxjdmegxmnko djƒm iukmdwo kmggdmy wen ienm ieymkg c{{eiieycgjelk gxcl tnmwmnnmy yvm ge djijgmyetgjelk€…xm yeqlgeql cnmc jk xeim ge lvimnevk ivdgjwcijdu ‚vjdyjlrko iclu ew qxj{x cnm iv{x edymngxcl gxjk tnetekmy ymmdetimlg€ …xmkm xeimko ewgml kv‚yjjymy wnei dcnrm kjlrdm†wcijdu xeimkocnm leq jddmrcd ge ‚vjdy umg tdcu c {nv{jcd nedm jl tnejyjlr xevkjlr wen iclu nmlgmnko {elgnj‚vgjlrge gxm j‚ncl{u ew evn {eiivljgu€…xm tnetekmy tnezm{g el ~ljmnkjgu fmlvm ewwmnk c tnjim de{cgjel qjgxjl qcdƒjlr yjkgcl{m ewhcdgncjl cly c kxeng ‚jƒm njym wnei ƒmu ymkgjlcgjelko icƒjlr jg cl jymcd kteg wen {cn†djrxg en {cn†wnmm djjlr€ ‡xjdm {el{mnlk c‚evg gncwwj{ cnm cdjyo gxmu cnm ewgml emnkgcgmy€ …xm tnezm{gˆk de{cgjelcly ymkjrl qjdd ijljij‰m jgk jitc{g el gncwwj{ qxjdm tnejyjlr iv{x†lmmymy xevkjlr jl gxm xmcng ewbcde fdge€Šen gxm ‚mlmwjg ew evn {eiivljgu cly wvgvnm nmkjymlgko p kgnelrdu vnrm gxm cttnecd ew gxjk tnezm{goqxj{x qjdd xmdt cyynmkk gxm elrejlr xevkjlr kxengcrm jl bcde fdge€…xclƒ uev wen uevn {elkjymncgjel€‹cnnmgg hdcnƒ{dcnƒŒ rcnnmggŽricjd€{eibcde fdgeo hcdjwenljc Œ }‘ Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 158     Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 159                     !"#$% &'$($# )!#$*+,-"./-0'!!$%#/#(12  3$ 456765859 4:;7 <=> #0?'$0#- @$.'$% A-#" )-#B,0'+C*--/#(1DEFGHIJK GLMN OPQMR STMUMVQWOX YTSP SZWNMXO SY WLO STUQVM[QWMSV\ ]O ^QZWMSZN SY S_OVMVUQWWQ^LPOVWN QVX ^RM^`MVU SV RMV`N\Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 160                        !  ! "    ! #      #      !#     "$          #        "%                          "&!    '                  #       #               "(           )  #  !               "                    "$   #      !         !  *      !         "$ !               )  #  "     !  '      #         !    !      #'   '     #   "          #        +, #    !      #    !  #          !         ! "$ '+  -    ./  " - 0   .1223 Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 161               !"###$#% & !"###$#%'() *+,-,+.+/ -0/+ 123 45#67#58 9 7: ;85< &85="#7!>?88$5@' A8B C7=5@ &D8B"E7B@B?8BB7B@$#%'F G:7H5I G B &G B$G:7H5"J7!>184$5@'F K87IAB868B &AB868B$K87"J7!>184$5@'LMNOPQRS OTUV WXYUZ [\U]U^Y_W` a\[X [b_VU`W [a _TW [\]Y^UcY_U[^d eW fYb_U[bV [a [gW^U^]Y__YfTXW^_V Y^` fZUfhU^] [^ ZU^hVdijkl mnkol pqrjstjlu ksv wqxxoyyjj xjxtjlrz{| }svjlryksvosu q~ ynj wq}swo vorw}rroqs ynky jv yq osw}vosu j€ ksvosu ynj ‚mp ~qw}r kljk t|ƒ„…† ‡kr yq j€ ksv ynj kljk ‡oynq}y ljrylowyosu ynj ˆqsosu ksv vj‰jq xjsy ryksvklvr kvq yjvk~yjl jsukujxjsy ‡oyn ksv ~jjvtkwŠ ~lqx lq jly| q‡sjlr os ynj kljk‹Œ roxokl jsukujxjsy ksv wqktqlkyoqs ‡oyn ryk~~ tlq}uny |q} ynj } vkyjv Ž† ‚mp k owkyoqsz‡nown |q} ‡jwqxjv ksv k lq‰jv yq xq‰j ~ql‡klv‹ qyn ~lqx ynj ‚mp jsukujxjsy ksv ynor xqlj ljwjsy jsukujxjsyz ‡j Šsq‡ ‡nky or sjjvjv yq tlosu~qlyn ~oskswok| ~jkrotj k owkyoqsr ksv krq ‡nky lj‰jsyr ~oskswok ‰oktooy|‹‘ k k}v ynj Œp ~ql ljwqusoˆosu ynj wloyowk ox qlykswj q~ ~oskswok ~jkrotooy| ~lqx ynj k owksy’r jlr jwyo‰j ksv jswq}lkuj |q} yq oswql qlkyj oy osyq ynj j€ ksroqs l}jr‹‘ jswq}lkuj Œp yq kvq y ynj ‚mp ˆqsosu ksv vj‰jq xjsy ryksvklvr ~ql ynj lq jlyojr kwlqrr ‚mp~lqx ynj ~qw}r kljk ksv lq jlyojr oxxjvokyj| rq}yn q~ {kykvjlq‹‘s kvvoyoqs ~ql ynjrj lq jlyojr ‘ tjoj‰j ynj qlouosk ryk~~ ljwqxxjsvkyoqs q~ k † ljkl rjytkwŠ “sqyŽ† ~jjy” ‡o xkŠj k vo~~jljswj yq ‰oktooy|‹‘ kx k‡klj ynky ynj lq jly| q‡sjl voljwy| rq}yn q~ {kykvjlq tjq‡ ynj mljjŠrovj royj nkrj€ ljrrjv osyjljry os vj‰jq osu nq}rosu‹ •nq}un nj sq‡ nkr k p k owkyoqsz ‘ kx r}lj nj ksvryk~~ wks tlosu ~qlyn k wqx oksy k owkyoqs ‡oyn ynj ‚mp l}jr‹Œ q~ ynjrj royjr klj sjkl ylksroy ksv –qt ksv rnq osu royjr‹‘ tjoj‰j ynj ‚mp l}jrz sqy ynj —˜mŒ™ l}jrz wks tlosu ~qlyn wqx oksy k owkyoqsr kwlqrr ~lqx ynjw}lljsy ‚mp ~qw}r kljk‹šnoj ‘ ‡q}v oŠj yq rjj xqlj nq}rosu qs ynj ‚mp royjr ~}lynjl rq}ynz os qlvjl yq nk‰j k wnkswj kyxjjyosu q}l ›}sj … …† wqxxoyxjsyz ‘ kx ljrylowyosu x| krŠ yq royjr kv–kwjsy yq ksv kwlqrr ~lqxynj ~qw}r kljk‹•nksŠr kukos ~ql wqxtososu |q}l klwnoyjwy}lk j€ jlyorj ‡oyn ~oskswok ~jkrotooy| wqsrovjlkyoqsr yqxq‰j lq–jwyr ~ql‡klv‹œyj njs šj‰| Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 162                 ! "#$ %&#'()*+ ,-!&&'.#,#/01 2' 345654748 9:6; <=> ?#-@!'-# A' !'. B#+ %#C*-!)D(,#/0EFGHIJKL HMNO PQRNS TUNVNWRXPY ZUTQ T[XONYP TZ XMP TUVRWN\RXNTW] ^P _R[XNT[O TZ T`PWNWVRXXR_MQPWXO RWY _SN_aNWV TW SNWaO]bcde fdge bcde fdge heiijkkjelmnkop ci qrdds krtteng gum uerkjlv tnewmxg cg yyz {lj|mnkjgs f|m jl }e~lge~l bcde fdge €ujk tnewmxg~jdd m c gnmiml}erk ckkmg ge gum xeiirljgs cl} gum nmvjel ck c ~uedm€um c}}jgjel eq yy rljgk ge gum cnmc jk c mcxel eq uetm jl c}}nmkkjlv bcde fdge‚k tnmkkjlvuerkjlv kuengcvm €um tnewmxg‚k tneƒjijgs ge }e~lge~l cimljgjmko jlxdr}jlv hcdgncjl kgcgjel cl}citdm j„m tcn„jlvo ic„mk gum tnewmxg cl cggncxgj|m tdcxm ge dj|mo ~ujdm tneiegjlv ml|jnelimlgcdkrkgcjlc jdjgs…enme|mno p ci tcngjxrdcnds jitnmkkm} s gum tnewmxg‚k xeiijgimlg ge jlxdrkj|jgs †mggjlv ckj}m ‡ztmnxmlg eq gum rljgk qen de~mnˆgjmnm} cqqen}c dm uerkjlv kue~xckmk c }m}jxcgjel ge tne|j}jlvettengrljgjmk qen jl}j|j}rcdk qnei }j|mnkm kexjemxeleijx cx„vnerl}k ge gunj|m jl gum xeiirljgs‰s tnjenjgjŠjlv cqqen}c dm uerkjlv cl} rn cl }m|mdetimlgo ~m xcl xnmcgm ienm krkgcjlc dm cl}jlxdrkj|m xeiirljgjmk qen m|mnselm pg jk lmxmkkcns qen bcde fdge ge mƒtcl} uerkjlv etgjelk cl}cxxeiie}cgm gum lmm}k eq c vne~jlv tetrdcgjel cl} p rnvm ser ge gc„m cxgjel s krttengjlv gujktnewmxg ~jgu le qrngumn }mdcsp dee„ qen~cn} ge ~jglmkkjlv gum kueng gmni cl} delv gmni tekjgj|m jitcxgk gucg gujk tnewmxg ~jdduc|m el bcde fdge cl} gum krnnerl}jlv xeiirljgs €ucl„ ser†jlxmnmdso†c|jgc ‹†c|jgc ‹cgcncwijdegjxxevŒvicjdxei z Žmlg f|mlrmo †cl ‘ekmo hcdjqenljc ’ Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 163                     !"# $#%# &"'()*+#,-.#/!""(0'.'123  4( 56787696: ;<98 =>? @'/A!(/'# B(-!(0 C#', &#'D+/!*E)##.'12FGHIJKLM INOP QRSOT UVOWOXSYQZ [VUR U\YPOZQ U[ YNQ UVWSXO]SYOUX^ _Q `S\YOU\P U[ UaQXOXWSYYS`NRQXYP SXZ `TO`bOXW UX TOXbP^Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 164                        !  ! "    ! #      #      !#     "$          #        "%                          "&!    '                  #       #               "(           )  #  !               "                    "$   #      !         !  *      !         "$ !               )  #  "     !  '      #         !    !      #'   '     #   "          #        +, #    !      #    !  #          !         ! "$ '+- .   /  "   01 Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 165                 !" #$ %&'!()*+,-./&&!0'-'1234 5! 678987:7; <=6> ?@A B'.$/!.' C!,/!0 D'+ %'E*./)F(-'12GHIJKLMN JOPQ RSTPU VWPXPYTZR[ \WVS V]ZQP[R V\ ZOR VWXTYP^TZPVY_ `R aT]ZPV]Q V\ VbRYPYXTZZTaOSRYZQ TY[ aUPacPYX VY UPYcQ_defg hfig defg hfig jgkklmmlgnopmqr ek splilnt ig ouvpomm kw mxvvgpi ygp izo vpgvgmo{ zgxmlnt vpg|o}i ei ~~ €nl opmliw h o ln{gsnigsn defg hfig‚ hm e ƒ„woep defg hfig poml{oniq r …oflo o e vpg|o}i mx}z em izlm lm …gizno}ommepw en{ slff …o e ipokon{gxm emmoi ig gxp }gkkxnliw en{ ig izo potlgnef zgxmlntmzgpieto‚†opw yos kxfil„yeklfw zgxmlnt vpg|o}im toi …xlfi noep szopo izow epo mgpofw noo{o{q ln izo{gsnigsn }gpo‚ ‡zo e{{lilgn gy ~~„xnlim sliz lkko{leio vpgulkliw ig ekonlilom en{ sefˆlnt{lmien}o ig izo jefipeln lm izo pltzi sew ig vpgkgio mxmielne…fo en{ pomlfloni {o ofgvkoni‚‰oiilnt eml{o ƒ vop}oni gy izo xnlim ygp fgsop„ilopo{ eyygp{e…fo zgxmlnt lm e sof}gko}gkklikoni ig mipontizonlnt defg hfigŠm mg}lgo}gngkl} {l opmliw en{ o‹xliw‚ ri lm no}ommepw ygpdefg hfig ig ouven{ zgxmlnt gvilgnm en{ e}}gkkg{eio izo noo{m gy e tpgslnt vgvxfeilgn en{ rxpto wgx ig mxvvgpi en{ evvpg o izlm vpg|o}i sliz ng yxpizop {ofew‚r fggˆ ygpsep{ ig moolnt izlm vpg|o}i …xlfi en{ kgpo flˆo li ln izo noep yxixpo‚ defg hfig noo{m kx}zkgpo zgxmlnt en{ kgpo {onmliw ln evvpgvpleiofw vfenno{ epoem gy izo jliw‚ ‡zenˆ wgx‚‰ln}opofwqŒekom ‰xzŒekom ‰xz|ekomwmxz tkelf‚}gkdefg hfigq jeflygpnle Ž ~ Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 166     1 660 University Avenue Development Issues An Executive Summary for ARB Meeting December 5, 2024 Need to consider the following: 1. Inadequacy of 78 stalls for 66 units plus businesses. 2. How brochures and passes get people out of their cars. 3. If we don’t know compliance for 2 years, there is no going back. 4. Insist on two-year data from previous TDM Specialists, Inc. to prove effectiveness. 5. History of This Project Nearby residents of the proposed 660 University development have been opposed to several aspects of the development and have made our objections known to every city committee that held a hearing. It started with shoe-horning in too much building on too small a property which was 4 stories tall with 70 units and size remains an issue. October 25, 2021 Council held a prescreening to review a conceptual plan for the proposed project on October 25, 2021. The formal PHZ application was submitted on December 21, 2021. Following staff’s initial review and subsequent resubmittal, the PTC reviewed the project on November 16, 2022 and recommended that the project be forward to the ARB for review in accordance with the PC rezoning process. December 1, 2022 The ARB reviewed the same plan set on December 1, 2022. Since this time, the applicant made significant modifications to the project, including changing the parking garage driveway entry from Middlefield Road to Byron Street, as well as removing residential uses from the ground floor to meet FEMA flood zone requirements and address ARB comments related to privacy for ground floor units. This submittal was received on September 1, 2023, ten months after the last public hearing. The plans have been further refined over three rounds of staff review in the last seven months to address various staff comments. Key comments from Board members and the applicant’s response to those comments are summarized in the Exhibit file found separately. Dec. 1, 2022 ARB Meeting A previous Architecture Review Board hearing listened to our objections and sent Smith Development away to make some amendments that would be more suitable for your board and nearby residents on Dec. 1, 2022. Key comments from Board members and the applicant’s response to those comments were summarized. Only change was drive-way moved to Byron St. all others were left alone. You can see Exhibit results separately. April 18, 2024 ARB Meeting Further recommendations by 3 Board members were adjustments be made to the plans. 1. Remove extended balconies from units B1, B1, and A2 from Historic Oak tree. 2. 6 foot screening on 4th floor roof deck to reduce noise and maintain privacy. 3. Inadequate parking remained an issue. 4. Consider the Draft Environmental Impact Report The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and has been modified to reflect recent project changes. Following the ARB’s recommendation, the project will return to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) for a formal recommendation of a Planned Community Ordinance. Both of these recommendations will be forwarded to Council for a final decision. At that point the number of units was 63. Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 167     2 Builder’s Remedy May 2024 6 stories and initially 110 units. The revised application that Smith Development submitted last month for its planned project 660 University Ave. calls for a six-story building with office space on the lowest and highest floors and then 66 apartments in between. The proposal is just the latest iteration of a downtown project that has already gone through multiple revisions since Smith first applied in 2021 under the “planned home zoning” process, which allows residential builders to negotiate with the city over zoning exemptions. The four-story project that the company had previously proposed was narrowly approved by the Architectural Review Board in April. While both the builder’s remedy and the PHZ applications are currently on file, the applicant has requested that the City place the Builder’s Remedy application on hold while the City continues to process the PHZ application November 26, 2024 ARB Meeting re: TDM Plan The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan includes measures and programs to achieve a reduction in single-occupancy vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 45%. New residents will have to sign an acknowledgment that they are aware there is a goal to reduce commuter trips and maximize use of all other sources. This is not a legal pledge. The TDM plan includes an annual monitoring plan to document their traffic. The first data will not be known until 2 years hence. In summary, a TDM plan sounds great, but it only works for Smith Development who will make too few parking places available for residents. With no adjacent streets permitting parking and limited parking on Byron, do you really think this will work? In TDM’s own words, “We have a proven track record of getting employees out of their cars. As projects are built and occupied, TDM Specialists can develop the, outreach, and campaigns necessary to implement and manage employee Commute Programs or parking management programs. The initial start-up, implementation, and ongoing management of the Commute Program are designed to meet employee benefits for businesses.” It is incumbent on this board to request some proven results that TDM has been able to achieve after two years before making any decision on this project. Exhibit Follows which shows various ARB directions with applicant’s responses. Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 168     3 Exhibit File Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 169     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 thisproject 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 thestreet 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 reducepotential 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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 170     From: Kathleen Rotow <kathleenrotow@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 4:46 AMTo: 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 withintwo 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. Probableadditional 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 theparking 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 ofAvailability is attached and has further information regarding the proposed project. The comment period for the Draft EIR begins today, Tuesday, April2nd 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 aninterest in the proposed project or because your agency may have an interest in the proposed project, or because you have been requested to be contactedregarding 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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 171     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 | PlanningForms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped <660_University_NOA signed.pdf> Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 172     From:Christopher Ream To:Kallas, Emily Subject:660 University Project Date:Wednesday, April 10, 2024 3:38:35 PM Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Emily, Chris Ream here, the President of the Hamilton Homeowners Association. I intend to prepare a letter to the Architectural Review Board outlining The Hamilton’s objections to the planned project at 660 University, and I also intend to attend and comment at the ARB Hearing new week on April 18. I have done a quick review of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR addresses many of the points I had previously brought up to the ARB along with some new points, including in particular, the danger of killing Tree #10 (the protected coastal oak) and the alternative of adding a fifth above-ground story to the building, and the alternative of eliminating the second floor of the underground garage. These are not shown in the developer’s current plans, but are obviously issues that need to be addressed at some point. My question is: Would it be proper for me to address in my letter to the ARB and at the Hearing points raised in the Draft EIR but not yet appearing in the developer’s plans. I will call you to have a brief discussion on this. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 173     From:Mimi and Eric Carlson To:Christopher Ream; Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: 660 University Project Date:Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:02:35 AM You don't often get email from mimianderic@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Chris et al. Please note that the proposed project will create a traffic nightmare, espesciallly if the entrance is on Byron.- which is effectively a one wao street during the day. Eric Carlson From: Christopher Ream <ream@reamlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 3:38 PM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: 660 University Project Emily, Chris Ream here, the President of the Hamilton Homeowners Association. I intend to prepare a letter to the Architectural Review Board outlining The Hamilton’s objections to the planned project at 660 University, and I also intend to attend and comment at the ARB Hearing new week on April 18. I have done a quick review of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR addresses many of the points I had previously brought up to the ARB along with some new points, including in particular, the danger of killing Tree #10 (the protected coastal oak) and the alternative of adding a fifth above-ground story to the building, and the alternative of eliminating the second floor of the underground garage. These are not shown in the developer’s current plans, but are obviously issues that need to be addressed at some point. My question is: Would it be proper for me to address in my letter to the ARB and at the Hearing points raised in the Draft EIR but not yet appearing in the developer’s plans. Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 174     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 175     THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: ream@reamlaw.com April 16, 2024 Via email: Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org Re: 660 University Project Architectural Review Board Hearing on April 18, 2024 Draft EIR April 2024 Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree Dear Emily, Please consider the comments in this letter as you continue to work on the Draft EIR for the 660 University Project and pass on these comments to members of the Architectural Review Board and to others where appropriate. There is an Attachment A and an Attachment B to this letter. The Hamilton is a senior living (55+) condominium development with 36 residential units and the average age of the residents in The Hamilton is mid-80’s. The Hamilton shares the same small block with the proposed development at 660 University Avenue. Lytton Gardens, Webster House and Webster House Health Center are within a block and directly across the street from the proposed development. Channing House is two blocks away. Because of this concentration of elderly citizens, the area is frequently referred to as “Senior Corner.” I am Christopher Ream. My wife Anne and I have been Palo Alto residents for 53 years and have been residents of The Hamilton for the past five years. The Hamilton community strongly opposes the proposed development at 660 University, and the Board of Directors of the Hamilton Homeowners Association (the “HHA”), with the support of its members/residents, has resolved to fight against the proposed development. I am the President of the HHA and am personally committed to significantly revising the proposed building that will materially adversely affect us and all of our neighbors. There is a majestic, beautiful Coast Live Oak tree (the “Tree”) in the middle of our block and is listed as Tree #10 on Applicant’s plans. Applicant’s arborist reports that the Tree’s trunk is 50 inches in diameter and its limbs stretch out 90 feet in diameter “in a mostly balanced canopy.” The Tree abuts the back property line of the 660 University project and so its limbs reach out approximately 45 feet over the project’s property, and its root structure is larger than that. The Tree brings shade and joy to us and everyone else on the block. The Tree is several hundred Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 176     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 Page 2 of 4 years old and is deemed a Protected Heritage Tree by the City of Palo Alto. Applicant’s arborist rates the Tree “High” for suitability for preservation. This proposed project puts this beautiful Tree in grave danger: “It is WLCA’s professional opinion that the tree’s vigor would be negatively impacted to a severe degree as a direct result of proposed site work as currently described on the 10/31/2023 set of plan sheets, resulting in tree #10 falling into a spiral of condition decline from which it cannot recover.” Walter Levison Consulting Arborist Impact Analysis dated 12/18/2023, p.6 Please see Attachment A to this letter for the full Impact Analysis by Walter Levison Consulting Arborist. Tree Protection Zone Applicant’s plans recite that the City’s Tree Technical Manual (TTM) ¶1.36 specifies a “Tree Protection Zone” (TPZ) for a protected tree with a radius equal to the ten times the trunk’s diameter. For the Tree, that would be 10 x 50” = 500” = 41 feet. Another rule is that the TPZ should be equal to the foliage, so here that would be a radius of 45 feet based upon the arborist’s report of a 90-foot canopy spread. I am not an arborist, but I am told that one common rule of thumb is that a tree’s roots are one and a half to three times wider than the canopy. For the Tree’s 45-foot limbs, that would be 67 to 135 feet of roots out under the parking lot where the new building would go. Robert Booty, arborist retained by Rincon Consultants on behalf of the City, reports that his LIDAR root scan of the existing asphalt parking lot at 600 University Avenue shows that the Tree’s roots are still dense and going out strong at his 51-foot scan, the furthest extent of his investigation. (See Attachment B.) Applicant has drawn a TPZ of only 30 feet on its plans and has the new building right next to and touching that 30 feet. That is 11 to 15 feet less than required. And the 30 feet is just what the building is supposed to look like – you don’t have to be an experienced contractor to know that there will be plenty of damaging construction work done on the exterior side of the two-story underground garage walls, and that will be much closer than 30 feet to the Tree. Robert Booty’s report points out that the roots are going to be sliced off at his scan of 31 feet. (See Attachment B.) Now, look up at the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors, there are residential units with balconies sticking out 6 feet into the TPZ. Applicant’s arborist admits that pruning will be required, including a 17-inch limb. The Tree has to be pruned back to clear those balconies. Then be realistic: Applicant is going to prune the Tree even further back so that there is at least 5 feet of clearance between those balconies and the Tree. We are now cutting the Tree back to only 19 feet of foliage left. Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 177     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 Page 3 of 4 If 660 University is allowed to be built as now proposed, the Tree’s canopy will be severed on one side, disrupting the Tree’s balance, potentially allowing strong gravitational forces to push the Tree over. In addition, the roots needed to hold the Tree back from tipping over will have been cut and lost their gripping force. How soon will the Tree topple over and crash into The Hamilton and others. It would destroy the dental offices at 517 Byron, and badly injure and maybe kill anyone in those offices at the time. The neighborhood will lose this beautiful tree. The privacy of the seniors in the sixteen apartments in The Hamilton on that side of our development will be exposed to the 36 units with balconies on our side of the 660 University building as well as the noisy crowds on the roof top party deck. Security The Staff Report for the Architectural Review Board Hearing to be held April 18, 2024 reported that the Urban Forestry Section has requested that any building permit be conditioned upon the Applicant obtaining an appraisal of the replacement value of the Tree and posting security for that amount. What does that mean in this situation? It will be completely impossible to replace the Tree, thus how can anyone come up with a replacement value. And, if the Tree “dies” within three years of the completion of the project, then the money from the security will go into the Forestry Fund to plant trees elsewhere. So much for the owner of 517 Byron and thus the person who was the owner of the Tree and the one most damaged by its death. This might make sense if the permit was conditioned upon obtain an appraisal value using the Trunk Formula Method (TTM 6.45B) rather than the Replacement Cost Method (TTM 6.45A). Solution At the Architectural Review Board hearing in December 2022, everyone, including the Applicant’s architect and its landscaper actively agreed that the Tree had to be protected; but the Applicant did not suggest that a 41-45 foot TPZ should be observed. No, their answer was that they knew of a tree in Mountain View that has so far survived a small TPZ (although they did not say how long it has survived). One tree surviving for an unknown time is not a valid argument to ignore the universally accepted rule of a TPZ equal to 10 times the trunk’s diameter or the extent of the canopy. The only solution here to save this Protected Heritage Tree is that the proper 41-foot TPZ must be imposed and complied by both the proposed building and its construction. This is not an unfair burden on the Applicant: They have known all along that their 30-foot TPZ was in violation of TTM regulations, and that the building could not be constructed without violating even that reduced TPZ because of the necessity to have construction closer to the Tree than that artificial 30 feet. The first time they showed a TPZ on their plans was their C3 filing on October 6, 2022 when they showed a TPZ with a radius of 29’11-½” (strange number for a TPZ). C3_660 University Ave_PLAN1.pdf, p.24. This was later updated to the 30 feet we see now. Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 178     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 Page 4 of 4 Applicant’s arborist David L. Babby discusses the size of the TPZ in §5.3 of his Tree Protection Report, 660 University Avenue, February 7, 2024: “The CPA's Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) standard is a radial distance from the trunk equal to 10 times its diameter, which for oak #10, identifies a TPZ of 41 feet from the trunk. The proposed project establishes the TPZ to be 30 feet from the trunk, which equates to a multiplier of 7 times the trunk diameter (and 11 feet inside).” He then goes on to say that the small 30-foot TPZ only applies to the finished building and garage, and sets up an even smaller, undisclosed zone where all sorts of construction work can tear up the ground and destroy the Tree’s roots: “The architectural design substantially conforms to my recommendations provided in January 2021, which stipulates a minimum 30-foot setback from the oak's trunk to construct the future building and parking garage, and a minimum setback of 20 feet from the trunk for all ground disturbance beneath the existing asphalt surface. “Roots The 20-foot setback from #10's trunk for ground disturbance applies to any soil compaction, grading, subexcavation, overexcavation, trenching, drilling/auguring, storm drains, swales, etc.” In other words, once you are 20 feet or more from the Tree, you can go at it, tear up the ground and destroy the Tree’s roots anyway and as much as you want. It appears to me that the Applicant didn’t have a thought when they started about Palo Alto’s desire to protect its beautiful Heritage Trees. They just saw some land, put together plans to fill that land with rental opportunities, and moved forward. When they discovered that Palo Alto wanted to protect the Tree, they drew a TPZ to accommodate their plans, rather than drawing their plans to accommodate the Tree. As Chair David Hirsch so succinctly stated at the December, 2022 Architectural Review Board Hearing on this project: “This is too much building in too small of a space.” Thank you for your consideration, Christopher Ream Christopher Ream Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 179     Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 180     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 181     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 182     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 183     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 184     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 185     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 186     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 187     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 188     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 189     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 190     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 191     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 192     Item 2Attachment H - PublicComment    Packet Pg. 193     Item 2Attachment H - PublicComment    Packet Pg. 194     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 A"achment B Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 195     Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 196     Item 2Attachment H - PublicComment    Packet Pg. 197     May 8, 2022 660 University Avenue Palo Alto, California. Scan #7 Line scan over parking lot 31 feet away from Oak tree #1572 Asphalt Thickness Root Depth in inches Excavation point for below-ground garage. This involves this whole cross section. All roots will be removed; beginning with the following scans 7-12 May 23, 2023 Root Study Oak Tree #1572 660 University Avenue Palo Alto, California Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2022 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. www.arboristonsite.com 34 Item 2Attachment H - PublicComment    Packet Pg. 198     From:Christopher Ream To:Kallas, Emily Subject:660 University, ARB Hearing Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2024 12:27:59 AM Attachments:660 - Ream Letter re Tree - 20240416 w Attachments.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Emily, Please find attached my letter which I wish the Architectural Review Board will have a chance to review before the Hearing Thursday morning. Please share it with each Member and with anyone else for whom you think would be appropriate. Please point out to them that Walter Levison’s Impact Analysis is attached. Thank you. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 199     Some people who received this message don't often get email from faithwb3@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important From:Kallas, Emily To:Kallas, Emily Subject:FW: New Construction at 511 Byron Street, and more, Palo Alto Date:Tuesday, May 21, 2024 4:22:00 PM From: Faith Brigel <faithwb3@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 5:21 PM To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Faith Brigel <faithwb3@yahoo.com>; greg.stone@cityofpaloalto.org; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: New Construction at 511 Byron Street, and more, Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council of City of Palo Alto, This morning I attended an Architectural Review Board meeting to discuss the new construction that is being proposed for 511 Byron Street, 660 University Ave., 680 University Ave., and 500 Middlefield Road. Once all of these buildings will be demolished they will construct an immense four story, mixed usage of many offices and many residential rentals, and a two story basement for parking, though the parking spaces will be much reduced from what is needed. And I assume a lot of water will need to be drained since our water level is shallow. Their presentation talked about several of the other buildings in that area that are large, though not as large as this one: the Hamilton project, Lytton Gardens, The Webster House and there is the 3 story 2 condo on Webster and University Ave. There are already several large buildings in this area. And I think none of them have a two story basement. That intersection is already very congested. And there is rarely any parking on Byron Street. One person opposed to this project this morning stated that constructing this building into that area is like squeezing it into a lot that is much too small. I have owned the single, story Victorian that is more than 100 years old, for almost 40 years. My building was not mentioned this morning. And I will lose some of my daylight plan, which was also not mentioned. Byron Street and University Ave. in Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 200     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 201     From:Mathews, Marley@DOT To:Kallas, Emily Cc:Luo, Yunsheng@DOT Subject:660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project Caltrans Comment Date:Wednesday, May 8, 2024 1:06:33 PM You don't often get email from marley.mathews@dot.ca.gov. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Emily, Thank you for including Caltrans in this review of the 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project DIER. At this time, Caltrans has no comments on the material provided. Please note this correspondence does not indicate an official position by Caltrans on this project and is for informational purposes only. Please continue to include Caltrans in discussions regarding this Project to stay informed. We encourage multi-agency collaboration and welcome any potential opportunities. Any future material or correspondence regarding this Project can be submitted to LDR-D4@dot.ca.gov. Thank you, Marley Mathews Transportation Planner (she/her) D4 Caltrans 510-960-0841 Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 202     From:Gennifer Wehrmeyer To:Kallas, Emily Cc:CPRU-Dropbox; Shree Dharasker Subject:VW File 34811 – Comments on DEIR for 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project Date:Friday, May 17, 2024 4:14:49 PM Attachments:image001.png You don't often get email from gwehrmeyer@valleywater.org. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Emily, The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed Notice of Availability of aDraft 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 BryonStreet, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd in Palo Alto, received on April 2, 2024, and has the following comments: 1. Valley Water does not have any right of way or facilities within the project siteboundary; therefore, in accordance with Valley Water’s Water ResourcesProtection Ordinance, a Valley Water encroachment permit will not be requiredfor the project. 2. Valley Water previously commented on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) thatunderground structures should be designed for waterproofing that avoids theneed for permanent dewatering after construction is complete. As stated inSection 10-a, construction will involve excavation up to 38 feet below groundsurface, during which time dewatering will be used. It is unclear if dewatering willoccur after construction. Underground structures should be designed forwaterproofing and permanent dewatering should be avoided once constructionis finished. 3. Valley Water records indicate that no active wells are located on the subjectproperty. While Valley Water has records for most wells located in the County, itis always possible that a well exists that is not in the Valley Water’s records. Ifpreviously unknown wells are found on the subject property during development,they must be properly destroyed under permit from Valley Water or registeredwith Valley Water and protected from damage. For more information, please callthe Valley Water’s Well Ordinance Program Hotline at 408-630-2660. 4. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) FloodInsurance Rate Map (FIRM) 006085C0010H, effective May 18, 2009, the projectsite is within FEMA Flood Zone AH, an area with 1% annual chance of shallowflooding (usually areas of ponding), located between base flood elevations of 46feet and 47 feet. The project is required to follow the flood plain ordinance andnational flood insurance requirements. If you have any questions or need further information, you can reach me at gwehrmeyer@valleywater.org or at (408) 694-2069. Please reference Valley Water File 34811 on further correspondence regarding this project. Thank you, Gennifer Wehrmeyer ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CIVIL Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 203     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 204     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 thisproject 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 thestreet 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 reducepotential 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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 205     From: Kathleen Rotow <kathleenrotow@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 4:46 AMTo: 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 withintwo 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. Probableadditional 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 theparking 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 ofAvailability is attached and has further information regarding the proposed project. The comment period for the Draft EIR begins today, Tuesday, April2nd 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 aninterest in the proposed project or because your agency may have an interest in the proposed project, or because you have been requested to be contactedregarding 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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 206     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 | PlanningForms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped <660_University_NOA signed.pdf> Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 207     From:Christopher Ream To:Kallas, Emily Subject:660 University Project Date:Wednesday, April 10, 2024 3:38:35 PM Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Emily, Chris Ream here, the President of the Hamilton Homeowners Association. I intend to prepare a letter to the Architectural Review Board outlining The Hamilton’s objections to the planned project at 660 University, and I also intend to attend and comment at the ARB Hearing new week on April 18. I have done a quick review of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR addresses many of the points I had previously brought up to the ARB along with some new points, including in particular, the danger of killing Tree #10 (the protected coastal oak) and the alternative of adding a fifth above-ground story to the building, and the alternative of eliminating the second floor of the underground garage. These are not shown in the developer’s current plans, but are obviously issues that need to be addressed at some point. My question is: Would it be proper for me to address in my letter to the ARB and at the Hearing points raised in the Draft EIR but not yet appearing in the developer’s plans. I will call you to have a brief discussion on this. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 208     From:Mimi and Eric Carlson To:Christopher Ream; Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: 660 University Project Date:Thursday, April 11, 2024 11:02:35 AM You don't often get email from mimianderic@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Chris et al. Please note that the proposed project will create a traffic nightmare, espesciallly if the entrance is on Byron.- which is effectively a one wao street during the day. Eric Carlson From: Christopher Ream <ream@reamlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 3:38 PM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: 660 University Project Emily, Chris Ream here, the President of the Hamilton Homeowners Association. I intend to prepare a letter to the Architectural Review Board outlining The Hamilton’s objections to the planned project at 660 University, and I also intend to attend and comment at the ARB Hearing new week on April 18. I have done a quick review of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR addresses many of the points I had previously brought up to the ARB along with some new points, including in particular, the danger of killing Tree #10 (the protected coastal oak) and the alternative of adding a fifth above-ground story to the building, and the alternative of eliminating the second floor of the underground garage. These are not shown in the developer’s current plans, but are obviously issues that need to be addressed at some point. My question is: Would it be proper for me to address in my letter to the ARB and at the Hearing points raised in the Draft EIR but not yet appearing in the developer’s plans. Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 209     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 210     THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: ream@reamlaw.com April 16, 2024 Via email: Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org Re: 660 University Project Architectural Review Board Hearing on April 18, 2024 Draft EIR April 2024 Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree Dear Emily, Please consider the comments in this letter as you continue to work on the Draft EIR for the 660 University Project and pass on these comments to members of the Architectural Review Board and to others where appropriate. There is an Attachment A and an Attachment B to this letter. The Hamilton is a senior living (55+) condominium development with 36 residential units and the average age of the residents in The Hamilton is mid-80’s. The Hamilton shares the same small block with the proposed development at 660 University Avenue. Lytton Gardens, Webster House and Webster House Health Center are within a block and directly across the street from the proposed development. Channing House is two blocks away. Because of this concentration of elderly citizens, the area is frequently referred to as “Senior Corner.” I am Christopher Ream. My wife Anne and I have been Palo Alto residents for 53 years and have been residents of The Hamilton for the past five years. The Hamilton community strongly opposes the proposed development at 660 University, and the Board of Directors of the Hamilton Homeowners Association (the “HHA”), with the support of its members/residents, has resolved to fight against the proposed development. I am the President of the HHA and am personally committed to significantly revising the proposed building that will materially adversely affect us and all of our neighbors. There is a majestic, beautiful Coast Live Oak tree (the “Tree”) in the middle of our block and is listed as Tree #10 on Applicant’s plans. Applicant’s arborist reports that the Tree’s trunk is 50 inches in diameter and its limbs stretch out 90 feet in diameter “in a mostly balanced canopy.” The Tree abuts the back property line of the 660 University project and so its limbs reach out approximately 45 feet over the project’s property, and its root structure is larger than that. The Tree brings shade and joy to us and everyone else on the block. The Tree is several hundred Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 211     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 Page 2 of 4 years old and is deemed a Protected Heritage Tree by the City of Palo Alto. Applicant’s arborist rates the Tree “High” for suitability for preservation. This proposed project puts this beautiful Tree in grave danger: “It is WLCA’s professional opinion that the tree’s vigor would be negatively impacted to a severe degree as a direct result of proposed site work as currently described on the 10/31/2023 set of plan sheets, resulting in tree #10 falling into a spiral of condition decline from which it cannot recover.” Walter Levison Consulting Arborist Impact Analysis dated 12/18/2023, p.6 Please see Attachment A to this letter for the full Impact Analysis by Walter Levison Consulting Arborist. Tree Protection Zone Applicant’s plans recite that the City’s Tree Technical Manual (TTM) ¶1.36 specifies a “Tree Protection Zone” (TPZ) for a protected tree with a radius equal to the ten times the trunk’s diameter. For the Tree, that would be 10 x 50” = 500” = 41 feet. Another rule is that the TPZ should be equal to the foliage, so here that would be a radius of 45 feet based upon the arborist’s report of a 90-foot canopy spread. I am not an arborist, but I am told that one common rule of thumb is that a tree’s roots are one and a half to three times wider than the canopy. For the Tree’s 45-foot limbs, that would be 67 to 135 feet of roots out under the parking lot where the new building would go. Robert Booty, arborist retained by Rincon Consultants on behalf of the City, reports that his LIDAR root scan of the existing asphalt parking lot at 600 University Avenue shows that the Tree’s roots are still dense and going out strong at his 51-foot scan, the furthest extent of his investigation. (See Attachment B.) Applicant has drawn a TPZ of only 30 feet on its plans and has the new building right next to and touching that 30 feet. That is 11 to 15 feet less than required. And the 30 feet is just what the building is supposed to look like – you don’t have to be an experienced contractor to know that there will be plenty of damaging construction work done on the exterior side of the two-story underground garage walls, and that will be much closer than 30 feet to the Tree. Robert Booty’s report points out that the roots are going to be sliced off at his scan of 31 feet. (See Attachment B.) Now, look up at the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors, there are residential units with balconies sticking out 6 feet into the TPZ. Applicant’s arborist admits that pruning will be required, including a 17-inch limb. The Tree has to be pruned back to clear those balconies. Then be realistic: Applicant is going to prune the Tree even further back so that there is at least 5 feet of clearance between those balconies and the Tree. We are now cutting the Tree back to only 19 feet of foliage left. Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 212     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 Page 3 of 4 If 660 University is allowed to be built as now proposed, the Tree’s canopy will be severed on one side, disrupting the Tree’s balance, potentially allowing strong gravitational forces to push the Tree over. In addition, the roots needed to hold the Tree back from tipping over will have been cut and lost their gripping force. How soon will the Tree topple over and crash into The Hamilton and others. It would destroy the dental offices at 517 Byron, and badly injure and maybe kill anyone in those offices at the time. The neighborhood will lose this beautiful tree. The privacy of the seniors in the sixteen apartments in The Hamilton on that side of our development will be exposed to the 36 units with balconies on our side of the 660 University building as well as the noisy crowds on the roof top party deck. Security The Staff Report for the Architectural Review Board Hearing to be held April 18, 2024 reported that the Urban Forestry Section has requested that any building permit be conditioned upon the Applicant obtaining an appraisal of the replacement value of the Tree and posting security for that amount. What does that mean in this situation? It will be completely impossible to replace the Tree, thus how can anyone come up with a replacement value. And, if the Tree “dies” within three years of the completion of the project, then the money from the security will go into the Forestry Fund to plant trees elsewhere. So much for the owner of 517 Byron and thus the person who was the owner of the Tree and the one most damaged by its death. This might make sense if the permit was conditioned upon obtain an appraisal value using the Trunk Formula Method (TTM 6.45B) rather than the Replacement Cost Method (TTM 6.45A). Solution At the Architectural Review Board hearing in December 2022, everyone, including the Applicant’s architect and its landscaper actively agreed that the Tree had to be protected; but the Applicant did not suggest that a 41-45 foot TPZ should be observed. No, their answer was that they knew of a tree in Mountain View that has so far survived a small TPZ (although they did not say how long it has survived). One tree surviving for an unknown time is not a valid argument to ignore the universally accepted rule of a TPZ equal to 10 times the trunk’s diameter or the extent of the canopy. The only solution here to save this Protected Heritage Tree is that the proper 41-foot TPZ must be imposed and complied by both the proposed building and its construction. This is not an unfair burden on the Applicant: They have known all along that their 30-foot TPZ was in violation of TTM regulations, and that the building could not be constructed without violating even that reduced TPZ because of the necessity to have construction closer to the Tree than that artificial 30 feet. The first time they showed a TPZ on their plans was their C3 filing on October 6, 2022 when they showed a TPZ with a radius of 29’11-½” (strange number for a TPZ). C3_660 University Ave_PLAN1.pdf, p.24. This was later updated to the 30 feet we see now. Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 213     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 Page 4 of 4 Applicant’s arborist David L. Babby discusses the size of the TPZ in §5.3 of his Tree Protection Report, 660 University Avenue, February 7, 2024: “The CPA's Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) standard is a radial distance from the trunk equal to 10 times its diameter, which for oak #10, identifies a TPZ of 41 feet from the trunk. The proposed project establishes the TPZ to be 30 feet from the trunk, which equates to a multiplier of 7 times the trunk diameter (and 11 feet inside).” He then goes on to say that the small 30-foot TPZ only applies to the finished building and garage, and sets up an even smaller, undisclosed zone where all sorts of construction work can tear up the ground and destroy the Tree’s roots: “The architectural design substantially conforms to my recommendations provided in January 2021, which stipulates a minimum 30-foot setback from the oak's trunk to construct the future building and parking garage, and a minimum setback of 20 feet from the trunk for all ground disturbance beneath the existing asphalt surface. “Roots The 20-foot setback from #10's trunk for ground disturbance applies to any soil compaction, grading, subexcavation, overexcavation, trenching, drilling/auguring, storm drains, swales, etc.” In other words, once you are 20 feet or more from the Tree, you can go at it, tear up the ground and destroy the Tree’s roots anyway and as much as you want. It appears to me that the Applicant didn’t have a thought when they started about Palo Alto’s desire to protect its beautiful Heritage Trees. They just saw some land, put together plans to fill that land with rental opportunities, and moved forward. When they discovered that Palo Alto wanted to protect the Tree, they drew a TPZ to accommodate their plans, rather than drawing their plans to accommodate the Tree. As Chair David Hirsch so succinctly stated at the December, 2022 Architectural Review Board Hearing on this project: “This is too much building in too small of a space.” Thank you for your consideration, Christopher Ream Christopher Ream Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 214     Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 215     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 216     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 217     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 218     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 219     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 220     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 221     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 222     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 223     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 224     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 225     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 226     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 227     Item 2Attachment H - PublicComment    Packet Pg. 228     Item 2Attachment H - PublicComment    Packet Pg. 229     660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 A"achment B Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 230     Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 231     Item 2Attachment H - PublicComment    Packet Pg. 232     May 8, 2022 660 University Avenue Palo Alto, California. Scan #7 Line scan over parking lot 31 feet away from Oak tree #1572 Asphalt Thickness Root Depth in inches Excavation point for below-ground garage. This involves this whole cross section. All roots will be removed; beginning with the following scans 7-12 May 23, 2023 Root Study Oak Tree #1572 660 University Avenue Palo Alto, California Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2022 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. www.arboristonsite.com 34 Item 2Attachment H - PublicComment    Packet Pg. 233     From:Christopher Ream To:Kallas, Emily Subject:660 University, ARB Hearing Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2024 12:27:59 AM Attachments:660 - Ream Letter re Tree - 20240416 w Attachments.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Emily, Please find attached my letter which I wish the Architectural Review Board will have a chance to review before the Hearing Thursday morning. Please share it with each Member and with anyone else for whom you think would be appropriate. Please point out to them that Walter Levison’s Impact Analysis is attached. Thank you. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 234     Some people who received this message don't often get email from faithwb3@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important From:Kallas, Emily To:Kallas, Emily Subject:FW: New Construction at 511 Byron Street, and more, Palo Alto Date:Tuesday, May 21, 2024 4:22:00 PM From: Faith Brigel <faithwb3@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 5:21 PM To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Faith Brigel <faithwb3@yahoo.com>; greg.stone@cityofpaloalto.org; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: New Construction at 511 Byron Street, and more, Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council of City of Palo Alto, This morning I attended an Architectural Review Board meeting to discuss the new construction that is being proposed for 511 Byron Street, 660 University Ave., 680 University Ave., and 500 Middlefield Road. Once all of these buildings will be demolished they will construct an immense four story, mixed usage of many offices and many residential rentals, and a two story basement for parking, though the parking spaces will be much reduced from what is needed. And I assume a lot of water will need to be drained since our water level is shallow. Their presentation talked about several of the other buildings in that area that are large, though not as large as this one: the Hamilton project, Lytton Gardens, The Webster House and there is the 3 story 2 condo on Webster and University Ave. There are already several large buildings in this area. And I think none of them have a two story basement. That intersection is already very congested. And there is rarely any parking on Byron Street. One person opposed to this project this morning stated that constructing this building into that area is like squeezing it into a lot that is much too small. I have owned the single, story Victorian that is more than 100 years old, for almost 40 years. My building was not mentioned this morning. And I will lose some of my daylight plan, which was also not mentioned. Byron Street and University Ave. in Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 235     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 236     From:Mathews, Marley@DOT To:Kallas, Emily Cc:Luo, Yunsheng@DOT Subject:660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project Caltrans Comment Date:Wednesday, May 8, 2024 1:06:33 PM You don't often get email from marley.mathews@dot.ca.gov. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Emily, Thank you for including Caltrans in this review of the 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project DIER. At this time, Caltrans has no comments on the material provided. Please note this correspondence does not indicate an official position by Caltrans on this project and is for informational purposes only. Please continue to include Caltrans in discussions regarding this Project to stay informed. We encourage multi-agency collaboration and welcome any potential opportunities. Any future material or correspondence regarding this Project can be submitted to LDR-D4@dot.ca.gov. Thank you, Marley Mathews Transportation Planner (she/her) D4 Caltrans 510-960-0841 Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 237     From:Gennifer Wehrmeyer To:Kallas, Emily Cc:CPRU-Dropbox; Shree Dharasker Subject:VW File 34811 – Comments on DEIR for 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project Date:Friday, May 17, 2024 4:14:49 PM Attachments:image001.png You don't often get email from gwehrmeyer@valleywater.org. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Emily, The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed Notice of Availability of aDraft 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 BryonStreet, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd in Palo Alto, received on April 2, 2024, and has the following comments: 1. Valley Water does not have any right of way or facilities within the project siteboundary; therefore, in accordance with Valley Water’s Water ResourcesProtection Ordinance, a Valley Water encroachment permit will not be requiredfor the project. 2. Valley Water previously commented on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) thatunderground structures should be designed for waterproofing that avoids theneed for permanent dewatering after construction is complete. As stated inSection 10-a, construction will involve excavation up to 38 feet below groundsurface, during which time dewatering will be used. It is unclear if dewatering willoccur after construction. Underground structures should be designed forwaterproofing and permanent dewatering should be avoided once constructionis finished. 3. Valley Water records indicate that no active wells are located on the subjectproperty. While Valley Water has records for most wells located in the County, itis always possible that a well exists that is not in the Valley Water’s records. Ifpreviously unknown wells are found on the subject property during development,they must be properly destroyed under permit from Valley Water or registeredwith Valley Water and protected from damage. For more information, please callthe Valley Water’s Well Ordinance Program Hotline at 408-630-2660. 4. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) FloodInsurance Rate Map (FIRM) 006085C0010H, effective May 18, 2009, the projectsite is within FEMA Flood Zone AH, an area with 1% annual chance of shallowflooding (usually areas of ponding), located between base flood elevations of 46feet and 47 feet. The project is required to follow the flood plain ordinance andnational flood insurance requirements. If you have any questions or need further information, you can reach me at gwehrmeyer@valleywater.org or at (408) 694-2069. Please reference Valley Water File 34811 on further correspondence regarding this project. Thank you, Gennifer Wehrmeyer ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CIVIL Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 238     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 239     You don't often get email from kathleenrotow@gmail.com. Learn why this is important From:Foley, EmilyTo:Klicheva, Madina Subject:FW: 660 University Ave Date:Wednesday, November 16, 2022 8:56:46 AMAttachments: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 workenvironment. 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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 240     From:Foley, EmilyTo:Klicheva, Madina Subject:FW: 660 University Project comments Date:Wednesday, November 16, 2022 8:56:39 AMAttachments: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 workenvironment. 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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 241     From:Janet L. Billups To:Planning Commission Cc:Foley, Emily; Lait, Jonathan; Stump, Molly; Christopher Ream; Leigh F. Prince Subject:Opposition to Project Proposed at 660 University Avenue Date:Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:38:07 AM Attachments:Letter to PTC re 660 University 11.15.22.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from jlb@jsmf.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City of Palo Alto Planning Commission, The attached letter, submitted by Leigh Prince, on behalf of the Homeowner’s Association for The Hamilton, a continuing care retirement community for seniors located at 555 Byron Street, expresses opposition to the project proposed at 660 University Avenue. The Hamilton encourages the Planning Commission to consider several of the alternatives outlined in the letter. Kind regards, Janet Billups, Legal Assistant to Leigh F. Prince, Esq. Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel LLP 1100 Alma Street, Ste. 210 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Ph. 650-324-9300 jlb@jsmf.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and contain information that may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this communication by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 242     WILLIAM L. McCLURE JOHN L. FLEGEL DAN K. SIEGEL JENNIFER H. FRIEDMAN MINDIE S. ROMANOWSKY LEIGH F. PRINCE DAVID L. ACH GREGORY K. KLINGSPORN NICOLAS A. FLEGEL KRISTINA A. FENTON CARA E. SILVER KIMBERLY J. BRUMMER CAMAS J. STEINMETZ PHILIP S. SOUSA ____________ BRITTNEY L. STANDLEY CHRISTIAN D. PETRANGELO JOSEPH H. FELDMAN JORGENSON, SI EGEL, McCLURE & F LEGEL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1100 ALMA STREET, SUITE 210 MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 94025-3392 (650) 3 24-9300 FACSI MILE (650) 324-0227 www.jsmf.com November 15, 2022 OF COUNSEL KENT MITCHELL ____________ RETIRED JOHN D. JORGENSON MARGARET A. SLOAN DIANE S. GREENBERG ____________ DECEASED MARVIN S. SIEGEL (1936 - 2012) JOHN R.COSGROVE (1932 - 2017) Sent Via Email: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org Planning and Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Opposition to Project Proposed at 660 University Avenue Dear Honorable Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission, This letter is written on behalf of the Homeowner’s Association for The Hamilton, a continuing care retirement community for seniors with 36 units located at 555 Byron Street. The Hamilton is adjacent to the proposed mixed-use project which would consist of 65 residential units and 9,115 square feet of office (“Project”) at 660 University Avenue (“Property”). The residents of The Hamilton, whose average age is in the mid-80s, will be significantly impacted by the proposed Project. In addition, the Project will impact a number of other senior communities in this “Senior Corner” of Palo Alto, including Lytton Gardens and Webster House (and Channing House). Rather than proposing something compatible with the “Senior Corner,” the Project proposes a density and intensity far in excess of any surrounding development and in excess of what is allowed by the current residential zoning or the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This letter will highlight concerns with the merits of the Project as well as environmental impacts, and should be considered a comment letter on the Notice of Preparation. The Hamilton is concerned about impacts to transportation, air quality, noise, parking, pedestrian safety, land use/planning and the loss of a significant tree presented by Project with its unprecedented density and intensity. The Hamilton requests that the Planning and Transportation Commission (“PTC”) recommend that the Project be reduced to be more consistent with the existing residential zoning and compatible with the surrounding senior communities. Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 243     Planning and Transportation Commission Re: Opposition to Project Proposed at 660 University Avenue November 15, 2022 Page 2 Density Significantly Exceeds that Allowed by the Zoning or the Comprehensive Plan. The Project proposes 65 units (47 studios, 12 one-bedroom and 6 two-bedroom units). Although this is a reduction of five units from the preliminary proposal reviewed by the City Council during the Planned Home Zoning (“PHZ”) pre-screening, this is still significantly above the density allowed by the Property’s RM-20 multifamily zoning. The maximum number of units allowed by the zoning would be 10 units. Thus, the Project is proposing six and a half times the maximum allowable zoning density. Furthermore, the Project also far exceeds the allowable residential density identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan would allow a density of 40 units per acre. On this approximately half-acre site, the maximum Comprehensive Plan density would be 20 units. Thus, the Project is proposing 45 units more (or more than three times the density) anticipated by the highest density identified for the Property in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. With 65 units on approximately one-half acre, the Project density is approximately 126 units per acre for this multifamily residential area. The highest density identified in the Housing Element for any property is 81.25 units per acre for general manufacturing and research, office and limited manufacturing zones. Thus, the proposed Project density is one and one-half times the highest density identified anywhere in the City in the draft Housing Element. This is also far in excess of other planned communities in this area. The Hamilton is located on approximately 1.18 acres and has 36 units for a density of is 33 units per acre. Thus, the proposed Project is well over three times more dense than the neighboring development. Because by any measure this Project is proposed at an unreasonably high density, The Hamilton encourages the PTC to recommend the Project’s density be significantly reduced. Inadequate Public Benefit Provided in Exchange for Increased Density. The Project does not provide a substantial public benefit adequate to justify the significant increase in density. The Project proposes to provide 20 percent affordable housing units (four very-low, four low and five moderate income units) consistent with the City Council direction on the minimum affordability necessary to support a rezoning to PHZ. However, given the significant increase in density, this is a woefully inadequate public benefit. To put it into perspective, a project that proposes 20 percent low-income units would be entitled to a 35 percent density bonus under state density bonus law (Government Code Section 65915). With a maximum Comprehensive Plan density of 20 units, a 35 percent density bonus would result in a 27-unit project.1 In fact, the highest density bonus a project can receive using state density bonus law is 50 percent, which would allow a 30-unit project. Thus, although the PHZ does not require strict adherence to state law, it is important to note that if approved the City would be allowing a far greater density increase than mandated by state law in exchange for far less affordable housing. 1 Strict compliance with the state density bonus law would result in a density bonus of less than 35 percent. State law generally requires one income category be selected to determine the density bonus; however, many jurisdictions as a policy matter will count units at lower affordability toward the higher category. With four very-low income units, the density bonus percentage would be 20 percent which would be a total project of 24 units. Four low income units would not quality the Project for a density bonus. If the four very-low income were counted toward the low income category, with eight low income units, the Project would quality for a 23 percent density bonus. This would allow a 25-unit project. With five moderate income units, the Project would not qualify for a density bonus. If the four very-low and four low income units were counted toward the moderate income category, the Project would qualify for a 15 percent density bonus. This would allow a 23-unit project. Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 244     Planning and Transportation Commission Re: Opposition to Project Proposed at 660 University Avenue November 15, 2022 Page 3 Giving away this increased density also does not provide the City significant progress toward meeting its Regional Housing Need Allocation (“RHNA”) for the current Housing Element cycle. The City needs to plan for 1,556 very-low income units, 896 low income units and 1,013 moderate income units. For more than triple the allowable density, the City obtains only four very-low income units (0.2% of the need), four low income units (0.4% of the need) and five moderate units (0.4% of the need). Understanding that the City needs to plan to develop housing to meet its RHNA goals, the City should not “throw the baby out with the bath water.” Increased housing density should be approved within reasonable limits and certainly not so far in excess of that allowed by the zoning or the Comprehensive Plan, even with state law mandates layered on top. Approving this Project as proposed would unfairly put the burden on the seniors living at The Hamilton to allow the City as a whole to make negligible progress toward its RHNA goals. Therefore, The Hamilton encourages the PTC to recommend the density of this Project be substantially reduced. Office Use Adds Intensity Without Benefit. Not only does the Project far exceed the residential density, it also includes office. The Project proposes 9,115 square feet of general office. Office is not a permitted or conditional use in the RM-20 multifamily residential zoning district. Office uses are inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for this residential area. Further, general office is a departure from the existing non-conforming medical office. While medical office might serve the “Senior Corner,” general office does not. Instead, general office uses would add intensity and traffic congestion and create additional housing need without benefiting the surrounding community. Thus, The Hamilton urges the PTC to recommend removal of the office use from this Project. In addition, the City should prepare a housing needs assessment (“HNA”), including consideration of the multiplier effect, as part of the environmental impact report. A HNA would help the City to understand how many employees will occupy the office space and the housing demand that will be generated by those workers. This is especially important in an era where office space per worker is declining, and the number of employees may be higher than anticipated (the average tech worker uses less than 250 square feet of office space). Finally, the office vacancy rate in Palo Alto is currently at approximately 14 percent indicating there is no need for the development of office in this location where it is neither permitted, nor beneficial.2 Thus, The Hamilton urges the PTC to recommend office be removed from this Project. Transportation Impacts Potentially Significant. The environmental impact report and the City in its deliberation regarding the merits of this Project should carefully consider the impact of the additional trips generated by the residential units and office use. The multifamily residential zoning anticipated 20 units per acre and no office. The Comprehensive Plan anticipated a maximum of 40 units per acre and no office. The intensity of this Project with approximately 126 units per acre and office will far exceed the transportation impacts presented in any environmental review for existing planning documents. The transportation impact analysis and environmental impact report should not focus only on the impact during peak commute hours, but should consider the impact throughout the day. Such an analysis is important in this “Senior Corner” because many residents are home throughout the 2 https://www.nmrk.com/storage-nmrk/uploads/fields/pdf-market-reports/1Q22-SPeninsula-Office-Market_2022-05-31-174425_nzty.pdf Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 245     Planning and Transportation Commission Re: Opposition to Project Proposed at 660 University Avenue November 15, 2022 Page 4 day. The Hamilton is concerned that the additional traffic generated by the Project will impact their ability not only to drive, but also to walk safely in the neighborhood. One related issue that should be studied in the transportation impact analysis and environmental impact report is the design of the Project’s entry/exit for the garage onto Middlefield Road. The garage entry/exit is close to the traffic light at University Avenue and may cause significant queuing, which will likely lead to traffic jams on Middlefield Road. This congestion will lead people to try to bypass the traffic by cutting down Byron Street. Byron Street is narrow, and the fully utilized parking on either side makes it impossible for two moving cars to pass each other safely. Thus, cut through traffic down Byron Street should be analyzed. This is in addition to analyzing the impacts to University Avenue and Middlefield Road that are main arteries in Palo Alto. Finally, the transportation impact analysis and environmental impact report should carefully consider the impacts on parking. The Project is proposing 82 spaces, which is 28 spaces less than the 110 spaces required. One of the two levels of parking proposes stackers, which can be difficult to operate and maintain. With inadequate and complicated parking, it is reasonable to conclude that many residents, workers and visitors will park off the Property. Consideration of the Project should include parking impacts such as additional miles travelled in search of parking and parking intrusion into surrounding areas. Air Quality Impacts Should Be Carefully Analyzed. Closely related to the transportation impacts, are the potential air quality impacts. As noted, this is an area referred to as “Senior Corner.” Seniors are sensitive receptors who are at a heightened risk of negative health outcomes due to exposure to air pollution. The environmental impact report should include a health risk assessment and mitigate the Project to avoid negative health impacts to this sensitive community. Tree Preservation is of Substantial Importance. There is a beautiful Coastal Live Oak tree with a trunk diameter of 50 inches growing just over the property line. The canopy stretches approximately 45 feet over the Project site. It provides beauty and shade for the entire block and likely habitat for biological resources such as nesting birds. Careful consideration needs to be given to ensuring that this tree is adequately protected and survives and is in good health after the redevelopment of the Property to minimize the impact of the Project on aesthetics and biological resources. A professional arborist should consider not only the roots, but to how much of the canopy may need to be cut to allow the Project and how this can be limited to avoid impacting the environment. Other Considerations Impacting Aesthetics, Land Use and Planning. The setbacks on all streets and sidewalks proposed by the Project are greatly reduced from required setbacks. The required setback along Middlefield is a minimum of 24 feet. The required setback along University Avenue and Byron Street are both 16 feet. The Project would reduce each of these setbacks down to only 10 feet. These setbacks impact the pedestrian experience and may impact safety. These potential impacts should be considered. The residential portion of the building is 50 feet tall and it is higher for mechanical and elevator equipment. This exceeds the height allowed in the multifamily zoning district. Plans for the Project reveal that a majority of the rooftop will be opened up as a social gathering common area with multiple barbeques, lounges, tables and chairs, including a TV mounted on one of the walls. The Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 246     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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 247     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 pretextstops? and adopt a program similar to the LAPD ? See Binder’s answer onpretext stops- to Weekly reporter Gennady Sheyner in his Battling Bias inPolicing 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 H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 248     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 8 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 8, 2025 Report #: 2507-4984 TITLE Request for a Zoning Text Amendment to Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning) Section 18.18.120 [Noncomplying (Grandfathered) Uses and Facilities] to allow existing floor area to be replaced in new buildings without increasing the degree of existing non-compliance. CEQA Status: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review the applicant’s request to modify Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.18.120 and provide feedback to staff. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On August 15, 2022, City Council held a prescreening for an applicant proposed text amendment to PAMC Section 18.18.120 to allow a change to the building envelope at 616 Ramona Street when replacing non-complying floor area in Commercial Downtown (CD) District.1 The proposed code change (Attachment A) amends PAMC Section 18.18.120 [Noncomplying (Grandfathered) Uses and Facilities] by removing subsections 18.18.120(a)(2)(C) and 18.18.120(b)(2)(C). The removal of these two sections would allow existing noncomplying floor area to be replaced, either through renovations or the construction of new buildings without restriction to the existing building envelope (the three-dimensional shape and size occupied by an existing building), currently referred to as the “shrink wrap rule.” In addition to the proposed code change requested by the applicant (Attachment A), staff have provided alternative language (Attachment B) that would provide additional flexibility in rebuilding existing non-complying floor area, but narrows the scope to focus on recent Council 1 Link to the August 15, 2022, City Council Meeting Study Session (Agenda Item 3): https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=9028&compileOutputType=1 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 249     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 8 priorities, by only allowing the additional flexibility when it would allow housing or increased plate height for retail on the ground floor. The code changes detailed in both Attachment A and B would align closer with previous interpretations of PAMC Section 18.18.120 applied between 1988 and 2017, as further detailed in Background section below. Following the PTC’s review and recommendation, the draft ordinance would go to City Council for final decision. BACKGROUND The below information summarizes the legislative history of this code section, Council input associated with the prescreening for this zoning text amendment, and construction activity for sites governed by this code section over the last decade. Legislative History In 1986 Council adopted Ordinance 3696,3 which established the CD District and codified its respective development standards. Notably, parcels within the newly created CD district had their allowable floor areas significantly reduced, resulting in many existing buildings exceeding the newly established gross floor area standards. Understanding this, Council adopted amendments to the PAMC to include a provision allowing for the replacement of noncomplying floor area. In 1988 staff prepared an informational report to Council to address some questions regarding interpretation of the 1986 amendments. This report, included in Attachment C, concluded that buildings could be permitted to be remodeled or replaced provided there would be no increase in the building’s noncompliance. Meaning that buildings could be reconfigured in terms of length, height, and width so long as the existing floor area was not increased. Further, a building’s height would not be allowed to exceed the height limit of the applicable district unless through means of a variance. Nearly 27 years of consistent staff review and project approvals within the CD District4 aligned with this 1988 interpretation allowing the continuation of uses and rebuilding of facilities that were in place prior to August 28, 1986. However, in 2015, Council raised concerns with the 1988 interpretation and directed staff to amend the code for clarity. In response, Council adopted Ordinance 53735 in January 2017, amending PAMC Section 18.18.180(a)(2) to better define “building envelope” and specify that noncomplying floor area may not be demolished and replaced in a manner that results in a change to the three-dimensional shape of the existing building. PAMC Section 18.18.180(a)(2) was revised as follows: (Additions are underlined and removals are struck through) 3 Ordinance 3696 is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/city- clerk/ordinances/ordinances-1909-to-present/ordinances-by-number/ord-3696.pdf 4 In 2006, Ordinance 4923 moved the CD regulations from Chapter 18.49 to 18.18 with no substantial changes to the noncomplying uses and facilities. 5 Ordinance 5373, adopted January 11, 2016, is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/city-clerk/ordinances/ord-5373.pdf Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 250     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 8 (2) The grandfathered use in subsection (1) shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, for continual use and occupancy by the same use, provided such remodeling, improvement, or replacement complies with all of the following: a) shall not result in increased floor area; b) shall not relocate below grade floor area to above grade portions of the building shift the building footprint; c) shall not result in an increase in the height, length, building envelope, building footprint or any other increase in the size of the improvement. For purposes of this section, “building envelope” shall mean the three-dimensional shape and size occupied by an existing building. It is not the maximum, buildable potential of the site; d) shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section 18.18.070; or e) in the case of medical, professional, general business or administrative office uses of a size exceeding 5,000 sf in the CD-S or CD-N district that are deemed grandfathered pursuant to subsection (1), such remodeling, improvement, or replacement shall not result in increased floor area devoted to such office uses. f) The Director may approve minor changes to the building’s footprint, height, length, and the building envelope through Architectural Review of minor aesthetic architectural improvements and to improve pedestrian orientation provided there is no increase to the degree of any non-complying feature. 616 Ramona Street Prescreening On August 15, 2022, City Council held a prescreening for an applicant proposed text amendment to PAMC Section 18.18.120 to allow a change to the building envelope at 616 Ramona Street. The conceptual project included a proposal to replace 8,344 square feet of existing floor area (including legal noncomplying floor area) in a two-story building with a new two-story building that is taller. In addition to the replacement of noncomplying floor area, 620 square feet of floor area above the third floor to accommodate access to a rooftop deck was proposed using bonus floor area through the City’s Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. The applicant noted that the regulations prohibit replacing floor area if it brings below-grade floor area above grade, increases the floor area, or includes a change to the building height, length, envelope, or footprint. They cited examples since 1996 where the City allowed the replacement of noncomplying floor area with development projects that increased either building heights or altered footprints. While the conceptual project’s design elements (open façade with more street engagement and proposed roof top terrace) drew praise, some Council members raised concerns about the broader impacts of the code change. The following topics Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 251     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 8 and items for consideration were highlighted in the prescreening, only some of which apply to the code change currently proposed:9 Provide the number of properties potentially impacted by a code change. Highlight the pros and cons of a code change (e.g., Historic impacts, Seismic and ADA improvements, additional open spaces/roof top terraces, etc.) Opportunities for Council to incentivize the rebuilding of these noncomplying structures to include housing. Relationship with Transfer of Development Rights program, and how they would relate to this change. CD District Construction Since 2017 During the prescreening, the applicant expressed their opinion that without a text amendment, owners would not replace existing buildings unless they can make the structure better and at least maintain the existing noncomplying floor area. To inform this claim, staff pulled the number of permits for new buildings (not including remodels, additions, or repairs) within the CD District since the 2017 adoption of Ordinance 5373. As detailed below, only three (3) new construction projects have been issued permits, two (2) of which have been completed since 2017. 620 Emerson Street (Permit # 20000-00934): New two (2) story restaurant with indoor and outdoor dining areas connecting to the adjacent hotel at 180 Hamilton Ave. Permit Received: 6/4/2020 (Original Permit 18000-00852 received on 4/4/2018 but expired 12/21/2018) Permit Issued: 12/16/2021 (Finaled on 1/3/2023) 429 University Avenue (Permit # 18000-00536): New four (4) story mixed-use residential and commercial building with below grade parking, commercial spaces, and three (3) residential units. Permit Received: 3/2/2018 Permit Issued: 7/30/2019 (Pending) 585 Hamilton Avenue (Permit # 19000-02949): New three (3) story mixed-use building with below grade parking, commercial spaces and 19 dwelling units. Permit Received: 11/18/2019 Permit Issued: 9/14/2020 (Finaled on 5/18/2023) PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests approval of a Zoning Text Amendment, which would amend PAMC Section 18.18.120 [Noncomplying (Grandfathered) Uses and Facilities] by removing subsections 18.18.120(a)(2)(C) and 18.18.120(b)(2)(C). The removal of these two sections would allow existing noncomplying floor area to be demolished and replaced, either through renovations or the construction of new buildings. Said buildings could maintain their respective noncomplying floor areas, but could have differing heights, footprints, and building envelopes. These building 9 Link to the August 15, 2022, City Council Meeting Minutes: file:///C:/Users/sswitze/Downloads/Meetings1379Summary%20Minutes_20230201194309669.pdf Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 252     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 8 changes would be still subject to the governing CD District regulations and would not increase the degree of existing non-compliance beyond the noncomplying floor area. Draft language is provided in Attachment A. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Historically, Council has taken a conservative approach to noncomplying structures, balancing the preservation of existing development patterns with opportunities for reinvestment and modernization. The 66 properties potentially impacted by the text amendment (Attachment D) currently have challenges for redevelopment due to zoning regulations restricting how they can be modified or expanded. The applicant’s proposed amendment reflects the interpretation of the code in place until the 2017 code amendment and would create new flexibility for property owners seeking to redevelop existing buildings. For properties that choose to redevelop, the text amendment would help facilitate more seismically safe and ADA accessible building with the application of newer building code standards than those applied at initial construction. Although some flexibility is currently allowed through the TDR program, this is limited to commercial receiver sites and entirely excludes residential development. Some property owners may be discouraged from undertaking significant upgrades or redevelopment projects, especially for housing, since the “shrink wrap rule” limits opportunities to add square footage unless the site is fully compliant or eligible for TDR bonuses. The proposed text amendment offers a timely opportunity to address barriers to downtown housing production and the City’s efforts to support retail revitalization. The amendment could allow more flexibility for new development and diverse housing types and the needs of new retail, furthering both the ongoing efforts with the Downtown Housing Plan and the retail revitalization Council Priority. Since the Downtown Housing Plan intends to establish policies, standards, and infrastructure strategies to accelerate housing production, it will be important to understand how this amendment aligns with and reinforces that broader framework. Together, these efforts could help address long-standing barriers to development and advance a vision for a more inclusive, connected, active, and climate-ready future for downtown. Further, Senate Bill (SB) 79, currently awaiting the Governor’s signature, represents one of the most significant State-led housing densification efforts in recent years. The bill would allow taller and denser multifamily housing within a half mile of major transit stops, even in areas currently zoned for lower density uses. SB 79 includes provisions for local governments to adopt a Transit Oriented Development alternative plan, with phased implementation and limited deferral opportunities. However, minimum density targets must still be met. While not yet enacted, SB 79 signals the State’s strong policy direction toward higher density housing near transit and provides important context for considering the proposed text amendment. If signed into law, a majority of parcels in the CD District would be directly affected. ANALYSIS The below analysis assesses both the applicant’s proposed zoning code text amendment, as well as an alternative that the PTC could consider that would be more limited, and provides additional information about how these might interact with other planning efforts currently underway. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 253     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 8 Both of the following text amendment options to PAMC Section 18.18.120 would affect properties with “noncomplying” or “grandfathered” structures in the CD district. Of the 302 parcels in CD District (228 Property Parcels with 74 Air Parcels), 66 contain noncomplying FAR above 1:1 that would be directly impacted.11 Out of those 66 parcels, 19 parcels were built on within the last 30 years. Attachment D provides a map of these properties, with the key data summarized below: 302 total parcels zoned CD (228 Property Parcels with 74 Air Parcels) 66 parcels with historic resources (Not subject to text amendment) 66 parcels with more than 1:1 FAR (Subject to text amendment) 87 parcels with commercial remodel/addition activities geocoded from building permits from 2011-2025 35 parcels built within the last 30 years (unlikely to rebuild soon), 19 of which are over 1:1 FAR The conclusion of this data is that there are only 47 parcels that are likely affected by this amendment in the near future, even though 66 parcels would be directly affected by the text amendment. Applicant Proposed Text Amendment The applicant proposes to remove PAMC Sections 18.18.180(a)(2)(C) and 18.18.120(b)(2)(C). This amendment would allow noncomplying floor area to be replaced in new configurations, with potential changes to building height, footprint, and envelope. The amendment would continue to require compliance with CD District regulations and would not permit an increase in the degree of noncompliance. This proposal would allow the full redevelopment of noncomplying floor area regardless of the proposed use(s) of the reconstructed building(s). The applicant’s draft language is provided in Attachment A. Modified Text Amendment with Retail and Residential Exceptions As an alternative, staff prepared a modified text amendment that would allow the replacement of noncomplying floor area to be limited for projects that include either ground floor retail uses or residential uses above the ground floor. The modification for retail uses is intended to promote downtown’s retail activity and decrease commercial vacancies, by providing retail spaces with the taller plate heights businesses are now expecting, to align with the City’s larger retail preservation efforts. The modification would also allow property owners to replace noncomplying floor area when a given project includes residential uses above the ground floor help to advance downtown housing production. Together these modifications would create incentivizes for property owners to incorporate residential and/or retail uses into redevelopment projects when opting to reconfigure their noncomplying floor area. The draft language is provided in Attachment B. Additional Topics for Consideration While staff has prepared modified text amendment for review, there are additional considerations, as discussed in the Policy Considerations section above. 11 Note: The query included FAR 1.1 or greater than 1.1. There were about 8 to 10 properties that had a FAR between 1.0 and 1.09. Due to the slim margins staff removed those from the affected parcel count. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 254     Item No. 3. Page 7 of 8 Downtown Development CAP Evaluation (2014) Phase 1 of the 2014 Downtown Development Cap Evaluation studied parking, traffic, and land use to inform future policy and identified 491,000 square feet of unused commercial area in the Primary Study Area, which could reach 612,000 square feet with TDRs. However, age of structures, current use, FAR, and land value ratios reduce feasible buildout by 70–90%, leaving only 53,400–146,000 square feet of likely development, requiring 214–580 parking spaces a key constraint at the time. To manage growth, Ordinance No. 5439 caps new office and R&D at 50,000 square feet annually in downtown, California Avenue, and El Camino Real, while Ordinance No. 5446 imposes a citywide 850,000-square-foot limit on non-residential development through 2030. Development in the City has not hit come close to these limits since imposed. The proposed code amendment to PAMC Section 18.18.120 (Attachments A and B) would directly interact with these findings by easing restrictions on rebuilding existing noncomplying floor area (removing the “shrink wrap rule”) and potentially increasing the amount of commercial space that could be reused or replaced, making the parking and cap constraints identified in the Evaluation even more critical to future policy decisions. Historic Resources While the impact on historic resources was a question brought up by Council during the prescreening, it is difficult to predict how future development might interact with adjacent historic resources. However, any new building downtown is subject to Architectural Review (AR). In part, the AR findings for approval require designs to be compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Though there is no formula or prescription for designing a compatible building, adherence to the AR findings for approval aligns with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Construction related activities could also potentially impact nearby resources. However, the California Building Code requires protective measures to safeguard adjacent properties that help to minimize any potential impacts. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) PAMC Section 18.18.080 establishes a TDR program that allows unused FAR from sender sites with qualifying historic resources or seismically vulnerable buildings to be transferred to receiver sites in the CD-C, CD-N, or PC districts, subject to restrictions such as avoiding parcels with historic resources or those within 150 feet of residential zoning. Sender sites receive a floor area bonus equal to the greater of 25 percent of the building area or 2,500 square feet, creating an incentive for preservation and seismic upgrades; approximately 32,100 square feet of unused bonus floor area is currently available downtown. Receiver sites may increase FAR up to 3.0 in CD-C or 2.0 in CD-N, though projects must remain under maximums in Section 18.18.070 and comply with zoning use standards and design requirements. Despite its preservation benefits, the program is limited because TDRs downtown can only be applied to non-residential uses, and the low base FAR of 1.0 in CD-C and 0.4 in CD-N, combined with ground-floor retail requirements, discourages financially viable mixed-use or housing projects. While Comprehensive Plan Policy L-7.14 calls for revising the ordinance to support housing, the proposed amendment to PAMC Section 18.18.120 could address this limitation for current non- conforming buildings in an alternative way by removing the “shrink wrap rule,” allowing replacement of noncomplying floor area without reliance on TDRs, and creating additional opportunities for housing and ground-floor retail flexibility. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 255     Item No. 3. Page 8 of 8 FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT The exact fiscal impact to the City if the code amendment is approved is unknown, but it is not expected to be significant. Since 2017, only three properties have fully redeveloped their noncomplying floor area, suggesting that there are not enough incentives to redevelop. Allowing the reconfiguration of noncomplying floor area could result in an increase in development applications for staff to process on the 66 parcels potentially impacted, but the expense of those would be covered by permit application fees. Further, office uses do not generate year-over-year tax revenue for the City, while retail and retail-like uses contribute to the sales tax base. By incentivizing retail and retail like uses, the City could see incremental gains in sales tax revenue over time, compared with office occupancy. This does not account for indirect benefits, such as office-driven foot traffic that may support nearby retailers downtown which could partially offset the difference in tax revenue. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on September 23, 2025, which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The draft text amendment is considered categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the common sense exemption, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. While the amendments would allow changes to building envelopes (the three-dimensional shape and size occupied by an existing building, not the maximum buildable potential of the site) when replacing noncomplying floor area, such projects would be limited to reconfiguring existing space without increasing the degree of noncompliance. These potential reconfigurations would involve negligible expansions of existing or former uses that are still subject to compliance with their governing zoning district regulations, City design guidelines, and project-level CEQA review. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Applicant Proposed Text Amendment Attachment B: Modified Text Amendment Attachment C: Applicant’s Request Letter Attachment D: Parcel Disposition Map Attachment E: 1998 Council Informational Report of Non-Complying Floor Area in the CD Zone Attachment F: 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes AUTHOR/TITLE: Steven Switzer, Senior Planner Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 256     APPLICANT PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT 18.18.120 Noncomplying (Grandfathered) Uses and Facilities (a) Noncomplying (Grandfathered) Uses (1) The following uses and facilities may remain as legal noncomplying (grandfathered) uses, and shall not require a conditional use permit or be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.70: (A) Any use which was being conducted on August 28, 1986; or (B) A use not being conducted on August 28, 1986, if the use was temporarily discontinued due to a vacancy of 6 months or less before August 28, 1986; or (C) Any office use existing on April 16, 1990 on a property zoned CD and GF combining, which also existed as a lawful conforming use prior to August 28, 1986, notwithstanding any intervening conforming use. (2) The legal noncomplying uses in subsection (1) shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, for continual use and occupancy by the same use, provided such remodeling, improvement, or replacement complies with all of the following: A) shall not result in increased floor area; B) shall not relocate below grade floor area to above grade portions of the building; C) shall not result in an increase of the height, length, building envelope, building footprint or any other increase in the size of the improvement. For purposes of this section, “building envelope” shall mean the three dimensional shape and size occupied by an existing building. It is not the maximum, buildable potential of the site; D)C)shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section 18.18.070; or E)D)in the case of medical, professional, general business or administrative office uses of a size exceeding 5,000 square feet in the CD-S or CD-N district that are deemed legal noncomplying pursuant to subsection (1), such remodeling, improvement, or replacement shall not result in increased floor area devoted to such office uses. F)E)The Director may approve minor changes to the building’s footprint, height, length, and the building envelope through Architectural Review of minor aesthetic architectural improvements and to improve pedestrian- orientation provided there is no increase to the degree of any non- complying feature. Item 3 Attachment A - Applicant Proposed Text Amendment     Packet Pg. 257     APPLICANT PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT (3) If a legal noncomplying use deemed existing pursuant to subsection (1) ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for 12 consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. (4) A use deemed legal noncomplying pursuant to subsection (1) which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a legal noncomplying use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. (b) Noncomplying (Grandfathered) Facilities (1) Any noncomplying (grandfathered) facility existing on August 28, 1986 and which, when built, was a complying facility, may remain as a legal noncomplying facility and shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.70. (2) The legal noncomplying facilities in subsection (1) shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, provided such remodeling, improvement, or replacement complies with all of the following: A) shall not result in increased floor area; B) shall not relocate below grade floor area to above grade portions of the building; C) shall not result in an increase of the height, length, building envelope, building footprint, or any other increase in the size of the improvement; D)C)shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section 18.18.070; E)D)The Director may approve minor changes to the building’s footprint, height, length, and the building envelope through Architectural Review of minor aesthetic architectural improvements and to improve pedestrian- orientation provided there is no increase to the degree of any non- complying feature, except as provided for rooftop access and amenities in Section 18.18.060(e). F)E)The residential portion of any legal noncomplying facility shall not be converted to a non- residential land use or reduced in gross floor area or number of units. An applicant asserting that the operation of this subsection (F) is preempted by state or federal law shall submit a statement of its position with all claims and all supporting documentary evidence at the time it applies for a change of use. The City Council shall hold at least one noticed public hearing in accordance with the procedures set forth in PAMC 18.77.080 to consider whether to waive or adjust the requirements of one or more provisions of Titles 18 or 21. The City Council may seek Item 3 Attachment A - Applicant Proposed Text Amendment     Packet Pg. 258     APPLICANT PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT additional information including, without limitation, third party peer review paid for at the applicant’s expense. Item 3 Attachment A - Applicant Proposed Text Amendment     Packet Pg. 259     MODIFIED TEXT AMENDMENT WITH RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL USE EXCEPTIONS 18.18.120 Noncomplying (Grandfathered) Uses and Facilities (a) Noncomplying (Grandfathered) Uses (1) The following uses and facilities may remain as legal noncomplying (grandfathered) uses, and shall not require a conditional use permit or be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.70: (A) Any use which was being conducted on August 28, 1986; or (B) A use not being conducted on August 28, 1986, if the use was temporarily discontinued due to a vacancy of 6 months or less before August 28, 1986; or (C) Any office use existing on April 16, 1990 on a property zoned CD and GF combining, which also existed as a lawful conforming use prior to August 28, 1986, notwithstanding any intervening conforming use. (2) The legal noncomplying uses in subsection (1) shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, for continual use and occupancy by the same use, provided such remodeling, improvement, or replacement complies with all of the following: A) shall not result in increased floor area; B) shall not relocate below grade floor area to above grade portions of the building; C) shall not result in an increase of the height, length, building envelope, building footprint or any other increase in the size of the improvement. For purposes of this section, “building envelope” shall mean the three dimensional shape and size occupied by an existing building. It is not the maximum, buildable potential of the site.; Except as provided in Section 18.18.120(b)(2)(C). D) shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section 18.18.070; or E) in the case of medical, professional, general business or administrative office uses of a size exceeding 5,000 square feet in the CD-S or CD-N district that are deemed legal noncomplying pursuant to subsection (1), such remodeling, improvement, or replacement shall not result in increased floor area devoted to such office uses. F)The Director may approve minor changes to the building’s footprint, height, length, and the building envelope through Architectural Review of minor aesthetic architectural improvements and to improve pedestrian-orientation provided there is no increase to the degree of any non- complying feature. Item 3 Attachment B - Modified Text Amendment     Packet Pg. 260     MODIFIED TEXT AMENDMENT WITH RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL USE EXCEPTIONS (3) If a legal noncomplying use deemed existing pursuant to subsection (1) ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for 12 consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. (4) A use deemed legal noncomplying pursuant to subsection (1) which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a legal noncomplying use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. (b) Noncomplying (Grandfathered) Facilities (1) Any noncomplying (grandfathered) facility existing on August 28, 1986 and which, when built, was a complying facility, may remain as a legal noncomplying facility and shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.70. (2) The legal noncomplying facilities in subsection (1) shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, provided such remodeling, improvement, or replacement complies with all of the following: A) shall not result in increased floor area; B) shall not relocate below grade floor area to above grade portions of the building; C)shall not result in an increase of the height, length, building envelope, building footprint, or any other increase in the size of the improvement. Except that the following uses may exceed the existing building envelope, provided all other applicable development standards and design guidelines are met:; I. Residential uses above the ground floor, or C)II.Retail or retail-like uses on the ground floor to achieve a minimum floor height of 14 feet, in accordance with the Objective Design Standards. D) shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section 18.18.070; E) The Director may approve minor changes to the building’s footprint, height, length, and the building envelope through Architectural Review of minor aesthetic architectural improvements and to improve pedestrian-orientation provided there is no increase to the degree of any non- complying feature, except as provided for rooftop access and amenities in Section 18.18.060(e). Item 3 Attachment B - Modified Text Amendment     Packet Pg. 261     MODIFIED TEXT AMENDMENT WITH RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL USE EXCEPTIONS F) The residential portion of any legal noncomplying facility shall not be converted to a non- residential land use or reduced in gross floor area or number of units. An applicant asserting that the operation of this subsection (F) is preempted by state or federal law shall submit a statement of its position with all claims and all supporting documentary evidence at the time it applies for a change of use. The City Council shall hold at least one noticed public hearing in accordance with the procedures set forth in PAMC 18.77.080 to consider whether to waive or adjust the requirements of one or more provisions of Titles 18 or 21. The City Council may seek additional information including, without limitation, third party peer review paid for at the applicant’s expense. Item 3 Attachment B - Modified Text Amendment     Packet Pg. 262     November 18, 2024 Mr. Jonathan Lait Director Planning & Development City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re: Proposed text Amendment to PAMC §18.18.120 Noncomplying (Grandfathered) Facilities Dear Mr. Lait, Hayes Group Architects has been working for building owners in the Palo Alto community since 1989. During this time, I have witnessed a natural evolution of Palo Alto’s downtown with new buildings replacing older buildings unable to support the requirements of our modern lifestyle and workstyle. Even old buildings that were rendered non-complying because of Floor Area Ratio limits changing over time, were allowed to be replaced in newly configured buildings without losing floor area -- until 2016, when the City’s 25-year old interpretation of the zoning ordinance was abruptly changed, without adequate analysis or public input. It is respectfully submitted that it is time to reconsider that poorly-conceived 2016 action and move forward with a corrective text amendment to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, particularly § 18.18.120. History In 1986, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3696, put in place as a reaction to the intensification of development and traffic congestion in Palo Alto’s downtown. The ordinance reduced the amount of floor area allowed on a parcel in the CD-C, CD-N and CD-C zoning districts from what had previously been allowed. It also prudently made provisions for buildings which were rendered “non-conforming” as a result of the changes in the zoning ordinance, because those buildings now exceeded the newly-reduced floor area allowed on a parcel. Ordinance 3696 provided that those buildings should be deemed to be “compliant facilities” and allowed their owners to remodel and replace their floor area in new or renovated buildings that better served the community and the built environment. Item 3 Attachment C - Applicant’s Request Letter     Packet Pg. 263     Ordinance 3696 as adopted 1986: (c) Noncomplying Facilities. Chapter 18.94 notwithstanding, a noncomplying facility existing on the effective date of this chapter and which, when built, was a complying facility, shall be deemed to be complying. Such a facility shall be permitted to be remodeled, improved or replaced without necessity to comply with site development regulations. Any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall result in increased floor area, height, length or any other increase in the size of the facility only pursuant to the exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in section 18.48.060. The text of the Ordinance written above could have been clearer with regards to the restrictions for remodeling, improvement or replacement, as its interpretation initially led to some confusion in the Planning Department. In March 1988, to mitigate this lack of clarity, staff prepared a formal interpretation of Ordinance 3696 and issued CMR185:8 for review by city council. The CMR reasonably concluded that buildings could be reconfigured in terms of length, height and width so long as the existing floor area was not increased. One benefit of this interpretation, among others listed in the CMR, was that it will: “Permit reasonable flexibility for buildings undergoing remodeling and/or replacement so that improved building design, that the City has identified over time as contributing to the enhancement of Downtown Palo Alto, will be encouraged.” Staff also concluded that such an interpretation would not result in increased non-conformity or non- compliance in terms of floor area permitted in the rezoned areas, since floor area would not be allowed to increase- it would only be replaced. And staff further explained that the interpretation adopted in CMR 185.5 would not result in increased non-compliance in terms of building height since any size building (floor area) is limited to 50 feet in height. For more than 25 years the City followed the interpretation set out in the CMR above (according to a 2022 staff report) and the City repeatedly approved projects in the CD Districts consistent with this interpretation until 2015. A partial list of pre 2015 projects (just by Hayes Group Architects) approved by the City using this interpretation includes the following: 171 University 1996 100 Forest (705 Alma) 1998 317-323 University 2002 101 Forest (657-663Alma) 2004 270 University 2005 278 University 2006 265 Lytton 2006 248 Hamilton 2012 301 High 2012 611 Cowper 2012 There were other projects, in addition to those listed above, that the City approved during this period designed and built by others. All these City approved projects had at least two things in common: 1) they all replaced existing non-complying floor area in the replacement building and, 2) they all increased the height of the building over the building that had previously existed. And, consistent with staff’s rationale Item 3 Attachment C - Applicant’s Request Letter     Packet Pg. 264     for issuing the CMR in 1988, these new buildings were better buildings contributing to the enhancement of the Downtown. However, on January 11, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5373 that changed the long-standing interpretation afforded by CMR 185:8 and inserted new language in PAMC §18.18.120. Below is an excerpt from the January 11, 2016, staff report indicating the changed text: of the ordinance: 18.18.120 (a) Noncomplying (Grandfathered) Uses (1) The following uses and facilities may remain as legal noncomplying (grandfathered) uses, and shall not require a conditional use permit or be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.70: (A) Any use which was being conducted on August 28, 1986; or (B) A use not being conducted on August 28, 1986, if the use was temporarily discontinued due to a vacancy of 6 months or less before August 28, 1986; or (C) Any office use existing on April 16, 1990 on a property zoned CD and GF combining, which also existed as a lawful conforming use prior to August 28, 1986, notwithstanding any intervening conforming use. (2) The grandfathered use in subsection (1) shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, for continual use and occupancy by the same use, provided such remodeling, improvement, or replacement complies with all of the following: (A) shall not result in increased floor area: (B) shall not relocate below grade floor area to above grade portions of the building shift the building footprint; (C) shall not result in an increase in the height, length, building envelope, building footprint or any other increase in the size of the improvement. For purposes of this section, “building envelope” shall mean the three-dimensional shape and size occupied by an existing building. It is not the maximum, buildable potential of the site; (D) shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section 18.18.070; or (E ) in the case of medical, professional, general business or administrative office uses of a size exceeding 5,000 sf in the CD-S or CD-N district that are deemed grandfathered pursuant to subsection (1), such remodeling, improvement, or replacement shall not result in increased floor area devoted to such office uses. (F) The Director may approve minor changes to the building’s footprint, height, Item 3 Attachment C - Applicant’s Request Letter     Packet Pg. 265     length, and the building envelope through Architectural Review of minor aesthetic architectural improvements and to improve pedestrian orientation provided there is no increase to the degree of any non-complying feature. (b) Grandfathered Facilities: (1) Any noncomplying (grandfathered) facility existing on August 28, 1986 and which, when built, was a complying facility, may remain as a grandfathered facility and shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.70. (2) The Grandfathered facilities in subsection (1) shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, for continual use and occupancy by the same use, provided such remodeling, improvement, or replacement complies with all of the following: (A) shall not result in increased floor area; (B) shall not shift the relocate below grade floor area to above grade portions of the building; (C) shall not result in an increase of the height, length, building envelope, building footprint, or any other increase in the size of the improvement; (D) shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section 18.18.070; (E) The Director may approve minor changes to the building’s footprint, height, length, and the building envelope through Architectural Review of minor aesthetic architectural improvements and to improve pedestrian-orientation provided there is no increase to the degree of any non- complying feature. The addition of a new and more restrictive definition of the “building envelop” and the addition of a new limitation to the existing “building footprint” (highlighted in red) in the 2016 Ordinance severely and unreasonably constrain the potential options for replacing floor area that previously had been allowed to be replaced in a new, modern building. That new text virtually locks in the existing three dimensional structure, regardless of how out-of-date or in need of replacement it may be. The current version of the Ordinance has become colloquially (and not admiringly) known as Palo Alto’s “shrink wrap” rule because the only building that can replace the existing building with the same floor area is one that matches the existing building’s envelop as though covered by a thin layer of plastic shrink wrap. The current ordinance impairs the vested rights of the owners of lawful non-conforming buildings, and essentially takes a building owner’s previously recognized right to replace their floor area in a new, modern building, something they had enjoyed since 1986 when the city made the deal with them. As noted above the 1986 ordinance states that they were still “Complying Facilities” despite their floor area exceeding the new floor area limits enacted in the 1986 ordinance. The impact of the ill-considered amendment in 2016 (Ordinance 5373) on the natural evolution of the Downtown is clear. Since 2016, there has only been one new commercial building approved and built under the new rules: Design within Reach. The Mills Florist building was approved under the new rules, Item 3 Attachment C - Applicant’s Request Letter     Packet Pg. 266     but because existing floor area had to be forfeited in the new building, it could not pencil and was abandoned. We have seen other buildings constructed since 2016, but they had been approved under the old rules or the existing floor area did not exceed the allowable 1:1 so no floor area had to be forfeited to build the new building. It is highly unlikely that an owner would choose to demolish an old building (even if no longer functional) in order to construct the same building in its place, or to erect a smaller building, forfeiting floor area of the existing building. The effect of the 2016 amendment has been paralyzing on our building stock and the natural evolution of the downtown. Downtowns need to be alive and change for the better. As staff reasoned 1988 in their CMR, buildings that exceeded the floor area limits were still “complying facilities” allowing them to remodel and replace their floor area in new buildings that better serve the community and the built environment. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT To restore the rights of owners of buildings that exceed the floor area limits of the current site development regulations in PAMC §18.18.060, we respectfully suggest a minor, but effective, amendment to the zoning ordinance: subsections 18.18.120(a)(2)(C) and 18.18.120(b)(2)(C) should be removed. Removing these two sections will allow existing floor area to be replaced in new buildings that better respond to the natural and built environment. These new buildings may have different footprints, heights and envelops but they will be able to maintain their existing floor area without increasing the degree of existing non-compliance. BENEFITS The benefits to the downtown are new buildings that respond to the needs of the community, that connect with the street and sidewalk, that are consistent with the environmental and community initiatives of our time, and that can provide housing on upper floors. There is no downside. The commercial floor area exists. There is no increase in the amount of office space, just better buildings, fit for our time. Here are some additional benefits that will result from this text amendment: • Incentivize the building of housing in mixed-use buildings. If an owner can replace their existing commercial floor area, they are more likely to think about building a new building with housing on upper floors. If commercial floor area cannot be replaced this eliminates many, many, properties from redevelopment or as potential sites for housing • No increase in office space • Access for all those with disabilities • Meet all current building and life safety codes • Increased property taxes • Better buildings with daylighting and highly efficient HVAC systems and solar arrays • Better pedestrian experience and relationships to the public realm We are seeking a zoning code text amendment that addresses the benefits of retiring outdated, noncomplying buildings and encourages building owners to consider new opportunities for their properties without losing the existing floor area. Item 3 Attachment C - Applicant’s Request Letter     Packet Pg. 267     We look forward to continuing this discussion. Please call me at (650) 365-0600x15 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ken Hayes, AIA Principal cc: Steve Reller, R&M Properties Mark Moragne, R&M Properties Item 3 Attachment C - Applicant’s Request Letter     Packet Pg. 268     Item 3 Attachment D - Parcel Disposition Map     Packet Pg. 269     Item 3 Attachment E - 1998 Council Informational Report of Non-Complying Floor Area in the CD Zone     Packet Pg. 270     Item 3 Attachment E - 1998 Council Informational Report of Non-Complying Floor Area in the CD Zone     Packet Pg. 271     Item 3 Attachment E - 1998 Council Informational Report of Non-Complying Floor Area in the CD Zone     Packet Pg. 272     Item 3 Attachment E - 1998 Council Informational Report of Non-Complying Floor Area in the CD Zone     Packet Pg. 273     Item 3 Attachment E - 1998 Council Informational Report of Non-Complying Floor Area in the CD Zone     Packet Pg. 274     Item 3 Attachment E - 1998 Council Informational Report of Non-Complying Floor Area in the CD Zone     Packet Pg. 275     Item 3 Attachment E - 1998 Council Informational Report of Non-Complying Floor Area in the CD Zone     Packet Pg. 276     Item 3 Attachment E - 1998 Council Informational Report of Non-Complying Floor Area in the CD Zone     Packet Pg. 277     CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL TRANSCRIPT Page 1 of 94 Regular Meeting January 11, 2016 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:02 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach arrived at 6:04 P.M. Absent: Closed Session 1. EXISTING LITIGATION – 3 MATTERS Authority: Govt. Code 54956.9(d)(1) Wells Fargo Bank v. City of Palo Alto, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1-13-CV-238764 Monroe Place v. City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1-14-CV-259305 Petition Requesting State Water Resources Control Board Review of Region 2’s Re-Issuance of Municipal Regional Permit Regulating Storm Water Run-off (NPDES No. CAS612008). Mayor Burt: Our first item is a Closed Session item. I see members of the public here. I just wanted to share with you we are agendized to have a Closed Session for at least one hour on three different topics. I don't want people to be expecting the public part of the meeting to convene at this time. On or about 7:00 P.M., the regular public portion of the meeting will convene. At this time, we'd like to entertain a Motion to go into Closed Session. Council Member Kniss: (inaudible) Vice Mayor Scharff: So moved. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff to go into Closed Session. Mayor Burt: I'm sorry. We have actually three items of existing legislation. One is the Wells Fargo versus City of Palo Alto, et al. The second item is Monroe Place versus City of Palo Alto. The third is a petition requesting Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 278     TRANSCRIPT Page 2 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 State Water Resources Control Board review of Region 2's reissuance of municipal regional permit regulating storm water runoff. That was moved by Council Member Kniss, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff. Mayor Burt: Any discussion? Please vote on the board. That passes unanimously, 8-0. We will now go into Closed Session. Thank you. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Wolbach absent Council went into Closed Session at 6:04 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 7:07 P.M. Mayor Burt: At this time, the Council has returned from a Closed Session. We actually have reportable actions that were taken on each of the Three Closed Session items. I will read them into the record. The first is that Council voted to support authorizing the City Attorney to settle the matter of Wells Fargo v. City of Palo Alto for a payment of $190,000 and a return of a condominium unit at Unit No. A310 at 4260 El Camino Real. This unit will be returned to the City's affordable housing inventory. The second item is the Council voted to authorize the City Attorney to settle the matter of Monroe Place LP versus the City of Palo Alto for recovery to the City in the amount of $2,801,474, which is 7.5 percent of the final sales—in addition, 7.5 percent of the final sales price of three unsold units to be paid to the City's residential housing in-lieu fund. The third item is the Council authorized ratification by the City of the Water Quality petition filed on behalf of the City by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. It was filed on behalf of the City and other parties. That requests the State Water Resources Control Board to review Region 2's reissuance of municipal regional storm water Permit No. CAS612008. That's the reporting of our Closed Session actions. Special Orders of the Day 2. City of Palo Alto Certified as a Storm Ready Community. Mayor Burt: Welcome everyone. Our first public item is Item No. 2 on the Agenda. A Special Order of the Day is the certification of the City of Palo Alto as a Storm Ready Community. My understand is that we have Mr. Larry Smith from the National Weather Service. Welcome. Larry Smith, National Weather Service: My name is Larry Smith. I'm a meteorologist at the National Weather Service in Monterey. We service the San Francisco Bay Area. Recently we had the honor to work with the City of Palo Alto to become storm ready. I wanted to take a little bit of time and Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 279     TRANSCRIPT Page 3 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 tell you guys what storm ready is all about and congratulate you guys for becoming recognized as storm ready. Basically storm ready is a preparedness program that the National Weather Service sponsors. We work alongside our partners to make sure that our communities are prepared for the next major weather event. Around the San Francisco Bay Area, it's difficult to be a meteorologist. It's difficult to say meteorologist. It's difficult because typically we have either sunny days and mild weather or cloudy days, more likely, and mild weather. On occasion, we do get some severe weather, some thunderstorms that move through the area that can cause some storm damage including some flooding issues. Of course, in the winter months we can have significant storm systems that come out from the Gulf of Alaska and even Pineapple Expresses from Hawaii. We can have significant rainfall and a tremendous amount of flooding in the area. We really need to be prepared for these types of weather events. Some of the weather events we need to be prepared for may not seem a big deal at all, but they actually are. Such as heat and cold events. We have a lot of homeless in our area, and we need to make sure that during the winter months they have a warm place to go when it's cold out. Of course, we need somewhere cool for them to go when it's warm in the summer months. We like to work with our communities and make sure we can get a heat message out to the emergency planners, so they can make a decision as to whether or not to open these shelters. Some of the weather we deal with is even less exciting, but very highly impacting, for instance, foggy days in the San Francisco Bay Area. We get quite a bit of fog in the summer and winter months, believe it or not. That can impact traffic, and it also impacts the airlines. We need to be prepared for those types of weather events. Of course, we have the big wet thing to our west, which is the ocean. It can put out some very large surf at times. We need to be aware of these situations as well and be prepared to rescue people if they do get swept into the ocean. Of course, I was just talking about this with the fire colleague over there, wildfire season. We have tremendous wildfire potential in our area too. Again, we need to be prepared for these types of weather events. Believe it or not, we actually had a tornado last week near Hollister. It took out a barn and a shed and busted up some fencing too. Whenever you hear we don't get tornadoes in this area, we certainly do. Again, we need to be prepared for that. Locally, we also have the San Francisquito Creek— hopefully I pronounced that correctly. That's an area where we're concerned about flooding. The City Managers have worked alongside our hydrologist at the National Weather Service to have a plan for what to do if there is flooding on the creek and also setting up better ways to warn whether or not there's going to be a flood on the San Francisquito Creek. Definitely some progress being made in that area. What do we do? We try to work with our communities and become storm ready. There's also another program called tsunami ready for areas along the coast, to work with our City Managers and Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 280     TRANSCRIPT Page 4 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 City Planners to come up with ways to prepare our communities for weather events. One of the big things we do is go out and participate in public education, especially our children. If we can educate our children about severe weather and even earthquakes and what to do, and they come home at the end of the day and they talk to their parents about it, their parents learn about it as well. We also work alongside our emergency management community and participate in different types of exercises around the area. We do more and more exercises every year. We work with ham radio operators as well. If we do have a big weather event or a big earthquake, we could lose some communications as well. We want to be prepared. Once we have an event going on, the bottom right picture up there shows our Weather Service office. You'll notice there's a lot of different screens and monitors up there. We monitor not only the weather but also local events as well. If there's a lot of rain going on or a lot of rain coming in the City and we know there's a football game, we're going to let someone know so we can take care and make sure everybody's prepared for the event. Simon Williams works with your emergency management community. His team has put together some really great webpages for the community to look at for weather preparedness. I just want to say that I've been doing the storm ready thing for quite a while now and worked with a lot of communities. Simon's group has really done an outstanding job. They have river monitors out there. They track the river to see what's actually going on in real time. They have plenty of situational awareness, terrific plans in place. I'm very impressed with the work they've done. In fact, this next slide is the webpage from the City of Palo Alto. It talks a little bit about the San Francisquito Creek and what level it is and monitoring and everything. They've done a fantastic job putting this together. Some of the partners we work with. The National Weather Service works with the Office of Emergency Services (OES), the City of Palo Alto and, of course, California OES. We also work with the California Geological Survey with regard to tsunamis. Of course, we're more concerned about that along our coastal areas, rather than the City of Palo Alto itself. We have roughly 90 communities and counties represented on this map that are storm ready and tsunami ready. If you look up there, you probably aren't going to see it because it's awful small. The print's awful small. Palo Alto is now on the map. If you ever go to the storm ready page, you can look it up and be like the City of Palo Alto is right there. They're doing good things for their community. If you have more questions about storm ready or want to know more about it, you can check out the stormready.noaa.gov webpage. This was just a short presentation. I wanted to just inform you a bit about it. At this point, I'd like to invite Simon and his group and the Mayor, if he likes, to receive your (crosstalk). Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 281     TRANSCRIPT Page 5 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Mayor Burt: Larry, this does remind me of when people out of state claim that California doesn't have seasons. They're told that we actually have four; it's fire, flood, quake and riot. Mr. Smith: That sounds about right. Mayor Burt: Thank you, Larry, and most of all thank you to our great emergency preparedness Staff that has been doing just tremendous work on doing everything possible to prepare us for emergencies including storms. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. City Manager Comments Mayor Burt: Our next item is City Manager Comments. Mr. City Manager. James Keene, City Manager: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Members. A number of items to report. First of all, on behalf of the Staff and before the Council, we did want to present our congratulations to Vice Mayor Scharff for his appointment to the American Public Power Association's Policy Makers Council. This is a national council. He will serve a three year term. Along with his colleagues there, he'll be charged with engaging locally elected officials to promote federal legislation of importance to public power systems. The American Public Power Association Policy Makers Council is comprised of 40 members. There are only four members appointed from each of the ten geographic regions in the United States. His role places himself and our City in a critical position in advancing policy objectives that further enhance the value of public power. Congratulations for that appointment. As part of our continuing efforts to implement the Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, our Transportation Division facilitated a public open house on January 6th regarding the Middlefield Road between Channing Street and Oregon Expressway and North California Avenue between Alma and Middlefield Road. Perhaps it was some of the draft recommendations our Staff had advanced that led to over 85 people attending the meeting to hear about the options for these road segments which are being resurfaced shortly. Options that were considered for Middlefield Road included the modification of on-street parking that could add Class 2 bicycle lanes or shared lanes with sharrow markings. A two-way Class 4 separated bikeway was also considered in front of Jordan Middle School to connect the two segments of North California Avenue. On North California Avenue, options considered included the modification of part-time on-street parking to add full-time Class 2 bicycle lanes, installation of suggested bicycle lanes or shared lanes with sharrow markings. Based on Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 282     TRANSCRIPT Page 6 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 the feedback received from neighborhood residents, the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, the Staff is recommending that Middlefield Road between Embarcadero Road and Garland Drive continue to operate as a shared-lane facility with two general purpose travel lanes and two full-time on-street parking lanes. The proposed Webster Street Bicycle Boulevard should serve as the primary north/south bicycle connection in this corridor. Our Staff is also recommending a high quality connection between the two legs of North California Avenue on Middlefield Road, using a short Class 4 separated bikeway and appropriate intersection treatments. Depending upon the feasibility and results of further community discussions, the separated bikeway may be either a two-way on the east side of Middlefield or a one- way on both sides of Middlefield. As the Council is aware, there is a steering committee that was created to help jump start the Transportation Management Association in Downtown. They're close to wrapping up their work. Several Council Members have asked for more detail on the governance structure of the new organization. I've asked Staff to put together copies of the Bylaws, Articles of Incorporation and other issues and expect to share those with the Council later this week. The City continues to assess daily penalties to the Edgewood Plaza property owner for its failure to maintain a grocery store at that location in violation of the Planned Community Ordinance. The first citation was issued on September 30th, 2015. Last year, a total of $92,000-plus in fees was assessed and collected from the property owner. Of course, we continue to collect those on a daily basis. The Council received some comments from the public attempting to draw some linkages between the Edgewood Plaza project and actually the 1050 Page Mill project that you have tonight. I think the City Attorney can, when you take that item up, speak to the lack of a connection there. Because of some of those concerns, I did reach out and talk to John Sea today on the status of the grocery project at Edgewood. He does tell me that Andronico's is serious and they continue to make progress in the process of hammering out the actual sublease agreement between Fresh Market and Andronico's. We will keep you posted on that. I got the sense and there was some information shared that indicated to me they'd made some important progress since before the holidays in that process. We just talked a little bit about storm readiness. We just want to reiterate that we're doing everything we can as a City to prepare. Of course, with El Nino coinciding with the Super Bowl, the presidential election cycle and other risk factors, we're pretty much on heightened alert as our Staff prepares for these things. Piazza's Grocery, just to shout out to them. Several new environmental protection ordinances are on your Consent Calendar tonight. We did want to acknowledge Piazza Grocery's recent efforts. It's representative of many others in being proactive in addressing some of the new provisions. Piazza's Grocery has just eliminated plastic foam egg Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 283     TRANSCRIPT Page 7 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 cartons ahead of tonight's new restrictions on plastic foam. Even more impressive, they've gone beyond our pending new requirements for businesses to subscribe to the compost service. Rather than just compost imperfect food products, they began an impressive food rescue program this summer in partner with the Second Harvest Food Bank, donating the equivalent of 6,300 meals to date. We did want to acknowledge to the Council that. Two other items. In the department of unsung heroes, a difficult holiday week of water, sewer and gas emergency work. I did want to share that on an evening in late December, the City Utilities Department received a call about a potential sanitary sewage blockage behind a residence in the 800 block of Embarcadero. The blockage was in one of our old sewer mains that runs to the back of the house rather than meeting the private lateral sewer connection at the street. Our City water, gas, wastewater crews responded, were unable to clear the blockage using sewer cleaning equipment. The area wasn't accessible using a backhoe. Steve Cadrell, Josh Lawler, Keith Brunell and Jesus Baron had to hand dig the entire job, a six foot deep hole to unblock the main. This is the kind of job that happens every 1-2 years in that sort of situation. It's one of the most physically difficult types we face, requiring 7-8 hours of manual shovel work. It's just one of several difficult emergency jobs that happened over the holidays. A number of other employees, Rick Sims, Robert Justice, Robert Bishop, Danny Williams, Dan Mendoza, Paul Gutierrez, Richard Lizama, Jose Miguel, Steve Mello and Filberto Castro, spent their holidays working late on cold nights on water, gas and sewer emergencies. We did want to just do that shout-out. Lastly, I just neglected it. The Golden Globe Awards last night reminded me that we forgot to present the Emmy Award that the City received for the longest running best live action drama in a governmental setting this past year. We did want to—that was for the April 1st Council meeting. We did want to share that with you. Thank you. All I have to report. Mayor Burt: Council Member Kniss. Council Member Kniss: City Manager, just to check something out. As I recall, Fresh Market has a long-term lease on that property and will be required to pay it for a certain period of time. Am I correct? Mr. Keene: That's correct. Andronico's, the process for which they would come in would be to actually sublease the property from Fresh Market. Council Member Kniss: To sublease it rather than buy out the lease. That's interesting. Secondly, I think a shout out to Director Dueker and his group that performed so well tonight. We didn't catch you before we went on to the City Manager. That was very impressive and should reassure a number Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 284     TRANSCRIPT Page 8 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 of people who are in that storm area that have been concerned in our community. Thank you. Oral Communications Mayor Burt: At this time, we'll move onto Oral Communications. We have five speakers. Our speaker is Roland Vogel, to be followed by Lenore Cymes. Roland Vogel: Thank you. Council Members, my name is Roland Vogel. I live on Bowdoin Street, and I work at Stanford Law School. I'm concerned about the highly toxic and cancer-causing substances that were found on the University Terrace construction site on 1601 and 1501 California Avenue, which is directly adjacent to College Terrace. I'm especially worried for the following reasons. First, Stanford has known about TCE issues in the Research Park and also on these particular properties for a long time. However, the so-called hotspots with highly elevated levels of TCE underneath the old Facebook headquarters were completely unexpected. Stanford consequently self-reported to the regulatory agency, the Department of Toxic Substance Control, DTSC in short. Second, Stanford's proposal to mitigate the TCE contamination is limited to covering the hotspots with extra soil, moving the proposed buildings away from the hotspots, and putting vapor barriers underneath the building, which it's about to build. That does not seem to be a TCE mitigation best practice according to experts. At the LinkedIn construction in Mountain View, for example, the contaminated soil is removed. Removing at least the hotspots seems warranted. Third, when I asked Stanford at a recent meeting with regulators and fellow College Terrace residents about the possibility of the TCE migrating in the ground or in the groundwater into College Terrace, the answers that were given did not really alleviate our concerns. This is a real worry because we don't have vapor barriers underneath our homes like the ones that Stanford will add to the new buildings. It was suggested that because of the clay content in the soil, the hotspots are contained. That's not really reassuring either because Stanford's consultant did testing on the site that shows that the TCE has been traveling around a very large property. That hotspot is really just on the other of California Avenue. Also, the regulators' representative conceded that in the event of an earthquake, all bets are off. As Stanford suggested that we speak directly to the polluters, implying that Stanford doesn't have any responsibility to do anything, even though they're the landowner; that it would not do any testing of the groundwater or soil in College Terrace; that we get our own independent consultant. I ask the Council to do what's necessary to protect the health of College Terrace residents. To that effect, I ask for immediate testing of the storm water retention on Bowdoin Street for toxics and hillside Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 285     TRANSCRIPT Page 9 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 water runoff. I also ask for groundwater sampling, indoor and outdoor air sampling along California Avenue in College Terrace. Please note that in spite of all the spills and plumes adjacent to our neighborhood, there has been never a single monitoring device in College Terrace. Other neighborhoods in Palo Alto that are adjacent to the Research Park, like Barron Park, had extensive testing done. Thank you for your attention and consideration. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Lenore Cymes to be followed by Carla Carvalho. Lenore Cymes: Hi. Thank you for your attention tonight. First, I want to thank Karen Holman for doing a great job last year as Mayor. We appreciated your effort. Mayor Burt, good luck. I'm here to talk about a level of accountability on the part of Sand Hill to the neighbors in the Edgewood Shopping Center area. I personally don't have a Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R) vote. Those people who do have a CC&R vote gave up a considerable amount of space to Sand Hill to build ten $3 million houses which have been sold. We've lost that parking lot. There was a historic building on the site of the shopping center that was supposed to be maintained. It was an accident, and it was taken down. Somehow the $90,000 from a company the size of Sand Hill doesn't seem to compensate for that level of, shall we say, inattentiveness. The third thing is in exchange for those two things in a way was the grocery store. We keep coming back to this grocery store; it won't go away. The big thing at this point is what they're being fined per day. This is not about being punitive. This is about the City holding those people who sign a contract, who make an agreement with the City the way anybody would make an agreement with you to construct something on your house or fulfill an agreement to some work that they're going to do, that it gets done. I'm glad to hear that Andronico's is supposedly going to happen. I'm possibly a little pessimistic. It seems to come up every time Sand Hill has to become accountable to something. If it really is true, then there's no reason not to hold them to a much higher fine every day according to what College Terrace is going to get. IT would also be valuable or the City Council to think about having one law or process or whatever you want to call it for wherever there's a PC and a grocery store. You don't have one for College Terrace, and you don't have one for Edgewood, and you don't have one for Alma. There's one planned within the entire City. I think Sand Hill has to pay because if they're going to pay, they're going to really push for Andronico's to move. There's no incentive for them to have to hurry this up if the Council and the City Manager is going to take their time. It's almost a year. March will be a year that Fresh Market has been gone. I really hope you reconsider what the fine is going to be. If the fine is there, they have to feel it. At $5,000 a day, I Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 286     TRANSCRIPT Page 10 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 really do believe that they will hurry up and make something happen. Thank you very much. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Our next speaker is Carla Carvalho, to be followed by William Rosenberg. Carla Carvalho: Thank you very much, and Happy New Year to all present. I don't want to be redundant. I do want to piggyback on City Manager Keene said and what Lenore just said. In short, we've heard this before. The classic tale of Sand Hill is asking for something. Tonight it's review of their project at Page Mill and communication from John Z. Similarly this happened in September. The day fines were supposed to begin, news of Andronico's came out. We are all hopeful that this will occur. I also wanted to thank City Manager Keene for coming to our Duveneck Town Hall meeting, as many of you did, back in November. At that time, Manager Keene was going to investigate who was paying the fines at Edgewood, whether it was Sand Hill or Fresh Market as that can complicate the negotiation process. We eerily await these findings to hear who's actually paying for this. It may also help provide guidance as to how you as Council Members can mitigate the damage that has yet been done to the neighborhood with this empty space. Finally, we hope that the situation at Edgewood Plaza is instructive to all charged with allowing or disallowing the project at Page Mill to go forward. My fear is that Palo Alto be littered with the waste and tainted by the greed of a large developer if this situation is not brought under control. Thank you. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Williams Rosenberg to be followed by Stephanie Munoz. William Rosenberg: Hi. I'm Bill Rosenberg. Nice to see the Council here. I was here last June, and I reminded you then that we have a leaf blower Ordinance that has not been enforced. I haven't seen any evidence of enforcement since then. I'd like to see some. I'd also like you to think seriously about who is responsible for leaf blowers, whether it's the gardener or the property owner. I think the property owner's property stays put. Gardeners come and go. If we really wanted to make a leaf blower ordinance and enforce it effectively, I think you should think seriously about who you're going to make responsible. Either way, whether it's the gardener or the property owner, I'd like to see some enforcement. I brought you a copy of what I hand out every time I see a gardener using a gas- powered leaf blower. It's just taken straight out of the City webpage. Maybe we can distribute something like this and get more attention to it. Thank you. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 287     TRANSCRIPT Page 11 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Next speaker is Stephanie Munoz to be followed by Lane Pianta. Stephanie Munoz: Good evening, Mayor Burt and Council Members. We had some news these past few weeks. Our friend Lois Salo died. I was with her main group which was Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. We were discussing plans for a memorial service for her. I said, "You're missing something though. I don't notice in anything here any acknowledgement of the fact that Lois was a Jew." They said, "But Lois was an atheist." I said, "You can be an atheist and still be a Jew." You can be a Catholic atheist. You can be anything. The understanding that we are put on earth to help each other is not a function of organized religion. It's in the DNA. That's why the human race has survived as long as it has. Beaten off the saber tooth tigers and the dinosaurs, lots of people bigger than we are and more power than we are. It's because we know how to help each other. As you go through this year, there's some talk of residentialists. It's true that in many cases not being good doesn't work. You cannot put the factories here and the workers over there and not expect to have unlivable streets and an enormous difficulty. Generally speaking, you have to be good just because you have to be good. It's part of you, all of you. It doesn't matter whether you have a religion or not. The point of my conversation is we've got to do something about the cold weather shelters. There's a lovely one down—it's really great that Simitian was able to just pull out of a hat a place. While there are people who are not protected and not protected from the cold, we can't rest. We've got to really look at it and say how are we going to get these people under cover this winter, now, every one of them. I'd like you please to make that one of your priorities. You have to. Thank you. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Lane Pianta to be followed by Rita Vrhel. I should mention—we have another card. Because we set speaker times based on anticipated number of speakers, I'll just be in the future kind of setting a deadline for submitting cards, giving everybody ample time to do so. We want to make sure we have a sense of how many speakers there will be. Welcome. Lane Pianta: Good evening, Mayor Burt and members of City Council. My name is Lane Pianta. For the past five years it's been my pleasure to serve as Production Manager at the Palo Alto Children's Theatre. During that time I've had the opportunity to work with countless children and their families to provide meaningful arts enrichment activities. By my estimation, I've participated in one form or another with 125 separate theatrical productions, 30 community events in support of the Big Read, numerous third-party rentals and five May Fete Children's Parades. These activities represent Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 288     TRANSCRIPT Page 12 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 many of the highlights of my professional career. Tonight however, I would like to highlight one particular activities and draw your attention to it. That was last year's Palo Alto Day of Remembrance held to honor the sacrifice made by hundreds of Palo Alto residents of Japanese-American descent incarcerated during World War II. In partnership with Mike Kaku [phonetic] of the Japanese-American Citizens League, this even came as the culmination of a series of activities to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the closing of those American concentration camps. In the course of preparing those events, I worked with students from various local high schools, including Paly, Gunn, Foothill Middle College Program and more, to educate them about this sad chapter in American history and to encourage inter-generational dialog on the topic of social justice. Hopefully my efforts alongside the dedicated core of teaching artists prompted at least a few of them to think more critically about the world in which we live and about the parameters of responsible government. For your reference, I've included a handout that explains a little bit more about the Big Read Program. Different cities tend to honor a Day of Remembrance at different times in the calendar year. I'd like to draw your attention to two dates which are fast approaching. Saturday, January 30th, the State of California will observe the Fred Korematsu Day of Civil Liberties and the Constitution. On Friday, February 19th, many cities will observe a Day of Remembrance that coincides with the signing of Executive Order 9066 which established the incarceration camps. I respectfully implore you to find a way to acknowledge this painful part of our history, to remember and honor the sacrifice made by those families and to resolve again that we, as citizens of this great democracy, will never resort to such fascistic behavior. As a government of the people it is incumbent on we the people to do the State's remembering. Recently I have decided to make a career change, and so I've concluded by my service as an employee of this fine City. My deep thanks goes out to all the participants at the Children's Theatre with whom I've worked so closely for the past five years, to all of my former colleagues without whose help I would never have been remotely as successful, but most of all to the good people of Palo Alto. It is you who deserve the real credit for continuing to make the arts and arts education a priority in your community. Bravo to you. I look forward to serving this town and surrounding communities in new ways for as long as I may. Thank you very much for your time tonight. Mayor Burt: Lane, thank you very much for your service. I certainly know my children have valued it. Our next speaker is Rita Vrhel to be followed by Sea Reddy. We will not be accepting more speaker cards after—the last one is Bob Moss. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 289     TRANSCRIPT Page 13 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Rita Vrhel: I wanted tonight to support the previous speakers on the Edgewood Plaza situation. Sand Hill Properties, as we know, not only tore down what they were supposed to be preserving but also hauled it away. By the end of the day, nothing was left. It has been a long time since there's been a grocery store there. During the meantime, the other businesses are supporting that which the grocery store was supposed to be contributing to. I sometimes wonder when some of the other businesses might be leaving and what is the financial cost to them. They entered an agreement with the City and with its residents, and they were provided adequate if not generous financial incentives to build a new area. Through unfortunate events the Fresh Market left. While that is not their responsibility that this happened, it is their responsibility to find a new grocery store. I agree with the previous speakers that every time something comes up for Sand Hill, suddenly there is communication between Sand Hill and the City Manager or someone else that promises us a grocery store. I think either increasing the fines or saying to Sand Hill, "We can't trust you. If you cannot make good on a grocery store in a timely fashion, then we need not to give you the permit for the Page Mill property which we already know has considerable problems or potential problems regarding parking and traffic flow." I think as a City Council you have a lot of power. I think it would be good to not only use that power to set an example that when a developer promises the City they are going to do something, they are going to do it. Otherwise, I think you will have additional problems with either this developer or other developers. Thank you so much. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Sea Reddy to be followed by our final speaker, Bob Moss. Sea Reddy: Good evening, Mayor and the Council Members as well as the citizens of Palo Alto. I want to bring up a subject that's very, very sad. You already read about, I think most of you. There was a gentleman that went to Las Vegas from Palo Alto, Mr. Gandler [phonetic]. He drove to a fitness club in the parking lot. He was taking a nap. Somebody pulls over and kills him. It's in the newspaper today. My condolences to the family and friends. These are things that are just astonishing how this can happen to a nice person in the way that it happened. That's all I wanted to bring up. We have to think through how this whole thing about owning guns—we're from wild west and we need to have guns. I'm not asking for anything different, but I think we could have similar to an Amber law, a Gander law, that requires owners of these guns to register and ensure that they are financially accountable. We need to do out of the box thinking. We like our rights. We like our way of living. We need to make people accountable how these people get guns and how indiscriminately they kill people. Thank you. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 290     TRANSCRIPT Page 14 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Mayor Burt: Thank you. Our final speaker is Bob Moss. Robert Moss: Thank you, and congratulations Mayor Burt and Vice Mayor Scharff. You had an earlier speaker that talked about groundwater contamination and soil contamination. I want to give you some background. In 1985 HP, Varian and Stanford realized that the tanks they were using to contain solvent in the Research Park were leaking. The contamination had reached the aquifer, so they did a series of investigations including a number of monitoring and investigation wells to find out where the contamination was leaking to. One of the areas that they found had been contaminated was Barron Park. Barron Park was contacted and we set up a special committee. I was on the committee and at various times chaired it. We met regularly with representatives from HP, Varian and Stanford and talked about the contamination and remediation. They put in a series of wells along the bike path to prevent any further flow of contaminant into Barron Park and put in a series of monitoring and extraction wells in Barron Park. In fact, I have a monitoring well in my front yard. After about four or five years of pumping extraction, the area was cleaned. They actually pulled the contamination back well into the Research Park. We have no contamination in Barron Park and none in that portion of the Research Park. However, at about the same time we had contamination that ran into what we call the co-area and towards College Terrace. That has created some problems. One of the problems is the agency which oversees contaminated soil and groundwater in Palo Alto is the Regional Water Quality Control Board. I worked for years on Mountain View with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I've talked to the EPA people about the problem we have in Palo Alto for years. They finally went and started working with the Water Board. I asked them how did they feel the Water Board was handling soil and groundwater contamination in Palo Alto. The response was they know an awful lot about water but not much about contamination. As a result, we are well behind Mountain View in cleaning up the contamination and preventing serious vapor intrusion into buildings which are over this contaminated site compared to Mountain View. We're starting to catch up, but we're a long way from being adequate. The reason is because the government agency which oversees us did not do an adequate job. It's not our fault. We tried very hard. I've spoken to the City Council at various times over the years about this. There's been some action and some inaction. We need to be really concerned about it. We don't want to have our people poisoned. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Before moving on to our next item of Minutes, I just wanted to clarify for some members of the public who spoke on it that the update this evening by the City Manager on the grocery at Edgewood Plaza was at the initiative of the City Manager not Sand Hill. It was in Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 291     TRANSCRIPT Page 15 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 response to a number of emails received from members of the public. It wasn't Sand Hill who did that. Minutes Approval 3. Approval of Action Minutes for the December 7, 9, and 14, 2015 Council Meetings. Mayor Burt: Our next item is Approval of Minutes. These are the Minutes from December 7th, 9th and 14th of 2015. Can we approve them as a set, City Attorney? We can. I'll entertain a Motion. Vice Mayor Scharff: So moved. Council Member Berman: Second. MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to approve the Action Minutes for the December 7, 9, and 14, 2015 Council Meetings. Mayor Burt: Motion to approve those sets of Minutes by Vice Mayor Scharff, seconded by Council Member Berman. Any discussion? Please vote on the board. That passes unanimously. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Consent Calendar Mayor Burt: Our next item is the Consent Calendar, which is actually Items 4-19. We have five speakers on Consent. If anyone else wishes to speak, they need to come forward now. Each speaker will have two minutes to speak. City Attorney, did you or Staff have something clarifying on one of the items in response to issues raised by a member of the public in writing? Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director: Thank you, Mayor Burt. Hillary Gitelman, the Planning Director. I did speak with the City Attorney's Staff, and we looked at the comments that came in from Herb Borock on Item 15. In fact, I take a moment to respond as usual. Many thanks to Herb for the close reading. We always benefit from his close attention to these things. He really raises three points. The first one, I think, he is absolutely correct. There's language in the ordinance that seems to suggest that site and design approvals require approval by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). It's actually in the existing Code. Here's an opportunity to correct it. I think we're agreeing with Mr. Borock that we could strike the words "and approval" before "by the ARB" on Council Packet Page 383. That's a change we'd like to incorporate into the ordinance this Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 292     TRANSCRIPT Page 16 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 evening. Mr. Borock raised two other points. One about California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) appeals. He's absolutely right. We're reflecting a provision a State law in our ordinance, and it would require that someone file an appeal both of the underlying entitlement and the CEQA document. If the concern is about an appellant having to pay two fees, of course that could be addressed with adjustments to the City's fee schedule. It would not require a change to the Municipal Code. The third point was really about the State Density Bonus Law. Again, we feel that the State law really precludes our making any additional changes to this section. We did, at the Council's direction, modify the proposed ordinance to reflect the fact that you could choose between the density bonus allowed under the Pedestrian Transient Oriented Development (PTOD) and under the State law, whichever is greater. We don't think we can make the same kind of change with regard to the concessions. I hope that answers the questions. Mayor Burt: Thank you. While we're hearing from the public, you might be able to provide that amended language to the Clerk, and it'll be posted. Then, we're clear on what we're adopting. Ms. Gitelman: Happy to. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Next we'll hear from members of the public. Each member will have two minutes to speak on the Consent Calendar items of their wish. Our first speaker is Gina Goodhill Rosen, to be followed by Sarah Qureshi. Gina Goodhill Rosen, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 5: Hi. Mayor and members of the City Council, thank you for taking public comments today. My name's Gina Goodhill Rosen, and I am actually speaking to underscore comments that were sent in earlier by the Energy Freedom Coalition of America, EFCA, regarding Item Number 5 on the Calendar, which is the Finance Committee recommendation that the City Council approve design guidelines for the net energy metering successor program. I work for Solar City, which is a rooftop solar company that's active in the area. We are members of EFCA. EFCA is a national advocacy group that seeks to promote both the public awareness of the benefits of solar and alternative energy as well as the use of rooftop solar and other customer-owned and third-party-owned distributed solar electrical generation. City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) has undertaken a really thoughtful effort to create guidelines for a new solar program. I want to thank them for that. We feel that the guidelines are incomplete, and we recommend several modifications. Most importantly, we strongly recommend that before CPAU moves forward with designing a program to replace their very successful net energy metering program, they first consider continuing their current program without Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 293     TRANSCRIPT Page 17 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 modification after the cap has been reached. Net energy metering is a simple and effective payment method that has been crucial to the widespread adoption of solar in California. As you all know, rooftop solar is vital to continue growing the clean energy economy. If changes to the Net Energy Metering (NEM) program must be made, CPAU should examine changes that at least phase in gradually over time. If CPAU decides not to extend the current program at all and to instead replace it, we then recommend prioritizing a program that considers environmental benefits, one that's easy to understand, one that doesn't harm current net energy metering customers, and one that thoroughly looks at both the positive and the negative attributes of new payment systems, such as a value of solar tariff. Palo Alto has long been a leader in innovative program design. We hope that this continues and that we can work with you on this effort. Thanks. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Sarah Qureshi to be followed by Esther Nigenda. Sarah Qureshi, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 5: Good evening. I'm Sarah Qureshi, energy and environment associate with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to you tonight about this important issue. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group represents more than 390 of Silicon Valley's most respected employers on issues, programs and campaigns that affect the economic health and quality of life in Silicon Valley. The Leadership Group has a long history of support for continuing net energy metering programs at the State and local level. The Leadership Group's members, who include clean tech companies, large end users, universities, investors and renewable energy companies, have a strong interest in continuing net energy metering programs. Furthermore, many of these companies have indicated that California's strong renewable energy policies were a key driver for locating their companies in this state. Net energy metering is one of those key policies. Palo Alto's net energy metering program has been very successful to date. The Leadership Group strongly urges the Council to continue the program in its current form. The Leadership Group developed eight guiding principles with regard to net energy metering that it hopes the Council will take into consideration if it decides not to continue with its current net energy metering program. Three of which are the following: the successor tariff should be consistent with and balance the legislative requirements and goals identified in Assembly Bill (AB) 327, the enacting legislation for net energy metering. The successor tariff should provide market certainty and predictability considering customer expectations and long-term benefits and cost of distributed generation including societal costs and benefits. The successor tariff should be consistent with achieving statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and other State policies and goals involving distributed energy Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 294     TRANSCRIPT Page 18 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 resources including but not limited to energy efficiency, zero net energy, energy storage, demand response, integrated demand site mg, renewable energy credits and electric vehicles. Finally, the Leadership Group urges the Council to continue a net energy metering program that provides rate stability, simplicity and customer choice. Thank you for your time. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Esther Nigenda to be followed by Herb Borock. Esther Nigenda, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 11: Good evening everybody. Thank you for the updated emergency operations plan for Palo Alto which is Item 11 on the Consent Calendar today. In a recent interview, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Chief Craig Fugate said of all the risks we face a drought is the hardest one to address because, if you have a big flood, it eventually stops raining. It doesn't always start raining when you have a drought. If you think about the response to droughts, mainly it's about buying time until the rains come back. What happens if the rains never go back to what you thought was normal? In response to the FEMA Chief's questions, I have two requests. The first is to include in the proposed emergency operations plan drought and sea level rise on page iv which mentions specific hazards but does not mention drought or climate change or sea level rise. I realize that the City has taken some steps to address these issues. Nevertheless, drought and sea level rise need to be addressed holistically. As part of this holistic response to the drought, El Nino notwithstanding, my second request is for the City of Palo Alto to use our groundwater sustainably and to protect it as a drought resource. Thank you for your attention. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Herb Borock to be followed by our final speaker, Jessica Lynam. Herb Borock, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 15: Good evening Mayor Burt and Council Members. I encourage you to take Item 15 off of the Consent Calendar. I provided you a letter by email with a brief correction, handwritten, at places this evening. On the first issue of site and design review, as I stated in my letter, Staff justified the change in the threshold for Council approval of site and design review based on need to encourage more units without telling you that two days later before the Planning and Transportation Commission, there were two projects that were not inhibited in any way from coming forward by the current threshold, including one project which would change whether it has Council approval required or not based on the number of units. An eight unit project with the new rules would change the threshold from four units to nine units. On the second issue of the fee for appeal, those of you have been on the Council long enough to know whenever you receive an appeal of a planning issue, Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 295     TRANSCRIPT Page 19 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 both the project and the environmental review come to you at the same time for the one fee. I couldn't tell from the Staff comment whether they were saying that there's one fee required now and the Council would have to change it if they wanted to have two fees, or whether they're saying that the language that's in the Ordinance would create two fees and you'd have to change it to one fee. On the final issue of whether any changes are needed, the fact is the decision on the floor area ratio bonus, the height bonus, those exact numbers are decisions of the City Council. They're not decision that are in the Density Bonus Law in the State. As you know from the work of the Regional Housing Mandate Committee and the Council, you deliberated a long time on what those correct numbers were in the Chapter 18.8.15. Therefore, you should do something about them, and you should correct the PTOD Ordinance which is based on a false premise as to what you could do in that law. Thank you. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Jessica Lynam as our final speaker. Welcome. Jessica Lynam, speaking regarding Agenda Item Number 18: Thank you, Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Jessica Lynam, and I’m here on behalf of the Palo Alto members of the California Restaurant Association. I'm here this evening to ask the Council to pull Item Number 18, composting, off of the Agenda and bring it back to the Staff level for further consideration. While we appreciate the City's efforts to address the requirements of AB 1826 as well as achieve the City's goal of zero waste, we have significant concerns about the mandated timeline for compliance of restaurants only as well as the parameters of enforcement. While we understand per 1826 the City could impose stricter implementation dates and guidelines for composting, we ask that the Council take into consideration restaurants and other small businesses and push the date of implementation from the April 1st which is per 1826 to July 1st for any restaurant who generates more than eight cubic yards of composting waste. This couple of extra months will allow the small businesses within the city who do not already take advantage of the optional composting to work out negotiations with landlords and possibly with their neighbors on sharing bins for composting. Also, they need to train Staff and purchase these bins, so these smaller restaurants need some additional time to follow those guidelines. In addition, after speaking to some restaurateurs within the City, they do share bins. The current Ordinance as written does not address those restaurants who do share bins of composting. If a restaurant is composting correctly but their neighbor is not, GreenWaste per the proposed guidelines for commercial customers and their restrictions would have to come out and give a site visit to all the restaurants who share the bins. Further down the line, if they continue to compost incorrectly, then fines can Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 296     TRANSCRIPT Page 20 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 be levied. We ask the Council to continue looking at this Ordinance and work out the kinks before it's implemented. Thank you. Mayor Burt: Thank you. We now return to the Council for a Motion to approve Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Scharff: So moved. Council Member Kniss: Second. MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-19, including in Agenda Item Number 15- SECOND READING: Approval of Planning Codes Update … removing “and approval” before “by the Architectural Review Board” in Municipal Code Section 18.16.060 (b)(9)(1). Mayor Burt: That's a Motion to approve by Vice Mayor Scharff, seconded by Council Member Kniss. 4. Finance Committee Recommendation to Council to Continue the PV Partners Program Until the State Legislative Requirements set Forth in the California Million Solar Roof Bill Have Been Fulfilled. 5. Finance Committee Recommendation That the City Council Approve Design Guidelines for the Net Energy Metering Successor Program. 6. Approval of a Purchase Order With American Truck & Trailer Body (AT&TB) in an Amount not to Exceed $687,638 for the Purchase of Three 2016 Peterbilt 337 Extended Cab Chassis Including AT&TB Maintenance, Construction Service Body and Approve Budget Amendments in the Water Fund, Gas Fund, Wastewater Fund, and Vehicle Equipment and Replacement Fund. 7. Approval of a Contract With Siegfried for a Total Amount not to Exceed $92,004 for Design and Construction Support Services for the Quarry Road Improvements and Transit Center Access Project and Approval of a Transfer From the Stanford University Medical Center Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund and Creation of CIP Project PL-16000 to Provide an Appropriation of $92,004 to the Quarry Road Improvements and Transit Center Access Project in the Capital Improvement Program. 8. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C15154454 With Integrated Design 360 for Project Management and Analysis Services Associated With an Electrification Feasibility Study, Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 297     TRANSCRIPT Page 21 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 and Budget Amendment Ordinance 5370 Entitled, “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in the Amount of $145,000.” 9. Ordinance 5371 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Re-Titling and Amending Municipal Code Chapter 5.30 (Plastic Foam and Non-Recyclable Food Service Containers and Packaging Items) to Prohibit Sale of Non-Recyclable Plastic Foam at Retail Establishments Such as Grocery Stores, Pharmacies, Mail Service Stores and Hardware Stores (FIRST READING: December 7, 2015 PASSED: 7-0 Scharff not participating, Burt absent).” 10. Ordinance 5372 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 (Zoning Map and District Boundaries) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Change the Classification of Certain Properties on Greer Road, Amarillo Avenue, Metro Circle and Moffett Circle, a Portion of That Property Known as Greer Park, Tract Number 796, From R-1 to R-1-S (FIRST READING: November 30, 2015 PASSED: 9-0).” 11. Resolution 9573 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto the City of Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and Update of Membership of the Palo Alto/Stanford Citizen Corps Council.” 12. Approval of Contract Change Order Number 2 to Contract Number S14151060 in the Amount of $150,000 With Monterey Mechanical Company for On-Call Emergency Construction Services at the WQCP, Capital Improvement Program Project WQ-80021, for a Total Compensation not to Exceed $400,000. 13. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Council for Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.14 (Smoking and Tobacco Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Include E-Cigarettes, Change Signage Language, and Include Additional Enforcement Options. 14. Approval of a Contract for the Downtown Paid Parking Study and Downtown Parking Management Evaluation With Dixon Resources for $100,000. 15. Ordinance 5373 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Amend Land Use Related Portions of Titles 16 and 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Affected Chapters of Title 16 Include Title 16 (Building Regulations), Chapters 16.20 (Signs), 16.24 (Fences), and 16.57 (In-Lieu Parking Fees for New Non-Residential Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 298     TRANSCRIPT Page 22 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Development in the Commercial Downtown (CD) Zoning District), and Title 18 (Zoning), Chapters 18.01 (Adoption, Purposes and Enforcement), 18.04 (Definitions), 18.08 (Designation and Establishment of Districts), 18.10 (Low Density Residential RE, R-2 and RMD Districts), 18.12 (R-1, Single Family Residence District), 18.13 (Multiple Family Residential RM-15, RM-30, RM-40 Districts), 18.14 (Below Market Rate Housing Program), 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus), 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial CN, CC and CS Districts), 18.18 (Downtown Commercial CD Districts), 18.20 (Office, Research and Manufacturing MOR, ROLM, RP and GM Districts), 18.23 (Performance Criteria for Multiple Family, Commercial, Manufacturing and Planned Community Districts), 18.31 (CEQA Review - a new Chapter), 18.34 (PTOD Combining District Regulations), 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions), 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), 18.70 (Non-conforming Uses and Non-complying Facilities) and 18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals).” 16. Ordinance 5374 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Table of Organization for Fiscal Year 2016 to Incorporate Classification Title and Salary Changing the Name of the Classification From “Traffic Operations Lead” to “Traffic Engineering Lead (FIRST READING: December 14, 2015 PASSED: 9-0).” 17. Ordinance 5375 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Municipal Code Section 2.07.010 to Update Post Government Employment Regulations to Include all City Department Heads (FIRST READING: December 14, 2015 PASSED: 9-0).” 18. Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 5 (Health and Sanitation) and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require all Businesses to Subscribe to Recycling and Compost Services and Comply With Refuse Sorting Requirements. 19. Resolution 9571 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Terms of Agreement With the Palo Alto Police Managers' Association and Amending the Merit System Rules and Regulations to add Chapter 19 (PMA Agreement).” Mayor Burt: I see a light from Council Member Schmid. Council Member Schmid: I'd like to vote no on "14." Mayor Burt: We also are incorporating recommended Staff language changes that were stated by Director Gitelman. I don't know if they're Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 299     TRANSCRIPT Page 23 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 available for us to see. Do we? Is that the extent of the changes? Is that incorporated in the motion? Vice Mayor Scharff: Yes, it is. Mayor Burt: Please vote on the board. That passes unanimously with Council Member Schmid having voted no on Item Number 14. Thank you. You're welcome to make a comment on your no vote. MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 4-13, 15-19 PASSED: 9-0 MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 14 PASSED: 8-1 Schmid no Council Member Schmid: I support the intent of Item 14 to get a consultant working on paid parking in the Downtown. I would like to put a vote of protest on the Transportation Demand Management which seems to be placed in there with supporting business-only representation on the Board. That seems to me a very important part of our Downtown parking issue, the Residential Preferential Parking Program (RPP), traffic and so on. I think it's essential that a wider group of stakeholders including local residents and City officials be involved in that process. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Action Items 20. PUBLIC HEARING: On Objections to Weed Abatement and Resolution 9572 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated.” Mayor Burt: On that note, we will move on to Item No. 20, which is a public hearing on objections to weed abatement and adoption of a resolution ordering weed nuisance abated. At this time, I'd like to open the Public Hearing. We see no cards from members of the public. Is that correct or we have one coming? No. We will now close the public comment period with that and return to the Council for discussion and a Motion. Vice Mayor Scharff. Public Hearing opened and closed without public comment at 8:11 P.M. Vice Mayor Scharff: I'll move the Staff recommendation. Council Member Kniss: Second. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 300     TRANSCRIPT Page 24 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to adopt a Resolution ordering the abatement of weed nuisances in the City of Palo Alto. Mayor Burt: Did you wish to speak to that? Vice Mayor Scharff: No. Mayor Burt: I'll just state for the record, the Staff recommends that the Council hold a Public Hearing, which we have done, and consider objections of which we have none to the proposed destruction and removal of weeds and adoption of the attached resolution, Attachment A, ordering the abatement of weed nuisances in the City of Palo Alto. This is an annual action that the City is required to take. Correct? Yes. All those in favor. That passes unanimously with Council Members DuBois and Berman out of the room at the moment. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Berman, DuBois not participating 21. PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of a Record of Land Use Action for a Variance to Allow for a Reduction in the Required Front Setback (Contextual) From 37 Feet 1-1/4 Inches to 32 Feet for a new Two- Story Single Family Residence Located at 224 Churchill Avenue. Exempt From California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mayor Burt: We will now move on to Item No. 21, which is a Public Hearing on the approval of a Record of Land Use Action for a variance to allow a reduction in the required front setback, a contextual setback, from 37 feet 1 1/4 inches to 32 feet, for a new two-story, single-family residence located at 224 Churchill Avenue. This item is exempt from CEQA consideration. Mr. Lait. Jonathan Lait, Planning and Community Environment Assistant Director: Thank you, Mayor Burt. Good evening, City Council Members. As stated, you're considering an appeal of a variance for a new single-family home that is proposed to be constructed at 224 Churchill. The property is approximately 13,000 square feet, 100 x 130. It contains about 4,600 square feet on the first two levels, and a 1,700-square-foot basement. The applicant has received approval for an Individual Review, which was a Code- compliant project, compliant with all the setbacks, and concurrently had requested a variance application to encroach into the contextual setback five feet, to go from roughly 37 to 32 feet. The Director considered the variance request and made a determination of denial. That decision was appealed. A request for a hearing was held before the Planning and Transportation Commission. The Commission found otherwise and made a recommendation Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 301     TRANSCRIPT Page 25 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 to overturn the Director's decision. The subject property has three front yard setbacks. One is the standard 20-foot setback that applies. On some properties there is a special setback of 24 feet that also applies. In instances where there the properties on a block have an average setback greater than 30 feet, there is a contextual setback that is also applicable. In this case, it's approximately 37 feet. Here's a diagram from the applicant's presentation materials to the Planning and Transportation Commission. The subject property, I'll show the cursor on the screen, is this one here. The way the contextual setback requirement works. If you have three or fewer qualifying properties in a block, the contextual setback requirements do not apply. If you have four qualifying properties on the block, it does apply, and you average those four properties together. If you have five or more qualifying properties on a block, you get to throw out the two outliers, the shortest setback and the largest setback. You don't get to, you do. As part of calculating the contextual setback, we throw out the two outlier, the high and the low. Three qualifying properties, the contextual doesn't apply. Four qualifying properties, it does apply. Five or more, you throw out the two outliers that the greatest and the least setbacks. In this particular case, there are four qualifying properties, because we throw out the two corner properties, leaving the four parcels that you see there. The property at 236 Churchill has an approximate 70-foot setback. That would be this property here roughly. This is a portion of the applicant's proposed plan showing the five foot encroachment into the contextual setback. The Director as well as the Planning and Transportation Commission in their consideration of the variance request and the City Council on appeal now, there are four findings that need to be evaluated and answered in the affirmative in order to approve the variance. The first one having to do with special circumstances applicable to the property that would deprive the property owner of some privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. The variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It will not be detrimental or injurious to the property improvements in the vicinity. The Director was unable to support the first finding but does not find that the variance itself is necessarily detrimental to the property or other properties in the area. This really became a question of process as opposed to the substance. The variance has these findings and a certain standard that needs to be met. Staff believes that a more proper course of action would have been to process a text amendment if, in fact, we wanted to consider why are we treating properties of three or fewer different than four or different than five or more. The Planning Commission considered the request and, as I said, had a different perspective. They thought that the adjacent property with the approximate 70-foot setback was an outlier, and it should have been not considered in the averaging setback and that other aspects of the project were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Some had articulated that the increased setback Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 302     TRANSCRIPT Page 26 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 deprived the owner of some enjoyment of a larger backyard. They also noted the lack of neighborhood concerns with the application. The matter is before the City Council this evening. Options that are available to you are to support the Record of Land Use Action that's included in your packet. That Record of Land Use Action would uphold the variance request and grant the five foot encroachment into the contextual setback. You may direct Staff to prepare a new Record of Land Use Action to deny the variance request. That concludes Staff's report. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Before proceeding, I just wanted to give members of the Council an opportunity to disclose any ex parte discussions that they may have had with either the applicant or other members of the public on this item. I see no disclosures. We have two speaker cards at this time. They're actually both from the applicant's team. The applicant and the applicant's attorney will have a combined 10 minutes to speak. This is John Klopf in conjunction with the attorney for the applicant, Dori Yob. Welcome. Public Hearing opened at 8:21 P.M. Dori Yob, Attorney for the Applicant: Thank you. Before you start my time, if I could just make sure we have the technology all organized here. It looks like we're all set here. Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Dori Yob. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Hopkins and Carley. My law firm represents the applicants in this matter, Bogdan and Oana Cocosel, who are here in the Council chambers this evening. Mr. and Mrs. Cocosel have been residents of the Palo Alto community for 10 years and are looking forward to building their first home which, as was pointed out, is compliant with all Codes and approved by Planning with this one issue outstanding. Also with us is John Klopf from Klopf Architecture who will do the majority of the presentation this evening. I'm here to begin the presentation by just setting the legal framework in which this matter comes before you. I want to do that by turning your attention to the relevant language of the Municipal Code, so you can bear in mind the standard you're being asked to apply tonight. The section I want to refer you to is 18.76.030 which sets forth the purpose of a variance. It states in (b)(2) that the purpose is to "provide a way to grant relief where strict application of the zoning regulations would subject development of a site to substantial hardships, constraints or practical difficulties that do not normally arise with sites in the same vicinity. What does that mean? Case law defines hardship as a circumstance that puts the landowner at a disadvantage vis a vis other landowners in the area due to particular (inaudible) of the size, shape, grade of the parcel. Case law also tells us that any variance granted must be in harmony with the intent of the zoning laws. As you will see tonight from the architect's presentation, this variance is appropriate and in harmony with the Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 303     TRANSCRIPT Page 27 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 intent of your Code and the Comprehensive Plan. In fact, strict application of the zoning regulations (regs) will result in inconsistency in the neighborhood rather than consistency specifically due to this one outlier home on the block that has a very deep lot and a front setback of approximately 69 feet. This lot, with a significantly more shallow lot depth is required to have a 37-foot setback. This 69-foot lot throws off the average and requires this lot to be further set back than the balance of its neighbors which are set back between 21 and 32 feet. This puts this property at a disadvantage vis a vis the surrounding neighbors. This is what constitutes a substantial hardship under the Code. By definition, the variance provisions are designed to remedy this type of circumstance. The findings you're required to meet were set forth by Staff. All those findings are met. The structure is otherwise compliant with all City Codes and requirements and has been approved by Planning. We're unaware of any opposition to this request, and we ask that you support Staff's recommendation. I will turn it over to the architect. John Klopf, Applicant (Klopf Architecture): Thank you. Thank you to the City Council for hearing our case. My name is John Klopf from Klopf Architecture. Our variance is a good example of how the nitty-gritty of implementing a law can work contrary to the intent of that law. The law in this case is a context setback, which you've heard about. It's supposed to promote a more uniform front yard setback for a residential block. As applied in our case, it causes just the opposite. If you refer to the handouts or Diagram No. 1, this represents the current situation on the block. The special setback would be 24 feet. As you've heard, due to the contextual setback the house must be 37 feet back. The owners are asking for a 32- foot setback. All the other properties on the lot have a setback roughly between 14 and 32 feet, except for the one. The 69-foot setback of the neighboring property is clearly an outlier. Because of the way contextual setbacks are calculated, it's become the major influencing factor for our lot, causing in our case the required 37-foot setback. Our clients are fond of the oak tree. We all love big oak trees that's on this lot. We have an arborist's report that indicates the oak tree on this lot will be protected with the 32- foot setback. We're not asking to go any further forward than what the arborist has approved. The next slide shows what the contextual setback would be if the outlying properties were excluded. The Staff Report contains our variance application. On Page 2 of our variance application letter, we put an excerpt from the revised for Committee of the Whole 6/18/01 report on zoning regulation. The excerpt indicates that the committee intended to exclude outliers from the contextual setback calculations. Because of the way the law was eventually drafted, this intention to eliminate outliers is not always borne out in practice. As mentioned previously, blocks with three or fewer houses have no contextual setback. Blocks with four houses have a Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 304     TRANSCRIPT Page 28 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 contextual setback, but outliers are not excluded. For the blocks with five or six houses, context setback applies, but it's a crapshoot whether the outliers would or would not be excluded. That's our situation. We lost the dice roll because both the corner lots happen to have their front doors facing the side street. Please note that the garages of the corner lots face Churchill. For all intents and purposes, these houses are part of the perceived street on Churchill. Because their front doors face the side streets, they don't count in the calculation. We're left with four houses on the block that count. Therefore, the outliers are not eliminated. If just one of those houses were remodeled so the front door faced Churchill and no other changes were made on the block, we'd officially have five houses that count on this block, and the outliers would be excluded. If there was at least one more house on the block, meaning a total of seven, then the outliers would be excluded. If the outliers were excluded, we would have a contextual setback of just under 32 feet. We're asking for a 32-foot front yard setback. If one front door changed on this block or there were one more house on the block, our requested setback would actually comply with the contextual setback with some room to spare. Our proposal complies with the intent of the Code, which is to remove outliers to promote context. Only the technicalities of how the front doors are facing on the corner lots or how many lots are needed to remove the outliers determines that we need a larger setback in this case. Diagram No. 3 further explores the intent of the committee on contextual setbacks. The Committee excerpt in our variance letter also states that contextual setbacks should not be applied for blocks with special setbacks. Clearly this did not make it into the law since this block actually has a special setback that is also subject to contextual setbacks. Just to explore this briefly, without a contextual setback the special setback of 24 feet would govern. Again, we're asking for 32 feet. This diagram also illustrates that our setback request of 32 feet exceeds the hypothetical contextual setback had the corner houses had their front doors and not just their garages facing Churchill. The intent of the contextual setbacks is to create a more uniform block over time. This would minimizing the effects of outliers. Diagram No. 4 shows that as each property develops over time, on this block, each house will be pulled back farther and farther because the contextual setback is increased each time. The effect over time of outliers pulling back the other houses is to suck the other homes back from the street, creating divots in the street wall and leaving void spaces on the blocks. The next two diagrams, No. 5 and 6, show the larger neighborhood. Diagram No. 5 showing it now, and Diagram No. 6 showing it over time as the outlying properties pull the street wall back and create various front yard divots. Clearly the Committee's intent to eliminate the influence of outliers is flouted on these blocks with five and six total houses on them. In conclusion, the conditions that disadvantage our clients are their block has one huge property on it with a very deep front setback. This house is an Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 305     TRANSCRIPT Page 29 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 outlier and pulls all the other houses back as the contextual setback is currently calculated. Without this house being present, the 32-foot front setback we're asking for would fit nicely within the contextual setback no matter how you calculate it. Their block has six houses on it, not seven. The front doors of both corner houses happen to face the side streets. If there were just one more house or if just one of the corner lots had a front door facing Churchill, the outlying properties would be eliminated. Our request complies with the intent of the contextual setback law to eliminate outliers and create a more uniform street wall. If calculated the way we showed on our second diagram, with the outliers excluded, our requested setback of 32 feet would be just in line with the contextual setback for the block. Thank you very much. Public Hearing closed at 8:31 P.M. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Those are the only members of the public to speak. It returns to the Council for discussion and a Motion. Council Member Kniss. Council Member Kniss: Let me just start with some questions, looking at you, Jonathan. This one is a bit of a mind boggler. I spent a fair amount of time in that area today and yesterday. One of the obvious observations you would make right away is that this block of Churchill is one of the busiest blocks in town. You come from the railroad tracks, and you pull over to the side, which I did today. Eleven vehicles passed me within a minute. My question would be other than taking into account exactly what Code says and exactly what the setback should be given the contextual aspect of this, did anything else get included other than I can see what the Planning Commission did? Does anything else get examined when making this kind of decision? If I were that couple—I don't know if they're here or not. In that case, I would value the backyard area in particular because the front is far more noisy than the usual street would be in that area. Mr. Lait: We certainly would take into consideration any arguments that were made in support of the variance. On the noise or the traffic consideration, one of the considerations that you have to make when evaluating the variance is how is that unique to this property and not the other properties under the same zoning or in the same area. In that regard, that traffic with the noise of traffic on Churchill is consistent for all the properties in the area. That in and of itself is not a unique consideration. Council Member Kniss: What you're saying is it's subjective. Mr. Lait: Again, you want to go back to the finding which talks about how there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property that Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 306     TRANSCRIPT Page 30 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 deprives this owner privileges that are enjoyed by other properties in the area. I think you ought to look at a variety of issues. In the example you're raising, I would say that the noise from traffic is a condition that exists for all the properties in the area to look at that issue. Council Member Kniss: I understand. It's still somewhat puzzling. It does come to us tonight with approval from the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) of course. Mr. Lait: A recommendation for approval, yes. Council Member Kniss: Mayor Burt, after you hear from some other Council Members, I would be delighted to make a Motion. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Our next speaker is Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: Thank you. This is one of those situations where there is no perfect. I've been a part of at least two Individual Review revisions if not more. The line gets dropped somewhere. In this particular case, where it got dropped was if there are four properties. I tend to agree with the Planning Director's first determination because there isn't really anything significantly different about this property. Where I get troubled a bit is where there are all kinds of situations that are proposed, if the corner properties face Churchill or if there was just one more property, if there was this, if there was that. I've seen situations before where there are a lot of ifs but those ifs don't apply to the situation, because it is what it is. I don't' necessarily agree. I remember one of the things that I didn't agree with but it's what's in the Code now. I thought the properties across the street should count when considering the contextual setback. That isn't what got passed. My tendency is to agree with the Planning Director's original determination. There is nothing special or unique about this property or its situation. With the special setbacks and the contextual setback, I can suppose—I can't remember about this for sure—that the special setbacks still have contextual setback because the same reason any other neighborhood does. There might be some that encroach further into the special setback because they were there before the special setback or whatever. You still want to be able to pull those back. Those are my comments. Just one question for Staff. The initial comment made by the applicant's attorney, did Staff consider that? I don't remember reading that in the Staff Report. Mr. Lait: If you can remind me as to what specific comment you're referring to. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 307     TRANSCRIPT Page 31 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Council Member Holman: Rather than me butchering it, it'd probably be better to have, through the Chair the attorney repeat that statement. It was special circumstance. Mayor Burt: That'd be fine. Council Member Holman: If Cara could repeat it. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: I'm happy to summarize. I think what the attorney referenced is the purpose section of the variance. We did take that into account. We certainly think that this is a situation where a variance request should be processed. We understand that there are some factual situations here that warrant discussion. It's just up to the Council at this point to determine whether the criteria have been met. Mayor Burt: Vice Mayor Scharff. Vice Mayor Scharff: Thank you. A couple of thoughts first. Following up on Council Member Kniss' question to you. When we look at the Director's determination, one of the things is you talked about a special circumstance applicable to the subject property. When you look at the map, it seems to me that that special circumstance is very clear, that it's a shallower lot but a lot. It's 130 feet versus 200 foot. That seems a very different circumstance. If you do have the traffic noise and that upfront, the further you are back, the less you're going to have that, the more privacy you're going to have in the back and all of that. That seems to me to be a separate special circumstance. I understand Planning could interpret it either way. I think we're fully within our rights to interpret it that way as a special circumstance and that lot's different. The way this is done seems really goofy to me. I realize that's what was passed by the law. I just wanted to confirm that if we followed this and went with the 37-foot setback, the next house to develop on this block would then have a 39-foot setback. It sort of depends which one it is. If it was the house with the 69-foot setback, then the next house could go further in, further to the street. This is really goofy the way this is done. I totally agree with Staff that to effect this change Staff recommended that we have a zoning text amendment. What I understood that to mean is you should come back to us. Maybe I misunderstood that. It seems to me you should come back to us and say how do we fix this in one of these cleanups. That's what I think we should do. I wanted to get Staff's reaction to that, of cleaning this up. Mr. Lait: In our internal conversations we have found it a bit odd that if you have three properties or fewer, you're one scenario. If you have four, you're one scenario. If you have five or more, you're another scenario. I don't know what's magical about four, why that's considered differently than the Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 308     TRANSCRIPT Page 32 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 other ones. If the Council's in agreement that there's a reason—if there isn't a reason why four properties on a block is unique or special in its own right, then we should come back. We could easily do that as part of our annual Code effort that we've initiated. If we go back to the January Staff Report, our perspective is that this proposed variance again isn't necessarily detrimental to the neighborhood. It really was a question of process. It's been framed for the Council to support the variance and have the project move forward. We could add this to our list that we're going to come back to the Council and talk about as far as prioritizing an amendment. Vice Mayor Scharff: I do think you raise a really good point. I think this is something we need to think about. I can't see in any way how this is detrimental to the neighborhood. This is my neighborhood, where I live. I can't imagine it being detrimental to the neighborhood in any way. It's hard to imagine at all how having the setbacks vary so widely depending on which houses on the block, which house develops in order, any of that, how this has any sort of sense of what we're really trying to do. I assume it was originally intended to maintain an average setback as opposed to pulling the setback further and further back and then possibly jumping it forward if one house developed differently than the others. I didn't see a single person write us an email saying stop this project. I didn't see a single person opposed to it. I was just going to ask if you've had any opposition at all to this? Mr. Lait: No. We haven't had any correspondence. Vice Mayor Scharff: One of the other things I wanted to comment on. I think our job as City Council Members is to be responsive to the public and to make their lives better. I see how this doesn't hurt any single person in Palo Alto, but probably dramatically makes the owners' lives better because they have a bigger backyard, and it's set back from what is really a busy street. Using the front yard on Churchill is probably not that pleasant with all the traffic that goes by. I think we should do two things. I think we should grant the variance, and then we should go ahead and ask Staff to put this on their annual Code cleanup list and come back to us with this process. I know you wanted to make a Motion. Do you care if I ... Council Member Kniss: (inaudible) Vice Mayor Scharff: I'll move that we approve the variance for the property at 224 Churchill Avenue as documented in the attached Record of Land Use Action, and that we ask Staff to add this to their Code cleanup items, their annual Code cleanup items. Council Member Kniss: I'll second that. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 309     TRANSCRIPT Page 33 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to adopt the findings and recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Commission to approve a variance for the property at 224 Churchill Avenue as documented in the Record of Land Use Action and direct Staff to include this topic in the annual Code clean-up. Mayor Burt: Did you wish to speak further to your Motion? Vice Mayor Scharff: Just briefly. I think it's really important that we be responsive to what's in the best interest of the citizens of Palo Alto. That sometimes means individual citizens. We weigh this against the general good. Here, there's no opposition. There's no one being injured by this. All this does is benefit our constituents who have come to us to ask us to look at a law that is goofy on its face and ask us to make a decision that supports them. I think we should do that. Mayor Burt: Council Member Kniss, did you wish to speak to your second? Council Member Kniss: Just briefly. I would concur with what the Vice Mayor has just said. In addition to coming back for Code revision, I think this is really a common sense decision. If we look at this as we see it in front of us, it's fascinating to see a lot that is that size in this particular neighborhood. The one that's 236 probably is one of the bigger lots in that part of town. We're basing a decision on what—I think that's the real outlier, this enormous lot that looks almost as though it goes through to the next street. It may go through to Coleridge. This is the unusual lot. I would strongly support, which is a compromise at the 32. Having looked at this carefully today, I would strongly support it and agree that we can make those findings, especially talk to the special circumstances. Thank you. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Council Member DuBois. Council Member DuBois: I did walk around the neighborhood. There is a wide variety of lot sizes and shapes. The general pattern, if you look at the blocks around this, not just the block, very deep in the middle of the block, shallower lots as you start to get towards the corners. To me, the important question is definition of a variance. I didn't agree that there are grounds to find a variance. Again, as the initial ruling was, I didn't see special circumstances. It seemed pretty clear from the record that the request was a desire, not a need as defined in the Code. Plans were submitted to Individual Review with the proper setback, which indicates to me it was a desire. It wasn't that there was something fundamentally wrong with the lot. My concern is about the process. I just think if we start to call things variances when they don't really qualify, what do we do with the next applicant. Pretty soon, we don't have a process. The PTC minutes had Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 310     TRANSCRIPT Page 34 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 some comments about whether the Ordinance was appropriate. Like a lot of us, they emphasized with the applicant. Is there anyone from PTC here? It would have appropriate to come back and suggest that PTC would have requested a revision to the definition of a variance. I would say that— Council Member Holman touched on this—any kind of contextual setback, if it's an average, is going to exhibit this behavior. It's not necessarily goofy. If there were five properties being averaged, they're still going to move back and forth based on what you're averaging. It gets to the idea of a contextual setback. At some point, you're going to have a property that hits the edge case whatever rule we come up with. My understanding is that this rule did come about through a pretty thoughtful process. It seems broken when you have so few properties. I would support revisiting this rule, but it needs to go through the process of really thinking about contextual setbacks and what we're trying to do when you have this kind of variety of depth. I'm concerned that we're just calling it a variance because it's expedient. Thanks. Mayor Burt: Council Member Berman. Council Member Berman: I just want to second some of the comments that Council Member Scharff made, especially in regards to the ability to agree with the findings. He's absolutely right that the special circumstances—it jumps out of the page at you. The other three properties that were taken into consideration all traverse the entire block. This is the only one that does not. Not only does that make me very comfortable with the findings, but this is the perfect example of when a variance is warranted. A variance is warranted when strict interpretation of the Code leads to a result that's worse than what's being proposed. In this instance, this is a perfect example where a 32-foot setback, given the context of the neighborhood, of that block, of the block across the street, makes a lot more sense than a 37- foot setback. Not to mention the possible further implications as other homes on the block are redeveloped. I would also suggest, when this does come back to us for cleanup, that there be some sort of exception written in where not only do we have this rule, if we choose to keep it, where the shallowest and the most further are eliminated. Not only have it so that the shallowest setback and the deepest setback are eliminated, but if there's an instance where that ever isn't taken into account—we might write that out of the ordinance. Any time there's a setback that's 2X the average on the block, it's automatically eliminated or something to that effect, or even 50 percent greater. That's the exception, and that throws off the calculus. That's clearly the case here which is leading to this abnormal average that warrants the variance that hopefully we approve tonight. Mayor Burt: Council Member Filseth. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 311     TRANSCRIPT Page 35 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Council Member Filseth: Thanks very much. I'm concerned about process here as well. I thought it was very interesting that the initial judgment from the Planning Director was based on whether there was a hardship here. I don't see a serious hardship here, that is grossly mitigated by moving the setback in or out five feet. At the same time, the applicant's argument and also the PTC's argument wasn't about whether there was a huge hardship, but that the Code itself was not right for what's trying to be accomplished in this area in terms of consistency of the front housing. It's a little bit of oddness because the Planning Director's judgment was based on one criteria. The folks we heard from tonight we based on a different criteria. I think Council Member Scharff captured this when he talked about the idea of the variance and also the Code cleanup. My question is procedural. If we agree with the folks we heard tonight, that a better Code would handle— they used the word outliers—huge variances in setback, I'm loathe to grant a variance for something that really belongs as a Code change. If we're going to change the Code, is there a way that we can do these things together? Alternatively, if we decide to grant a variance, how do we know that we're actually going to change the Code a year from now? That's my question, process. If we decide that the Code as written doesn't do what we want to accomplish on this kind of streetscape, can we do it that way instead of granting a variance? The variance seems to be to address a different situation. Mr. Lait: The only way to do that is to amend Code. To amend the Code would require the Staff work and a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission. We would return to the City Council with that first reading. You'd have to have the second reading, and then it would become effective 30 days after. That would be the process. You're probably looking at four months time to get from here to there. Council Member Filseth: Did you say four months? Mr. Lait: Yeah, at best four months time. That's not considering the diversion of resources from the priorities that the Council's asked us to take on. Council Member Filseth: If we do it as a variance, how do we know that it'll go onto the stack but it might not be until next year or the year after? Mr. Lait: In response to that question, we're going to come back to the City Council on February 24th, I think is the date, with a continued discussion of the first annual Code cleanup to talk about the ARB findings and a couple of the other items. We will also be presenting at that time the Tier 2 list. We can insert that into the Tier 2 list. After that February discussion, we'll be Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 312     TRANSCRIPT Page 36 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 coming back to the City Council again to prioritize that. If the Council is interested in moving that forward we can see that done by the done by the end of this year. Council Member Filseth: I'll think about that. It seems to me—as other people have pointed out, there's not a lot of neighborhood opposition to this. It seems like a logical thing to do. It's more a question of process as what's the right way to do it. Mayor Burt: I would like to wade in on both the specific variance before us and then give some context on this Code. I actually have a recollection of how this came about and the discussions that occurred. If we had before us a request for a variance that didn't have this sort of significant, unusual circumstances, I would have a real problem granting a variance even if I didn't like the Code, which I don't. Seeing foremost the three other lots are 200 feet deep and this one is not. You look at it, and that's certainly a big part of the driver here. It excludes the corner lots. I happen to know the next block westward or southwestward has actually shorter setbacks through that block. The mirroring houses across the street don't have as deep of a setback as we would be requiring here. I find acceptable reasons to make the finding. I'd just like to share with folks the process. It was probably close to 15 years ago when we did the zoning ordinance update after the last Comprehensive Plan. I lost out to a majority of the Planning Commission, as I recall, and made the argument at the time that this calculation was not one that would result in maintaining the neighborhood setback, which was the intention. Over time, it would create new setbacks predominantly deeper and deeper. Our intention was to preserve a neighborhood character. This actually over time would work against that. I thought it was goof at the time. I'm surprised it's taken this long to percolate to this point. There are several issues. One is the fallacy of the average becoming the new minimum, thereby continually creating a new deeper and deeper average. Council Member Holman raised the issue of should there be a broader context, should the houses across the street be there. When you have four houses defining a context, that just leaves it wide open to anomalies. That seems to be the case here. I think that covers the areas that should be reexamined in the Code. Fundamentally, we're seeing a non-contentious request for a variance and an adequate basis to make the findings for the variance. I'll be supporting the motion. Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Holman, you already spoke. If we go again, we're going to open it up to everybody. I'll let it if it's very brief. Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Wolbach: (inaudible) Mayor Burt: Okay. Briefly. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 313     TRANSCRIPT Page 37 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Council Member Holman: It is brief. The comments of other colleagues have persuaded me that there's—I wouldn't say no harm, no foul. There's justification for allowing the variance. I also do want to state that I don't want this to become the norm because the Code is wrong or because there's a problem with the Code, then we'll make exceptions. That procedural thing is really backward thinking. I don't want to set a precedent for doing that. In this case—I don't want to talk against myself—the comments have been made that persuade me. I don't want a precedent to be set either. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Wolbach: A couple of things. I just wanted to get some clarification and address some of the ideas that have been discussed. It's pretty clear where this is going. I'll also be supporting the Motion. A lot of the debate is around Finding No. 1. If you look at Page 2 of the Staff Report or Packet Page 474, Item 1 towards the bottom is what the Planning Staff, on the next page, said they weren't able to find. This is addressed by a Council Member as well. The evidence that this was not a hardship was that alternative plans were submitted by the applicant. The residents submitted an alternative proposal to cover their rears in case they didn't get what they were asking for, which seems like a smart, prudent thing to do. I wouldn't use that as evidence one way or another about whether they got what they were asking for or not, is a hardship or not. Those are separate questions. If you can afford the time and the money to draw up a separate set of plans as insurance in case you don't get what you're asking for, it seems like a smart thing to do. I am convinced that this does provide a hardship for this family for the reasons already stated. The desire to have some backyard space given the desire to have some private space rather than a front-yard area. As was also pointed out, if you exclude 236 Churchill, this house would be forced to have a further setback than all the other houses on the block. That is unusual. That does set them apart. A very, very strong case can be made for Finding No. 1. I respectfully disagree with the Planning Staff's findings on that. I understand how they were able to make that determination. I don't agree with it. This raises the question of how we make decisions. It was pointed out by Council Member Filseth that Planning Director, Planning Staff was focusing on one set of criteria. Others were focusing on another. This is the challenge we always face when we have multiple competing interests. How do we make our choice? Part of this also is through our comments or our politics, our ideology, we can paint ourselves into a corner. The word variance has taken on such an negative connotation, often for good reason. When this part of the Code is appropriately used, because we have such a negative association with the word variance, because it is so often abused, we're appropriately reluctant to use it. I want to make sure our ideology doesn't push us from reluctance Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 314     TRANSCRIPT Page 38 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 and skepticism into dogmatic opposition. In this case, it seems like the right time. To use the variance. Our Code is broken. We've recognized the Code is broken. Council Member Burt, thank you for the history lesson on that. I was curious how we got to this point. Thank you for trying to stand up for warning people about unintended consequences on the Planning Commission. This is a teachable moment about unintended consequences. The Code is broken. We're going to change it this year. In the meantime, it's the right thing to grant the variance to the residents who are going to be negatively impacted by our broken and soon to be fixed Code. MOTION PASSED: 8-1 Filseth no Mayor Burt: On that note, please vote on the board. That passes on an 8-1 vote with Council Member Filseth voting no. We have one remaining item on the Agenda. Why don't we take a five minute break. Council took a break from 9:03 P.M. to 9:10 P.M. 22. PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Record of Land Use Action to Allow Demolition of Four Existing Structures Totaling 265,895 Square Feet and for Construction of Four Two-Story Office Buildings Totaling 265,895 Square Feet of Floor Area With Below and At-Grade Parking and Other Site Improvements. Zoning District: Research Park (RP) Located at 1050 Page Mill Road. Environmental Assessment: A Final Environmental Impact Report has Been Prepared. Mayor Burt: Our next and final item is Item No. 22. A Public Hearing on the approval of the Final Environmental Impact Report and Record of Land Use Action to allow demolition of four existing structures totaling 265,895 square feet and for construction of four two-story office buildings totaling 265,895 square feet of floor area with below- and at-grade parking and other site improvements. Before continuing, Council Member DuBois. Council Member DuBois: I just wanted to briefly explain. While Sand Hill Properties is the primary applicant in this case and appears to own the buildings, because Stanford is the co-applicant and there are issues of lease lines, and because Stanford is a source of income for me through my wife, I'm going to recuse myself tonight. If there are issues in the future that pertain to the building only, I may be able to participate, but they did not appear to be a separable part of the discussion tonight. I will say goodnight to you all. Council Member DuBois left the meeting at 9:11 P.M. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 315     TRANSCRIPT Page 39 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Mayor Burt: This is a quasi-judicial item. I would look for Council Members to disclose any ex parte discussions outside of the meeting. Vice Mayor Scharff. Vice Mayor Scharff: I met with Doria Summa and Jeff Levinsky. Pretty much everything I learned was summarized in a handout they gave me, which I gave to Council, so it's in the record. That's pretty much what I learned from them. It was a very helpful and informative meeting, and I thank you for having it. Mayor Burt: Council Member Kniss. Council Member Kniss: I met with Allison Koo who is here in the audience, and I also heard from several other people in the area who seem supportive. We also have a letter tonight from—help me out. I'll see if I can find it. Vice Mayor Scharff: The head of College Terrace? Council Member Kniss: Yes. Vice Mayor Scharff: Brent Butler. Council Member Kniss: Thank you, thank you. Those are the contacts that I had. Mayor Burt: Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: I also met with Doria Summa and Jeff Levinsky and various communications that came to us. Had received also the same communication that Council Member Scharff has, and it's now in the public record. Mayor Burt: Council Member Filseth. Council Member Filseth: The same as Karen just said. I met with Doria and Jeff. They had a very helpful picture in understanding the issues around this. It's all in the public record. Mayor Burt: Council Member Berman. Council Member Berman: I had a phone call with Allison Koo and did not learn anything that's not in the public record. Mayor Burt: Council Member Wolbach. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 316     TRANSCRIPT Page 40 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Council Member Wolbach: I also met with Allison Koo. The information I learned in that meeting was nothing that wasn't in the Staff Report as far as I can remember. Good job to Staff. Mayor Burt: Council Member Schmid. Council Member Schmid: I had a short telephone call with Doria Summa. Mayor Burt: Because this is a quasi-judicial item, the City Council protocols, which we review every year at our Retreat—I'll encourage everybody to do so again—strongly discourage ex parte communications on any quasi-judicial item. Consequently, I did not meet with anyone. Council Member Holman: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Burt: Yes. Council Member Holman: Could I offer just one clarification to that. I do believe the protocols say that it's strongly discouraged until after final ARB and PTC recommendation. Mayor Burt: That may be. Thank you. We're ready for Staff presentation from Director Gitelman. Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director: thank you, Mayor Burt, Council Members. Happy New Year. I have the pleasure this evening to introduce Jodie Gerhardt and Katherine Waugh. Jodie's on our Staff and will be presenting the item with Katherine, who's our consultant for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) preparation. We're hoping that you'll hear our presentation, hear from the applicant, hear from the public, and then give us an opportunity to respond to any issues that are raised in the public testimony that we need to respond to on the record. Jodie Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager: Good evening, Council Members. My name is Jodie Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager with the City of Palo Alto. The project before you is the Final EIR and the ARB application for the project at 1050 Page Mill Road. This is a 13.5-acre leased area located within the Stanford Research Park and fronts on Page Mill Road. The site has a land use designation of research office park and a zoning of research park. It's currently occupied by structures that total just under 266,000 square feet. The existing parking lot also contains 564 spaces, which is well under the current parking requirements. The proposed project would include demolition of these existing buildings as well as construction of four two- story buildings of the same floor area ratio. Along with this would be 10,745 square feet of amenity space, which is approximately four percent of the Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 317     TRANSCRIPT Page 41 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 total building area. The amenity space would be used for onsite amenities such as a cafeteria that would facilitate reduction in vehicular use. With cafeterias, with fitness centers, things of that nature, employees are encouraged to stay onsite. The details of this would be reviewed as part of the building application. The proposal for parking includes 887 parking spaces along with 101 bicycle spaces. This would bring the project in conformance with the current Code requirements. One of the issues that early on the neighbors brought to our attention was access. The parcel currently has access from Page Mill Road, and it also has a back driveway that leads out to California Avenue. Staff and the applicant worked with the neighbors to close off this rear access. As part of this project, an armgate would be installed on this rear driveway so that all of the employees and users of 1050 Page Mill would only be able to access the property from Page Mill Road. The armgate is in place for the employees that would be at 1117 California Avenue. They still have an easement and still have the right to gain access to Page Mill Road through this property. It would be one-way. The employees from California would be able to go to Page Mill. This project would not be able to go the other direction. After the Staff Report was put together, we did receive some comments. There was some questions about the Minutes from previous hearings. As Staff, we tried to keep the packet small and save some trees. Unfortunately, that led to some problems. We did make sure to send out the Minutes to everyone earlier today. Stanford has turned in documentation of 700 acres, which we will discuss further in this presentation about Floor Area Ratio (FAR). We do have that with us. We have not been able to review it in-depth. It was written in 1885, and it is in script. It will take a little bit of interpretation. Regarding the floor area ratio, we will be discussing that later in the presentation. We also had some discussion about dewatering, hazardous materials and the EIR alternatives. Katherine, as our environmental consultant, will be answering those in her presentation. As far as the mitigation measures including those as a condition, that was an oversight in the Record of Land Use. That will certainly be included in a revised Record of Land Use. You have all the details in Attachment I, which is the Mitigation Monitoring Program. With that, I'd like to turn it over to Katherine to discuss the Environmental Impact Report. Katherine Waugh, Dudek: Thank you, Jodie. I'm Katherine Waugh, Senior Project Manager with Dudek. As Director Gitelman mentioned, we are the City's environmental consultant for this project. I will briefly review the key steps in the EIR process and the content of this EIR. This slide outlines some of the key steps. In the process, we started by preparing what's called an Initial Study of the project's potential environmental effects and circulated that for public review along with the Notice of Preparation. That provided public information as to the intended content and scope of this EIR. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 318     TRANSCRIPT Page 42 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 We also held a scoping meeting in front of the Architectural Review Board to solicit public comments on those documents and ensure that we had captured all of the important issues that needed to be evaluated in this EIR. We then prepared the Draft EIR which was provided for a public review period. Presented that to the ARB and Planning and Transportation Commission to receive public comments on the content of the document. All of the written and verbal comments that were received are responded to in the Final EIR. We've presented that Final EIR, as you know, to the PTC for their recommendation and in order to bring it to you tonight. This slide lists the table of contents of the Draft EIR. The five topics in which we found that there was potential for sign environmental impacts. I'll go over those briefly now. We also, of course, included cumulative impacts and project alternatives as required by CEQA. With this project, the project impacts are compared to an environmental baseline. Under CEQA, typically you take the existing conditions at the day that you start the environmental impact analysis. CEQA also recognizes that in certain situations that baseline can fluctuate pretty substantially over time and provides that where that happens, there are provisions to consider the historic context of a property or a project setting to ensure that you're determining the baseline to most adequately represent the conditions that have been existing at that property over time. I will talk about that in a little bit more detail in the next slide. We also look at cumulative impacts which is an area where people frequently have a hard time understanding exactly how that approach is taken. I wanted to go over that quickly. The first thing that we do in the cumulative impact analysis is define what the cumulative condition might look like. That is done by identifying build-out projects in your General Plan as well as any other projects that are reasonably foreseeable. Typically those are ones that are being processed currently or have been approved by not yet constructed. We use all of that information to define what the environment or the community may look like at a certain build-out horizon, and then use that information to determine whether in that context there would be significant environmental effects relative to what's there today. Once we've defined whether there might be significant effects that are different from those that you're experiencing today, then we look to see whether the proposed project would contribute to those in a substantial manner. That process takes you through this step of analysis to determine, first of all, what the future conditions look like and then what percentage or what contribution the project makes to those effects. As I mentioned, the baseline for this project is a little bit different than the typical just taking the conditions that were existing at the time that the environmental analysis began. As you're aware, this project is within the Stanford Research Park which has had a long history of use. The buildings on this site were constructed between the years of the 1960 through—the site says 1980, but I believe it was 1982 that the last building construction was completed. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 319     TRANSCRIPT Page 43 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 During that time, there's been a wide range of occupants and uses of these buildings. Staff went through an exhaustive process of determining how the buildings were used over time in order to identify an appropriate baseline that would reflect the conditions that have been experienced to the greatest extent with the most consistency over that period. That different analysis and research led us to the baseline of assuming that the existing buildings on the site were occupied with 67.4 percent of those buildings occupied as office uses and 16.3 percent for warehouse and 16.3 percent for research and development. Those different types of land uses have different trip generations. Typically that's the main consideration here, the amount of traffic that's associated with each of those different types of land uses. That influenced how the impact analysis proceeded. Ms. Gerhardt: With that, there has been some questions about the existing FAR and how this was calculated. I did want to let you know that the project does currently abide by the zoning regulations. As noted in the Staff Report, the standard maximum FAR for this RP zoning is 40 percent. However, the existing square footage and the proposed square footage or FAR for this site is approximately 45 percent. I'll walk through how that came to be. Staff is taking the position that these existing buildings are non-complying facilities, and thus are grandfathered under Code Section 18.70.100. However, there is some confusion with the Research Park because this site is not a true legal parcel in the way that we normally think about it. The legal parcel is actually much larger along the lines of 700-some odd acres. This 13 1/2 acres is just a lease area. However, current practice and past practice has been to treat these lease lines as if they were property lines. That's how we come up with this 45 percent floor area ratio. How we got here, we'll just walk you through. Imagine lots of fields with one building, because what you're seeing underneath is actually a current aerial. This is back in 1956. There was one building and not much else out here. In 1961, we have the second building that gets constructed. 1966 is the middle building; 1972 completes this middle building. In 1980, we have the front building that gets constructed along Page Mill Road. Sometime in 1999 we have a second lease line that happens down the middle a little bit here. Commercial lease lines are not subject to the Subdivision Map Act. There was no parcel or tentative map that came through the City because it is exempt from those processes. What happened is in 2000 we can only surmise that Staff was looking at the smaller half of the property, because now there was a lease line. They allowed that 2000 building to happen. If you're just looking at the smaller piece of property, it had a much reduced FAR. It was under the 40 percent for that smaller site. It looked like it had extra capacity. By putting that lease line, the larger half of the property ends up being 45 percent FAR. If you go back to the 1980s, it actually met the FAR. That's why we believe this to be a non-conforming facility under 18.70.100. At Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 320     TRANSCRIPT Page 44 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 that time, it was legal. Some of the other things. This common practice, we do want to start to formalize this a little bit more, which is why we have given you the finding. We've had discussions with Stanford University about how to make sure and prevent this in the future. On an annual basis, we will be bringing forward a spreadsheet that looks at the entire Stanford Research Park, looks at the entire 700 acres, all of the FAR. On that 700 acres, they're allowed 11.2 million square feet. They only have approximately 10 million. That's where we come up with there's still this 1 million square footage that can be developed if you're looking at the entire Research Park. With that, I'll let Katherine continue. Ms. Waugh: Now I will go through the various topics that we evaluated in the EIR. I'm going to keep the comment brief but happy to answer any questions if you need elaboration. The first topic that we looked at was air quality. As we found in the Initial Study, the actual size of the building in terms of project operations was not a concern. It's below the screening thresholds that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District has established. We weren't concerned about long-term air quality emissions from the project as it operates. We did look carefully at construction emissions. That analysis includes emissions that would occur from demolition, all of the soil excavation that would be necessary, and the associated truck trips and then the actual construction process itself. We did find that the emissions would remain below the levels of significance that are established by Bay Area Air Quality Management District but also identified some of the standard mitigations measures that help to make sure they stay as low as possible. Another concern related to air quality is that the buildings are likely to or are known in some cases to contain asbestos and lead-based paints. Again, there are standard mitigation measures that ensure that those materials are adequately controlled so that they are not released to the environment to cause potential health hazards. We did also modify one of the mitigation measures in response to comments that we received to ensure that the neighboring College Terrace Residents Association is notified before any demolition occurs that could release those asbestos and lead-based materials. With respect to biological resources, the project site is predominantly paved and developed, but there is potential for nesting birds to reside at the site in the trees as well as on the ground in the landscaped areas. The buildings themselves could provide habitat for bats to roost. There are standard mitigation measures that meet the requirements of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and other applicable regulations to ensure that no adverse impacts to those types of species occur as a result of demolition and construction. We also looked carefully at hazardous materials. There are known areas of soil contamination onsite. Some of the soil contamination that previously occurred onsite has already been remediated. There were areas of Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 321     TRANSCRIPT Page 45 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 contaminated soil that are too close to the existing buildings to be remediated until demolition occurs. As discussed in the EIR, there are a few other areas of additional soil contamination that haven't been addressed in the soil management plan but would be added to that soil management plan to ensure that everything is remediated at the same time. The site is not directly above the contaminated groundwater plume, the COE plume. The adjacent parcel is the limit of where that plume is known to occur. We also included typical mitigation measures to control for impacts that might be related to the contaminated groundwater. Specifically that requires if groundwater is encountered during construction, then measures dictate how dewatering of the site would occur. Testing would be done of any dewatering that needs to occur to determine the level of contamination in that water. That dictates how that water can be handled, whether it can go into the sewer or needs to be handled in a different manner. Those provisions are detailed in Mitigation Measure HAZ6. There are a series of construction standards that are applied under Mitigation Measure HAZ7 that describe how the building construction and how the garages need to be ventilated to ensure that any vapor that might migrate into the building from soil and groundwater would be adequately ventilated so that it doesn't build up to unhealthy levels within the building. With respect to noise, we evaluated the noise conditions in the project area currently and determined that there are two potential impacts. One would be the noise conditions within the building may be in excess of the City's standards. The mitigation measure identifies the construction standards that need to be applied, particularly for window sound transmission ratings to ensure that condition does not result. There is also a potential that the HVAC unit mounted on top of the roof could increase noise levels beyond the amount that's allowed by the City. Again, we identified performance standards that indicate a maximum allowable noise level to ensure that the project does not violate the City's standards. With respect to transportation and circulation, we found that there was one potential impact that the project could create in the existing project conditions which would be to extend the queue, the number of cars of waiting to make a left turn, into the project site from Hanson. We identified a mitigation measure that requires modifying that turn lane to accommodate additional storage. In order for that to happen, the next intersection down at Hanover would also need to be modified. Those two improvements were identified as a mitigation measure that's required of the proposed project under the existing project conditions. With respect to eh cumulative conditions, we found that there would be a significant impact in the cumulative condition related to the number of cars waiting to make a left turn at the intersection at Hanover. We found that the project itself would not contribute to those left-turn queues. That cumulative impact is something that would occur in the future but not as a result of this project. Therefore, we found that there was no need in the Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 322     TRANSCRIPT Page 46 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 cumulative condition for the project to contribute to any mitigation measures. This is just a map to reiterate for folks where those two intersections are. Intersection No. 3 is where Hanson Way provides access to the project site. That's where the existing project effect would occur, and the mitigation would be required. Intersection No. 2 is where the long-term cumulative impact would be expected to occur, but the project would not contribute to that impact. As I mentioned, we looked at project alternatives. CEQA requires that you consider alternatives that would still meet most of the project's basic objectives, but could avoid or reduce any of the project's significant impacts. With this project, we did not find any significant and unavoidable impacts. That means that even if an alternative would somewhat reduce some of the impacts, there is no obligation on the City's part under CEQA to adopt one of the alternatives. You don't have any sign and unavoidable impacts that you are trying to avoid. We did look at the no-project alternative which is required under CEQA which was to leave the buildings in place and assume that they're occupied at the baseline level that we determined. It's inherent in CEQA that you find no impacts under the no-project alternative because it's just a continuation of the existing conditions. We also looked at a reduced project alternative where we limited the square footage of the building. Assuming that the new project would be all office space, we found that the amount of office space that would generate the same amount of traffic as is generated under the baseline condition. This resulted in a somewhat smaller overall footprint of the building which slightly reduces the impacts. Air quality impacts would be slightly reduced; noise impacts would be slightly reduced. Because the proposed project doesn't have any sign and unavoidable impacts, the fact that this alternative slightly reduces those impacts does not require the City to adopt that alternative. If the project had significant and unavoidable impacts, then CEQA requires that you adopt feasible alternatives and mitigation measures to avoid those. Under the reduced project alternative, those impacts would be slightly reduced and the same set of mitigation measures would still apply. Just to wrap up. This slide summarizes the various hearings that the project has gone through. The Planning and Transportation Commission did recommend certification of the EIR. The certification under CEQA indicates that the City has reviewed the EIR, that the EIR meets CEQA's requirements to evaluate the physical and environmental effects of the proposed project. Certification would also indicate that the City agrees that the Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. CEQA requires that if you certify an EIR, you must also adopt findings of fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The mitigation program defines the timing and monitoring responsibilities of the City and the project applicant to ensure that all of the mitigation measures are implemented correctly. If the Council Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 323     TRANSCRIPT Page 47 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 certifies the EIR, you may then consider whether or not to approve the project. Ms. Gerhardt: With that, Staff is recommending certification of the Final EIR with adoption of project-specific mitigation measures that are in Attachment I of your Packet. We're recommending adoption of a Record of Land Use. Thank you. Mayor Burt: Thank you. I do not have any cards—they're over here. We have seven speakers at this time. I'd like to encourage any members of the public who wish to speak to come forward and fill out a card promptly. We'll cut it off in about five minutes. In the meantime, I'm going to encourage any members of the public who wish to speak on the topic come forward within five minutes. The applicant and the applicant's team will have up to 10 minutes to speak. I don't know if they're within the speaker cards. The applicant's team is allotted 10 minutes to make a presentation. Welcome. Public Hearing opened at 9:40 P.M. Bob Giannini, Form4 Project Architect: Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Bob Giannini; I'm the project architect. I want to give a very brief description of the architecture of the project and then turn it over to Allison Koo who will give some specifics. As was mentioned, the project is in Stanford Research Park at Hanson Way. This is the existing project, the existing building. It's apparent mass is kind of huge. It has a fairly relentless surface parking lot. When we first looked at the project, we reacted to that. The existing is a concrete mass that faces on Page Mill, really creates a wall against the street. This is a rendering of the proposed project. One of the biggest moves is to make the project much lighter and much more a part of the community, open, extroverted and become a friendlier neighbor on the street. This is the master plan of the new project. You can see here how the organization words. You'd enter the site, circulate around the perimeter, quite a bit reduced number of cars on the surface. The blue arrows lead you down into garages below the buildings. That allowed a lot of extra land on the site that we landscaped in the center. That's actually the size of two football fields in the middle. That's used as amenity space for the campus. One of the great things this project does is eliminate the through-traffic between Page Mill and California by creating an arm at the end of our site. You can only enter and exit through Page Mill. This is an image of the center of the site and how the landscape would develop and some of the pedestrian spaces. Sustainability was a big part of the project. The project is easily at Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum. We're going through the process right now; we're well over the threshold. Part of the strategy for Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 324     TRANSCRIPT Page 48 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 doing that is PVs on the roof and shading the envelope and making the envelope just as efficient as we can through the use of vertical and horizontal fins to shade the building. This allows us to have an all-glass meeting and still meet LEED Platinum. Make it a really pleasant experience for the people inside the building, because there won't be glare because it's shaded. The project also saves all the existing trees on the site. Actually it pivots right around the existing oak trees. Talking briefly about the architectural expression. One of the most obvious features about the building is the aluminum ribbon that wiggles through the building and does a couple of things. It creates the horizontal sunshade and helps link the buildings together. It's also a kind of metaphor for innovation in the Valley with the big idea of the trials and tribulations, success at the end. The ribbon actually has a little more meaning to us than just aesthetics. Another key part of the design is the notion of brining the outdoors in. That's a tradition that's always been a part of Palo Alto. We've done it here. As you go through the lobby, it's just a continuation of the site landscaping. Inside the building, we pick up some of the features from the exterior of the building. The building is completely sky lit on top. You won't need to use lights during the day. Just a couple of other points. To add interest in the project, we're introducing color in the glass fins that are at the recessed side of the entries. There will be a little bit of light effect at night, just a soft glow from the lobby coming out as indicated in this image. That's a quick overview of the project design. Happy to answer any more questions. I'd like to turn it over to Allison at this point. Allison Koo, Applicant Sand Hill Property Company: Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and fellow Council Members, thank you for your time tonight. Thank you to Staff for all their work on this project. I am Allison Koo with the project. I want to go over a few of the project highlights for you again. The project is LEED Platinum. That's something we worked very hard to achieve. The project eliminates completely vehicular traffic from our site, which was the number one concern when we met with College Terrace. The project, as indicated by the City consultant, does not create any significant or non- mitigated impacts. We are voluntarily proposing a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, which I'll get into a little bit later. We are removing contaminated soil that exists on the site, left by the previous tenant. Our project design maximizes green space and creates a great campus environment which is consistent with the Comp Plan and is compatible with the surrounding environment. I just wanted to touch more about the access issue. The image that's up there shows the access points. There's two access points on and off the site. One at the top of the page is through California and Page Mill. The one at the bottom of the page is only off and on California. That was meant for delivery and loading access. When we first started the project, we met with College Terrace residents Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 325     TRANSCRIPT Page 49 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 because we wanted to introduce ourselves, introduce the project and hear their concerns. We learned early on that access was very important to them. They had a negative experience during the Facebook era. They were worried that a project of this size would continue that impact. We took that heart and came up with a solution that we believe would work for all parties involved and would eliminate all access from our site onto California Avenue and put all that diversion away from the California Avenue residents. We believe that was a huge solution that addressed the community's concern. We're doing that to show you via a gate. That gate would only allow employees from 117 California with keycard access the ability to go across the site and onto California. As mentioned earlier, our project went through a tremendous amount of analysis. The analysis was based on a more conservative basis. As it is today, the project is standing at over 280,000 square feet of FAR. The proposed project is a decrease from the existing FAR on this site. That's because Staff put us through a huge amount of rigor trying to come up with the FAR that is appropriate given City records and City permits, when ended at the 265,000 square feet. As proposed, the project today is smaller than what is existing onsite FAR wise. We believe in TDM. We believe in the City's goals of reducing single occupancy vehicles and traffic in the area. We've come up with a very comprehensive TDM plan that we're volunteering. We are lucky enough to have a tenant who believes in TDM as well and who offers a lot of high-level TDM programs such as Caltrain passes, off-peak working hours, pre-tax dollars for transportation. On top of that, we have a lot of programmatic TDM measures that is constructed by a TDM specialist who does large campus TDM projects throughout the Bay Area including VMware. Our TDM is site-specific, and we're working hand in hand with Stanford on the Stanford Research Park TDM program. TDM to us is very important. We understand that we need to create a program that really works. We want to put this forward to have a flexible program that can change as people's needs and patterns change. The FAR issue that you've heard about this evening. Staff fully supports that this site is a non-complying facility and clearly indicated that Code 18.70.100 applies to this site. This site is not asking for any variances. We're following the Code to a “T”. We're not asking for a single foot of additional FAR on this site. As I mentioned earlier, we're reducing the FAR. Analysis of current FAR is not relevant in this discussion relating to Code Section 18.70.100 since the section grants a replacement building as a matter of right. We want to emphasize that this project has many attributes. We believe that this presents a smaller project than exists today. We have an architecturally stunning design that we're proud of. It eliminates all traffic onto California Avenue, has no significant CEQA impacts and includes a comprehensive and real TDM program. We urge you to support Staff's recommendation of certifying the EIR and following the ARB findings on the Architectural Review of the project. I have my entire team Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 326     TRANSCRIPT Page 50 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 here to answer any CEQA-related questions if you have any. I'm here to answer any other questions you may have. Thank you so much. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Now we have ten speakers from the public. Our first speaker is David Van Atta, to be followed by Stephanie Munoz. Each speaker will have up to three minutes to speak. David Van Atta: Thank you, Mayor Burt and Council Members. I'm legal counsel for the project 1050 Page Mill. I just want to emphasize a couple of things. First of all, we're reviewing the final EIR and the Architectural Review findings that were made by the ARB that came through. This project is a replacement of existing square footage that complies with the Code sections that you've talked about within the leasehold in the Stanford Research Park. We're replacing existing facilities with existing facilities and not increasing the square footage. The discussion about FAR and the Stanford campus does not have any merit with respect to this circumstance. We're talking about complying with the square footage that's already on the site. The Architectural Review provisions do not allow changing the zoning requirements, if you will, that we're entitled to under Code Section 18.70.100. When we do our Architectural Review, we do it in the context of the Code sections that provide us with the size and nature of the project that we're entitled to. Under 18.70.100, we are entitled to replace existing square footage with existing square footage. That is what our Code states. We don't want to act in contravention of our Code; we want to follow our Code. That's what we're asking the City to do in this instance. This project has been thoroughly vetted for three years through various reviews, ARB, Planning and Transportation Committee. It's an architecturally superior project with vast improvements over what is existing now. We think it is within the range of the scope of the presentations that this EIR is adequate and that the ARB findings should be supported as an environmentally superior project. We welcome your discussion and ready for questions you might have. Thank you. Mayor Burt: Mr. Van Atta, I allowed you to speak on a discretionary basis. Just for everyone's reference, your comments should be part of the applicant's team. Mr. Van Atta: Fine. Thank you. Mayor Burt: Our next speaker is Stephanie Munoz, to be followed by Tiffany Griego. Stephanie Munoz: Good evening, Mayor Burt and Council Members. It's a beautiful building at least from the pictures and certainly architecturally superior, and it's avant garde and it's probably the wave of the future. Is Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 327     TRANSCRIPT Page 51 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 that a future that you want? I've heard people saying time and time in favor of projects this is different from the other buildings on the street, and it's supposed to be compatible, but we don't want a monotonous similarity. We want some individuality here. It surprised me that anybody would want to go to bigger. The word Manhattanization started maybe 50 years. Palo Alto is Palo Alto. It is not Manhattan. Manhattan may be the forerunner of the future and may be better and more beautiful, but it's not Palo Alto. I'm particularly concerned with the fact that this is a new building. It's very costly. It's a waste of a building that's already there. It doesn't have any housing in it. This is building is saying here we are, we're larger and better. Better, I'll grant that. We were kind of looking forward from the remarks of one of the Council Members to having some housing in this part of Palo Alto. I thought it was a good idea to put some housing in there. It seems to me what they're saying is all the buildings that follow this, we're going to tear down these ordinary, mediocre buildings and put up Manhattan. I just happened to be reading a book about urban renewal. I'm looking at the pictures where urban renewal has been successful. The buildings are beautiful, but they haven't really contributed to the sense of community. They haven't really done anything except be beautiful. Thanks. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Our next speaker is Tiffany Griego, to be followed by Bob Moss. Tiffany Griego: Good evening. My name is Tiffany Griego. I'm Managing Director of the Stanford Research Park, here on behalf of Stanford University. We are the lessor of the property; we are not the applicant; we are not the developer. I wanted to clarify that. We have responded to several questions over the last three years about this project. I wanted to let you know I’m here tonight to answer any Research Park-wide questions you may have. I'm here along with two members of my team. I want to express that this is the exact kind of project we should be approving and encouraging in the Stanford Research Park. In my view it reflects innovation at every turn. It endeavors to modernize an obsolete facility without growing. The design is truly innovative. It won accolades at ARB. They haven't bragged, but it has already won multiple international awards. We just need to build it. The project sets the new standard for development in the Research Park. LEED Platinum, rooftop PVs, no natural gas hookup, voluntary TDM program. This is what I want to see more of in the Research Park. The project complies with all 19 applicable Comp Plan policies including L-42 and L-43 which favor transit, bike and ped improvements. Without this project, the existing facility falls dramatically short from the goals that we share, that are expressed in the Comp Plan. Undertaking projects like this helps us continuously attract the kinds of tenants we want. I am excited to welcome Machine Zone to the Research Park. I feel they Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 328     TRANSCRIPT Page 52 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 also reflect our shared ethos. They are a very good neighbor, and they are deeply invested in TDM. The EIR reveals that there are no significant avoidable impacts. Most importantly, I would like to thank the applicant for working closely with College Terrace all this time to address closing off the back door. In all honesty, I wish all lessees were like this in the Research Park. I firmly believe that Council tonight has the opportunity to help me encourage lessees like this to develop leading-edge projects and to continuously make an effort to embrace our shared ethos. Thank you very much. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Bob Moss to be followed by Victoria Valenzuela. Robert Moss: Thank you, Mayor Burt and Council Members. This is interesting. The applicant is saying you have to comply with 18.70 because this project has an FAR which exceeds what's allowed. The reason the FAR is about 31,000 square feet too large on one of the lots is because when the lot lines were changed and the FAR became non-compliant, the City blew it. What they're saying is we fooled you once, and now we want to fool you again. There's a saying, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I think it's very simple. Make them comply with the maximum FAR and reduce the size of the building by at least 31,000 square feet. Then we comply. The toxic mitigations are totally inadequate. EPA, if they had control over Palo Alto, would never allow the type of sampling and the groundwater ignoring that is being done on this site. They would not allow an underground garage. There have been no underground garages in the contaminated area in Mountain View for more than 25 years. That has led one of the Mountain View City Council Members to say that he's delighted he lives in Mountain View and not in Palo Alto, because he doesn't have to worry about toxic hazards as he would if he lived in Palo Alto. The fundamental requirement of City government is to protect public health and safety. This project as proposed does not adequately protect public health and safety. I've written you a letter which describes a number of the errors and omissions. If you want, we can go into more detail about some of them. The buildings are too large. The groundwater contamination is ignored. They ran samples along California Avenue, and they said they didn't find any contamination. They didn't do any sampling along Page Mill where the contamination is known to exist. What a wonderful way of checking to find out whether they have a problem. We have to stop right now, reject the project as it is, and make them come back with a properly designed, adequate project which meets all requirements. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Victoria Valenzuela to be followed by Fred Balin. Welcome. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 329     TRANSCRIPT Page 53 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Victoria Valenzuela: Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor, city Council Members. My name is Victoria Valenzuela; I'm the general counsel of Machine Zone. We are the current and future occupants of the 1050 Page Mill campus. I'm thrilled to be here and a part of this process. The project and the quality speaks for itself. I wanted to share just a few things about us as the occupant. First and foremost, Machine Zone was born in 2008 in Palo Alto, and we were raised here. We are a company that is committed to this community. When we outgrew our original Downtown headquarters, the company was focused on finding a home here. When we found the 1050 Page Mill project, we could not have been more excited. We knew it was the future; it matched us as a company, and we were working with a landlord who was committed to the community. That was all consistent with who we are. As you have heard others mention, we are extremely committed to traffic. We are a hardworking company, and we don't want our employees sitting in traffic. We are completely aligned with anything that will alleviate that. Not only do we take advantage of the Go Passes offered by Caltrain, but we've created some of our own. We offer financial assistance to employees who are willing to move within seven miles of headquarters. We do that so that they can use alternative means of transportation. We also have moved our core hours. Our company hours are from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., so that people are not sitting in peak hour traffic. We will continue to find other programs that are consistent with these measures. We think of ourselves as a good neighbor. We are a quiet company. We were committed to being a quiet company, and we want to be a quiet neighbor. We'll continue to be that way. We're a head down, hardworking company who wants to do our thing. Whatever it takes to keep our neighbors happy, fine with us because that allows us to do what we do best, innovate and create new technology. I'm happy to answer any questions on behalf of the company. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Fred Balin to be followed by Bill Ross. Welcome. Fred Balin: Good evening. Legacy industrial park site, vegetation, then a building, then more. Manufacturing, instruments, components, requiring transformers with PCB, degreasers with TCE, hazardous substances in the shop or from below via compromised down-gradient plumes or meandering channels. Buildings age, technologies change. Gutted structures incubate lights of tomorrow, then redevelopment. Integrated plans are presented. Preliminary site assessment conducted. What is known is detailed. What is not, hypothesized or blank. Mitigations and monitorings defined. What could go awry? One, how you move a transformer out and across the parking lot? Two, what you find between a plating sump, stuffed, sealed and decommissioned for a quarter century. The former chemical storage area that tested reasonably just recently. What you find between, after you Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 330     TRANSCRIPT Page 54 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 have taken up the concrete slab. Three, phasing within your project. Half a mile uphill from 1050 Page Mill, that is exactly what has happened at the Mayfield Upper California Avenue site. A 17-acre development building swiftly all last year, rests below an upper half, an open field for months. It will remain that way until remediation meets oversight agency approval and a mid-project reconfiguration returns here to meet yours. No integrated project should receive building go-ahead until all environmental assessments are complete, the public is notified so it can comment prior to agency decision, and any needed changes to the site plan returned to this body. When we turn back to this project at 1050 Page Mill Road, a reprise is already a distinct possibility. As written to and stated at the June 30th ARB hearing, the project is to be demolished and rebuilt in phases so that the current tenant, who is also the proposed future tenant, can continue on the site uninterrupted. Let's stop the potential for a jerry-rigged project after it is under way, especially on a site with hazardous materials known to be present or unaccounted for. Thank you. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Bill Ross to be followed by Jeff Levinsky. Welcome. William Ross: Good evening. I'd like to relate to two issues in the FEIR. One is the legality of the lot that is involved for the project site. This issue has been raised for over 16 months, continually before all of the administrative agencies with the response that varies by either the Staff, the applicant or the University. Initially it was indicated that the lots involved were grandfathered. In fact there are two lots. They resulted from actions under the Subdivision Map Act. Ask yourself why would the project be subject to the Subdivision Map Act in 1998 and not be subject to it now. It's not exempt. Under the plain meaning of the exemption section advanced, it would only be applicable if there were one parcel. Correcting Staff even tonight, the 1998 modification was not a lease line; that was a parcel map. When this matter came before the ARB in July 2015, the Deputy City Attorney that approved the Mayfield Development Agreement as to form, Wynne Furth, when others asked what grandfathering meant, Staff responded it's authorized in the Mayfield Development Agreement, indicated that she didn't recall that. There have been three public records requests to address what the specific authority is for the 701 parcel concept and the exemption. Why is that critical to the project description? That bears on the exact calculation of the FAR. Most recently at the Planning and Transportation Commission on November 18th the issue came up. The City Attorney at that time, 2 hours and 38 minutes into the video indicated that it resulted from an uncodified agreement in the meeting at high levels between Stanford and City officials. I would suggest that there is insufficient explanation as to why there is a legal parcel. I also think there are changed Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 331     TRANSCRIPT Page 55 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 circumstances. Quite respectfully, I would request the adequacy of both the CEQA findings and the Record Land Use decision. It's like much of the testimony before both the PTC and the ARB is omitted. On a technical issue, several of the things that normally would be in a Staff Packet weren't available online at least at 7:00 P.M. when I checked it. They are things upon which a decision is normally based. They should have been available to the public 72 hours before. I am very curious about this 1885 document that somehow legalizes the parcel. It should have been made available to the public. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Jeff Levinsky to be followed by Doria Summa. Welcome. Jeff Levinsky: Good evening, Mayor Burt and Council Members. You've already heard of many problems with this project. There's excess traffic, Sand Hill's track record of not meeting commitments, newly discovered pollutants and an inappropriate claim of grandfathering. I'm going to talk about the Subdivision Map Act issue. The 1998 parcel split that created the grandfathering problem was not approved by the City as you've heard. It actually was illegal. The State Subdivision Map Act requires that each local agency regulate and control subdivisions for which this division requires a tentative and final or parcel map. Stanford is claiming an exemption. This is the exemption they're using. It says that you're exempt when you finance or lease any parcel of land or any portion thereof if it's in conjunction with the construction of commercial or industrial buildings on a single parcel. Stanford hired an attorney who actually went ahead and explained what this meant. In her letter, which is in your Staff Report, she writes that the Subdivision Map Act by its express terms does not add another layer of review to the process. What she's implying is that there is supposed to be one layer of review, but there never was. The Staff has confirmed that it never happened. In the Staff Report for the ARB, it says that in 1999 they came for a preliminary review, the parcel had already been split. The City never had an opportunity to review it. It would have found it to be illegal. Violation of the Map Act is actually a pretty serious matter. It's up to one year in prison. I don't know who Stanford plans to send there. It's up to $10,000 in fine. It means that the parcel split in 1998 is invalid; it never happened. There is no split; it's one still leasehold or parcel. The EIR and the Staff Report have been using the wrong property description. It can be solved. Stanford should propose how it will bring things back into compliance with the City laws. Stanford has also hinted that this is not the only time this has occurred, and there are others in the Research Park. I think the City Attorney should come back and report on what these other violations are. Finally, we keep hearing from Staff that there is some secret agreement that has been discussed over the years that allows Stanford to Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 332     TRANSCRIPT Page 56 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 not have to have these things reviewed. We, the public, have yet to see this agreement. It's been totally behind closed doors. This smacks of 27 University. It's the same problem where things are not being disclosed to the public. We hope that would end. Please discuss that with Staff tonight as well. Thank you. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Doria Summa to be followed by our final speaker, Margit Arambura. Doria Summa: Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council. I want to thank everyone for all the hard work. I would like to acknowledge, as Allison Koo said, they did work with the neighborhood group. Closing the keycard gate was not the only concern from the very beginning. We had concerns about the excess FAR, namely the 31,000 approximately square feet that you've heard about. Those concerns were expressed to Staff as early as July 2014. We were also waiting for these documents to be provided that showed any kind of uncodified agreement or any kind of written agreement. I'm not sure what kind of relevance any kind of document from 1885 would have, since the City of Palo Alto was not even incorporated until 1894. I would like to thank our neighbor, Machine Zone. They have been good neighbors. That's true. We look forward to them having a nicer home for their company, but not at the expense of an illegal grandfathering act. The purpose of grandfathering in any Code is to prevent an accusation of a taking and to promote a sense of fairness when the City changes a law through ordinance and a building goes out of compliance, which had been legal when it was built. Our definition of noncompliant buildings, the new one which you just approve tonight does not say anything about when an owner of a property illegally changes a lease line that would apply to grandfathering. I'm glad to know that the 31,000 square feet that cannot be replaced would not be a deal-breaker for Machine Zone. It's a shame that this had to go on for so long with so much expense and time for all parties involved, when it could have been the fact that Staff said they would like it to be legal. The idea that anybody can move their lease lines willy-nilly whenever they want just to achieve a greater FAR on one side is a lawless and chaotic idea that we have never proceeded with in the Research Park. I can't see what advantage it would have for anybody to proceed that way in the future. Thank you very much to everyone. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Our final speaker is Margit Arambura. Margit Arambura: Thank you very much. Good evening, Council Members. I'm one of the people who have raised some of the questions to City Staff about the proposed project, particularly about the square footage of the parcel. As you know, the lease parcels in the Research Park have always Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 333     TRANSCRIPT Page 57 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 been treated like every other parcel. They have a parcel number; those parcel numbers are recorded at the County Recorder's Office; they've been used by Staff to evaluate proposals regarding FAR, setbacks, etc. Regarding the grandfathering clause, I'm concerned that it's being used inappropriately. In March 1980, the City Council approved the construction of the office building at 1050 Page Mill Road to the original leaseholder. Part of the approval required that the original two parcels, which were a different shape than the two that are there now, be merged. The City Council took the steps to approve that change. At that time, the City clarified that the development on the leasehold was maxed out at 0.400 FAR. Eighteen years later in 1998, the ground lease was split and created two lease parcels. One was conforming and actually had extra space on it, which the City allowed a second building to be built on, and one non-conforming. This was done by the tenant. Stanford apparently knew about it, because they are the underlying landowner. In 2013/14 the leasehold changed hands and the current applicant came up with a proposal for the site. They requested the replacement of 285,000 square feet of existing structures with a grandfather clause as a reason for allowing that much square footage. That exceeded the amount that the City approved on the site. That's the 265,000 that they've now reduced the project to. I have two recommendations. The application for replacement square footage under the grandfather clause be denied. New development on the lease parcel created in 1998 conform to current Code standards and requirements including the FAR. Thank you. Mayor Burt: Thank you. At this time, we return to the Staff and the Council. Does the Staff have any additional—I'm sorry. The applicant has three minutes to do a wrap-up. Ms. Koo: I just wanted to go over a couple of the topics that were touched on. Relating to groundwater again. This site is not part of the COE study site. Even though we do excavate on the site to 14 feet—even in the COE areas, you don't find the plume until 30-35 feet underground. We're way above that with one level of underground parking. We have a vapor barrier installed. With vapor barriers, if you find any vapors, the ventilation in the underground garage creates another layer of security for the inhabitants of the building. You've got a vapor barrier plus an underground garage that serves as extra ventilation for any theoretical vapors that arise. That level is too low to his any vapors. In regards to phasing, it's misleading to call it phasing. It's going to be one sequential process. It's not going to be a start and stop. We have a tenant in the building; we have to keep them in play. There will be no stoppage between the project; it will be a continuous sequence of events. The 117 California, I think it was said that there was no City review on that. That project also went through a full City review process. At that time, all of that analysis. The important thing to note is Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 334     TRANSCRIPT Page 58 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 that both projects, after all the analysis, show that there are no levels of significant impact that prevented the projects from occurring. We're talking about projects that fit in the context of the site. Mr. Giannini: Just one point in dealing with the maps and the parcels and the Subdivision Map Act, when you look at the Subdivision Map Act, it's very clear that when you're ground leasing commercial property for the purposes of construction and development, the Subdivision Map Act does not apply, and the property is exempt. The people from Stanford are here that can give you much more elaboration. You have to understand the difference between separate leaseholds and subdivision parcels. The Stanford property is exempt. Public Hearing closed at 10:24 P.M. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Does Staff have any follow-up comments? Ms. Gitelman: Thank you, Mayor Burt. On the hazardous materials issues that have been raised, you have in your packet a January 8th letter for Stanford. There are also mitigation measures in the EIR that Katherine can speak to further if necessary. One of the speakers suggested that there was some kind of secret agreement. What we have been talking about as Staff is clearly articulated in the Staff Report, which is a current and past practice to treat this lease lines like parcel lines when reviewing for zoning conformance. We have what we believe is a grandfathered facility. That section of the Code is clearly operable; although, it's caused by this lease line and subsequent development of the property facing on California Avenue, not by a rezoning. The buildings we're talking about replacing on this site were conforming when constructed. That gets to the whole suggestion that this is Manhattanization or somehow completely out of context. We really have to step back and think. We're talking about replacing existing square footage in a fully developed area that was intended for the purpose that it's being proposed for right now. If you had any further questions about the mitigation measures that we've recommend as conditions of approval or about the Map Act applicability, I'm sure others can respond to those. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Why don't we return to the Council for a quick round of questions, not comments. We'll come back and have comments and motions. First up is Council Member Schmid. Council Member Schmid: (inaudible). Mayor Burt: We'll get you later on that. Council Member Kniss. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 335     TRANSCRIPT Page 59 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Council Member Kniss: I will make this quick. We've heard a great deal about looking at this as a parcel, the 700 square feet we've been talking about that are in the Research Park. As we look at the other companies that are there, have they used this same method of calculation that we have talked about tonight, where it's part of a greater parcel rather than an individual parcel? Ms. Gitelman: If your question is whether other leaseholds in the park are organized around lease lines rather than parcel lines, the answer is yes. Council Member Kniss: Thank you. This would not be setting any precedent, correct? Thanks. Mayor Burt: Council Member Filseth. Council Member Filseth: Thanks. I have three questions on zoning and a couple on the traffic study. I'll start with the easiest one. There was some discussion in the Committee about whether 100 percent office use is actually authorized under the zoning in the Research Park. Is that legal? Ms. Gitelman: Yes, office use is a permitted use in the park. There's no restriction on the percentage. Council Member Filseth: Is it currently legal to move a lease line in the Research Park such that an existing structure becomes non-complying? Ms. Gitelman: If that were to happen again, we would catch it. We have reached an agreement with Stanford to ensure that we get on an annual basis a report that would make doubly sure we would catch it. In this case, back in 1999 or whenever, we should have caught it when the lease line was put in, which was around the same time the building fronting on California was in our planning office for review. It should have been caught. Council Member Filseth: There a lot of good things to like about this project. The whole thing shifts on the grandfathering. If it's a legal, non-complying, then it should be grandfathered. Mayor Burt: Are we getting into comments? Council Member Filseth: I'm trying to get to question. In this case it seems like it's not legal. Either moving the lease line such that an existing building become non-complying or building the 31,000-square-foot building on the other side, one or the other of those must have been wrong. How can they both have been okay? Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 336     TRANSCRIPT Page 60 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Ms. Gitelman: I'll hand this off to Cara in a second. I want to make it clear that the buildings that we're talking about replacing were legal when they were constructed. Those are legal and non-complying structures because of subsequent actions to make the lease line and to build on the opposite side of that lease line. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Thank you. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney. I think we have three different levels of applicable regulations. We have the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code treats the parcel technically as a whole, the 700-acre parcel as a whole. We have a series of development agreement conditions. The Mayfield Development Agreement does treat pieces of the Research Park as lease lines, but only if the applicant is adding bonus square footage under the Mayfield Agreement. Council Member Filseth: That was after this anyway. Ms. Silver: That's true. We have a third set of guidelines. That is the informal practice of the parties. From what we have reviewed, the informal practice has been to treat the site boundaries as lease lines. That's not necessarily an enforceable practice, but it is something that both parties have adhered to. Council Member Filseth: Is it the position of Staff that in 1998 and 1999 both the movement of the lease line and the construction of the 31,000- square-foot building were legal? Ms. Silver: I think it complied with the Zoning Code. It did not comply with this protocol that the parties had followed. If the parties were aware of it, both sides say now that they would not have participated in that way. Council Member Filseth: You believe that it did comply with our zoning at that time? Ms. Silver: Yes. Council Member Filseth: I have a couple of questions about the EIR. The traffic study says there will be 663 new car trips a day but no significant impact. There are two intersections at which the impact will be 3.9 seconds of new delay while the threshold for impact is 4.0 seconds. Is that right? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. Council Member Filseth: There are also two intersections where it says the volume to capacity increase, if it's over 0.01, then there's an impact. There Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 337     TRANSCRIPT Page 61 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 are two where it is over 0.01. In fact one of them is over 0.01 by ten times. Why is there no impact? Ms. Gitelman: While Katherine is looking that up, that significance threshold has an "and" between it. It has to be both more than 4 seconds and exceed the volume to capacity threshold articulated by the VTA. Ms. Waugh: That's exactly what I wanted to look up, to make sure it has that "and." Council Member Filseth: For an impact, it requires both. How do we evaluate the next time somebody puts a building next door? If we put up a hotdog cart, it's probably going to add another 0.1 second. The next building that goes along the lines, isn't it going to be over the 4 seconds or does the clock start over? Ms. Waugh: That goes back to the discussion I started with, in terms of how we look at project impacts versus cumulative impacts. This threshold applies to the individual project, one by one. You look at one project, whether it meets this threshold. When you want to look at how the next building and the next building or the hot dog cart affect it, that's when you look at the entire cumulative scenario. When you look at the cumulative scenario, you've added in all of those buildings and hotdog carts. We're only looking, under CEQA, to see whether the project you're considering tips those scales one by one. Council Member Filseth: The next project that comes along, if it came in at 3.9 seconds delay, that would also be okay? Ms. Waugh: Correct. Under these thresholds, that would not be a significant impact. We do look at the cumulative scenarios so that you can understand where those long-term impacts would occur. Council Member Filseth: Where do we look at the cumulative scenario? Ms. Waugh: It's in the cumulative analysis. That's how we identified that there would be a significant impact under the cumulative scenario at the second intersection. This project before you tonight does not contribute substantially to that impact. The City's other mechanisms for collecting traffic impact fees would apply, but there's no individual impact that would require mitigation under CEQA. Mayor Burt: Vice Mayor Scharff. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 338     TRANSCRIPT Page 62 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Vice Mayor Scharff: I noticed that there's a discussion on packet page 550, a short thing. It says bicycle paths. The project provides extensive bicycle paths on its site and to other sites to encourage use of bicycles rather than single occupant vehicles. Where do those bicycle paths go? Ms. Waugh: The bicycle paths are to provide circulation within the site, to make it feasible for folks to bike to work and get to the building they work in. They're not offsite bicycle paths, just connecting. Vice Mayor Scharff: They're onsite bicycle paths. Do they exist as actual bicycle paths that are separate from a pedestrian walkway? Ms. Gerhardt: They're extended sidewalks for pedestrians and bicycles. Vice Mayor Scharff: They're on the sidewalk. Ms. Gerhardt: Interior to the site, yes. Vice Mayor Scharff: In the Staff Report, there's a discussion of this spine road. It talks a little bit about that Staff preserved the opportunity—packet page 537—for a bike and pedestrian path that would preserve the potential for east-west pedestrian and bicycle circulation throughout the site. That's a separate area than the bike paths that are talked about? Ms. Gerhardt: You'll see in the rear building, Building 3, the front side of that, there is a pathway that goes in front of Building 3. That is the bike/pedestrian connection that we're talking about, that could be used for pedestrians to go through the site and potential go onto other sites. Vice Mayor Scharff: Is there any potential right now to go onto other sites? Ms. Gerhardt: There are not legal easements that would be required to do that, but you could physically do it. Vice Mayor Scharff: When the next site is redeveloped, which would be the site adjacent to this, where you'd want those easements. Are we going to have any ability to have that occur? I don't see anything in here that says the leaseholder shall grant an easement or anything like that. Ms. Gerhardt: I think that's a further discussion with the property owner. At this time, we don't have significant impacts that would require such an easement. We don't have policies that would require such an easement. Vice Mayor Scharff: Could I ask Ms. Koo a question? Ms. Koo, I heard from Machine Zone saying how happy they were to have the TDM programs. I heard you talking about how important the TDM and you were voluntarily Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 339     TRANSCRIPT Page 63 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 doing this. Right now if we had that bicycle path, it would go to nowhere. That's the way it seems to me. If there did become an opportunity in which it would go somewhere, because the property adjacent would be developed, I don't see anything in here that would allow us to put an obligation from you or Sand Hill Properties to say that would make sense. I would ask you whether or not you'd be willing to add that as a voluntary condition. Should that become available, we can put a bicycle path through there. Ms. Koo: I would like to answer your question in two parts. I want to clarify my understanding of the spine of the road. The spine road and its incarnation related to creating a pathway that took truck access off California Avenue or Page Mill and created that. It wasn't related to bike access, from my understanding. Vice Mayor Scharff: The Staff Report talks about preserving it for pedestrian and bike access. Ms. Koo: As it relates to bike and pedestrian access, we've designed it so that there's great access for bikes and pedestrians on the site. I am a ground lessee. I don't actually own the property. I actually can't grant easements. Vice Mayor Scharff: You could grant them for the length of your lease. Ms. Koo: I can't. All land-related rights and things like that ... Vice Mayor Scharff: You could grant a use permit, a permit to go through the property. Ms. Koo: I think it's a security issue that we would have to discuss with the tenant in terms of having non-employees on the site. Our site is designed to create ease of flow by pedestrians and bikes. If there were a situation occurred consistent with the overall are, we would be open to participating in that. I can't grant that sort of easement. It also has to not pose security and other concerns for the tenants on the site. Vice Mayor Scharff: While I have you up there, there were several discussions about providing Go Passes. I gather it was the intention that part of the TDM plan would have Go Passes. Ms. Koo: Absolutely. Vice Mayor Scharff: I didn't see that. I just saw it at the discretion of the ... Ms. Koo: Our TDM is very comprehensive. It's professionally done by one of the top TDM consultants in the area. It's not just thrown together. It's Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 340     TRANSCRIPT Page 64 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 very thorough, thought through, puts together the most effective measures for different sites. We will work as changes demand, uses change, we love to keep that flexible. That's why Stanford is engaging in the Research Park- wide TDM program that we're participating in, so that we can work together to make sure all measures work together. Vice Mayor Scharff: I wanted to ask our consultant. When you did the trip generation, did the EIR take into consider the voluntary TDM program or not? Ms. Waugh: We did not. We took it at the base level of what it would generate without a TDM. Vice Mayor Scharff: Hopefully we would have 20 percent, 30 percent less trips. When we talked about 600 and some trips, hopefully we would get rid of 200 of those. 150, I don't know. What's our experience on that? Ms. Gitelman: Usually 20 percent in an area that doesn't have extensive transit service. Maybe, hopefully a little more. Vice Mayor Scharff: It's be 120 trips roughly, 130. Thank you. Mayor Burt: Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Wolbach: A lot of my questions have been answered. We're still on the questions, correct? Mayor Burt: That's right. Council Member Wolbach: A question for Staff about what's allowed on the site according to our zoning. Would an entirely residential or mixed-use including residential option be allowable under our zoning? Ms. Gitelman: I think residential uses in the Research Park as a rule are allowed with a use permit. Jodie's checking the ordinance. Council Member Wolbach: I think my other questions have been significantly addressed. Mayor Burt: Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: I think the architecture is really beautiful. It's a really handsome project. I'm not clear on this. I don't understand if there is a document that existed that created a 700-acre single parcel. Why hasn't that been provided to anybody? Why has it never come up in the past and why is it not considered in our Zoning Code, which describes lots and sites Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 341     TRANSCRIPT Page 65 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 as specific square feet? I'm baffled as to where this has come from and how it's never come up before and there hasn't been any documentation provided that supports it. Can Staff respond to those please? Ms. Gitelman: Council Member Holman, all of us have been struggling to get our arms around this issue and understand it. I can't answer why it hasn’t come up before. In theory it should have come up in 1999 and 2000 when this lease line that Council Member Filseth referred to was drawn and the adjacent building on California was constructed. We do know that the Research Park as a whole is about 700 acres. Jodie referred to this historical document of documenting Stanford lands back in the 19th century. I don't know that that's relevant to any discussions we're having today. We understand the Research Park to be generally one parcel divided by these commercial lease lines. It's become an issue with this project because of the anomaly that we've discussed. The lease line that was drawn in 1999 created a non-conforming situation on the parcel that is proposed for redevelopment tonight. More than that, I'm not sure I can add. Council Member Holman: It's important of course because of the legal, non- conforming. There seems to be conflicting information. It looks like from some information provided to us that the parcel line adjustment was done in 1998. That created a non-conformancy. In 1999 an additional building was constructed, and that made the larger parcel have .45 on it and still non- conforming. How could it be legal, non-conforming—I'm still not clear why this is legal, non-conforming when no Zoning Code changed. That constitutes legal non-conforming, when zoning is applied or changes. I don't seem to have an answer to that. Ms. Gerhardt: I think we have two ways of looking at this property. We have either the 700 acres, which is the legal parcel. Under that scenario, the 700 acres is allowed 11.2 million square feet. As best we know, there's only 10.2 million square feet existing. They have an additional 1 million that they can construct in the Research Park on that 700 acres. If you look at it that way, they are in conformance with the Code. If you look at it as we have in past practice, just looking at the lease line itself, you're looking at the 13.5 acres. They are legal non-conforming by the Code Section 18.70.100. Those buildings were legally constructed prior to 1989; therefore, they can be replaced. Council Member Holman: Isn't it akin to saying I have a house on my property that is 0.50 FAR. Let's do it this way. Let's say it's 0.45 FAR which is 4,000 square feet. I'll make up numbers here. It's legal, but then I subdivide and sell part of my property to somebody else. I've created my own encumbrance, so it doesn't become legal and non-conforming. I've Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 342     TRANSCRIPT Page 66 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 created the non-conformancy by dividing my property. How is that legal? We're talking about a parcel line adjustment as opposed to a lot subdivision, but it seems the same thing to me. How is it different? Ms. Silver: You've reached the nub of the issue. We have struggled with issue ourselves. We see both sides of it. The Council can disagree with us. Based on all of the circumstances here, the fact that—Stanford was the one who entered into the lease and created the lease parcel. The City had knowledge of that at the time. The City approved the buildings. We believe that that is an action that is akin to zoning type of action. The Code also references an annexation, which references some type of City involvement. That's really the nub of the issue. It is a close call. Council Member Holman: Following that line of thinking—sorry for the questions, but it is the crux of this matter before us. If the City knows that that is happening but doesn't catch that something illegal is happening. If I also build on my property, I'm allowed a 3,000-square-foot house, but I add 1,000 square feet to it. If the City subsequently finds out that they've made an error in allowing that extra 1,000 square feet, they can make me take it down. I'm having a hard time following how the City knowing about it makes it okay. Mayor Burt: Is that a statement or a question? Council Member Holman: A question. I'm trying to understand why this is different than the scenario I just put forward. Ms. Silver: The way we analyze it, as Jodie mentioned, under the Zoning Code, which is the operative document here, it is technically a single, 700- acre parcel. Council Member Holman: The spine road, there's no real description of it in the Staff Report. I can't tell if there was anything that other entities used to consider how that might be an improved circulation. Was that provided to other entities? It hasn't been provided to us. It doesn't indicate what the spine road would be in the site plans that we've seen or anything in the Staff Report. Was that provided to other entities for consideration? A lot of people won't know what a spine road is. Ms. Gitelman: I'm sorry, Council Member Holman. Maybe I don't understand. We raised the spine road as an issue in the Staff Report because it was raised to us. We concluded that it is not necessary to have a road through the site to respond to any circulation impacts. We did talk in the Staff Report about the desire to create pedestrian and bicycle access Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 343     TRANSCRIPT Page 67 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 through the site. That's the extent to which it's been considered and addressed in the site plan and analysis we've done. Council Member Holman: The EIR determines that there's a potential for significant noise impacts. As best I can tell, the HVAC units are on the roof. Was there any consideration of putting those HVAC units inside as opposed to on the roof? It talks about significant impact. It talks about raising the ambient level. Could these HVAC units not be put inside as many times they can? Ms. Gerhardt: HVAC units could certainly be put inside, but it is standard construction that they are put on the roof and that a screen is put around them. During the building stage, we will certainly require either spec sheets for that mechanical equipment or a noise report. We will ensure that this project meets the City's noise standards at the building stage. Council Member Holman: It says amenity space could be a reduction. I could not find anything that indicated what the amenity space was or what was allocated to what amenity spaces. Is that available somewhere and I just didn't find it? Ms. Gerhardt: There is in the conditions of approval a minimum of 10,745 square feet of amenity. That's put in there as a minimum because it is not counted towards FAR and it is not counted towards parking. That 10,000 square feet does not have parking associated with it, which is why there is a minimum number. It doesn't prevent the applicant from doing more amenity space. The details of that will be looked at during the building review. Council Member Holman: My question was the 10,400 square feet or whatever it is of amenity space, because it's discretionary approval by the Director, is it 4,000 square feet for cafeteria, 2,000 square feet for dry cleaning, 5,000 square feet for a workout facility. The Council may not think that all of those things apply or should be approved. That's my question. Ms. Gerhardt: The applicant had original proposed closet to 20,000 square feet. Given the size of the existing structures, the Director did not feel that we could justify that amount of amenity space. Out of that 20,000, there was approximately 15,000 for food service, about 2,500 for fitness. Council Member Holman: Is that somewhere that we can find it? Ms. Gerhardt: No. This is in my file, but these are going to change—they could change over time. We don't have a finalization of what that amenity space is going to be used for. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 344     TRANSCRIPT Page 68 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Council Member Holman: That doesn't help the Council determine what things should or shouldn't be allowed. In the EIR, having to do with transportation, there are five projects listed when looking at cumulative impacts. There are all kinds of projects that aren't included. Stanford Hospital being the predominant one that isn't included, that's been approved but not built. El Camino and Page Mill was one of the intersections that was studied as part of that. Stanford Hospital, 3045 Park Boulevard, 2180 El Camino, 1450 Page Mill, these are just ones I know of it, 441 Page Mill Road, the Mike's Bikes site, the Footlocker site. None of those are addressed in the FEIR in terms of cumulative impacts. Ms. Waugh: The cumulative impact analysis takes the City's traffic model, which already incorporates a lot of the projects that have been approved. The additional ones that we named had to be added manually to the model to account for those additional approvals. Ms. Gitelman: Let me amplify on that a little bit. CEQA allows cumulative impacts to be done in two different ways. You can do it based on a list of projects you know about or you can do it based on projections. We used a blend of those. We have a model that includes projected growth in traffic volumes over time. We used that model and added any projects that were not already inherent in those growth projections. We have fully considered the cumulative impacts of all projects that you mentioned in one of those two ways, either by their incorporation in the travel forecast model or by manually adding them. Mayor Burt: Council Member Berman. Council Member Berman: Thank you. On packet page 536, report page 7, it talks about how Staff does not believe it authorizes a collective building area in the Research Park to exceed the floor area ratio for the entire 700-acre site. Has Stanford agreed to that position? This would all count under their 11 million. Ms. Gitelman: Yes. We received a letter from Stanford that, I believe, was forward to you today, clearly stating their agreement to this process of annually monitoring and providing the City with data on the FAR of all the leaseholds so that we can ensure the anomaly of '98 or '99 will not occur again. Council Member Berman: I might have just missed that email. I'll check after the meeting. I'm asking Staff if I'm interpreting this correctly. There seem to be two ways to determine whether or not this legal conforming or legal non-conforming. One is the Zoning Code, which says it's a 700-acre parcel. My interpretation is this is just legal conforming. Is that correct? All Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 345     TRANSCRIPT Page 69 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Staff is nodding their heads, so yes. There's this informal agreement we have with Stanford. It could be considered legal non-conforming or some might interpret it as illegal non-conforming. Under the Zoning Code, it is legal. Is that Staff's interpretation? Thank you. Mayor Burt: First I have questions on the hazardous materials issues. There were questions raised about whether there is adequate sampling and then monitoring. First, whether sampling would be done along the Page Mill face of the project and whether that needs to be done, also whether sampling for PCBs will be adequately addressed. Can you provide any information on that? Ms. Waugh: In the EIR, we refer to a Phase 1 environmental site assessment and a limited Phase 2 investigation. Both of those involved sampling. There are maps in both of those reports that show where the sampling occurred. There was sampling on the end of the property closer to Page Mill including in the location of the former transformers that could have left PCBs. Mayor Burt: The sampling covers both TCE and PCB? Ms. Waugh: Correct. There's soil and vapor sampling and groundwater sampling. Mayor Burt: The applicant said because they're lessees they can't grant an easement for a perspective bikeway spine at the rear of the property. What would be the process by which that could be built into this approval if possible? Ms. Griego: Good evening, Tiffany Griego from Stanford. May I first get clear on what your vision is for where this would lay out? Did you say east- west? Mayor Burt: I should be looking at the larger map. I hadn't looked at how this has been discussed in relation to the parcels that run the balance of the way toward El Camino and how you'd split those parcels. Ms. Griego: I think you're talking about what we have historically heard College Terrace refer to as the spine road. Mayor Burt: Right. More recently, there's been consideration of it being a bicycle spine if not a vehicle spine. Ms. Griego: We have not looked at that on a comprehensive level. I think the City has not studied a bike/ped spine there. There is not a notion yet in Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 346     TRANSCRIPT Page 70 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 play. Right now, lease lines just back up to each other. There's nothing to connect to today if they were to issue a license to the public to cross that direction on the site. As we think about the future, maybe we could think about something more comprehensive. Mayor Burt: As of today, most of those parking lots are open to one another. Ms. Griego: I think there's some fencing as well that would need to be taken down in order to create that series of connectivity. I think the notion is to improve access in and around the site so that bicyclists can come down California Avenue, presumably from the Caltrain station, cross over by virtue of an existing access agreement at 1117 Cal, and then again access to this site as an employee. That's been the main driver. Mayor Burt: Vice Mayor Scharff has a follow-up question. Vice Mayor Scharff: Stanford may decide this makes senses. My only real concern is that you come to us and say, "This would make sense. Be happy to do it." We now have a lease that goes to whenever. We can't now impose this upon Sand Hill Properties because of that. I wanted to build in, if possible, some flexibility that, if Stanford at that time thought it was a good idea to have that spine road in there, the lease doesn't stand in the way. The way that occurs is there's some condition of approval that, if you guys want to do that, then it goes forward. That's really my concern. I don't know how long the lease is with Sand Hill. After they build this property, if the lease is 20 or 30 years or 40 years, this doesn't happen for 30 or 40 years. We foreclose that opportunity. I would like to see a condition of approval that gives some flexibility to Stanford to allow this to occur as we move forward towards a more pedestrian and bike friendly approach. Ms. Griego: It sounds like an if/then statement to some extent. It definitely needs to be tied in with an overall strategy as to how we approach those other lessees who have equally long terms. In order to implement something like this, it involves a broad vision and a sense of partnership among all the lessees. This may be something we could consider. Mayor Burt: The concern is we need to have a reserve in this project to keep open that possibility, whether it's a landscape buffer that we have an agreement with Stanford and the lessee that should there be a future agreement on such a spine, this space at the rear would be available for it. We're not conceiving of making a decision at this time that it necessarily would, but we don't want to preclude it. We're asking how could we accomplish that. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 347     TRANSCRIPT Page 71 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Ms. Griego: I felt like I heard Allison say if there were a linkage to other network opportunities, they would be open to it. You're getting agreement that they would be open to it. Mayor Burt: I think I'm hearing that we might be able to put in a reserve area that would be a landscape buffer until such time as there may be a bike spine agreed to. I'll leave it at that. We probably have that ability to put that as a condition of approval ourselves. Ms. Griego: I definitely understand what you're bringing up as a concept. I haven't seen the idea laid out physically on the map, but it makes sense as a concept. Definitely support the idea of improving bike/ped access. Mayor Burt: The other thing on the trip impacts—actually I may need Allison for that one too. We have a voluntary TDM program that sounds pretty extensive, but is not part of the EIR because it's voluntary. Is that right? Ms. Gerhardt: It's not part of the EIR, but it is a condition of approval. Mayor Burt: If it is a condition of approval, why wasn't it included in the EIR impacts? Ms. Waugh: When we started to work on the analysis, I don't think the TDM was a commitment on the project's behalf at that time. We evaluated the project with no TDM and found that there aren't impacts. Under CEQA, we can't require it as a mitigation measure. Through your conditions of approval, you can require it that way. CEQA doesn't ... Mayor Burt: Even if you couldn't require it, it would be part of the impact analysis. Do you know with the TDM measures how many of these other non-significant impacts of traffic are reduced or eliminated as a result of the TDM program? These very things that we had colleagues concerned about are impacts absent the TDM. If the TDM is now a condition of approval, then that changes that. Ms. Waugh: We did not do analysis to determine specifically—if we have a 3.9 second delay under the existing-plus project, how much better would it be, how much shorter of a delay would that be. Mayor Burt: How about this at a high level? Absent the TDM program, there were 663 car trips per day resulting from the project. Do we know how many of those would be taken away as a result of the TDM program or does the applicant know that? We appreciate that a TDM program is what would happen by design. That's not quite the same thing as having this absolute calculation. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 348     TRANSCRIPT Page 72 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Ms. Gitelman: We could certainly ask the applicant's TDM designer to answer that question. When Vice Mayor Scharff had his back-of-the- envelope out, we calculated about 20 percent reduction from the 600-plus trips. That wouldn't be an unsurprising result ... Mayor Burt: Are the 600 trips the total trips or the net increase? Ms. Gitelman: That's peak. Mayor Burt: Net increase or total? Ms. Gitelman: It's total. I should amplify what ... Mayor Burt: Hillary, I think it's total, not net increase. Ms. Gitelman: They're going to get the answer to you. Mayor Burt: 20 percent of the total is around the 600. Ms. Gerhardt: The 663 is the net project trips over the entire day; 81 trips would be the P.M. peak increase. Mayor Burt: When you say net, that's the net increase? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Mayor Burt: Here's what I'm trying to focus on. You have 3,000-and- change total trips from the project. Correct? 20 percent reduction from the TDM is not 20 percent of 600. It's 20 percent of 3,000. Correct? How does that track to the net increase of trips? It sounds like it's real close. That's what matters on this. We're looking at a project, and it's about impacts. Ms. Gerhardt: The total proposed trips would be 3,144; 20 percent of that is 629, which is very close to the 663 new trips. Mayor Burt: Thanks. That matters a bunch. I want to ask about the landscaping. There's talk about it being sustainable. I was looking through the plant list, and it didn't appear that these are predominantly native landscape. I saw some of the pictures. It looks like there's turf there. Do you know what this landscaping really—other than being in general apparently a low-water landscape, is it actually natural habitat that we're going to create, which is not yet in our Code but very much a direction that we've been talking? Council Member Holman and I have expressed this, and it's going to be part of our Comp Plan discussion, but it's not yet adopted. Does the applicant have that information? If so, please go ahead. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 349     TRANSCRIPT Page 73 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Mr. Giannini: We don't have our landscape architect here, but I can talk about the subject. The project does use sustainable landscape. We've worked closely with Dave Dockter, who's the urban forestry consultant here at the City. He used this project and an adjacent project we did at 1400 Page Mill as examples, where he's shown other people in the City to come through. I don't have the specific, but I know that from the City's point of view, they consider the selection of plant material and low-water use of the plant material exemplary. Mayor Burt: That's the distinction. There's low-water landscaping that is not at all indigenous vegetation and doesn’t really contribute substantially to habitat. That's the distinction. We can have zero scape landscaping that is not beneficial as habitat or we could have zero scape landscaping or sustainable landscaping that is. It doesn't sound like anyone here has the answer to those questions. Let me ask this. If we had as a condition of approval that it not only be sustainable in the sense of low water use, but that it have a predominant element of being sustainable in terms of natural habitat using indigenous, low-water-use plants predominantly, would that be a problem to add that as a condition? It's not the specific plant list we have. Is that something that would be within our discretion tonight? Ms. Gitelman: It certainly sounds fine to us. I suggest we ask the applicant whether they'd agree to that condition, and we can find a place to put it in these conditions. Mayor Burt: Thanks. Council Member Kniss. No? Council Member Kniss: (inaudible) me already. Mayor Burt: These have been helpful questions. We are now at 11:15. We need to move on to comments and motions. If we have a whole bunch of comments and no motions, we might be here a very long time. I want to encourage everybody to focus on an outcome. Council Member Schmid. Council Member Schmid: I had a general problem with this. There's volumes of data, many of which came in late. I had trouble trying to reach the point of saying I can make an informed decision. I think that's where I am. Let me outline my thought process in going through and where I ran into troubles finding information. I ended up looking at just one issue, the issue of traffic. The reason I started with traffic is because our Citizen Survey has clearly identified that as one of the troubling issues for the citizens of Palo Alto. It is essential to Palo Alto's role in Silicon Valley, a role that is based upon mobility of jobs and people. It benefits both Palo Alto and Stanford equally. Further, the issue was brought up a number of times that there's a million square feet to be developed in the Research Park. The Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 350     TRANSCRIPT Page 74 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 process we go through on traffic for this project in the EIR is probably going to be what we go through elsewhere. I was trying to understand the data, the information, that is available and needed to make an intelligent decision. I want to bring up four issues, and they're interrelated. They're not questions along the way, but there's a set of four. I started with Dudek. We had two Dudek reports, one for 1050 and one for 2555 done nine months ago. The two reports in their cumulative analysis identified six intersections relevant to this project that would be at an F rating, basically from I-280 and Page Mill through Oregon and Middlefield with El Camino and Grant fit in. The first question I had is does that mean we don't do any more development if we have "F" ratings in the center of our town. What signal does that tell us about this project and other projects. As a footnote, I noted that El Camino and Page Mill in the earlier project was "F" by Dudek, but in this project it's an "E." A surprising change, given the fact we have approved several projects over the time of that. Each one of the projects we go through, whether it's these two or, I think, there have been four others we discussed in that general area, we come to the conclusion there's no significant impact. It seems as though we go through the next 1 million square feet, we will have no significant impact. I wanted to ask what's going on. I took the Dudek report that was available to us, under the references transportation and traffic. There they mention the VTA Long Range Transportation Plan, the MTC Plan Bay Area, the ITE Trip Generation Manual. I went to those sources to help me see if they could explain why there's no significant impact. You start with the traffic analysis impact model. Palo Alto model based on the VTA information that come to us. The background data used in those modeling process is the Plan Bay Area. Plan Bay Area, that says there's going to be 640,000 new residents in Santa Clara County over the next 25, 30 years, 30,000 new jobs, increase of between 1 and 1.4 percent per year over that time. This is the background information that comes and says these intersections will be at F level, but it's not because of any single project in Palo Alto As a matter of fact, this background information is so significant any single project in Palo Alto is small. We can point our finger; it's happening elsewhere. Someone else is doing this to us. If you look at the data, Palo Alto has the highest jobs to employed residents of any neighboring community, 3:1. As a matter of fact, it's in the top four or five of the country of cities. The other names in there are like Washington, DC and Manhattan. We can't point our finger somewhere else. It's us who's at the center of this. I'm trying to understand if we're at the center and we have all these "F" intersection, how can we keep saying there's no significant impact. I took a step further and said what does the ITE Manual tell us. I guess first there's the traffic baseline that Dudek used. There were periods of time over the last 2-3 years where there's a lot of vacancies in the property. Dudek said let's not use the vacancies to measure the baseline; let's assume that they were filled during that time Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 351     TRANSCRIPT Page 75 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 period. They used that as the baseline, assuming a full project, and then asked how many jobs or people would be added and came to about 30 percent. That was the difference between R&D use, manufacturing use and office use. You got a 30 percent increase. If you look at parking places, there were 536 parking places at the old site. There will be 887 at the new. That's an increase of about 65 percent. It's not 30 percent; it's 65 percent, twice as high. Why? You go back and look at why are they doing this project. Part of the reason they're doing the project, it was underparked and, therefore, wasn't returning the economic rate it could. Remember the Facebook. When Facebook came in, they used the parking lots, and then they filled up College Terrace. Part of the issue here is let's cut off College Terrace. Let's park this fully. Parking it fully means that the Page Mill side gets twice the estimate that you have been making. There's a decided underestimate of the traffic created. Next stage was to go to the ITE. How do you measure trip generation? You use the ITE. I tried to go to the manual. They said, "You can get the manual. You but it $900, $1,000." I said, "No thanks. I'll look at the ITE Journal." They say, "You can get an article out of there for $5 each." I guess looked at one of them and that was enough. What does the ITE Manual—how do they get their rates of usage? Everything is based on the ITE Manual. I looked through the internet. Spent an afternoon, a day, looked at the internet. Who uses the ITE? How effective is it? It's funny. The usage ends up showing the type of urban environment that it's most useful and tends to give good results. Bend, Oregon, Dover, New Hampshire, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, South Daytona Beach, Cary, North Carolina, Sioux City, Sugarland. Are these places like Palo Alto? Are they good measures of what's going on? I finally found someone who says here's the data that comes out of it, here's how they do their estimates. About 5,000 examples collected over the last 40 years, primarily suburban areas. There are some examples of mixed-use areas. Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles, Sutter Street in San Francisco. They were looking specifically at mixed-use areas, and the data fits in well there. What is the spectrum of data that comes out of the ITE Manual? They get 11 trips per 1,000 square feet for office space. The range on their experience is from 3.6 to 28.8, standard deviation of 6. Where does our Research Park fit in compared to those types of communities that are using it effectively? As one academic concluded, careful with these numbers, they are only estimates. If you have any questions or doubt, do your own and check on them. Where do I end up? I'm saying I find it hard to make an informed judgment on the traffic model used here. I would find it hard to use the same model on the million square feet that will be coming to us in the future. Traffic is an issue. Dudek has told us there are at least six major intersections in the middle of our town that cumulative impacts will be at "F" in a few years. I don't think I have enough information to reach a conclusion on the traffic analysis on this and moving ahead. I would like Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 352     TRANSCRIPT Page 76 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Staff to come back to us and tell us how the traffic model works, the Palo Alto traffic model, the VTA, why we use ITE, how effective is it for the types of neighborhoods we'd have. Remember, Palo Alto has one of the highest jobs to employment ratios in the country at 3:1. If you take the Research Park by itself, the ratio is about 32:1. How can we use the ITE model in that environment? I don't think we can. That's where I ended up. Mayor Burt: I want to encourage everyone to keep broader policy issues and discussions that we may very well want to address in the context of the Comprehensive Plan or other things but are simply outside the scope of what we can address either properly for this project, nor that we by any means have the time or the ability to do tonight.. Vice Mayor Scharff, you're next. Vice Mayor Scharff: Thank you. I think the architecture is great. You guys did a really good job on that. It's what we want. I was really impressed with the LEED Platinum. I was really impressed with the fact that we're moving towards electrification, that you're not having any gas. I think all of those things count for things. I really appreciate that. I also noted other things. I noted that you worked well with the College Terrace neighborhood. I actually got some letters from people in College Terrace mentioning how hard you worked with the neighbor. I think that's evidenced by there was no angry mob here tonight complaining about the project. The concerns seem to be technically based. I think it's actually a misunderstanding of the law and the disconnect. I was listening to Council Member Holman talk about her house and why that doesn't work in her sense of things. The answer to that is what Staff said. This is one parcel of 700 acres with the ability to do an extra million square feet roughly. The fact that it ended up being an extra 30,000 square feet makes it zoning compliant. The disconnect is there's a protocol in which we deal with lease adjustments. By dealing with those lease adjustments, it was the protocol that was violated, not the law. That is such a huge distinction in that by violating the protocol, it's not a legally binding agreement between either of the parties. For us to then say we know the protocol is violated, we allowed it to be violated, it's been violated for 16, 17 years. I can't do the math this late. Now, we're going to come back and say we're going to deny the project or cut it back based on the fact that the protocol, which is an informal agreement, was violated just doesn't really make sense or hold muster because the project is compliant with the zoning. I think that's the answer to Council Member Holman's question, that you were asking Staff so hard about. I think it's completely zoning compliant. It's replacing an existing building. I guess I understood that it's actually going to be slightly smaller than the existing building by a certain number of square feet. I don't remember. We're actually building a smaller project. The other thing we look at is does it meet the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. There's a number of Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 353     TRANSCRIPT Page 77 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 policies here, L-44, L-48, Goal B-1, Policy L-42 and Policy L-43, which all meet the comprehensive objectives. I didn't hear a single person come to Council tonight and say it is not compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. I think we've dealt with the issues of is it compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and is it complying with the existing zoning. The other thing I think is really important here is the parking and traffic issue. If I could do it again, I would like us to have looked at the TDM plan and said, with the TDM plan, what would have been the extra seconds, what would have been the additional trip impacts and all of that. I think the back of the envelope calculation is probably not my preferred, but it's good enough for me for tonight, which is basically with the TDM project we should be able to take off 600 trips. There's an increase under the model of 600 trips. The model currently may overestimate it a little bit. From what I heard you say—you can correct me if I'm wrong—is you looked at the historical uses of the building over time. It was a little unclear to me whether or not all of that space could be used for office. If it could all be used for office with the existing building, then as the markets moved towards office, it all would be used for office. The existing trip generation should all be based on office at that point, not based on historical uses necessarily. If we denied the project and had an office building, that's what the community would have. It wouldn't have manufacturing. It would have an office use throughout, given that that's a much higher and better use. It seems to me at the very least with the TDM program, it's a net wash in terms of new trips. I think we've solved—not solved. I think the impacts of traffic are not—there's going to be no increase in traffic or there shouldn't be an increase in traffic with a robust TDM project. At least that's what I'm getting out of that. Parking is really interesting as well. Here we didn't use the TDM project and give them credit for TDM. We're actually having them increase the parking because that's what's required because the project was under-parked. Hopefully that parking is not needed and will not be used. I think we're a little schizophrenic on parking right now. We want to make sure that we don't add to problems with parking and people don't go park in the neighborhoods and that kind of stuff because they can't park onsite. We want to be overly cautious and give people parking. On the other hand, when we create all this new parking, people say we're creating new car trips because there's parking for those cars. I think that reflects more our schizophrenia as a Council because we're trying to figure our way through this. We didn't include the TDM. Since we didn't give them credit for the TDM, we required them to do parking. I don't view that as a proxy for more cars because we're requiring both. I think we've dealt with what I would consider to be the major impacts on this. Given that, I would move that we—let's see what the Staff recommendation was. We move to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt a project-specific Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program, which is Attachment G, and we adopt a Record of Land Use Action, Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 354     TRANSCRIPT Page 78 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Attachment A, approving the Architectural Review application for four new office buildings at 1050 Page Mill Road. I would then also, since I heard the applicant—at least I saw the applicant nod. If the applicant has a problem with it, if Stanford has a problem, speak up—that the landscaping be predominantly indigenous plants providing natural habitat. I'm open to language changes on this from either Stanford or the applicant. The concept was to provide a landscape reserve at the rear edge of the property sufficient to provide for a future bikeway spine should such a spine project be adopted in the future by Stanford and the City, and that agreement to this condition would be required from the lessee and Stanford. Ms. Gitelman: Vice Mayor Scharff, by referencing the rear end of the property, our thought was that it would be to the south of that building that's at the rear end of the property. Vice Mayor Scharff: I'm happy to do any language changes you want on that. Maybe we just say provide a landscape reserve at the south end of the property. Edge closest to Cal. Ave. Ms. Gitelman: Or inboard of Building 3. It would be south of Building 3. Vice Mayor Scharff: South of Building 3, that's fine. Hillary, maybe you could work with the Clerk to just fix the language. If the applicant and Stanford want to take a quick look and suggest some language (inaudible). Mayor Burt: Does that complete the Motion? Vice Mayor Scharff: It does. Mayor Burt: We need a second. Council Member Kniss: Second. Mayor Burt: Seconded by Council Member Kniss. MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to: A. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt a project specific Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and B. Adopt a Record of Land Use Action approving the Architectural Review application for four new office buildings at 1050 Page Mill Road; and C. Require landscaping that is predominately indigenous plants providing natural habitat; and Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 355     TRANSCRIPT Page 79 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 D. Provide a landscape reserve South of Building Number 3 sufficient to provide for a future bikeway spine, should a spine project be adopted in the future by Stanford University and the City. Agreement to this condition would be required from the Lessee and Stanford University. Mayor Burt: Do you have additional comments on your Motion? Vice Mayor Scharff: I'm just going to briefly say that I think this is predominantly the kind of project we should want as a City. We've taken care of the impacts. It's replacing the existing square footage. It's environmentally sensitive and sustainable. It's LEED Platinum. It's got no natural gas being used. It meets all of those requirements that we as a City talk about when we talk about sustainability. That's really important. I think it's a good project. Mayor Burt: Council Member Kniss. Council Member Kniss: I'll be brief. I think the project highlights that the Vice Mayor has just called out, which were these. They're in blue. I think they indicate strongly. The persuasive part of this for me has been the 700 acres. I did hear there was a letter from Stanford indicating that would continue to be balanced out. Is that correct, Cara? Would you just nod your head? Yes. We can be certain, we can be comfortable knowing that overall when that extra million is added at some point, 30,000 of that will come right off the top. As you said earlier, you're either dealing with this as an entire parcel or you're dealing with it as an individual project. I am choosing to deal with it as a 700-acre discussion rather than breaking it down into the individual parts we talked about earlier. I would call out the Platinum design. As Mayor Holman mentioned earlier, this is a handsome project. Was that the word? Something like that. It is. The building that is there, in my opinion, is not going to win architecture awards. It was done a long time ago. It was done piecemeal. This will be done as an entire campus, which has great importance. The TDM which was done absolutely voluntarily, as I understand, because it's not a requirement. I did actually see a copy of the TDM, was impressive. We've talked about the soil. We've talked about the green space. I appreciate the Mayor adding that these should be indigenous plantings, which will make a difference. It looks to me as though in the end, this will be a very attractive campus. I hope something can be worked out with the so-called spine such that there could be biking in that area. Again, I realize that we probably wouldn't be asking Google or LinkedIn if we could bike through their campus. I think this is the same kind of issue. With that, my second stands. Mayor Burt: Council Member Wolbach. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 356     TRANSCRIPT Page 80 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Council Member Wolbach: It's very likely that we have been or will be discussing with a number of property owners about various ways we can work together to make more bike and pedestrian pathways available throughout the City. I'll just ask the Vice Mayor who proposed it. The bike connectivity you're trying to create here would connect what street to what street ultimately? Maybe that would be something we could add to provide some clarification that might be more useful. Like the goal is to connect—is it to connect Page Mill to Cal. Ave. by bike? Vice Mayor Scharff: It's sort of undetermined, but Hanover to Cal. Ave. Council Member Wolbach: Hanover to Cal. Ave.? Vice Mayor Scharff: Hanover to El Camino. Council Member Wolbach: Hanover to El Camino. The other question— correct me if I'm wrong—would be if there are any additional opportunities for connecting Page Mill to Cal. Ave. along the north edge of the property. I'll leave that for others to consider. I'll let others speak to that. Regarding the project, I think everybody knows my bias is towards housing. As Council Member Schmid pointed out, our jobs/housing imbalance is quite terrible in the region and in Palo Alto. Our population growth is expected to be pretty significant over the next few years. This location isn't quite next to our Caltrain station at Cal. Ave. The Research Park hasn't traditionally been focused on housing as a primary thing. There has been some housing out in the Research Park. I'm not going to say we need to send this back and have it come back with housing. I will use this as an opportunity to jump on my soapbox and say I look forward to this City and Stanford working together to explore potential opportunities for more housing in the long term on the Research Park in a way that would be beneficial for both the City and Stanford and the lessees of Research Park. I'll just put that out there for everybody to mull over and consider how we can have that conversation in a robust way moving forward. A few things stood out about this project that are worth commending, even though it isn't the type of project that I prefer. As was mentioned before, it's LEED Platinum; it doesn't use gas; it's not asking for variances; it follows the Code. There have been a number of meetings with the community. The TDM plan—I haven't had a chance to really look at it. The fact that they're volunteering to do substantial TDM is big. They're working with Stanford, working with the tenant. This is what we've been trying to push as a Council for the last couple of years. I think this sets a very good precedent and a very good example. Frankly, we should reward good behavior. When developers in town do sustainable projects, work closely with the community, and volunteer to do TDM, I think that should be acknowledged, and we should reward that, even if it's just Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 357     TRANSCRIPT Page 81 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 with a thank you. After all the debate about the parcel lines, etc., if we are acknowledging this as grandfathered in, then it is actually a smaller building than what's there right now. That's actually impressive. I also appreciate preserving the trees. For me, that's big. I think that's awesome. I just want to say thank you for that. The biggest thing for me, out of everything, that makes me willing to support this project, even though it's not a housing or a mixed-use project, is the collaboration and outreach to the community, to the neighbors. Hearing that from Stanford, from the property owner and even from the tenant, saying that will do whatever it takes to make their neighbors happy with them. That will allow them to work (inaudible) recognizing that there's a self-interest in working collaboratively with the community. That's, again, something to reward. I hope that, as we talk about possible bike routes—I understand you want to talk to the tenant about security. My first security gig when I worked private security was at an adjacent building. I'm familiar with that. I understand the need to do that. I hope there will be open communication about bike and pedestrian access. This, again, might set an example for other areas as well. I'll support this. Mayor Burt: Council Member Filseth. Council Member Filseth: I'm sorry the motion is structured the way it is. I don't have a specific suggestion. I think I can support the project, but I'm going to have difficulty certifying the DEIR. The issue is traffic. Traffic is high on the priority list of residents in Palo Alto. The FAR thing swings on the interpretation of 700 acres and legal. If the maker is willing to split the Motion ... Vice Mayor Scharff: (inaudible) Council Member Kniss: I'd support it. Council Member Filseth: Thanks very much. I'm kind of sorry that the Motion is structured the way it is; although, I don't have a specific suggestion. I think I can support the project, but I'm going to have a lot of difficulty supporting actually certifying the DEIR. I agree with—the issue is traffic. All the studies we do that come back and say no significant impact. Traffic is kind of way up high on the priority list of residents in Palo Alto. We heard this over and over and over again. I think there's a lot of skepticism with these kinds of reports. Council Member Schmid pointed out a number of the problems with it. The shortcomings of our studies have come up before. There's been general agreement that we have difficulty assessing the cumulative impacts. I'm looking here on the Staff Report. I did find the cumulative section. Basically it says that the delays at these intersections in Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 358     TRANSCRIPT Page 82 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 2025 won't be any worse than it is today. I realize we're using different models for the long range. This pace in particular is really close. We're within a tenth of a second, and we're actually over on the VC ratios. I read the report. Do I feel that we followed our methodology? Yes. Do I feel confident certifying there's not going to be any significant traffic impact? Absolutely not. I could actually support the project. The FAR thing swings a lot on the interpretation of the 700 acres and legal. If the maker's willing to split the Motion ... Male: (inaudible) Council Member Kniss: (inaudible) I'd support it. Council Member Filseth: In that case—would you support it? I want to propose friendly amendment that we split the Motion and separate the approval of the DEIR versus the project. Vice Mayor Scharff: As Vice Mayor, I'll jump in for the Mayor. That's actually the Mayor's prerogative. Council Member Filseth: Up to the Mayor. Mayor Burt: I will go ahead and support Item A of the Motion being split from the balance of the Motion. Council Member Holman: Mr. Mayor, procedural question. Mayor Burt: Yes. Council Member Holman: I don't believe someone cannot approve the FEIR and then approve the project. Ms. Silver: The Council as a whole in order to approve the project must certify the EIR. If the Council as a whole does not certify the EIR, then legally you cannot approve the project. If you want to split the Motion so that individual Council Members can vote on individual items just to express their opinions on the particular issues, that can be done. As a whole the Council must certify the EIR in order to approve the project. MOTION SPLIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING MOTION1: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to: A. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt a project specific Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 359     TRANSCRIPT Page 83 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 MOTION2: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to: B. Adopt a Record of Land Use Action approving the Architectural Review application for four new office buildings at 1050 Page Mill Road; and C. Landscaping that is predominately indigenous plants providing natural habitat; and D. Provide a landscape reserve South of Building Number 3 sufficient to provide for a future bikeway spine, should a spine project be adopted in the future by Stanford University and the City. Agreement to this condition would be required from the Lessee and Stanford University. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Does that cover it? Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: Thank you. I haven't seen something in front of the Council or even going back to Commission days that's this much of a conundrum in many years. I have procedural issues. I have EIR issues. I have explanation issues, if you will. Now that I've said that, you know where I stand on that. I do have one clarifying question for the maker of the motion. The landscape reserve south of Building No. 3—it's also a question for Staff—is that concurrent with the spine road? Is the intention to be concurrent with the spine road? Ms. Gitelman: Thank you, Council Member Holman. There really is no spine road. If I understand what Item D is saying, it's saying that we want to reserve a landscape area that could be used for bicycle and pedestrian access. I don't understand the last sentence of "D." I wonder whether the maker of the motion would be okay with deleting that last sentence. "Agreement to this condition would be ... Vice Mayor Scharff: I'm fine with deleting it. Do you think it shouldn't be in there? Ms. Gitelman: I presume ... Vice Mayor Scharff: Take it out. INCORPORATED INTO MOTION2 WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to remove from the Motion Part D, “agreement to this condition would be required from the Lessee and Stanford University.” Council Member Holman: I understand there is no spine road, but there is a theory. It was actually in information provided by Jeff Levinsky and Doria Summa, whichever one provided this. It actually talks about—this talks Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 360     TRANSCRIPT Page 84 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 about the spine road. It says this was presented to the Planning Commission in 2004. It's unlikely the information will be incorporated into the ZOU; however, it is more appropriate to be addressed in the EIR for the Research Park or in subsequent site planning. I guess what I'm looking is, is the intention for your "D" to be the consideration of the spine road? This only says bike; it doesn't pedestrian and bike. Did you want to add pedestrian and bike? Vice Mayor Scharff: Yes. Council Member Holman: You do want to add pedestrian and bike. Is your intention that this would be—I'm still trying to get clarity—consistent with what's long considered the spine road? INCORPORATED INTO MOTION2 WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part D, “pedestrian and” after “for a future.” Vice Mayor Scharff: It's not automatically. If a future opportunity comes in, I don't want the leaseholder to stand in the way of what Stanford and the City might want to do for future connectivity. That's really all it is. It's to provide some insurance that 10 years from now, if the parcel next door redevelops, if Stanford wants to do it, hand are not tied because we didn't at this moment make something for the future, allowance for the future. It's really that simple. Council Member Holman: You've heard, so you kind of know where I'm coming from here. Having to do with the noise and rooftop ambient level noise, having talked with ARB members over the last long period of time, much of the HVAC equipment could go in basements or in interior places in buildings. I'm really concerned about the potential impact of this as it was identified in the EIR. I'm wondering if the maker of the motion would consider an amendment to have Staff go back and review and put as much of this HVAC equipment inside the building as is absolutely feasible. Mayor Burt: I think we have a Staff comment on that. Ms. Gerhardt: I just wanted to note that to the degree that we put this equipment inside of a building, it could be considered FAR. We need to be mindful of that fact. Council Member Holman: Let's call it amenity space then. I'm really concerned about the noise impact. The industrial park has significant impact on the College Terrace residency anyway. Vice Mayor Scharff? Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 361     TRANSCRIPT Page 85 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Vice Mayor Scharff: If they don't, I'll respond. Council Member Holman: Years ago we couldn't consider this. Now we can. Ms. Gitelman: I'm sorry. I was working with Council on another ... Vice Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman has raised the issue of should we direct Staff to review placing as much HVAC equipment inside the building as possible. The question for Staff is, is this an issue we should be concerned about in terms of noise. The EIR consultant says no. I haven't heard from the applicant yet. I'm tempted to say no, but I'm asking Staff— I'm watching the EIR consultant say this is not an issue. If this is an issue and this would annoy people, then yes I think it would be a good idea. I just don't know the answer to that. Ms. Gitelman: We have identified ways that noise impacts would be addressed. We don't think this condition is necessary. It's completely within the Council's purview to add it if you'd like. Vice Mayor Scharff: I guess I'll say no. AMENDMENT TO MOTION2: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to review placing as much HVAC equipment inside the building as possible.” Council Member Holman: The amenity space, Jodie, I never did clarification on what the amenity is. Ms. Gerhardt: There is not an exact use at this time. It would be determined at the building stage. There is a minimum square footage. Mayor Burt: Council Member Holman, can I offer another possible way to address this? Council Member Holman: Yeah. How can we say yes or no if we don't know what it is. Mayor Burt: We have parking that was mandated based upon no TDM program. Is that correct? No reduction in parking as a result of TDM. We're looking at ballpark of 20 percent fewer parking spaces than were mandated—fewer parking spaces required than we're mandating. Is there any possibility that, if the Council were willing to allow for some of that parking area to be used for HVAC system—I don't know from an engineering and design standpoint. You normally have HVAC in the building that you're using it on. From a ducting standpoint, I don't know whether it's practical that you would connect a couple of those buildings or not. Maybe even the Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 362     TRANSCRIPT Page 86 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 applicant has an answer as to whether it's feasible. The Council might consider reducing the parking requirement by X number of spaces to allow some below-grade HVAC. Now that I think about it, if we allowed a reduction in the parking, that might allow for simply the applicant to enclose the HVAC elsewhere. Just a thought. Can we allow the applicant to speak? AMENDMENT TO MOTION2 FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Holman: Are you proposing that? Sure. Mayor Burt: I might. Let's hear what the applicant's architect has to say. Council Member Kniss: Mayor, is that underground you're speaking about? Mayor Burt: I don't know. Mr. Giannini: First off, most all of the buildings out there all have rooftop air conditioning units. They're old. I can't imagine anyone has ever heard them. As you walk around, you don't really hear the air conditioning units. The City does have rules about making sure that's the case. On one hand, the rooftop units are very typical. I would agree ... Mayor Burt: I think we know that. We actually do hear them, and neighbors hear them. We have some concern is we're bringing it up. Mr. Giannini: The thought of either doing a central plant on the site is problematic because the buildings are lease buildings and could be split up to different tenants. You do sometimes see a central plant on a big campus. It wouldn't be appropriate in a situation like this. To put the units inside the building is possible, but it's also very unusual and difficult to do. They need louvers and vents and air and vibration and everything else which can be handled much easier on the roof. What you're saying is possible, but it would be very difficult and doesn't seem to actually be a concern—it isn't typically a concern in my projects. We do have ways of isolating the units, doing vibration control on the roof and what have you, that allows us to much more easily deal with the units on the roof than if we try and bury them in the building or put them underground. Mayor Burt: Absent burying them or completely putting them within the building, are there certain best practices that are better than what you're saying nobody cares about, but we really actually do have concern over it. Are there certain best practices that we might be able to include in this project to reduce the noise from the HVAC below what is our maximum permissible amount? Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 363     TRANSCRIPT Page 87 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Mr. Giannini: I'm actually not comfortable answering that. I believe there probably are ways to add noise abatement to equipment, but I'd want to talk with our mechanical engineer to really get a solid answer on that. We would certainly be willing to do everything we can to insulate better and pick units that are quieter and study that. We would be very interested in studying that process. Mayor Burt: Thank you. Council Member Holman: An Amendment might be for the applicant to work with Staff to explore ways to further minimize noise impact. My last potential amendment is—I actually asked this question, didn't get answer to it. I didn't find, when I read through the Record of Land Use Action, reference to the mitigations that are in the DEIR and FEIR. They're included as Attachment I, as draft. Attachment H is statement of findings. I don't see anything that holds the applicant to the mitigations that are identified. INCORPORATED INTO MOTION2 WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct applicant to work with Staff to further consider ways to reduce noise impact.” (new Part E) Ms. Gerhardt: That was an oversight by Staff. As we stated in our presentation, the Record of Land Use will be updated to include such a measure so that the Mitigation Monitoring Report is a condition of approval. Council Member Holman: Mitigations and Mitigation Monitor? Ms. Gerhardt: Absolutely. Council Member Holman: Do you want to add that to the motion, Vice Mayor Scharff? Vice Mayor Scharff: Staff's going to do this anyway. No reason not to add it in. Just go ahead and add it in. INCORPORATED INTO MOTION2 WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “add the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) mitigations and mitigation monitoring requirements to the Record of Land Use Action.” (new Part F) Mayor Burt: Council Member Holman, you want to work with the Clerk to make sure that reflects ... Council Member Holman: Yeah. My last comment ... Mayor Burt: I see they got it. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 364     TRANSCRIPT Page 88 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Council Member Holman: ... is I mentioned earlier that this one's perplexing and troubling to me. As I indicated prior to the amendments, I'm troubled by the EIR and the EIR process. I'm troubled by other things procedurally. I'm troubled by—I never did feel, for me, confident or comfortable that there really is this single parcel. There's nothing that was presented for me to digest, that I felt like there really was this single parcel. The Planning Commission Minutes weren't provided until today. The ARB, we just got summary Minutes, and those we got today at 4:00. I noted that the scoping for the EIR was done at the ARB, which is not a body that even works with scoping and all the various land uses and transportation issues that are part of an EIR. I'm still not confident about the grandfathered issue. The amenity space is still a vagary from my perspective. I'm glad the TDM, according to them—maybe the maker or seconder would want to add to this. The TDM program is not identified and in the Record of Land Use Action. I believe it's just referred to as it will come forward. It's not identified or described whatsoever in the ... Mayor Burt: Can we ask Staff how that can be addressed adequately? Council Member Holman: Okay. Ms. Gerhardt: There is a Condition, 16, about the TDM plan. It does say that we would review and approve this prior to the issuance of building permits, and there would be annual updates of how the TDM program is working. Council Member Holman: What I'm saying is there's no description of the TDM program at all. It just says the plan will be submitted to the Project Planner for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permits. That's all there is to it. There's no description of the TDM program. I think the applicant has—you indicated that you have, I trust, a very competent TDM program, but there's no reference to that in the Record of Land Use Action. Vice Mayor Scharff: What it does say is the plan shall be submitted to the Project Planner for review and approval. You're right. Staff could screw up and approve the wrong TDM program. If you trust Staff to approve it, that's the ... Ms. Gitelman: That's right. I think you can trust Staff to hold the applicant to what they've said tonight in open session that they're willing to produce. Vice Mayor Scharff: Right. That's why I kept asking if we have a Go Pass. I guess they said there's a big plan. I assumed Staff had seen their plan for a TDM project. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 365     TRANSCRIPT Page 89 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Ms. Gerhardt: Staff has seen a draft of the document, yes. We will review and approve prior to building permits. Council Member Holman: This is going to sound argumentative, but that's not what the intention is. I guess it's that, since we haven't seen it—it's not a lack of trust of Staff. It's that I think the responsibility does lie with us to look at a TDM plan and see is it adequate, is that what we want, does it include Go Passes, does it include this or that, does it include staggered work programs. I think it's important for us to see what those things are. It's not a lack of trust of Staff. It's a lack of our oversight. For all of those reasons, I'm not going to be able to support either the—Council Member Schmid was brilliant in his description of the lacking of the traffic impacts. I'm not going to be able to support the EIR or the project. I'm sad about that. I think it's a beautiful project. There's just too much here that's just— it's so amorphous that I just can't support it. Mayor Burt: Council Member Schmid, you'll be speaking to the motion? Council Member Schmid: Yeah. I note that 30 years ago, Council passed a strategic document called Land Use and Transportation. They said the key to success in traffic and parking was a TDM program. Tonight we've talked about the importance of a TDM program. A lot of confident words. How about adding make the program instead of voluntary mandatory and state that 80 percent of trips to the site will be limited to single occupancy vehicles? Vice Mayor Scharff: (inaudible) Council Member Schmid: Make the TDM program mandatory rather voluntary and set it at 20 percent. Vice Mayor Scharff: It is mandatory. Mayor Burt: They've volunteered it, but it's now mandatory. It's already in there. Council Member Schmid: How about adding the words there? A "G" which says 20 percent of trips will be non-single occupancy vehicles. Mayor Burt: You're referring to adding a metric on an outcome of the TDM program as opposed to the TDM program. Does Staff have any concerns that the TDM program is designed to achieve that outcome? Ms. Gitelman: Mayor Burt, just because of the lateness of the hour, I think it would take us some time to evaluate what that metric should be and Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 366     TRANSCRIPT Page 90 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 consult with the creators of the TDM plan and ensure that they could meet that plan. We could do that now on the fly, but I'm just a little nervous about that. We have, back of the envelope, said achieve 20 percent. I would want to consult with the authors of the plan and the applicant before we put that as a condition of approval. Vice Mayor Scharff: Council Member Schmid, if we put that in there, would you support the project? Council Member Schmid: Yes. Vice Mayor Scharff: I'm willing to put a metric in there. If we have a TDM plan that can't make a 20 percent reduction, obviously we have the wrong TDM plan. Do you agree with that? It's not a crazy ... Mayor Burt: It's by design. Staff is going to determine it by design. (inaudible) Vice Mayor Scharff: It's a "by design" metric. Do you want to put a "G," the TDM program will be designed to reduce single occupancy trips by at least 20 percent? Council Member Schmid: What do you mean "design"? Will or will not? Mayor Burt: May I wade in on that? Vice Mayor Scharff: Absolutely. Vice Mayor Scharff: I don't understand how you would implement a metric otherwise. You can't have a metric that says—I don't think you can reasonably have something that says if in a future year they don't do it, we throw them out. I just don't see how you can do that. We're saying what Staff would approve in a TDM program, they in their professional judgment as our Transportation Staff, would say yes, we agree that this plan will achieve a 20 percent reduction. Council Member Schmid: As I say, 30 years ago, they had something like that, and it didn't. It's (crosstalk). Mayor Burt: That's a concrete plan. That's not a concept level, but it's a concrete plan. I don't see what else you can do. Ms. Gitelman: Mayor Burt, the experts have discussed that it would be possible to put in a metric that assures a 20 percent reduction in motor vehicle trips during the peak hour. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 367     TRANSCRIPT Page 91 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Vice Mayor Scharff: Okay. You can add that peak hour; that's perfectly fine. Mayor Burt: That's acceptable to the seconder? Council Member Kniss: Yes. INCORPORATED INTO MOTION2 WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “the Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program will be designed to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips by 20 percent during the peak hour.” (new Part G) Mayor Burt: Anything else? Vice Mayor Schmid: Is that singular or plural? Is it one hour or is it the morning commute? Ms. Gitelman: One peak hour. Mayor Burt: What we really mean is both of the peak periods of the day. I would agree that it should be the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Is that ... Vice Mayor Scharff: That's how I understood it. I think the Planning Director was making a joke actually. MOTION2 PART G RESTATED: The Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program will reduce motor vehicle trips by 20 percent during A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Council Member Schmid: The way the Planning Director stated it, she left out the design, said "will reduce." Mayor Burt: Sorry? What'd you say? Council Member Schmid: The Planning Director left out the words "be designed to." Said "will reduce single occupancy vehicle trips." Ms. Gitelman: That's right. I didn't say "single occupancy vehicle." I said "motor vehicle trips." Mayor Burt: By including or not including the words "be designed to," if they're not there, what does it mean to you? Ms. Gitelman: Not including "be designed to." This is the performance standard we're going to hold them to, however they get there. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 368     TRANSCRIPT Page 92 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 Mayor Burt: That's better. Vice Mayor Scharff: It's better. Mayor Burt: Stronger. Eric, are you still ... No. That leaves it to me. Are you done? I think so. For me, the principle issues around a project like this are about the impacts. There are a number of different impacts. One actually that is very high on the list is the trip impacts on College Terrace. I think that was glossed over, but that's why we are not seeing a whole bunch of the College Terrace neighborhood folks here concerned about that impact. There are the broader traffic impacts. We basically have an EIR that looked at the impacts absent the TDM program that is now with a performance metric in the conditions of approval. We have parking. It appears that we have a project that is going to be significantly over-parked. I've been racking my brain over what you can do with an extra 20 percent parking spaces if that is what comes about. I suspect that's what we're going to have. That's something we'll need to struggle with in the future. The sustainable aspects of water and energy, this is a very exemplary project. The concerns over soil toxins are an important consideration. I think they have been addressed adequately by the Staff responses. Finally, the aesthetics. We may hate to lose this fine example of Stalinist revival architecture, but I'm willing to let it go. On that basis, I support the project. On the EIR, we have to be cautious between any broader considerations of how we might think that CEQA should be changed versus whether an environmental review has been done properly and according to current best practices as they're acknowledged. I think we have to be really wary of interjecting our own determination of what is a proper methodology. We can still argue specifically on whether we think an impact is significant or not significant, a number of things. It's not a black-and-white issue. What I heard tonight is really a disagreement most of all—I wouldn't say exclusively—saying we just don't think the professional best practices are acceptable. That's not what is before us tonight when we review it. I think it's reasonable for us to have deeper discussions around that, but that's not a proper consideration in looking at an individual project. As we look at following the law and the importance of trying to do that as best we can, we have to be wary of saying the law ought to be such and such, and I'm not going to approve a project because I disagree with a law. I think this follows CEQA law. When we really look at traffic impacts, this has been significantly overstated. For me, the biggest one, certainly not the only one, is what's the traffic impact of the project. Our EIR excluded the whole TDM program. At first, I wasn't sure whether it was mandatory. Staff clarified. We put even more meat on it in the motion. I think it's proper. I'll be supporting both the EIR and the project. I think everybody's had a bite at the apple or Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 369     TRANSCRIPT Page 93 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 several bites. Cory, don't open the can of worms here and let everybody go around again. Council Member Wolbach: I want to understand. Since we split the motion since I spoke to it, what does that mean? If I vote against the EIR but in favor of the project, what does that mean? Mayor Burt: As Cara explained, the project goes forward if a majority of the Council supports the EIR and a majority of the Council supports the project. Council Member Wolbach: So it's clear for the record that anyone who's voting in favor of the project but against the EIR, they understand that they're not really opposing the project. It's really just a protest vote. Mayor Burt: No. If a majority of the Council opposes the EIR, it's not a protest. MOTION1 RESTATED: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to: A. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt a project specific Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. MOTION2 RESTATED: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to: B. Adopt a Record of Land Use Action approving the Architectural Review application for four new office buildings at 1050 Page Mill Road; and C. Landscaping that is predominately indigenous plants providing natural habitat; and D. Provide a landscape reserve sufficient to provide for a future pedestrian and bikeway spine to connect Hanover Street and El Camino Real, should a spine project be adopted in the future by Stanford University and the City. In such event the Applicant shall work with the City and Stanford University to convert the landscape reserve to a pedestrian and bikeway spine; and E. Applicant to work with Staff to further consider ways to reduce noise impact; and F. Add the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) mitigations and mitigation monitoring requirements to the Record of Land Use Action; and Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 370     TRANSCRIPT Page 94 of 94 City Council Meeting Transcript: 1/11/16 G. The Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program will reduce motor vehicle trips by 20 percent during A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Mayor Burt: Let's first vote on what's listed here as "A," which is certification of the Final EIR. That is approved on a 5-3 vote with Council Members Schmid, Filseth and Holman voting no and DuBois recused. Now let's vote on the balance of the motion, Sections B-G, on the board. That passes on a 7-1 vote with Council Member Holman opposing and Council Member DuBois recused. I think that concludes the item. MOTION1 PASSED: 5-3 Filseth, Holman, Schmid no, DuBois absent MOTION2 AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-1 Holman no, DuBois absent Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Mayor Burt: We'll move to our last element which is Council Member Comments. Any Council Member Comments? Vice Mayor Scharff: Unfortunately I do have comments. Mayor Burt: Vice Mayor Scharff. Vice Mayor Scharff: Just briefly, I wanted to let people know that I've been appointed to the ABAG Personnel and Finance Committee and the ABAG committee that is talking with MTC about the possible merger. That's the important committee. I'll try and give you guys regular updates as we have those committee meetings. Mayor Burt: Give them our best. Any other Council Member Comments? Apparently not. Thank you all. Meeting's adjourned. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:24 A.M. Item 3 Attachment F - 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes     Packet Pg. 371