Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2507-4975 City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: November 10, 2025 Report #:2507-4975 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave [21PLN-00341]: Request for Approval of a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) on Three Parcels (511 Byron Street, 660 University Avenue, 680 University Avenue/500 Middlefield Road), to Demolish Existing Buildings and Provide a New Six Story Mixed-Use Building with Approximately 1,900 Square Feet of Office, 70 Multi-Family Residential Units, and a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. CEQA Status: A Draft Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024, and Ending on May 17, 2024. The City published a Final EIR in March 2025 and a revised Final EIR in October 2025. Zoning District: RM-20 (Multi-Family Residential). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions: 1. Adopt the Resolution in Attachment B certifying the EIR and Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); 2. Adopt the Resolution in Attachment C amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element to modify the allowable uses in the Multiple Family Land Use Designation; 3. Adopt the Planned Community (PC) Ordinance in Attachment D rezoning the subject property and approving the development plan, uses, and public benefits; and 4. Approve the Record of Land Use Action in Attachment E with approval findings and conditions of approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant proposes to deconstruct two existing medical office buildings (9,216 square feet) at 511 Byron Street and 680 University and rezone three existing parcels (511 Byron Street, 660 University Avenue, and 680 University Avenue/500 Middlefield Road) from RM-20 to Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.38 (Planning Community Zoning). The parcels would be merged under a separate application, and the resulting parcel would be redeveloped with a new six-story mixed-use building with 1,984 square feet of ground floor office and 66,754 square feet of multiple-family residential use. The residential component, as recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), will include 66 units (19 studios, 39 one-bedroom, and eight two-bedroom units). One unit will be designated as a manager’s unit. Thirteen of the units would be provided as below market rate (BMR) units (20%), though Staff recommends a slightly modified distribution of the BMR units. Parking spaces will be provided in a two-story below-grade parking garage with 78 parking spaces. The project also includes a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow office use in the Multiple-Family Land Use Designation in limited circumstances as detailed further in this report. BACKGROUND October 25, 20211: City Council prescreened a conceptual four-story mixed-use project (65 units; ~9,000 sf office). 1 October 25, 2021, Council Report: bit.ly/3NTpv3J December 21, 2021: Applicant submitted a formal application. Staff completed initial review; resubmittals followed in May 2022 and August 2022 to address departmental comments. November 16, 20223: Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) held an initial review and recommended forwarding the project to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) under the Planned Community (PC) rezoning process. December 1, 20224: ARB provided initial comments. Applicant later relocated the garage entry from Middlefield Road to Byron Street and made additional revisions in response to FEMA’s suspension of LOMR-F (Letters of Map Revision based on fill) processing. The transportation analysis and arborist report were updated and incorporated into the Draft EIR prior to publication. September 2, 2023: Applicant resubmitted; additional submittals occurred October 2023–February 2024 responding to staff comments. April 18, 20245: ARB reviewed the revised project during Draft EIR circulation and recommended Council approval with conditions. June 12, 2024: Scheduled PTC review was cancelled at the applicant’s request to allow further revisions. October 1, 2024: Applicant submitted a revised project adding two stories and relocating office use to the sixth floor. December 5, 20246: ARB reviewed the revised design and unanimously recommended Council approval, including return of specified items to an ARB Ad Hoc Committee and two additional conditions. Most ARB comments were addressed in the 2025 redesign (see below). Review by the PTC and ARB in 2025 are described in more detail below. Prior PTC Motion On March 12, 20257, the PTC reviewed a version of the project that had 66 residential units, 9,115 square feet of office use, and six stories, and asked for staff to return with more information and analysis on the following items: 3 November 16, 2022, PTC Report: 4 December 1, 2022, ARB Report: 5 April 18, 2024, ARB Report: 6 December 5, 2024, ARB Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13940 7 March 12, 2025 PTC Staff Report: 1. Consideration of the impacts of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 2. Consideration of tying the price of the parking spaces to the cost of an RPP permit 3. Consideration of the engineering and potential use of the special setback for multi- modal use. 4. Consideration to remove asphalt around Tree #10 after construction. 5. Consideration of bird friendly glass on 6th floor and balconies. 6. Clarification from PWE on the FEMA requirements. After this hearing, the applicant made major design changes that necessitated returning the project to the ARB. This included reducing the office space from 9,115 square feet to 1,984 square feet and moving the office use to the ground floor while adding residential units (increased to 70 total units) to the sixth floor. This also reconfigured the useable outdoor space, and increased the protrusion into the daylight plane, though the overall height decreased approximately two feet. ARB Recommendation On August 21, 2025, following the voluntary redesign, the ARB held a hearing13 and voted 3-2 (Jojarth and Hirsch no) to recommend approval of the project to Council with one additional recommendation for a condition of approval to, “Remove the balconies within the H2 units on the 2nd-6th floor (5 units) facing the Oak tree, or stepping the units back to reduce the encroachment into the TPZ if balconies are provided within the 30-foot radius of the tree.” In speaking to their dissent, both Jojarth and Hirsch explained that although they both would like to see the project move forward conceptually, they feel that additional architectural changes are warranted. PTC Recommendation On October 8, 2025, following preparation of a revised Final EIR, the PTC reviewed a 70-unit, 1,984 square foot office plan. The applicant presented an additional option for the PTC’s consideration to address the ARB comments through their presentation, which returned the unit count to 66-units, but removed the balconies located within the area of the tree canopy. The PTC voted 5-1-1 (Hechtman dissenting, James absent) to recommend approval of the project to Council with the following changes: Address the ARB recommendation through the 66-unit option presented or otherwise remove the balconies encroaching into the TPZ as recommended by the ARB Add the following five conditions of approval to the Record of Land Use Action: o Establish an easement on the Middlefield side for dimensions of the Special Setback to a depth of 20 feet below grade. If the City chooses to use this area, the applicant will not be responsible for replacing the parking. 13 August 21, 2025 ARB Report: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16792 o Beginning two years after building occupancy, report to OOT the number of parking spaces being leased. o As part of the TDM plan, the OOT will develop a method to assess spillover parking created by the project and will impose incentives or penalties when spillover is excessive. o Remove paving around the deck after construction, to the satisfaction of the Urban Forester. 1. Add Bird Safe Glass for the two units at the corners, Unit E and F2, on the sixth floor. Designate that the approximately 1,900 square feet commercial space be for neighborhood serving use The analysis section of the staff report goes into further detail on how these recommendations have been incorporated. The PTC also identified in their discussion some typos and clarifications in the attachments, which have been addressed. The dissenting commissioner cited opposition to reducing the unit count and requested a separate vote on the condition regulating on-site versus off-site parking pricing. While supportive of collecting parking utilization data, the commissioner viewed reducing the on-site parking cost from $150/month to the RPP rate of $56/year as financially infeasible for the applicant. The commissioner nevertheless supported forwarding the project to Council and expressed a desire for eventual approval. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project, as currently proposed, includes deconstruction of the existing medical office buildings (9,216 square feet of medical office use) and rezoning of three existing parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd) from RM-20 to Planned Community (also referred to as “Planned Home Zone” (PHZ). The parcels would be merged under a separate subdivision map process, and the resulting parcel would be redeveloped with a new six-story mixed-use building with 66 residential rental units and 1,984 square feet of office on the ground floor. The project would have two levels of below grade parking with 78 parking spaces. Because office use is not an allowed use within the multi-family land use designation, the project proposed a narrow Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow commercial use in the Multiple-Family Land Use Designation on Planned Community parcels that propose a housing development project. A location map is included in Attachment A and the project plans are included in Attachment I. Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to Council purview: Planned Community (PC/PHZ): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.38. The Planned Community Zone District is intended to accommodate all types of developments, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The planned community district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments that are of substantial public benefit and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The application requires initial review by the PTC, followed by review by the ARB. Upon recommendation from the ARB, the draft ordinance for the project is presented along with the development plan to the PTC for recommendation to the City Council for final action. Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The steps for processing a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment are set forth in PAMC Chapter 19.04. The PTC considers the amendment and forwards its recommendation to the City Council for final action. This is done in parallel with the application to rezone the subject property. ANALYSIS Staff’s review of the project finds it to be in compliance with applicable municipal code requirements or, through the requested entitlements, compliant if deviating from certain requirements. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Multiple-Family Residential, which prescribes a density range of eight to 40 dwelling units per acre, with higher densities allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, and services and facilities are available. The project has a density of 132 dwelling units per acre, and the Downtown location is sufficient to support this density. Further analysis is provided in the Findings (Attachments D and E). However, in order to retain some of the existing office square footage, this mixed-use project also includes a ground floor office use where office is not permitted within this land use designation. The project is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to modify the allowable uses in the Multiple Family Land Use Designation in limited circumstances. In its previous review the PTC requested additional information on how the Comprehensive Plan amendment could affect other properties within this land use designation. As written, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is narrow as it would allow office uses only on sites that are zoned Planned Community, proposing a housing development project, and with an existing nonconforming office use. Any future proposals would be considered based on the individual context and appropriateness of commercial in each specific location, with fully discretionary review by both PTC and Council. The proposed language is shown in underline below: Multiple-Family Residential: The permitted number of housing units will vary by area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping and environmental problems. Net densities will range from 8 to 40 units and 8 to 90 persons per acre. Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single- family residential areas. Densities higher than what is permitted may be allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Population densities will range up to 2.25 persons per unit by 2030. • Density (126.9 dwelling units per acre where a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre is allowed) • Useable Open Space (86.2 square feet per unit where a minimum 150 square feet is required) • Setbacks encroachments: o Middlefield Special Setback – 0 feet below grade where 24 feet is required o Byron street side yard – 12 feet above grade, 0 feet below grade where 16 feet is required o University street side yard – 7 feet above grade, 0 feet below grade where 16 feet is required o Interior side yard – ramp to garage is 2 feet setback where 10 feet is required • Daylight plane (fourth through sixth floors encroach into the 10 foot, 45-degree angle daylight plane adjacent to RM-20 zoned properties). (See Attachment I, plan set pages A3.3B and A3.3C for section diagrams.) • Parking (78 parking spaces where 89 are required) In the RM-20 zoning district, office is a non-conforming use that would not be allowed to be demolished and redeveloped. As a part of the rezoning process, the applicant requests that office be a permitted use of the PC Ordinance, consistent with the development plans. In accordance with the PTC’s motion, additional neighborhood-serving uses have been incorporated into the PC Ordinance (Attachment D) for this project. Builder’s Remedy Alternative The proposed project serves as an alternative to a Builder’s Remedy application that includes 88 units and 9,215 square feet of office, for which a Senate Bill (SB) 330 pre-application was last filed on June 11, 2024, and for which the applicant submitted a formal application for on September 3, 2024. The Builder’s Remedy application has been paused in accordance with a tolling agreement between the Applicant and the City, which is valid through the end of the year. A member of the public has pointed out that the formal application on file does not contain enough units to take advantage of the Builder‘s Remedy. However, under the tolling agreement, the applicant retains the ability to amend its formal application to include the necessary number of units (ranging from 89 to 131 units). Protection of Tree #10 It is a stated priority of the City, neighbors, and the applicant to preserve the Coast Live Oak tree on the adjacent property and overhangs the project site. Several arborist reports were prepared to analyze this tree, and a condition of approval is proposed to require a security deposit for 200% of the appraised value of the tree. This security deposit shall be returned to the applicant upon survival of the tree for five years past the certificate of occupancy being granted for the project. The tree is primarily adjacent to an existing parking lot on the project site, meaning the area around the root zone is paved. The plans show the asphalt below the proposed wooden deck, within the dripline of the Oak tree, would remain to minimize root disturbance. Future Use of the Special Setback construction fees. The developer shall accept financial responsibility for any such relocation or retrofit required by future City projects.” This expands the area of the easement beyond what is shown in the current plan set. The project proposes required stairs to the garage which are within this area. To move the stairs would require a further loss of parking and may affect the overall circulation. Specifically, the location of the ramp cannot be moved as it is designed around the Tree Protection Zone of a significant Oak tree and was moved from Middlefield Road to Byron Avenue in the initial design review stages to address safety concerns raised by the OOT. Council may consider exempting the stair from the easement area or requiring more significant design changes to the parking garage. Balconies The ARB and PTC both recommend removing the balconies from within the Tree Protection Zone, though Urban Forestry staff confirms that the balconies do not affect the anticipated health of the tree. As a result, the applicant has opted to reduce the proposed number of units from 70 proposed to ARB and PTC to 66 units shown in the current plan set. This allows for a balcony to be provided for each unit. The alternative would have been to maintain a 70 unit design, but not provide private useable outdoor space in six of the units. Both options result in minor reductions to the total availability of useable open space on a per-unit basis. Onsite Parking, Residential Preferential Parking (RPP), and Transportation Demand Management Plan The project requests a parking reduction of 8%, which is reduced from 30% in prior iterations of the project. 78 parking spaces are proposed. A transportation demand management (TDM) plan has been prepared (Attachment I). Some of the TDM policies include: • Transit subsidies are made available to all employees • Carpool/vanpool spaces for the office use • An information kiosk and webpages for multi-modal transportation options including clipper card discounts for low-income residents • On site bike repair tools for residents The TDM plan is designed to reduce the number of trips by 20%, as required by the Comprehensive Plan. This will accommodate both the 8% current proposed reduction, and the potential reduction that would result from use of the Special Setback easement as described previously. The project is not subject to AB 2097, though future residents may walk or bike 0.6 miles to the Caltrain station. There is a SamTrans bus stop at University Avenue and Middlefield Road and a VTA bus stop at Channing Avenue and Middlefield Road, however neither bus stop provides sufficient service to qualify as a high-quality transit stop under AB 2097. This project is not located along a Safe Route to School, but future residents could easily access Webster Street, which is a Safe Route to School for Addison Elementary School and Greene Middle School. It is within walking distance of many Downtown businesses, shops, and restaurants. 15 As such, a future resident of this development could purchase a permit to park on local streets. The cost of this permit is currently $56 per year, plus $5 for daily visitor permits. There is a maximum of 50 daily permits per year, and they do not permit overnight parking. o Beginning two years after building occupancy, the property owner shall report to the Office of Transportation the number of parking spaces being leased. This shall be compared to the number of RPP permits issued to residents of this building, for the purpose of determining if resident parking is spilling over into the neighborhood.” Bird Friendly Glass 15 Additional information on the RPP program is located here: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Transportation/Parking/Parking-for-Residents/Downtown-Residential- Parking-Permits changed to proposed residential units, rather than office, the residential unit windows were proposed to be clear glass, with bird safe glass on the balconies. sixth floor in areas where the corners create a “see-though” effect that could result in a higher likelihood of bird strikes. The applicant has incorporated this into all four corner units, as the condition facing Byron Street is the same as facing Middlefield Road. 17 The proposed meets the weighted 20% as shown below. 660 UNIVERSITY BELOW MARKET RATE UNIT CALCULATION Income Level Area Median Income Weighted Value Number of Units % of Actual Units Weighted % Total FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT 17 September 21, 2020, Council Staff Report - https://bit.ly/PHZ-CouncilReport project is also subject to Development Impact Fees, currently estimated at $3,063,197.53. The project proposes on-site Public Art. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Daily Post on October 31, 2025 which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on October 29, 2025 which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Because the project does not result in any significant impacts, findings of overriding consideration are not required. However, the Resolution in Attachment B certifies the EIR and sets forth the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed project required to ensure that impacts remain less than significant. ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: 30 24 24 24 24 30 24 24 First United_Methodist Church Alain Pinel Realtor Lytton Gardens 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 200.0' 100.0' 100.0' 250.0' 225.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 200.0' 152.5' 19.3'3.0' 47.7' 25.2' 67.0' 22.2' 100.0' 125.0' 140.0' 112.5'140.0' 112.5' 160.0' 112.5' 160.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0'100.0' 59.0' 100.0' 59.0' 100.0' 66.0' 100.0' 66.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 95.0' 50.0' 95.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 147.5' 400.0' 174.7' 47.8' 3.0' 19.3'22.2' 133.0' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 75.0' 125.0' 50.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 48.5' 7.0'1.5' 150.0' 50.0' 143.0' 75.0' 125.0' 75.0' 125.0' 48.5' 82.0' 48.5' 82.0' 35.0' 100.0' 35.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0'100.0' 35.0' 100.0' 57.5' 125.0' 57.5' 125.0' 67.5' 125.0' 67.5' 125.0' 50.0' 90.0' 75.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 25.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0'75.0' 75.0' 578 642-652630-640 600-610 415 405 434 765 750-798 482 486 490 483 547 526 649 625523 518 610 600 616 624 630 511 517 524 500 680 725 478 499 489 435 428 422 416 724 425 555 530 575 555 536 518 720 500 498 755 515 537 543539 720 519 UNIVERSITY AVENUE UNI V E R S I T Y A V E N U E BYR O N S T R E E T MIDDLEFIELD ROAD FULTON STREET MIDDLEFIELD ROAD WEBSTER STREET FULTON STREET HAMILTON AVENUE RM-20 PC-4173 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site Current Features Search Polygon 0' 68' Attachment A Location Map 660 University CITY OF PALO ALTO I NCO R P O R A TE D CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f APRI L 1 6 189 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto ekallas, 2024-03-21 09:04:52 Attachment A. Location Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 1 Resolution No. ___ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the Adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 660 University Mixed-Use Project, and Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, All Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act RECITALS A. On December 21, 2021, Lund Smith of Smith Development (“Applicant”) submitted an application to rezone the subject parcels located at 511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd (the “Subject Property,” more particularly described in Exhibit A) from RM-20 to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) and to deconstruct two existing medical office buildings (9,216 square feet) and redevelop the subject property with a mixed use development including 9,115 square feet of office space and 63 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. Approval of the Development Agreement 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”). C. The City is the Lead Agency pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067 as it has the principal responsibility to approve and regulate the Development Agreement Project. D. The City, in compliance with CEQA, prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to provide an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of approving and constructing the Project. E. The City circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) for public review from April 2, 2024, to May 17, 2024. The Architectural Review Board held a public hearing during this review period on April 18, 2024, to receive comments on the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR evaluated a 63-unit development with 9,115 sf of office. F. The City considered the comments received during the Draft EIR public review period and prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) in March, 2025, which evaluated a 63-unit development with 9,115 sf of office. Following modifications to the design, a the City released a Revised Final EIR on October 1, 2025, which evaluated a 70- unit development with 1,984 square feet of office. The Revised Final Environmental Impact Report is comprised of the Draft EIR and its Attachments A-E, together with the Revised Final Responses to Comments, Revised Revisions to the Draft EIR and CEQA Implications of Changes to the Proposed Project, and its Attachments A-E published on 2 October 1, 2025 (collectively, all of said documents are referred to herein as the “EIR”). G. The Council is the decision-making body for approval of the Development Agreement Project. H. CEQA requires that in connection with approval of a project for which an environmental impact report has been prepared that identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project, the decision-making body of a public agency make certain findings regarding those effects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Certification and General Findings The City Council, in the exercise of its independent judgment, makes and adopts the following findings to comply with the requirements of CEQA, including Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, based upon the entire record of proceedings for the Project. All statements set forth in this Resolution constitute formal findings of the City Council, including the statements set forth in this paragraph and in the recitals above. 1. The City Council was presented with, and has independently reviewed and analyzed, the EIR and other information in the record, and has considered the information contained therein prior to acting upon and approving the Project. The City Council bases the findings stated below on such review. 2. The EIR provides an adequate basis for considering and acting upon the Project. The City Council has considered all of the evidence and arguments presented during consideration of the Project and the EIR. In determining whether the Project may have a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting the findings set forth herein, the City Council certifies that it has complied with Public Resources Code Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21082.2. 3. The City Council agrees with the characterization of the EIR with respect to all impacts initially identified as “less than significant” and finds that those impacts have been described accurately and are less than significant as so described in the EIR. This finding does not apply to impacts identified as significant or potentially significant that are reduced to a less than significant level by mitigation measures included in the EIR. The disposition of each of those impacts and the mitigation measures adopted to reduce them are addressed specifically in the findings below. 4. Mitigation measures associated with the potentially significant impacts of the Project will be implemented through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) described below, which is the responsibility of the City to enforce. 3 5. The EIR considers a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives, sufficient to foster informed decision making, public participation and a reasoned choice, in accordance with CEQA. 6. The Revised Final EIR contains responses to comments received on the Draft EIR. The Revised Final EIR also contains corrections and clarifications to the text and analysis of the Draft EIR where warranted. The City Council does hereby find that such changes and additional information are not significant new information under CEQA because such changes and additional information do not indicate that any of the following would result from approval and implementation of the Project: (i) any new significant environmental impact or substantially more severe environmental impact (not already disclosed and evaluated in the Draft EIR) would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, (ii) any feasible mitigation measure considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft EIR that would lessen a significant environmental impact of the Project has been proposed and would not be implemented, (iii) any feasible alternative considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft EIR that would lessen a significant environmental impact of the Project has been proposed that would not be implemented, or (iv) the Draft EIR was fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. The City Council does find and determine that recirculation of the Revised Final EIR for further public review and comment is not warranted or required under the provisions of CEQA. 7. The City Council finds and certifies that the EIR has been prepared and completed in compliance with CEQA and reflects the City of Palo Alto’s independent judgment and analysis. 8. The City Council makes findings in this resolution with respect to significant effects on the environment of the Project, as identified in the EIR, with the understanding that all of the information in this Resolution is intended as a summary of the full administrative record supporting the EIR, which full administrative record should be consulted for the full details supporting these findings. SECTION 2. Significant Impacts Reduced to Less than Significant. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council hereby makes these findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental impacts from approval and implementation of the Project and the means for mitigating those impacts. These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the EIR. Instead, the findings provide a summary description of each impact, describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the City, and state the findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in 4 the EIR. These findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the EIR that support the EIR's determinations regarding significant project impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. The facts supporting these findings are found in the record as a whole for the Project. In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analysis and explanation in the EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the determinations and conclusions of the EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent that any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings. The EIR identified a number of significant and potentially significant environmental impacts that the Project will cause or to which the Project would contribute. The following significant effects can be fully addressed and reduced to less than significant through the adoption and implementation of standard project requirements incorporated as part of the Project and feasible mitigation measures. Those impacts, along with the standard project requirements and mitigation measures to reduce them to less than significant, are listed below as referenced in the EIR. Air Quality Impact AQ-1: The project may potentially impact sensitive receptors nearby from carbon monoxide hotspots and toxic air contaminants. a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 3 of the Initial Study (Attachment B to the Draft EIR) and Section 5 of the Revised Final EIR. b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of these findings: AQ-1. Construction Emissions Reduction. Prior to construction activity and issuance of grading and building permits, the property owner or their designee shall ensure that the following specifications are detailed in the grading plan, building plan, and any contractor agreements and ensure that they be implemented during construction: • All mobile off-road equipment (wheeled or tracked) used during construction activities over 25 horsepower shall meet the USEPA Tier 4 final standards. Tier 4 certification can be for the original equipment or equipment that is retrofitted to meet the Tier 4 Final standards. • All mobile off-road equipment (wheeled or tracked) used during construction activities under 25 horsepower, such as generators, pumps, forklifts, cement and mortar mixes, and plate compactors shall be equipped with Level 3 diesel 5 particulate filters. c) Findings and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Construction emissions after implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 were estimated using CalEEMod. Table 8 shows the health risks associated with the project’s construction activity after incorporation of Tier 4 engines and Level 3 diesel particulate filters on-site construction equipment pursuant to Mitigation Measure AQ-1. As shown in Table 8, the use of Tier 4 engines pursuant to Mitigation Measure AQ-1 reduces the excess cancer risk at the nearest sensitive receptor to below the project-level 10 in one million significance threshold and reduces PM2.5 emissions below the increase of > 0.3 µg/m3 annual average. Therefore, individual health risk impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 specified above would reduce all potential impacts to less than significant. Biological Resources Impact BIO-1: The project may result in impacts to protected nesting bird species. a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 4.1.3 of the Draft EIR. b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of these findings: BIO-1 Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. Construction of the project and other site disturbing activities that would involve vegetation or tree removal shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 – August 31), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC, nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance and structure demolition. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is 6 no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). Nesting bird surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between August 31 and February 1. c) Finding and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. The only wildlife that is anticipated to be present within the project area is wildlife associated with the built urban environment such native and migratory birds. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would ensure protection of nesting birds that may be affected during construction activities. This measure would reduce the potentially significant impact to special-status species and wildlife movement to a less than significant level. d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 specified above would reduce all potential impacts to less than significant. Impact BIO-2: Construction activities near adjacent trees, specifically the heritage protected oak tree located on the adjacent parcel, could impact protected trees and conflict with the city’s local tree and landscape preservation and management ordinance. a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 4.1.3 of the Draft EIR and Sections 4 of the Revised Final EIR. b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of these findings: BIO-2. Tree Protection Plan. During the project design phase, the project applicant shall comply with and implement design guidelines listed in Section 6.1 of the February 7, 2024 Arborist Report prepared by David L. Babby. Guidelines include delineation of tree protection zones, specific actions related to grading and excavation, specifications for new paving and hardscape, and erosion control and landscaping requirements, among others., the project applicant shall comply with tree protection measures listed in Section 6.2 of the Arborist Report. Guidelines include a review of tree protection and construction processes, inspections and supervisions under direction of the project arborist, and installation of TPZs, among others. During demolition, grading, and construction, the project applicant shall comply with tree protection measures listed in Section 6.3 of the Arborist Report. Guidelines include specific actions related to demolition, excavation, and trenching, supervisions under direction of the project arborist, and disposal requirements, among others. A qualified arborist shall be retained and present for any activity that could impact trees on- and off-site. BIO-3. Oak Tree Pruning and Protection. Larger roots shall be pruned using a fine-tooth saw, and smaller roots shall be pruned using a hand looper. If roots are to be left 7 exposed for long periods of time, especially in warm weather, they must be covered in burlap cloth and kept wet. Branch pruning shall be highly selective and limited to avoid significant cuts. A qualified arborist shall be present on site to oversee any root pruning activities, as well as any branch pruning activities and shall provide guidance regarding which branches to cut. The qualified arborist shall also perform annual inspections for five to 10 years following building occupancy. Branch pruning work shall be performed by a tree service with an ISA Certified Arborist in a supervisory role on-site. c) Finding and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. The neighboring Coast Live Oak tree is planned to be protected during construction through the mitigation measures and project-specific conditions of approval. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 would ensure the protection of on- and offsite trees, especially the protected oak tree, and reduce impacts to a less than significant level. d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 specified above would reduce all potential impacts to less than significant. Cultural Resources Impact CR-1: Construction of the proposed project would involve ground-disturbing activities such as grading and surface excavation, which have the potential to unearth or adversely impact previously unidentified archaeological resources. a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 5 of the Initial Study (Attachment B of the Draft EIR) and further discussed in Section 5 of the Revised Final EIR. b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of these findings: CUL-1. Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program. The property owner or their designee shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for archaeological sensitivity for all construction personnel prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities. Archaeological sensitivity training shall include a description of the types of cultural material that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, regulatory issues, the proper protocol for treatment of the materials in the event of a find, and an outline of the penalties for the willful and intention damage of cultural resources. CUL-2. Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during project construction, all earth- 8 disturbing work near the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (NPS 1983) has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA (Section 15064.5f; PRC 21082), additional work, such as preservation in place or archaeological data recovery, shall occur as recommended by the archeologist in coordination with City staff and if applicable, the most likely descendants. Once the resource has been properly treated or protected, work in the area may resume. A Native American representative shall be retained to monitor mitigation work associated with Native American cultural material. c) Findings and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. By implementing Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and CUL-2, the City would evaluate and require steps to protect or treat significant archaeological resources if encountered during construction, and would require archaeological sensitivity training for construction personnel, resulting in a less than significant impact. d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 specified above would reduce all potential impacts to less than significant. Geology and Soils Impact GEO-1. Construction of the proposed project would involve ground-disturbing activities such as grading and surface excavation, which have the potential to unearth or adversely impact unique paleontological resources. a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 7 of the Initial Study (Attachment B of the Draft EIR). b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of these findings. GEO-1. Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation. Qualified Professional Paleontologist. Prior to excavation, the project applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist (defined by the SVP (2010) as an individual, preferably with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology, who is experienced with paleontological procedures and techniques, who is knowledgeable in the geology of California, and who has worked as a paleontological mitigation project supervisor for at least two years). The Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources. 9 Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the start of construction, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist or their designee shall conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. Paleontological Monitoring. Full-time paleontological monitoring shall be conducted during ground disturbing construction activities reaching more than 5 feet below the ground surface in areas mapped as Quaternary coarse-grained alluvium and ground. Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by a paleontological monitor with experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources and who meets the minimum standards of the SVP (2010) for a Paleontological Resources Monitor. The duration and timing of the monitoring will be determined by the Qualified Professional Paleontologist based on the observation of the geologic setting from initial ground disturbance, and subject to the review and approval by the City of Palo Alto. If the Qualified Professional Paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the specific geologic conditions once the full depth of excavations has been reached, they may recommend that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot- checking or ceased entirely. Monitoring shall be reinstated if any new ground disturbances are required, and reduction or suspension shall be reconsidered by the Qualified Professional Paleontologist at that time. In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, the following measures shall apply: • Fossil Salvage. If fossils are discovered, the paleontological monitor shall have the authority to halt or temporarily divert construction equipment within 50 feet of the find until the paleontological monitor and/or Qualified Professional Paleontologist evaluate the discovery and determine if the fossil may be considered significant. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontological monitor and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. Bulk matrix sampling may be necessary to recover small invertebrates or microvertebrates from within paleontologically sensitive deposits. • Fossil Preparation and Curation. Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a museum repository with a permanent paleontological collection along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the Qualified Professional Paleontologist. • Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground disturbing activity (and curation of fossils if necessary) the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall prepare a final report describing the results of the 10 paleontological monitoring efforts associated with the project. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the project geology and paleontology, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an analysis of fossils recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations. The report shall be submitted to the City of Palo Alto Director of Planning and Development Services. If the monitoring efforts produced fossils, then a copy of the report shall also be submitted to the designated museum repository. c) Finding and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would require a paleontological WEAP as well as paleontological monitoring and reporting which would reduce impacts related to paleontological resources to a less than significant level. This measure will be included in the EIR’s executive summary and mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 specified above would reduce all potential impacts to less than significant. Noise and Vibrations Impact N-1. Construction and demolition activities associated with the proposed project would intermittently generate noise adjacent to the project site. These construction noise levels would not exceed the applicable noise level thresholds. Noise associated with operation of the project would be generally similar to existing noise generated by nearby residential and commercial uses and would not cause a significant change in ambient noise levels. This impact would be less than significant, however mitigation measures are recommended. a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR and further discussed in Section 5 of the Revised Final EIR. b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of these findings. N-1. Construction Noise Reduction Measures. The construction contractor shall prepare a Construction Noise Control Plan prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Construction Noise Control Plan shall specify the noise reduction measures to be implemented during project construction to ensure noise levels are reduced at nearby residences. The measures specified in the Construction Noise Control Plan shall be included on the building and grading plans and shall be implemented by the 11 construction contractor during construction. At a minimum, the Construction Noise Control Plan shall include the following measures: 1. Construction Operating Hours. Limit all construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction activity shall be prohibited on Sundays and national holidays. 2. Mufflers. During all construction phases, all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards. 3. Silencing. Power construction equipment (including combustion engines), fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with silencing devices consistent with manufacturer’s standards, if available. Equipment shall be properly maintained, and the project applicant or owner shall require any construction contractor to keep documentation on-site during any earthwork or construction activities demonstrating that the equipment has been maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. 4. Stationary Equipment. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest sensitive receptors. 5. Signage and Noise Complaint Coordinator. The project applicant shall designate an on-site construction project manager who shall be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. This person shall be responsible for responding to concerns of neighboring properties about construction noise disturbance and shall be available for responding to any construction noise complaints during the hours that construction is to take place. They shall also be responsible for determining the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad silencer) and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. A toll-free telephone number shall be posted at construction site entrances for the duration of construction and provided in all notices (mailed, online website, and construction site postings) for receiving questions or complaints during construction and shall also include procedures requiring that the on-site construction manager to respond to callers. The on-site construction project manager shall be required to track complaints pertaining to construction noise, ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction and shall notify the City’s Community Development Director of each complaint occurrence. 6. Smart Back-Up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back- up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels. 7. Equipment Idling. Construction vehicles and equipment shall not be left idling for longer than five minutes when not in use. 8. Temporary Noise Barriers. Erect a temporary noise barrier along the eastern project boundary, and the southern and western project boundaries, where feasible, during demolition and grading/excavation phases. Temporary noise 12 barriers shall be constructed with solid materials (e.g., wood) with a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier at a minimum height of 12 feet. Where a solid barrier is not feasible, sound blankets affixed to the construction fencing shall be used. If a sound blanket is used, the sound blanket must have a density of at least 1 pound per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the construction fencing, and the sound blank shall be rated sound transmission class (STC) 32 or higher. c) Finding and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. As stated in Section 9.10.060 of the PAMC, the noise level at the property line may not exceed 110 dBA. Noise during the highest intensity phase of construction would be below the City’s Municipal Code threshold of 110 dBA. Nevertheless, if uncontrolled, construction activity may cause a temporary increase of noise levels in the project vicinity. Therefore, Mitigation Measure N-1 is recommended to further reduce noise levels during construction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. d) Remaining Impact. There is no significant impact, however Mitigation Measure N-1 specified above would further reduce any potential impacts. Impact N-1. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would intermittently generate groundborne vibration at residential receptors adjacent to the project site. Vibration could exceed FTA standards for potential damage to the adjacent residential building to the southeast, due to the proximity of construction equipment. However, this impact would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measure N-2. a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR and further discussed in Section 5 of the Revised Final EIR. b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of these findings. N-2. Construction Vibration Control Plan. The construction contractor shall prepare a Vibration Control Plan prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Construction Vibration Control Plan shall specify the vibration reduction measures to be implemented during project construction to ensure vibration levels are reduced to 0.2 in/sec PPV at nearby residences. The measures specified in the Construction Vibration Control Plan shall be included on the building and grading plans and shall be implemented by the construction contractor during construction. At a minimum, the Construction Vibration Control Plan shall include the following measures: 13 1. For paving activities within 25 feet of offsite residences, a static roller shall be used in lieu of a vibratory roller. 2. For grading and earthwork activities (not including the drop-bucket or scoop) within 15 feet of offsite residences, off-road equipment shall be limited to 100 horsepower or less. c) Finding and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Mitigation Measure N-2 would require that use of a static roller in lieu of a vibratory roller is used within 25 feet of off-site receptors to reduce construction-related vibration. Specifically, use of a static roller would generate vibration levels of approximately 0.05 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet (McIver 2012). Additionally, Mitigation N-2 would require that alternative equipment is used near off- site receptors to reduce construction related vibration. Grading and earthwork equipment, such as a small bulldozer, that is limited to 100 horsepower or less would generate less than 0.01 in/sec PPV within 15 feet of the adjacent sensitive receptor. With implementation of Mitigation Measure N-2, project groundborne vibration would be less than the significance threshold of 0.2 in/sec PPV at the adjacent off-site residence to the southeast. Therefore, with mitigation, project construction vibration impacts at all surrounding sensitive receptors would be less than significant. d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measure N-2 specified above would reduce all potential impacts to less than significant. Tribal Cultural Resources Impact TRC-1. There is potential to uncover buried archaeological and tribal cultural resources during ground disturbing activities, which could potentially be considered tribal cultural resources eligible for listing in the CRHR or a local register or be considered tribal cultural resources. Should project construction activities encounter and damage or destroy a tribal cultural resource or resources. a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 18 of the Initial Study (Attachment B of the Draft EIR). b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of these findings. TCR-1. Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during implementation of the proposed project, all earth-disturbing work within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist and culturally affiliated Native American representative have evaluated the nature and significance of the find. 14 If the City, in consultation with local Native Americans, determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with local Native American group(s). The plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan shall outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the culturally affiliated local Native American tribal representative and, if applicable, a qualified archaeologist. Examples of appropriate mitigation for tribal cultural resources include, but are not limited to, protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource, protecting traditional use of the resource, protecting the confidentiality of the resource, or heritage recovery. c) Finding and Rationale. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would ensure that any unanticipated discoveries of tribal cultural resources are avoided or, where avoidance is infeasible, mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measure TRC-1 specified above would reduce all potential impacts to less than significant. SECTION 3. Project Alternatives. Public Resources Code section 21002 prohibits a public agency from approving a project if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project. When a lead agency finds, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, that a project will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, it must, prior to approving the project as mitigated, first determine whether there are any project alternatives that are feasible and that would substantially lessen or avoid the project's significant impacts. Because all of the Project’s impacts are being mitigated through the adoption of mitigation measures described above, and because the Project will thus not result in any significant environmental effects, the City Council finds that there is no need to further consider the feasibility of any of the alternatives identified in the Final EIR. SECTION 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (a) CEQA requires the lead agency approving a project to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the changes made to the project that it has adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. An MMRP has been prepared and is recommended for adoption by the City Council concurrently with the adoption of these findings to ensure 15 compliance with standard project requirements incorporated as part of the project and mitigation measures during Project implementation. As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. (b) The City Council hereby adopts the MMRP for the Project attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference, and finds, determines, and declares that the adoption of the MMRP will ensure enforcement and continued imposition of the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR, and set forth in the MMRP, in order to mitigate or avoid significant impacts on the environment. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SECTION 5. Location and Custodian of Records. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which the City Council based the foregoing findings and approval of the Project are located at the Department of Planning and Community Environment, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. The official custodian of the record is the Planning Director at the same address. 16 PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Public Works _____________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 1 PROJECT NAME 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project APPLICATION NUMBER 21PLN-00341 APPLICANT AGREEMENT [INSERT Signature] DATE 10/1/2025 APPROVED BY [INSERT Signature] APPLICANT/OWNER Smith Development 682 Villa Street, Suite G Mountain View, California 94041 The Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project identifies the mitigation measures that must be implemented to reduce the environmental impacts associated with the project. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21081.6 requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code: ... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined as part of adopting an EIR. The mitigation monitoring table lists those mitigation measures that would be included as conditions of approval for the project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 2 Mitigation Measure Implementation Compliance Implementation AIR QUALITY AQ-1. Construction Emissions Reduction. Prior to construction activity and issuance of grading and building permits, the property owner or their designee shall ensure that the following specifications are detailed in the grading plan, building plan, and any contractor agreements and ensure that they be implemented during construction:  All mobile off-road equipment (wheeled or tracked) used during construction activities over 25 horsepower shall meet the USEPA Tier 4 final standards. Tier 4 certification can be for the original equipment or equipment that is retrofitted to meet the Tier 4 Final standards.  All mobile off-road equipment (wheeled or tracked) used during construction activities under 25 horsepower, such as generators, pumps, forklifts, cement and mortar mixes, and plate compactors shall be equipped with Level 3 diesel particulate filters. Project Applicant/ verified by the Planning & Development Services Department Prior to the initiation of construction activities During grading and construction City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Biological Resources BIO-1. Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. Construction of the project and other site disturbing activities that would involve vegetation or tree removal shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 – August 31), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC, nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance and structure demolition. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for Project Applicant/ verified by the Planning & Development Services Department Not more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance and structure demolition, if construction proposed during the general avian nesting season City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 3 Mitigation Measure Implementation Compliance Implementation passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). Nesting bird surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between August 31 and February 1. During project construction BIO-2. Tree Protection Plan. During the project design phase, the project applicant shall comply with and implement design guidelines listed in Section 6.1 of the February 7, 2024 Arborist Report prepared by David L. Babby. Guidelines include delineation of tree protection zones, specific actions related to grading and excavation, specifications for new paving and hardscape, and erosion control and landscaping requirements, among others., the project applicant shall comply with tree protection measures listed in Section 6.2 of the Arborist Report. Guidelines include a review of tree protection and construction processes, inspections and supervisions under direction of the project arborist, and installation of TPZs, among others. During demolition, grading, and construction, the project applicant shall comply with tree protection measures listed in Section 6.3 of the Arborist Report. Guidelines include specific actions related to demolition, excavation, and trenching, supervisions under direction of the project arborist, and disposal requirements, among others. A qualified arborist shall be retained and present for any activity that could impact trees on- and off-site. Project Applicant/ verified by the Planning & Development Services Department During project design Prior to demolition, grading, and construction During demolition, grading, and construction City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department BIO-3. Oak Tree Pruning and Protection. Larger roots shall be pruned using a fine- tooth saw, and smaller roots shall be pruned using a hand looper. If roots are to be left exposed for long periods of time, especially in warm weather, they must be covered in burlap cloth and kept wet. Branch pruning shall be highly selective and limited to avoid significant cuts. A qualified arborist shall be present on site to oversee any root pruning activities, as well as any branch pruning activities and shall provide guidance regarding which branches to cut. The qualified arborist shall also perform annual inspections for five to 10 years following building occupancy. Branch pruning work shall be performed by a tree service with an ISA Certified Arborist in a supervisory role on-site. Project Applicant/ verified by the Planning & Development Services Department During pruning activities City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources CUL-1. Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program. The property owner or their designee shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for archaeological sensitivity for all construction personnel prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities. Archaeological sensitivity training shall include a description of the types of cultural Project Applicant/ verified by the Planning & Development Services Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 4 Mitigation Measure Implementation Compliance Implementation material that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, regulatory issues, the proper protocol for treatment of the materials in the event of a find, and an outline of the penalties for the willful and intention damage of cultural resources. Department CUL-2. Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during project construction, all earth- disturbing work near the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (NPS 1983) has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA (Section 15064.5f; PRC 21082), additional work, such as preservation in place or archaeological data recovery, shall occur as recommended by the archeologist in coordination with City staff and if applicable, the most likely descendants. Once the resource has been properly treated or protected, work in the area may resume. A Native American representative shall be retained to monitor mitigation work associated with Native American cultural material. Project Applicant/ verified by the Planning & Development Services Department During ground disturbing activities City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEO-1. Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation. Qualified Professional Paleontologist. Prior to excavation, the project applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist (defined by the SVP (2010) as an individual, preferably with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology, who is experienced with paleontological procedures and techniques, who is knowledgeable in the geology of California, and who has worked as a paleontological mitigation project supervisor for at least two years). The Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources. Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the start of construction, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist or their designee shall conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. Paleontological Monitoring. Full-time paleontological monitoring shall be conducted during ground disturbing construction activities reaching more than 5 feet below the ground surface in areas mapped as Quaternary coarse-grained alluvium and ground. Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by a paleontological monitor with experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources and who meets the minimum standards of the SVP (2010) for a Paleontological Resources Monitor. Project Applicant/ verified by the Planning & Development Services Department Prior to the start of grading or construction activities and during construction activities City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 5 Mitigation Measure Implementation Compliance Implementation Professional Paleontologist based on the observation of the geologic setting from initial ground disturbance, and subject to the review and approval by the City of Palo Alto. If the Qualified Professional Paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the specific geologic conditions once the full depth of excavations has been reached, they may recommend that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or ceased entirely. Monitoring shall be reinstated if any new ground disturbances are required, and reduction or suspension shall be reconsidered by the Qualified Professional Paleontologist at that time. In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, the following measures shall apply:  Fossil Salvage. If fossils are discovered, the paleontological monitor shall have the authority to halt or temporarily divert construction equipment within 50 feet of the find until the paleontological monitor and/or Qualified Professional Paleontologist evaluate the discovery and determine if the fossil may be considered significant. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontological monitor and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. Bulk matrix sampling may be necessary to recover small invertebrates or microvertebrates from within paleontologically sensitive deposits  Fossil Preparation and Curation. Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a museum repository with a permanent paleontological collection along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the Qualified Professional Paleontologist.  Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground disturbing activity (and curation of fossils if necessary) the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall prepare a final report describing the results of the paleontological monitoring efforts associated with the project. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the project geology and paleontology, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an analysis of fossils recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations. The report shall be submitted to the City of Palo Alto Director of Planning and Development Services. If the monitoring efforts produced fossils, then a copy of the report shall also be submitted to the designated museum repository. City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 6 Mitigation Measure Implementation Compliance Implementation Noise Recommmended Measure N-1. Construction Noise Reduction Measures. The construction contractor shall prepare a Construction Noise Control Plan prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Construction Noise Control Plan shall specify the noise reduction measures to be implemented during project construction to ensure noise levels are reduced at nearby residences. The measures specified in the Construction Noise Control Plan shall be included on the building and grading plans and shall be implemented by the construction contractor during construction. At a minimum, the Construction Noise Control Plan shall include the following measures: 1. Construction Operating Hours. Limit all construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction activity shall be prohibited on Sundays and national holidays. 2. Mufflers. During all construction phases, all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards. 3. Silencing. Power construction equipment (including combustion engines), fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with silencing devices consistent with manufacturer’s standards, if available. Equipment shall be properly maintained, and the project applicant or owner shall require any construction contractor to keep documentation on-site during any earthwork or construction activities demonstrating that the equipment has been maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. 4. Stationary Equipment. All stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest sensitive receptors. 5. Signage and Noise Complaint Coordinator The project applicant shall designate an on-site construction project manager who shall be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. This person shall be responsible for responding to concerns of neighboring properties about construction noise disturbance and shall be available for responding to any construction noise complaints during the hours that construction is to take place. They shall also be responsible for determining the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad silencer) and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. A toll-free telephone number shall be posted at construction site entrances for the duration of construction and provided in all notices (mailed, Project Applicant/ verified by the Planning & Development Services Department Prior to issuance of a grading permit During grading and construction City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 7 Mitigation Measure Implementation Compliance Implementation complaints during construction and shall also include procedures requiring that the on-site construction manager to respond to callers. The on-site construction project manager shall be required to track complaints pertaining to construction noise, ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction and shall notify the City’s Community Development Director of each complaint occurrence. 6. Smart Back-Up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels. 7. Equipment Idling. Construction vehicles and equipment shall not be left idling for longer than five minutes when not in use. 8. Temporary Noise Barriers. Erect a temporary noise barrier along the eastern project boundary, and the southern and western project boundaries, where feasible, during demolition and grading/excavation phases. Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed with solid materials (e.g., wood) with a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier at a minimum height of 12 feet. Where a solid barrier is not feasible, sound blankets affixed to the construction fencing shall be used. If a sound blanket is used, the sound blanket must have a density of at least 1 pound per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the construction fencing, and the sound blank shall be rated sound transmission class (STC) 32 or higher. N-2. Construction Vibration Control Plan. The construction contractor shall prepare a Vibration Control Plan prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Construction Vibration Control Plan shall specify the vibration reduction measures to be implemented during project construction to ensure vibration levels are reduced to 0.2 in/sec PPV at nearby residences. The measures specified in the Construction Vibration Control Plan shall be included on the building and grading plans and shall be implemented by the construction contractor during construction. At a minimum, the Construction Vibration Control Plan shall include the following measures: 1. For paving activities within 25 feet of offsite residences, a static roller shall be used in lieu of a vibratory roller. 2. For grading and earthwork activities (not including the drop-bucket or scoop) within 15 feet of offsite residences, off-road equipment shall be limited to 100 Project Applicant/ verified by the Planning & Development Services Department Prior to issuance of a grading permit During grading and construction City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Tribal Cultural Resources TCR-1. Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that Project Applicant/ During ground City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 8 Mitigation Measure Implementation Compliance Implementation the proposed project, all earth-disturbing work within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist and culturally affiliated Native American representative have evaluated the nature and significance of the find. If the City, in consultation with local Native Americans, determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with local Native American group(s). The plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan shall outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the culturally affiliated local Native American tribal representative and, if applicable, a qualified archaeologist. Examples of appropriate mitigation for tribal cultural resources include, but are not limited to, protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource, protecting traditional use of the resource, protecting the confidentiality of the resource, or heritage recovery. Planning & Development Services Department Services Department 9 4 8 8 *Not Yet Adopted* 9 4 8 8 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 amendment would allow for i a mix of new housing, amenity space, and retention of commercial uses. This would maintain the existing character of the neighborhoods in which the uses are located. 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 future mixed-use projects utilizing the Planned Community process. 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 amendment takes into consideration the needs of the community by maintaining existing uses, including medical offices and neighborhood serving businesses within walking distance of residences. 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 allows for extended access to services and jobs within walking distance of residences, that cater to the daily needs to residents. 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. 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. 9 4 8 8 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 ______________ in accordance with Resolution ___________. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor __________________________ __________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Assistant City Attorney City Manager *NOT YET APPROVED* 0290177_20251030_ay16 1 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Located at 511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd from RM-20 Low Density Multiple-Family Residential (RM-20) to Planned Community (PC) The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. (a) On December 21, 2021, Lund Smith of Smith Development (“Applicant”) submitted an application for Rezoning to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) to deconstruct two existing medical office buildings (9,216 square feet) and redevelop the site at 511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd (the “Subject Property,” more particularly described in Exhibit A) with a residential mixed use development. Following several revisions, the project includes a new six-story mixed-use building with 66 multi-family residential units and 1,984 square feet of commercial office space, plus ground floor resident common space, an office lobby, and a fitness area for residents and office tenants. The 66 units include 19 studios, 39 one-bedroom and eight two-bedroom units and a two level below-grade parking garage. This project also includes a Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow commercial use to replace existing medical office in the Multiple Family Residential Land Use Designation. (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. *NOT YET APPROVED* 0290177_20251030_ay16 2 (g) The PTC reviewed the revised project on October 8, 2025 and recommended approval of the project to the City Council with conditions. (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. *NOT YET APPROVED* 0290177_20251030_ay16 3 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 October 22, 2025. With respect to the Subject Property, the project comprises the uses included in this Ordinance, depicted on the Development Plans, incorporated by reference, including the following components: (a) Redevelopment of the Subject Property, as described in more detail in the Development Plan, including deconstruction of two existing medical office buildings, and construction of a new six-story mixed- use building with 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 1 1 Low Income 2 2 1 Moderate Income 1 4 1 Totals 4 7 2 (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, as depicted in the project plans, of office uses and neighborhood-serving uses, as defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.16.030; (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: *NOT YET APPROVED* 0290177_20251030_ay16 4 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: 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 June 2027 and conclude in May 2028. 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 Revised Final EIR published October 1, 2025 maintained there are no significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the revisions made to the design. // // *NOT YET APPROVED* 0290177_20251030_ay16 5 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 *NOT YET APPROVED* 0290177_20251030_ay16 6 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) *NOT YET APPROVED* 0290177_20251030_ay16 7 Exhibit B Record of Land Use Action Page 1 of 21 6 2 2 7 APPROVAL NO. 2025-____ 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 residential mixed-use building. As the result of several revisions, the project includes a new six-story mixed-use building with 66 multi-family residential units and 1,984 square feet of commercial office space, plus ground floor resident common space, an office lobby, and a fitness area for residents and office tenants. The 66 units include 19 studios, 39 one-bedroom and eight two-bedroom units and a two level below-grade parking garage. This project also includes a Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow commercial use to replace existing medical office in the Multiple Family Residential Land Use Designation. B. The project site consists of three existing parcels located at 511 Byron Street, 0 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. 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. After receiving ARB and PTC comments at hearings set forth below, the plans were resubmitted in October and December 2023, February and May 2024, and June 23, 2025. F. On April 18, 2024, December 5, 2024, and August 21, 2025, the ARB held duly noticed public hearings on project revisions and on each occasion recommended approval of the proposed project. I. On March 12, 2025 and October 8, 2025 PTC reviewed the project plans as revised and the associated Planned Community Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and on each occasion recommended approval. J. On November 11, 2025 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; Page 2 of 21 6 2 2 7 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 November 11, 2025, prior to approval of the decision that is the subject of this RLUA. All mitigation measures as stated in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The MMRP is included in Exhibit A of this Record of Land Use Action. SECTION 3. PLANNED COMMUNITY FINDINGS Finding #1: The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed project includes a density of units for the site that exceed what is allowed by the RM-20 zoning. It has street frontage on three sides, and a protected Oak tree overhanging the fourth side, which results in larger setbacks and a smaller buildable area than other (interior) lots of a similar size. Finding #2: Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the planning commission and city council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The primary public benefit for this project is additional housing units to assist the City in reaching their Regional Housing Needs Assessment goals. Under the RM-20 zoning, the maximum development potential of this property would be 10 units, but through this PC application, the project proposes 66 units. The project proposes 20% (13) of the units to be designated Below Market Rate, half of which are allocated to Very Low Income and 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. Page 3 of 21 6 2 2 7 The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: This project requires approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow maintaining the existing 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 _______, 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 13 BMR units, which is 20% of the 66 provided housing units. Policy L-2.11 Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The proposed building includes a deck area for the office and individual balconies for the residents, in keeping with the urban character of the project and neighborhood. Greenery is incorporated into the ground level planters. Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site The proposed residential building will act as a Page 4 of 21 6 2 2 7 planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. 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, ground floor office, and upper floor residences. There are separate, defined entrances for the residents and office tenants. There are no historic resources on this property. The context-based design criteria do not apply. However, the project incorporates many of the design intents and is consistent with the Architectural Review findings for approval. The six-story building is taller than nearby four-story buildings. However, this is to accommodate the mixed use ground floor for flood zone requirements, and to respect the Middlefield special setback. It will enhance the residential options Downtown by providing additional units at various sizes. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project incorporates a variety of materials, including gray cast concrete, wood tone panels, painted siding, glass, and landscape elements that are of high quality and that integrate well to create a cohesive design. The project proposes on site Public Art, which will also enhance the design. The project will stand out from other nearby buildings, because it uses a variety of materials to break up the massing and add visual interest. Most other buildings in the area use a more limited palette. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing Page 6 of 21 6 2 2 7 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. 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. 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. 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 October 21 and 22, 2025, as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT: Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions as contained in this document. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET: A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project Page 7 of 21 6 2 2 7 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. 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. 6. 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. 7. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11.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. 12. 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. Page 8 of 21 6 2 2 7 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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, and has chosen alternative compliance as a part of the Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) approval. Per the PHZ, at least 20% of the units shall be affordable to very low, low, or moderate income such that the income restricted units average out to no more than 80% AMI. The proposed project is required to contain no less than thirteen (13) below market rate units, allocated as described in the Planned Community (PC) Ordinance. 16.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). 17.BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) HOUSING. A Regulatory Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the 13 BMR units shall be executed and recorded prior to final map approval or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. All BMR units constructed under this condition shall be in conformance with the City’s BMR Program rules and regulations. Failure to comply with the timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not waive its later enforcement. Failure to comply with the timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not waive its later enforcement. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. Page 9 of 21 6 2 2 7 21. 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. 22. EASEMENT REQUEST. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall dedicate a Public Access Easement over a portion of the 24-foot front yard special setback, including to a depth of 20 feet, for multi-modal transportation improvements in a form acceptable to the Planning and Development Services Director, Public Works Director, and City Attorney. Any future easement may require the removal of site improvements to facilitate multi-modal transportation improvements or Transportation Element Comprehensive Plan policies, except to the extent that the features required for site circulation and egress shall be allowed to remain. The City accepts this may reduce parking from 78 to 72 parking spaces. If future City projects or utility needs require removal or relocation of facilities within this setback, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for all associated costs, including administrative processing and construction fees. The developer shall accept financial responsibility for any such relocation or retrofit required by future City projects. 23. SUBDIVISION MAP. The Lot Merger shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. 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 Page 10 of 21 6 2 2 7 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. 28. 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 29. A building permit is required for the scope of work shown. Note that Building permit submission after 12/31/25 shall follow the 2025 CA Building Standards Code amended by the City. 30. At time of building permit, the following items shall be reviewed in detail. a. Building and site accessibility per CBC 11A, 11B b. Regular and van accessible spaces including EV per CBC and PAMC c. Building Code analysis d. Fire-rating and protection of opening at roof, floors, and walls e. Green building compliance. f. Structural design calculations, plans, and details. g. Refer to https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Development- Services/Apply-for-a-Permit/Apply-for-a-Building-Permit for building permit submittal requirements. 31. At building permit, provide structural design of the basement wall and parking. Future building permits shall be required for any future city improvements within the Special Setback. 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 Page 11 of 21 6 2 2 7 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 PROGRAM. The applicant shall abide by the Final Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, entitled “660 University Avenue, Transportation Demand Management Prepared for Smith Development”, dated October 24, 2025 or as updated to the satisfaction of the Office of Transportation prior to issuance of the building permit. 36.TDM ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT. The TDM plan shall include measures and programs to achieve a reduction in single-occupancy vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 20%, in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The TDM plan shall include 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. 37. TDM PLAN MONITORING. The Owner and any subsequent Owner(s) of the property, including their successors, assigns, or agents, shall comply with all Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures set forth in this approval. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Chief Transportation Page 11 of 21 6 2 2 7 Official 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 a diameter ≥2 inches, shift the hole over by 12 inches and repeat the process. certified arborist in a supervisory role. Page 13 of 21 6 2 2 7 e. All pruning work on oak #10 shall be supervised directly by the project arborist. Any authorized digging within the TPZ shall be supervised directly by the project arborist. Roots encountered with diameters of ≥2 inches shall be retained and protected. 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 after all other construction is completed, and 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. 44. Expected impacts to neighboring protected coast live oak tree #10 as described in the C8 updated consulting arborist report from David Babby and from the ground penetrating radar study provided by consulting arborist Robert Booty, are within acceptable parameters of industry standards, provided that all mitigation methods outlined in the consulting arborist report are followed during construction. In addition, prior to the applicant receiving building permit approval, a security bond will be placed on the neighboring coast live oak tree (Quercus agrifolia) 50" DBH tree #10 for 200% of the appraised replacement value of the tree. The security deposit duration period shall be five years from the date of final occupancy. See language below pertaining to the tree bond as specified in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual: 45. 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. Page 13 of 21 6 2 2 7 c. SECURITY DEPOSIT DURATION. The security deposit duration period shall be five years from the date of final occupancy. Return of the security guarantee shall be subject to City approval of the final monitoring report. A tree shall be considered dead when the main leader has died back, 25% of the crown is dead or if major trunk or root damage is evident. Should the tree die, a new tree of equal or greater appraised value shall be planted in the same area by the applicant (or new property owner should the property change hands) with permission of the tree owner at 517 Byron Street. Landscape area and irrigation shall be adapted to provide optimum growing conditions for the replacement tree at applicants expense. The replacement tree that is planted shall be subject to a new three-year establishment and monitoring program. The applicant shall provide an annual tree evaluation report as originally required. d. FORFEIT OF DEPOSIT. The City may determine that if the tree should die (as defined above) and an agreement on a replacement tree cannot be reached with the tree owner at 517 Byron Street, it will constitute a forfeit of the deposit equal to the appraised value. Any forfeit will be deposited into the Forestry Fund to plant new trees elsewhere. Issues causing forfeit of any portion of the deposit may also be subject to remedies described in Palo Alto Municipal Code. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 46. 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 47. 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. 48. 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. 49. STREETWORK PERMIT: The applicant shall obtain a Streetwork Permit from the Department of Public Works for all public improvements. 50. 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.” Page 14 of 21 6 2 2 7 51. 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. 52. 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. 53. SOILS ENGINEER CERTIFICATION: Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, applicant shall provide a soil grading report prepared by the soils engineer, including locations and elevation of field density tests, summaries of field and laboratory tests and other substantiating data, and comments on any changes made during grading and their effect on the recommendations made in the soils engineering investigation report. The soils engineer shall certify as to the adequacy of the site for the intended use. 54. 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. 55. 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”. 56. 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. 57. 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. 58. DRY-FLOODPROOFING PLAN INSERT: Insert the “Plan Insert for Dry Floodproofed Non-Residential and Mixed-Use Buildings” sheet into the plan set. 59. 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. Page 15 of 21 6 2 2 7 60. 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. 61. 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. 62. 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. 63. LOGISTICS PLAN: A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, bus stop relocations, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors’ parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map. NOTE: Some items/tasks on the logistics plan may require an encroachment permit. 64. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: All improvement plan sets shall include the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” sheet. 65. 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. 66. 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. 67. 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. 68. 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 Page 16 of 21 6 2 2 7 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. WATERSHED PROTECTION Page 17 of 21 6 2 2 7 75. Stormwater quality protection a. Temporary and permanent waste, compost and recycling containers shall be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. b. Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed). c. Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping. d. 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. 76. All proposed Stormwater treatment measures should have a detail on this detail sheet. Provide a standard detail for the pervious pavers. 77. Alternative Compliance for Stormwater Treatment: The applicant and the City shall enter into an agreement acceptable to the Public Works Director or designated representative to provide alternative compliance as either approved equivalent treatment area or with payment of in-lieu fees to comply with the regulated projects stormwater treatment obligations. FIRE 78. 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 79. 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. 80. 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. 81. 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. 82. 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 83. Install 1-2" conduit from the MPOE to existing CPAU cabinet. Page 18 of 21 6 2 2 7 WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER UTILITIES PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 84. 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) 85. 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). 86. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 87. 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). 88. 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. 89. 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. 90. 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. Page 20 of 21 6 2 2 7 91. 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. 92. 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. 93. 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. 94. A sewer lateral per lot is required. Show the location of the sewer lateral on the plans. Existing sewer laterals (city's co to sewer main) if determined to be in poor condition shall be replaced at the owner's expense. A video inspection and full evaluation of the lateral will be performed by WGW utilities operations. The applicant will be informed of the sewer lateral assessment and need to install a new lateral. If a new sewer lateral is required, a profile of the sewer lateral is required showing any possible conflicts with storm, electric/communications ductbanks or other utilities. 95. All existing water and wastewater services/laterals that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per the latest WGW utilities standards. 96. 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. 97. 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. 98. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas, & wastewater. 99. The contractor is to temporary plug the sewer lateral during construction. (by using t cone plug: expandable pipe plug with no metal parts) Page 21 of 21 6 2 2 7 SECTION 7. Term of Approval. 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: 6 1 0 8 ATTACHMENT F ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 660 University Avenue, 21PLN-00341 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-20 DISTRICT) AND PROPOSED Regulation Required RM-20 Proposed PHZ 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) Minimum Front Yard (Middlefield) 24 foot Special Setback along Middlefield Road 24 feet above grade 0 feet below grade, 17’8” for garage stair Street Rear Yard (Byron)16 feet 12 feet above grade 0 feet below grade and for garage stair Street Side Yard (University)16 feet 7 feet above grade 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 ramp Max. Building Height 30 feet 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 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) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.5:1 (11,263 sf) 3.05:1 (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 Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit 10,500 sf Ground level patio: 735 sf Balconies: ~60 sf per unit (typical), 4,955 sf total Total 86.2 per unit Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit Ground level patio: 735 sf 10.5 sf per unit Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit Every unit has a balcony ranging from 60 sf to >400 sf 6 1 0 8 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 7 ft to 25 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 (10 feet, 45-degree angle) along the interior lot line. However, this project does not comply with PC or RM-20 daylight plane. Table 3: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 Off-Street Parking for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Office 8 parking spaces 8 parking spacesVehicle Parking Housing 76 parking spaces 70 parking spaces 8% reduction Loading Space for Office None None Proposed Loading Space for Residential One required Off site street space proposed Bicycle Parking Long Term 66 residential 1 office In secure enclosures 80 residential 8 office In secure enclosures Bicycle Parking Short Term 7 rack spaces residential 1 rack space office 8 rack spaces residential 2 rack spaces office 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; 66 residential units (1 employee unit + 65 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 ground floor, 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 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; 4,955 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, 5,690 SF of private residential balcony & private/common terrace area is provided where 9,900 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 0.437 & the proposed residential FAR is 2.614 (66 units for ~ 0.5 acres where 10 are allowed) for a combined proposed FAR of 3.051. 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. 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 66 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 8% 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 13 affordable units (20% of total rentable units): Income Level A (STU) C (1BR) D1 (1BR) D2 (1BR) E (2BR) G1 (STU) G2 (STU) H2 (1BR) K1 (1BR) Total BMR Units (13 total) Very low income 1 1 2 Low Income 1 1 1 1 1 5 Moderate Income 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Total 13 Unit Type Studio: Unit Type A, B, G1/G2, J (412 – 698 SF) 1 Bedroom: Unit Type C, D1/D2, F1, H1/H2, K1/K2 (568 – 805 SF) 2 Bedroom: Unit Type E, F2 (819 – 880 SF) 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 412 SF to 880 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 71% of the units will be 1BR & 2BR, with the remainder provided as studios. Floor Unit A STU Unit B STU Unit C 1BR Unit D1 1BR Unit D2 1BR Unit E 2BR Unit F1 1BR Unit F2 2BR Unit G1 STU Unit G2 STU Unit H1 1BR Unit H2 1BR Unit J STU Unit K1 STU Unit K2 STU Total per Floor Second 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 15 Third 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 15 Fourth 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 12 Fifth 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 12 Sixth 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 12 Total per Unit 4 2 5 5 2 5 3 3 5 7 5 10 1 5 9 66 RM-20 Zoning compliance The proposed project requests City Council consideration of the following adjustments under a PC application, to approve 66 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 3.051 as noted above, including increased density of 66 units from 10/0.5 acre allowed. 3. Reduced parking: 84 stalls are required (8 office + 76 residential, which includes assigned + 2 unassigned ADA). The proposed project seeks to provide a minimum of 78 stalls utilizing a 8% TDM reduction. 4. Open Space: 9,900 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 (5,690 SF). 5. Daylight Plane: Allowance to not comply with the daylight plane condition adjacent to the single family residence at 534 Middlefield Rd. 1 Kallas, Emily From:Kinsey haffner <haffner_fk@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, October 30, 2025 12:23 AM To:Yang, Albert; Kallas, Emily Subject:680 University, the alternative to 660 University, Does Not Qualify For Builder’s Remedy CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I request that this email and its companion previous email communications on this topic be considered and made a part of the official records and deliberations for the 660 University project (660 Project). The threat of the 680 University project (680 Project) as a Builder’s Remedy (BR) alternative heavily and overtly influenced the PTC decision to approve the 660 University project (660 Project), as the public record of the Commissioner’s questions, comments and concerns makes obvious. Some even went so far as to say that although they had serious concerns and issues about the 660 Project, they voted to advance it because a BR would be worse. Although the 660 Project is independent of the 680 Project, whether or not the 680 Project has BR status has a powerful effect on the considerations and decisions applicable to the 660 Project. This email examines whether the 680 Project qualifies for BR. The correct conclusion is that (1) the 680 Project has lost its status as, and currently is not, a BR application and (2) due to the intervening certification of Palo Alto’s housing element by the State, the defects that cause that outcome cannot be corrected in a way that restores its BR status. With regard to the 680 Project:  The 680 Project’s Section 69541.1(a) preliminary application (CL_680_University_APPLY4) specified 110 residential units but its Section 69541.1(e)(1) full application (24-LN-00239) reduced the number of residential units to 88 (a 20% change).  CL_680_University_APPLY4 was filed before the date the State certified the housing element for Palo Alto (City). 24-LN-00239 was filed after the certification date.  Subsection 69541.1(d) provides: “After submittal of all of the information required by subdivision (a), if the development proponent revises the project such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more…the housing development project shall not be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application that satisfies this section until the development proponent resubmits the information required by subdivision (a) so that it reflects the revisions.” This means that CL_680_University APPLY4 may be relied on only for a BR project with 89 to 129 residential units, inclusive.  The 88 residential units specified by 24PLN-00239 is outside this required range, so the 680 Project, automatically and by operation of law, does not have either the complete prerequisite preliminary application per subsection (d) or a deemed completion date per Subsection 65589.5(h)(5). Therefore, the 680 Project currently does not qualify for BR status or treatment. From Assistant City Attorney’s email attached below, the City does not dispute this point. 2  The sole remaining question is whether the defect caused by 24PLN-00239 can be remedied in a way that reestablishes BR status for the 680 Project. The answer, as is explained below, is no. BR status of the 680 Project cannot be restored or resurrected. The City and the developer entered into a Tolling Agreement (TA) purportedly relating the 680 Project. It is not clear that the TA actually applies to this situation. The TA recites that “Applicant submitted a preliminary application (“the BR Preliminary Application”)…for development of a mixed-use building include [sic] 88 residential units…(the “BR Project”) and thereafter submitted a formal development permit application…. (the “BR Application”). The Applicant maintains that the BR Preliminary Application vested the then-existing Municipal Code requirements and Housing Element status pursuant to SB 330, specifically including the ability to pursue use of the Builder’s Remedy for the BR Project.” This wording creates the following problem:  The pertinent obligations in the TA (its Section 2) are specifically limited to the “BR Project.” However, the BR Project as defined in the TA is not the project described by CL_680_University_APPLY4, and a “BR Preliminary Application” for an 88 residential unit project (I.e., as that term is defined in the TA) actually does not exist. The scope of the TA, by its terms, is limited to 24LPN-00239, and CL_680_University_APPLY4 is neither referenced or covered by the TA.  Subsection 69541.1(d), discussed below, does not allow an application for a project with only 88 residential units to link back to CL_680_University_APPLY4 for BR purposes .  24PLN-00239 needs to be amended to be an 89 residential unit project or to disappear and be replaced by a new 89 residential unit project, to avoid the adverse effects of Subsection (d). If it is amended, then it is outside the TA because it no longer is the “BR Project” as defined. If it disappears, the TA disappears with it.  Note neither of the above effects would happen if the TA defined “BR Project” in terms of CL_680_University_APPLY4. Assistant City Attorney Yang, ignoring the drafting problems of the TA, makes a two pronged argument: (1) the Tolling Agreement creates a window of opportunity for the developer to make a further filing file under Subsection 69541.1(e)(1) and (2) the Subsection 69541.1(d) problem can be resolved via that mechanism. Unfortunately for preserving the BR for the 680 Project, the second prong of Yang’s argument is not correct. The first problem with Yang’s argument is that the developer actually already has made the required subsection (e)(1) filing and the City timely responded with a list of deficiencies per subsection (e)(2). The only open time window obligation still remaining under Section 69541.1 is the developer’s obligation to respond to the City’s list of deficiencies per subsection (e)(2). Additional changes to 24PLN00239 also can be made, but that is true whether or not the TA exists. Assuming the Tolling Agreement actually has application to a filing obligation that already has been timely met and that Yang’s first prong argument about subsection (e)(1) is valid, there are only two ways to correct the Subsection 69541.1(d) problem per his second prong: (1) 24PLN-00239 is amended to change the number of residential units to 89 or (2) 24PLN-00239 is superseded or replaced by a new application for 89 residential units. 3  The wording of Subsection 69541.1(d) expressly and explicitly provides both that filiing 24PLN- 00239 with 88 residential units caused CL_680_University_APPLY4 to be incomplete as a preliminary application BR filing and that this incompleteness persists unless and until a appropriately revised preliminary application is resubmitted. This statutory wording does not refer to or authorize any other method of resolving the disconnect in number of residential units caused by the 20% change. In particular, subsection (d) does not mention or authorize the alternative to resubmission that makes up the second prong of Yang’s argument. A resubmission will create an application completion date per Subsection 65589.5(h)(5) that is after the date of certification of the City’s housing element (barring BR as an option for the 680 Project).  The Legislature extensively revised the BR statute (Section 65589.5), effective 1/1/2025. As part of that revision, the Legislature added a new provision to Section 65589.5 that relates specifically to Subsection 69541.1(d) in ways not applicable to these facts. The Legislature also revised the parts of Section 69541.1 relating the payment of fees. Most importantly, no changes were made to the text of either Subsection 65589.5(d) or Subsection 65589.5(h)(5). This legislative history is a powerful statement that the Legislature did not have any intention to modify those two pertinent provisions.  The TA only allows/forgives a “late’” filing; it’s only legal effect is to eliminate a claim of invalidity due to lateness. Thus the TA permits and makes timely an action that otherwise would be barred by the passage of time, but that permission does not change the legal effects and consequences that result from its occurrence.  Amending 24PLN-00239 to change it to 89 residential units is permissible without regard to the TA. However, a resubmission still is required per the express wording of subsection (d) or the amendment to 24PLN-00239 is deemed to be, or to obviate the need for, the required resubmission because the amendment eliminates the need for CL_680_University_APPLY4 to be revised. Either way, CL_680_University_AAPLY4 is deemed an incomplete preliminary application per subsection (d) until that corrective action occurs. The result is a new deemed completion date per Subsection 65589.5((h)(5) that is after the certification of the City’s housing element.  Superseding or replacing 24PLN-00239, as opposed to amending it, does not produce a different result. CL_680_University_APPLY4 is deemed incomplete until that corrective action occurs, same as in the amendment alternative, and that date is after the certi fication of the City’s housing element. A variation is to argue that withdrawing or abandoning 24PLN-00239 has the effect of leaving CL_680_University_APPLY4 standing alone with its original effective date. This argument also fails.  This outcome is not reconcilable with subsection (d), which expressly states that the CL_680_University_APPLY4 continues to exist as an incomplete pending resolution of discontinuity in the number of residential units.  In addition, Subsection 65589.5(o)(2)(E) demonstrates that this result is not the Legislature’s intention. That subsection provides that the 680 Project can be made subject to ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 in a variety of circumstances, specifically including if “…the housing development project is revised following submittal of a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more….” Subsection (o)(2)(E) supports and validates the notion that subsection (d) puts a preliminary application in suspension by subsection 65941.1(d) until the reason subsection (d) applies is resolved. If that were not the case, the application would not be subject to changes in the law enacted after the date the preliminary application was filed. 4  It is settled law that a valid and continuing Subsection 69541.1(a) preliminary application creates a “vested right” to BR as of its deemed completion date. This vested right must also shift forward in time, if subsection 69541.1(d) applies, to the date the relevant residential unit discontinuity is resolved. In other words, resolving that discontinuity results in a new, later, vesting date. Any other result puts the “vested right” and Subsection (o)(2)(E) in a conceptual conflict that is irreconcilable. Kinsey Haffner Get Outlook for iOS From: Kinsey haffner <haffner_fk@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 11:24 AM To: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov> Cc: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: 680 University Does Not Qualify For Builder’s Remedy Thank you, Albert, for taking the time last night to reply to my email. First, some clarifications. I actually agree with your description of the process state of the 680 applications and the “correction path” the developer probably will take (both already are in my email, though not very overtly). The difference is that we reach opposite conclusions as to the outcome. While I doubt the developer actually relied on the Tolling Agreement for reasons I can explain, but I too am positive that they will claim they did. Your comment (very politely expressed!) about my perhaps misconception isn’t correct, though I understand why you might conclude so from the way my email is written. Unfortunately, the issue at hand is nuanced and not simple and the required analysis is complex. Procedure/process needs to be considered separately from its outcome, the preliminary application needs to be considered separately from the formal application, and the two applications need to be considered separately from the proposed project itself. Then each of the above needs to be matched up against the statutory schema, taking into account the actual phrasing of relevant provisions looked at in the context of a non-obvious aspect of the relevant statutory history. Successfully navigating the above is necessary because the correct answer to the BR status of 660/680 University is pivotal, as last night’s Commissioner questions and comments made obvious. Our doing so via an email exchange will be difficult and time consuming, and a collegial phone call or F2F meeting will be faster with a better outcome. I hasten to add, and it goes without saying, that “better outcome” does not mean we end up in agreement. Doing so will be excellent, regardless of whose view prevails, but correctly understanding the other’s positions and conclusions will suffice. A long way, for which I apologize, to request some dates and times when we can speak by phone or meet. I presume sooner is better than later. My calendar is open with a few exceptions next week every day excluding 10/12. I am unavailable all of the week following due to travel plans. After that, only phone would work, as I will be in Idaho. Best regards, Kinsey 5 Get Outlook for iOS From: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 10:49 PM To: Kinsey haffner <haffner_fk@hotmail.com> Cc: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@paloalto.gov> Subject: RE: 680 University Does Not Qualify For Builder’s Remedy Mr. Haffner, Thanks for your email and your comments to the PTC. My response to the PTC was based in Government Code section 65941.1, subdivision (e), which grants an applicant 180 days to submit a formal application consistent with a preliminary application containing the information in subdivision (a). For the 680 University “Builder’s Remedy” project, a preliminary application was submitted on June 11, 2024. Therefore, the applicant had until December 8, 2024 to submit a formal application that is consistent with the June 11, 2024 preliminary application. The City and the applicant entered into a tolling agreement on December 4, 2024 that tolls any and all submittal deadlines related to the Builder’s Remedy project, which includes the 180 day deadline for the applicant to submit a formal application. The fact that the applicant submitted an 88-unit formal application in September 2024 does not preclude them from submitting another formal application for 89-131 units within the 180 day timeline (as extended by the tolling agreement). I expect the applicant would assert that their failure to submit such an application was in reliance on the tolling agreement. I believe your analysis may misconstrue the impact of changes to a development proposal on a preliminary application. If an applicant submits a preliminary application for 100 units and subsequently submits a formal application for 50 units, this does not have any effect on the 100-unit preliminary application. It simply means that the 50-unit project cannot claim the benefits of the 100-unit preliminary application. Under subdivision (d), the 50-unit project “shall not be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application” until a new preliminary application for 50 units is submitted. But the applicant could still, within 180 days of the 100-unit preliminary application, submit another formal application for 81 units or 119 units and take advantage of its protections. Best, Albert S. Yang | Assistant City Attorney 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 P: 650.329.2171 | E: albert.yang@paloalto.gov This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the message. If you received the message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message. From: Kinsey haffner <haffner_fk@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 8:46 PM To: Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@paloalto.gov> 6 Cc: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@paloalto.gov> Subject: Fw: 680 University Does Not Qualify For Builder’s Remedy CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Albert, I spoke tonight about the Builder's Remedy for 680 University. Attached below is my detailed analysis of this issue, which I suspect you have not yet seen. My belief is that your quick legal advice is not entirely right. If you want to, and are allowed to, discuss this with me. I will be happy to do so. Your answer in public forum to the question posed to you included that the BR defect identified can be remedied. The answer is no in my view, but even if yes, any corrective action at this point (even an amendment to the formal application if it is deemed a resubmission) at this point would create a deemed completed date after, not before, the certification of the City's housing element.. The reason is that Gov. Code Section 69541.1(d) specifically both requires the preliminary application to be resubmitted and provides the deemed effective date for the preliminary application is the date of the resubmission. The defect cannot be remedied by amending the formal full application, because the wording of subsection (d) does not recognize that as an allowable way to remedy the defect. You also referred to the Tolling Agreement. However, the Tolling Agreement does not apply. First, the defect is caused by what was filed and not by a failure to make a timely filing, which makes the Tolling Agreement inapplicable. Second, all of the pertinent events occurred before the Tolling Agreement was signed, and that agreement is not retroactive. Third, the Tolling Agreement states it applies to non- submissions, etc. made "in reliance on" the Tolling Agreement, a predicate event that is not in play here because the necessary reliance did not happen. Finally, the defect arose by the filing of the formal application, which occurred after the certification. Regards (and fellow Stanford Law grad), Kinsey Haffner Get Outlook for iOS From: Kinsey haffner <haffner_fk@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 3:11 PM To: Kallas, Emily <emily.kallas@paloalto.gov>; planning.commission@paloalto.gov <planning.commission@paloalto.gov> Cc: Raybould, Claire <claire.raybould@paloalto.gov>; Christopher Ream <ream@reamlaw.com>; The Hamilton Sharon Fees <sharon@thehamilton.net>; carole.gilbert@icloud.com <carole.gilbert@icloud.com> Subject: Re: 680 University Does Not Qualify For Builder’s Remedy Resend of my 7/7/2025memail addressed to Emily Kallas, with typos corrected. No substantive changes. Hi Emily, 7 This email examines the current Builder’s Remedy (BR) status of the pending application for the 680 University project (680 Project). I apologize for its length, but the issue is involved and complex. Also, thank you in advance for including this email in the official records for 680 Project. I also request it become part of the official records for the companion 660 University project application, as a matter of creating notice. Although 660 University is a standalone project independent of the 680 Project, whether or not the 680 Project has BR status has an indirect effect on the considerations and decisions applicable to 660 University. If the City Attorney has any opinion, reaction or response to this email, please communicate the same to me so that I may reply. Question posed: Is the 680 Project and its application entitled to Builder's Remedy (BR) treatment under Gov. Code Section 65589.5? Answer: The answer to the question posed is no (more precisely, no because of, and from and after the filing date of, 24PLN-00239). Timelines and facts: Document C1_680_University_APPLY4 was filed on 6/11/2024 as the informational preliminary application under Gov. Code Section 69541.1(a). Document 24PLN-00239 was filed on 9/3/2024 as the formal full BR application for the 680 Project under Section 69541.1(e). In the interim between those two filings (on 8/3/2024), HCD certified the City's housing element. In October 2024, City issued comments on 24PLN-00239. Applicant has not responded to those comments and has not made any additional filings with respect to the 680 Project. City and the applicant entered into a Tolling Agreement on 12/2/2024, which put the 680 Project on hold from a time deadline/passage of time perspective. C1_680_University_APPLY4, which meet the requirements of Section 65541.1(a), specified 110 residential units for the 680 Project. However, 24PLN-00239 specified only 88 residential units, exactly a 20% decrease from the 110 residential units specified by C1_680_University_APPLY4. Reasoning and analysis: A complete, filed preapplication complying with Section 69541.1(a) (and, if applicable, Section 69541.1(d)) plus a complete, filed formal full application based on the preapplication complying with Section 69541.1(e) are prerequisites for BR treatment of the 680 Project under Gov. Code Section 65589.5. The version of Section 65589.5 in effect when C1_680_University_APPLY4 and 24PLN-00239 were filed (the 2024 Version) was significantly amended by a new version that went into effect on January 1, 2025 (the 2025 Version). Section 69541.1 also was amended effective January 1, 2025, but not in ways that are pertinent to the BR status of the 680 Project. Per both the 2024 Version and the 2025 Version, BR is not available for the 680 Project unless its preliminary application under Section 65941.1(a) has a “deemed completion date” that is prior to the date of certification of the City’s housing element. Section 65589.5(h)(5), which also is the same in both the 2024 Version and the 2025 Version, provides a two alternative definitions of "deemed complete": "'deemed complete' means [1st alternative] the applicant has submitted a preliminary 8 application pursuant to Section 65941.1 or [2nd alternative], if the applicant has not submitted a preliminary application, has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943." In the case of the 680 Project, operation of Section 65589.5(h)(5) turns on the effect on the 680 Project application of Section 69541.1(d). Section 69541.1(d) requires an applicant to resubmit the informational preliminary application under Gov. Code Section 69541.1(a) if the overall size of the preapplication project (measured by the number of residential units in this case) “changes by 20% or more” . Section 69541.1(d) further provides “the housing development project shall not be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application that satisfies this section until the development proponent resubmits the information required by subdivision (a) so that it reflects the [excessive] revision.” Another way to look at how subsection (d) applies to the 680 Project is that, in effect, the 680 Project may relate back to and rely on CL_680_University_APPLY4 only if the number of residential units in 24PLN-00239 is within 89 to 121 units, inclusive. The 20% decrease in the number of residential units in the 680 Project made by 24PLN-00239 as filed (110 units down to 88 units) is outside this range. Turning back to Section 65589.5(h)(5):  The 1st alternative definition of “deemed complete” is not met by the 680 Project because the resubmission requirement of Section 69541.1(d) means, CL_680_University_APPLY4 notwithstanding, applicant has not submitted a complete preliminary application in compliance with Section 65941.1(a). In that regard, amending or replacing 24PLN-00239 to achieve the requisite minimum of 89 residential units does not satisfy Section 65941.1(d) since that subsection explicitly requires a Section 65491.1(a) resubmission, not a conforming change to the application to bring it within the allowed range of residential units. Also, 24PLN-00239 itself, even if so amended, would not meet the informational requirements of Section 69541.1(a).  The 2nd alternative definition is not met by Project 680 either, since 24PLN-00239 is not a complete application under Section 65941.1.  Wthdrawing and replacing 24PLAN-00239 with a new application for 89 residential units that responds to all of City’s comments is not a viable solution. First, the new filing would not be allowed by the 180-day filing requirement under Section 69541.1(e)(1) (plus, the Tolling Agreement does not apply here; see the discussion below). Second, even if legally possible, the resulting deemed completion date would be after the date that City’s housing element was certified by HCD. Amending 24PLN-00239 to respond as needed to the City’s comments and increase the number of residential units to 89 also would be a moot point, for the same reason.  In any event, any action taken now to meet either definition of "deemed complete" would result in a deemed completion date that is after the date City's housing element was certified by HCD. The combined effect of Sections 65941.1(a), 69541.1(d) and 65589.5(h)(5) can be summarized as follows:  C1_680_University_APPLY4 satisfied the filing requirements of Section 69541.1(a), thereby initially creating a vested right to BR status for the 680 Project with a deemed complete date of 6/11/2024.  The number of residential units for the 680 University Project was changed by 24PLN-00239, effective as of its filing date, from 110 units to 88 units (a 20% reduction). Per Section 69541.1(d), this 20% change rendered C1_680_University_APPLY4 incomplete for purposes of Section 69541.1(a), automatically by operation of law and not as a discretionary matter. As a result, the vested right to BR status for the 680 Project was lost, also automatically, upon the filing of 24PLN- 00239. 9  Per Section 69541.1(d), the preliminary application under Section 69541.1(a) for the 680 Project could be reinstated by a resubmission (and potentially perhaps in other ways, as discussed above), but the deemed complete date for the reinstated preapplication would be when that outcome was accomplished, not C1_680_Univerity_APPLY4’s original filing date of 6/11/2024, which renders that stratagem moot. In any event the resubmission or reinstatement did not occur.  Although neither the 680 Project nor its application is entitled to BR status or treatment under Section 65589.5, 24PLN-00239 probably still survives and can be processed, as a "regular" (i.e., non-BR) application. However, the Tolling Agreement would not apply to that re-constituted application, since the Tolling Agreement is limited by its terms to BR issues. The inevitable conclusion, and the singularly important fact, is that there is no completed preliminary BR application for the 680 Project under Section 69541.1(a) with a deemed completion date before the date the City’s housing element (or, for that matter, before 1/1/2025). Therefore, no BR vested right or status exists for the 680 Project and the 2025 Version does not apply. Supplemental points: Tolling Agreement: The Tolling Agreement has no effect on the above discussion or its outcome. The purpose and subject matter of the Tolling Agreement is pausing, for BR application purposes, the running of all filing and/or submittal and review deadlines applicable to the 680 Project. Application of Section 69541(d) discussed above was triggered by a status event (change in the number of residential units) not a timing event (failure to meet a filing, submission, or review deadline requirement). Also, the Tolling Agreement is inapplicable to any failure or omission to make a timely filing or submission with respect to Section 69541.1, since the Tolling Agreement requires reliance on the Agreement to excuse any such failure or omission — which is impossible since all the events and acts here relevant to that Section occurred before the Tolling Agreement was signed. Definitional requirements: C1_680_University_APPLY4 specifies sufficient low-income units to satisfy the definition of a BR project under the 2024 Version but not the 2025 Version. 24PLN-00239, on the other hand, fails to designate sufficient low-income units to meet the definition of a BR project under either the 2024 Version or the 2025 Version. The reason is that 24PLN-00239 counted/included BMR units for moderate income, which is compliant with PAMC BMR requirements but irrelevant to satisfying the statutory BR requirements. Although 24PLN-00239 can be amended to correct this error, given the resubmission requirement applicable to C1_680_University_APPLY4, the change would not requalify the 680 Project for BR treatment with a deemed effective date before the date the City's housing element was certified by HCD. Section 65589.5(f)(7)(B): As discussed above, the 2025 Version does not apply to the 680 Project. Even if it did, Section 65589.5(f)(7)(B) of the 2025 Version may not be relied upon to resurrect BR treatment of the 680 Project. First, by its terms, this Section is available only for a "housing development project [application] deemed complete before January 1, 2025" and the 680 Project does not meet this threshold requirement. Second, the provision only permits applicants "to revise their application so that the project is a builder’s remedy project, without being required to resubmit a preliminary application, even if the revision results in the number of residential units or square footage of construction changing by 20 percent or more." In this case, the “revise the application” wording of the subsection is blocking, since the problem stems from the application (24PLN-00239) itself, not a revision to an application that creates the 20% change. In addition, the wording of subsection (f)(7)(B) explicitly refers to changing an existing application that is not for BR project to convert it into one that is for a BR project. Any change in 10 reliance on this subsection with respect to the 680 Project would create a BR application whose deemed effective date is after the date City's housing element was certified by HCD. Kinsey Haffner 555 Byron Street #210, Palo Alto, CA Get Outlook for iOS 1 Kallas, Emily From:Tina Frisco <tfrisco@sonic.net> Sent:Tuesday, October 14, 2025 11:33 AM To:Council, City Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:660 Universty Avenue CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To: Palo Alto City Counsel From: Tina Frisco, RN, PA Resident Re: Proposed Apt. Complex at 660 University Date: October 14, 2025 I am a resident at Lytton Gardens, 649 University Avenue. I have serious concerns regarding the proposed apartment complex at 660 University. My balcony and windows face University Avenue, as do those of many other residents residing here. We won’t be able to open our windows during construction (which will take months, if not years) due not only to exceedingly loud noise, but also to the amount of dust and dirt that will enter. Keeping the windows closed will keep out only some of the dust and dirt, which can enter even when windows are closed. I know this because when I lived by the train station, soot built up on my windowsills even though the windows were closed. I have asthma, and daily exposure to dust over an extended period of time will negatively impact my health. I could very well end up being hospitalized and requiring IV medication to assist me in breathing, which in turn could lead to intubation for a resp irator, which in turn could lead to death. Aside from health concerns, there also are traffic issues. University Avenue is already congested most of the time, especially since it’s a direct thoroughfare to Stanford Hospital. We must contend with myriad traffic noises daily: ambulances, fire trucks, buses, recycling and garbage pickup, street cleaning, loud (VERY LOUD) motorcycles, and much more. Adding at least 66 more vehicles to this area will impose severe if not dangerous risks on our community. I think it’s commendable that the city is pursuing affordable housing projects. However, 660 University is not the place for this. My health will take a nosedive both during and after construction, as will that of many other residents here. Please let me know when this issue will be placed on your agenda and opened to the public for discussion. Thank you. 2 Tina Frisco, RN 649 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 1 Kallas, Emily From:Steven Atneosen <atneosen@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 8, 2025 1:51 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Support for Housing at 660 University CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention  This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Hello Palo Alto PTC, we are Steven Atneosen and Caroline Dahllof, and we live in the Crescent Park neighborhood. Please support the proposal for 70 homes at 660 University Ave. We need more housing near retail and transportation, especially the 14 affordable homes. This project will promote sustainable lifestyles, support local businesses, and bring much needed housing options to our community. We hope the PTC will allow this project to move forward to council without further delay or modification. Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community, Steven Atneosen Caroline Dahllof atneosen@hotmail.com 1 Kallas, Emily From:Rob Schreiber <r_schreiber_98@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 8, 2025 1:13 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Support for Housing at 660 University CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention  This is a personal email address.  This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Dear members of the commission, I support the 660 University project. While I live at the other end of Palo Alto, I am a frequent visitor to and patron of business in downtown. I appreciate the pressures from various directions and quarters concerning its evolution. Downtown Palo Alto clearly needs to change with the times. The pace is too slow. The need for housing near jobs and transit, housing for people who can not buy at the price levels of current Palo Alto housing, and additional people of a range of ages and income brackets -- these are overwhelming, and they are made more so by the dramatic changes in the area's economy which contrasts to the slow pace of change in Palo Alto's plan, goals, vision, and processes. As a dear friend and long-time Greenmeadow neighbor and leader said to me, "It's a city, not a museum." Our views, policies, and imagination must change with the deep and dramatic changes to the economics and demographics of the area. They have not. Put simply, we remain stuck, or nearly so, despite some changes that the city has instituted. By the way, as a southerner I want to point out that the situation along El Camino in south Palo Alto remains dismal. On the southwest side of the road, between Page Mill and Arastradero, one still finds ancient decrepit one story commercial spaces, quonset huts, and at least four weed covered vacant properties. At $10 million per acre, this is a mind-boggling waste. Seventy years ago, builders and developers built the south Palo Alto that we live in to meet the needs of that time. That 1950s cityscape no longer meets the social needs. We have to let the market, developers and buyers, have a say in how to take these invaluable but underutilized spaces and put them to viable use. We have to do better. Despite my desire to see changes happen faster, I remain grateful to you for your work and service to the community, 2 Rob Schreiber 1 Kallas, Emily From:Rachel Miller <rlhello@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 8, 2025 4:24 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Support for Housing at 660 University CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza on. Be cau ous of opening a achments and clicking on links. Hello Palo Alto PTC, my name is Rachel Miller and I live in Miranda Green. Please support the proposal for 70 homes at 660 University Ave. We need more housing near retail and transporta on, especially the 14 affordable homes. This project will promote sustainable lifestyles, support local businesses, and bring much needed housing op ons to our community. I hope the PTC will allow this project to move forward to council without further delay or modifica on. Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community, Rachel Miller Sent from my iPhone 1 Kallas, Emily From:Owen Byrd <owenbyrd@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 8, 2025 11:48 AM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Support for Housing at 660 University CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention  This is a personal email address.  This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Hello Palo Alto PTC, my name is Owen Byrd and I live in Downtown North. I am also a former member of the PTC. Please support the proposal for 70 homes at 660 University Ave. We need more housing near retail and transportation. This project will promote sustainable lifestyles, support local businesses, and bring much needed housing options to our community. I am disappointed by opposition to the project from some residents of The Hamilton and hope you will not be swayed by it. I remember when The Hamilton was proposed in the 1990s and was vigorously opposed by neighbors. I supported its development then, just as I support 660 University now, for the same reason -- we need more multi-family housing, especially downtown. I hope the PTC will enable this project to move forward to the City Council without further delay or modification. Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community, Owen Byrd 1 Kallas, Emily From:Mert Dikmen <mertdikmen@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 8, 2025 11:29 AM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Support for Housing at 660 University CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention  This is a personal email address.  This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Hello Palo Alto PTC, my name is Mert Dikmen and I live in Crescent Park. Please support the proposal for 70 homes at 660 University Ave. We need more housing near retail and transportation.This project will promote sustainable lifestyles, support local businesses, and bring much needed housing options to our community. As an owner of a home within three blocks of this development, I eagerly await its completion. It will anchor the downtown, increase retail foot traffic and will add to the vibrant character of the neighborhood. I hope the PTC will allow this project to move forward to council without further delay or modification. Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community, Mert Dikmen 1 Kallas, Emily From:Mary Beth Train <mbt3305@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 8, 2025 4:59 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Co-Presidents Lisa Ratner and Hannah Lu; Steve Levy; palo.alto.fwd@gmail.com Subject:660 University mixed-use project - YES CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention  This is a personal email address.  This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast I am writing to support the staff recommendation to move the 660 University mixed-use project forward to Council. The project proposes 70 residential units, including 14 BMR units. As noted in a letter from Lisa Ratner and Hannah Lu, Co-Presidents, LWV Palo Alto, .."This proposal maintains the city's base requirement of 20% allocation to BMR units, with 2 very low income, 5 low income, and 7 moderate income units (studio, one and two bedrooms.) The downtown location close to shopping, dining, services, jobs and transit allows many residents to take downtown trips by walking and biking--a plus for the environment. Building 100% affordable units in Palo Alto by a non-profit developer would cost nearly $1million per unit and likely take more than 4 years. Building mixed income housing, as this project does following the city's inclusionary requirements, is currently the fastest way to increase BMR units." This looks like the best iteration of this project yet, and I urge your support and action of the City Council to go forward with it. Palo Alto needs diversity in housing stock and in demographics. This project is a step in that direction. With downtown so close, residents will liven up the downtown as they use its businesses. Thank you for your consideration, Mary Beth Train Resident - 850 Webster Street, Apt. 420. Property owner - 3305 Middlefield Road Mary Beth Train - Home office phone 650-324-7346 *voice only, not text* - mbt3305@yahoo.com 1 Kallas, Emily From:Kinsey haffner <haffner_fk@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 8, 2025 3:12 PM To:Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission Cc:Raybould, Claire; Christopher Ream; The Hamilton Sharon Fees; carole.gilbert@icloud.com Subject:Re: 680 University Does Not Qualify For Builder’s Remedy CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Resend of my 7/7/2025memail addressed to Emily Kallas, with typos corrected. No substantive changes. Hi Emily, This email examines the current Builder’s Remedy (BR) status of the pending application for the 680 University project (680 Project). I apologize for its length, but the issue is involved and complex. Also, thank you in advance for including this email in the official records for 680 Project. I also request it become part of the official records for the companion 660 University project application, as a matter of creating notice. Although 660 University is a standalone project independent of the 680 Project, whether or not the 680 Project has BR status has an indirect effect on the considerations and decisions applicable to 660 University. If the City Attorney has any opinion, reaction or response to this email, please communicate the same to me so that I may reply. Question posed: Is the 680 Project and its application entitled to Builder's Remedy (BR) treatment under Gov. Code Section 65589.5? Answer: The answer to the question posed is no (more precisely, no because of, and from and after the filing date of, 24PLN-00239). Timelines and facts: Document C1_680_University_APPLY4 was filed on 6/11/2024 as the informational preliminary application under Gov. Code Section 69541.1(a). Document 24PLN-00239 was filed on 9/3/2024 as the formal full BR application for the 680 Project under Section 69541.1(e). In the interim between those two filings (on 8/3/2024), HCD certified the City's housing element. In October 2024, City issued comments on 24PLN-00239. Applicant has not responded to those comments and has not made any additional filings with respect to the 680 Project. City and the applicant entered into a Tolling Agreement on 12/2/2024, which put the 680 Project on hold from a time deadline/passage of time perspective. C1_680_University_APPLY4, which meet the requirements of Section 65541.1(a), specified 110 residential units for the 680 Project. However, 24PLN-00239 specified only 88 residential units, exactly a 20% decrease from the 110 residential units specified by C1_680_University_APPLY4. 2 Reasoning and analysis: A complete, filed preapplication complying with Section 69541.1(a) (and, if applicable, Section 69541.1(d)) plus a complete, filed formal full application based on the preapplication complying with Section 69541.1(e) are prerequisites for BR treatment of the 680 Project under Gov. Code Section 65589.5. The version of Section 65589.5 in effect when C1_680_University_APPLY4 and 24PLN-00239 were filed (the 2024 Version) was significantly amended by a new version that went into effect on January 1, 2025 (the 2025 Version). Section 69541.1 also was amended effective January 1, 2025, but not in ways that are pertinent to the BR status of the 680 Project. Per both the 2024 Version and the 2025 Version, BR is not available for the 680 Project unless its preliminary application under Section 65941.1(a) has a “deemed completion date” that is prior to the date of certification of the City’s housing element. Section 65589.5(h)(5), which also is the same in both the 2024 Version and the 2025 Version, provides a two alternative definitions of "deemed complete": "'deemed complete' means [1st alternative] the applicant has submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 or [2nd alternative], if the applicant has not submitted a preliminary application, has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943." In the case of the 680 Project, operation of Section 65589.5(h)(5) turns on the effe ct on the 680 Project application of Section 69541.1(d). Section 69541.1(d) requires an applicant to resubmit the informational preliminary application under Gov. Code Section 69541.1(a) if the overall size of the preapplication project (measured by the number of residential units in this case) “changes by 20% or more” . Section 69541.1(d) further provides “the housing development project shall not be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application that satisfies this section until the development proponent resubmits the information required by subdivision (a) so that it reflects the [excessive] revision.” Another way to look at how subsection (d) applies to the 680 Project is that, in effect, the 680 Project may relate back to and rely on CL_680_University_APPLY4 only if the number of residential units in 24PLN-00239 is within 89 to 121 units, inclusive. The 20% decrease in the number of residential units in the 680 Project made by 24PLN-00239 as filed (110 units down to 88 units) is outside this range. Turning back to Section 65589.5(h)(5):  The 1st alternative definition of “deemed complete” is not met by the 680 Project because the resubmission requirement of Section 69541.1(d) means, CL_680_University_APPLY4 notwithstanding, applicant has not submitted a complete preliminary application in compliance with Section 65941.1(a). In that regard, amending or replacing 24PLN-00239 to achieve the requisite minimum of 89 residential units does not satisfy Section 65941.1(d) since that subsection explicitly requires a Section 65491.1(a) resubmission, not a conforming change to the application to bring it within the allowed range of residential units. Also, 24PLN-00239 itself, even if so amended, would not meet the informational requirements of Section 69541.1(a).  The 2nd alternative definition is not met by Project 680 either, since 24PLN-00239 is not a complete application under Section 65941.1.  Wthdrawing and replacing 24PLAN-00239 with a new application for 89 residential units that responds to all of City’s comments is not a viable solution. First, the new filing would not be 3 allowed by the 180-day filing requirement under Section 69541.1(e)(1) (plus, the Tolling Agreement does not apply here; see the discussion below). Second, even if legally possible, the resulting deemed completion date would be after the date that City’s housing element was certified by HCD. Amending 24PLN-00239 to respond as needed to the City’s comments and increase the number of residential units to 89 also would be a moot point, for the same reason.  In any event, any action taken now to meet either definition of "deemed complete" would result in a deemed completion date that is after the date City's housing element was certified by HCD. The combined effect of Sections 65941.1(a), 69541.1(d) and 65589.5(h)(5) can be summarized as follows:  C1_680_University_APPLY4 satisfied the filing requirements of Section 69541.1(a), thereby initially creating a vested right to BR status for the 680 Project with a deemed complete date of 6/11/2024.  The number of residential units for the 680 University Project was changed by 24PLN-00239, effective as of its filing date, from 110 units to 88 units (a 20% reduction). Per Section 69541.1(d), this 20% change rendered C1_680_University_APPLY4 incomplete for purposes of Section 69541.1(a), automatically by operation of law and not as a discretionary matter. As a result, the vested right to BR status for the 680 Project was lost, also automatically, upon the filing of 24PLN- 00239.  Per Section 69541.1(d), the preliminary application under Section 69541.1(a) for the 680 Project could be reinstated by a resubmission (and potentially perhaps in other ways, as discussed above), but the deemed complete date for the reinstated preapplication would be when that outcome was accomplished, not C1_680_Univerity_APPLY4’s original filing date of 6/11/2024, which renders that stratagem moot. In any event the resubmission or reinstatement did not occur.  Although neither the 680 Project nor its application is entitled to BR status or treatment under Section 65589.5, 24PLN-00239 probably still survives and can be processed, as a "regular" (i.e., non-BR) application. However, the Tolling Agreement would not apply to that re-constituted application, since the Tolling Agreement is limited by its terms to BR issues. The inevitable conclusion, and the singularly important fact, is that there is no completed preliminary BR application for the 680 Project under Section 69541.1(a) with a deemed completion date before the date the City’s housing element (or, for that matter, before 1/1/2025). Therefore, no BR vested right or status exists for the 680 Project and the 2025 Version does not apply. Supplemental points: Tolling Agreement: The Tolling Agreement has no effect on the above discussion or its outcome. The purpose and subject matter of the Tolling Agreement is pausing, for BR application purposes, the running of all filing and/or submittal and review deadlines applicable to the 680 Project. Application of Section 69541(d) discussed above was triggered by a status event (change in the number of residential units) not a timing event (failure to meet a filing, submission, or review deadline requirement). Also, the Tolling Agreement is inapplicable to any failure or omission to make a timely filing or submission with respect to Section 69541.1, since the Tolling Agreement requires reliance on the Agreement to excuse any such failure or omission — which is impossible since all the events and acts here relevant to that Section occurred before the Tolling Agreement was signed. 4 Definitional requirements: C1_680_University_APPLY4 specifies sufficient low-income units to satisfy the definition of a BR project under the 2024 Version but not the 2025 Version. 24PLN-00239, on the other hand, fails to designate sufficient low-income units to meet the definition of a BR project under either the 2024 Version or the 2025 Version. The reason is that 24PLN-00239 counted/included BMR units for moderate income, which is compliant with PAMC BMR requirements but irrelevant to satisfying the statutory BR requirements. Although 24PLN-00239 can be amended to correct this error, given the resubmission requirement applicable to C1_680_University_APPLY4, the change would not requalify the 680 Project for BR treatment with a deemed effective date before the date the City's housing element was certified by HCD. Section 65589.5(f)(7)(B): As discussed above, the 2025 Version does not apply to the 680 Project. Even if it did, Section 65589.5(f)(7)(B) of the 2025 Version may not be relied upon to resurrect BR treatment of the 680 Project. First, by its terms, this Section is available only for a "housing development project [application] deemed complete before January 1, 2025" and the 680 Project does not meet this threshold requirement. Second, the provision only permits applicants "to revise their application so that the project is a builder’s remedy project, without being required to resubmit a preliminary application, even if the revision results in the number of residential units or square footage of construction changing by 20 percent or more." In this case, the “revise the application” wording of the subsection is blocking, since the problem stems from the application (24PLN-00239) itself, not a revision to an application that creates the 20% change. In addition, the wording of subsection (f)(7)(B) explicitly refers to changing an existing application that is not for BR project to convert it into one that is for a BR project. Any change in reliance on this subsection with respect to the 680 Project would create a BR application whose deemed effective date is after the date City's housing element was certified by HCD. Kinsey Haffner 555 Byron Street #210, Palo Alto, CA Get Outlook for iOS 1 Kallas, Emily From:Hillary Thagard <hthagard@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 8, 2025 1:52 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Support for Housing at 660 University CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza on. Be cau ous of opening a achments and clicking on links. Hello Palo Alto PTC, my name is Hillary Thagard and I live in Midtown. Please support the proposal for 70 homes at 660 University Ave. We need more housing near retail and transporta on, especially the 14 affordable homes. This project will promote sustainable lifestyles, support local businesses, and bring much needed housing op ons to our community. This project was introduced in 2021. It is me to act and end the delays. I hope the PTC will allow this project to move forward to council without further delay or modifica on. Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community, Hillary Thagard 1 Kallas, Emily From:Heather Stewart-Bhardwaj <heatherlstewart87@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 8, 2025 4:39 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Support for Housing at 660 University CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention  This is a personal email address.  This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Hello Palo Alto PTC, my name is Heather Stewart and I live in Crescent Park. Please support the proposal for 70 homes at 660 University Ave. We need more housing near retail and transportation, especially the 14 affordable homes. This project will promote sustainable lifestyles, support local businesses, and bring much needed housing options to our community. In the last year, I’ve talked to 4 childcare workers who care for my kids at the Ross road YMCA, my nanny, my son’s preschool, and Duveneck Elementary and they were struggling to find housing, live 30 miles away, or were rent burdened. This is a real problem and they work in our community. Just yesterday the person I spoke with at Duveneck Elementary PACCC told me he drives in from Dublin which takes him TWO HOURS one way on a workday. He can’t afford rent around here. The man who handles permits for city parks and rec lives in Pleasanton and drives in. If Palo Alto is actually serious about reducing carbon emissions and cares about people who work in our community and who want to be our neighbors, permit more housing. I know many more people than childcare workers struggle with rent and this is ethically wrong. We need to make Palo Alto more inclusive and offer more housing for all income levels and stages of life, from college kids to affluent tech workers to middle income workers to elderly people who have to downsize. I welcome neighbors of all stripes and support adding affordable housing, irrespective of location and height. It’s the ethical, economically smart, and environmentally friendly thing to do for the long term health of our community. I hope the PTC will allow this project to move forward to council without further delay or modification. It is imperative to build more housing and I am not sympathetic to complaints about housing being in the wrong context or too tall. We need it and it must happen regardless of neighbor concerns. 2 Please permit more and more housing so I don’t have to go through the heartbreak of trying to help my favorite ~65 year old childcare worker at the PA YMCA find an affordable apartment again. Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community, Heather Stewart LinkedIn 1 Kallas, Emily From:Angela He <angelahe101@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 8, 2025 12:00 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Support for Housing at 660 University CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention  This is a personal email address.  This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Hello Palo Alto PTC, My name is Angela He, and I am a resident of Palo Alto. Please support the proposal for 70 homes at 660 University Ave. We need more housing near retail and transportation, especially the 14 affordable homes. This project will promote sustainable lifestyles, support local businesses, and bring much needed housing options to our community. I hope the PTC will allow this project to move forward to council without further delay or modification. Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community, Angela He 1 Kallas, Emily From:Christopher Ream <ream@reamlaw.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 7, 2025 12:53 PM To:Kallas, Emily Subject:660 University - PowerPoint Slide Show Attachments:660 University - Ream - 20251006.pptx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Emily, Attached is a copy of my PowerPoint presentation for tomorrow’s PTC Hearing. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com 10/27/2025 1 Save the magnificent Coast Live Oak Tree The Tree is defined by CPA as a PROTECTED TREE. It has a 50-inch diameter trunk, is around 60 feet tall, and has a mostly balanced canopy spreading nearly 90 feet across. Applicant’s Tree Protection Report, filed March 3, 2025, page 3 90 ft Diameter Canopy is at the full 45 feet from the tree trunk The CPA’s Tree Protection Zone (“TPZ”) standard is 41 feet for the Tree. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10/27/2025 2 Canopy if it were sliced off at the 41-foot TPZ However, Applicant has arbitrarily decided to pretend that 30 feet, not 41 feet, is a TPZ for this project. Applicant will cut back the canopy to 30 feet from the trunk, which will leave it touching the face of the building. If Canopy is sliced off at 30 feet from the trunk to meet the face of the building Applicant won’t stop there. They will slice back another 6 feet to make room to install 6-foot deep balconies for every apartment. If Canopy is sliced back another 6 feet to clear the balconies – now 24 feet from the trunk And the residents will demand that the canopy be cut back further to give clearance so that the residents and their guests can enjoy them without getting poked by branches. Assume another 5 feet of pruning. 7 8 9 10 11 12 10/27/2025 3 Trim back another 5 feet to give clearance for the residents on their balconies Count them – 30 feet to the face of the building minus 6 feet for balconies and construction minus 5 feet clearance for people on the balconies brings us to only 19 feet of canopy from the Tree trunk remaining –- compared to the 45 feet we started with The Tree trunk, the small dark circle in the middle of the canopy, holds the limbs in place; in return each limb exerts a force trying to pull the Tree over. How strong those forces are depends on how much leverage each half of the canopy has – Leverage = weight x distance from trunk I will mention North and South frequently. North is the top of plan drawings, while South is the bottom. Moving North is going toward University Avenue. Moving South is going toward Hamilton Avenue and The Hamilton. The canopy extending over the property for the proposed project is all on the North side of the Tree. All of the canopy removal will be from the canopy on the North side of the Tree. The canopy on the South side of the Tree is all on the property of the neighboring dental office. There will be no removal at all from the canopy on the South side. There is general agreement by the project’s arborist and the arborist retained by The Hamilton that 25% of the whole canopy will be removed. But that 25% will all be removed from the canopy extending over the project’s property on the North side of the Tree. 13 14 15 16 17 18 10/27/2025 4 As you can see, there will be a major imbalance in the canopy trying very hard to tip the Tree over to the South, towards The Hamilton. Will the Tree be held up by its roots on the North side ? . Arborist OnSite® Horticultural Consulting, Inc. ISA Certified Arborist Report Submitted To: Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 Project Location: 660 University Avenue Palo Alto, California Submitted By: Robert Booty, Registered Member # 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor The American Society of Consulting Arborists ISA Certified Arborist WC-4286 May 23, 2022 102030405060 708090 102030405060 708090 TYP. 17 ' - 8 1 / 2 " TY P . 30'-0" OFFSET TREE PROTECTION ZONE 9'-0 TYP 3 STALLS EVSE (INDEPENDENT PUZZLE) 5 STALLS (INDEPENDENT PUZZLE) FUTU EVS R15'-0" 15' MIN. / 30' MAX.) 19 20 21 22 23 24 10/27/2025 5 It gets worse – Applicant has said that for ground intrusions, it is okay to attack roots as close as only 20 feet from the Tree. “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.” Applicant’s Tree Protection Report, filed March 3, 2025, page 10 102030405060 708090 TYP. 17 ' - 8 1 / 2 " TY P . 30'-0" OFFSET TREE PROTECTION ZONE 9'-0 TYP 3 STALLS EVSE (INDEPENDENT PUZZLE) 5 STALLS (INDEPENDENT PUZZLE) FUTU EVS R15'-0" 15' MIN. / 30' MAX.) 102030405060 708090 2030405060 708090 10 0 5050 60 70 80 90 100 102030 405060 708090 10 0 Fe e t Roots now. 51 ft radius. Actually, the roots extend out well beyond the 51 feet recorded. Roots after construction. 20 ft radius Area is a direct function of the square of the radius. 51 x 51 = 2601 20 x 20 = 400 400 / 2601 = 15.4% 25 26 27 28 29 30 10/27/2025 6 Moving on to other concerns we have about this project. Parking – 89 stalls required – 69 stalls actually provided 20 cars roaming around looking for parking RED FLAG – NOTE ALL INTERIOR DEMISING AND PARTITION WALL SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO PERMIT SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL 29 more cars roaming after office space adjustment. Applicant’s plans for the First Floor appear to grant Applicant the option to configure 7,131 sq ft of more office space in the future after receiving approval of its plans without that additional office space. In other words, Applicant gets the high rental office space without providing the 29 parking spaces to go with it. A GRAVE, UNNECESSARY, INEXCUSABLE * * DANGER * * 36 BALCONIES OVER THE UNIVERSITY AVENUE SIDEWALK 31 32 33 34 35 36 10/27/2025 7 As David Hirsch so succinctly stated at the December 1, 2022 Architectural Review Board Hearing on this project: “This is too much building in too small of a space.” 37 1 Kallas, Emily From:Christopher Ream <ream@reamlaw.com> Sent:Sunday, October 5, 2025 10:08 PM To:Planning Commission; Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: 660 University - SECOND LETTER re Other than Tree Attachments:Ream Letter re Other Than Tree - 20251005.pdf Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Commissioners and Emily Kallas, Attached is my 6-page comment letter regarding concerns about the proposed development at 660 University Avenue where Smith Development proposes to build a development much too big for that small lot. This is a second letter from me after my letter two days ago regarding the magnificent Coast Oak Tree. Emily, could you please ensure that all the Commissioners are provided with this sufficiently before the PTC Hearing on Wednesday that they have adequate time to review it. Thank you. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: ream@reamlaw.com October 5, 2025 Commissioners Planning and Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto, California Via: Planning.Commission@PaloAlto.gov Emily.Kallas@PaloAlto.gov Re: PTC Meeting on October 8, 2025 660 University Project SECOND LETTER – Comments on Other than the Tree Commissioners, The Hamilton is a senior living (55+) condominium development which shares a 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 • Byron Street Jammed – Traffic Congestion • Parking Basic Count Mechanical Lifts Parking for Office Size Adjustment ? No Parking for Fitness Center • Setbacks • Daylight Plane Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project October 5, 2025 Page 2 of 6 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. 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 or the building moved back away from the sidewalk. Byron Street Jammed – Traffic Congestion 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. 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, and with 70 rental units in the project’s building, most of which are 1BR or Studio, there are going to be a lot of deliveries, so Byron is going to get clogged and backed up many times a day. When The Hamilton was built in the 1990’s, they foresaw this problem and moved the front of the building back away from Byron Street and constructed a circular driveway that is wide enough and deep enough that a delivery van or Uber/Lyft car can park on the driveway, and then a second vehicle can park behind it or drive past it; the whole time leaving Byron Street free and clear. Byron Street Building on the right is where project would be. Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project October 5, 2025 Page 3 of 6 Parking Basic Count Parking in downtown Palo Alto is a problem the City has been dealing with for years and continues to deal with. 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. Mechanical Lifts Of the 69 actual stalls Applicant intends to provide, 54 of them are mechanical lifts where raising or lowering your car, or someone else’s car, is required. Now, 46 of those 54 lifts are “Stackers” on the second (bottom) floor of the underground garage. They are reasonably straight forward, but there is potential for operator error, and the likelihood of mechanical failure from time to time. Sheet A2.PO-C in Applicant’s PLAN 2 dated 08.08.2025 describes the system. The other 8 stalls come from a five-car “Puzzle” and a three-car “Puzzle” on the first floor. These are complex mechanical structures in which cars, your car and other people’s cars, are lifted and lowered, shifted to the left and shifted to the right. It seems almost inevitable that there will be operator error and somebody’s car will be damaged, probably not the then temporary operator’s car. And mechanical failure is almost certain. Interestingly, Applicant has not included any description of these “Puzzles.” 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, Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project October 5, 2025 Page 4 of 6 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. 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 Basic Count section above. Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project October 5, 2025 Page 5 of 6 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. 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 along Middlefield Road 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 under ground with zero setbacks. Is this standard and acceptable? 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. Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project October 5, 2025 Page 6 of 6 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 Commission to require action to correct. Thank you for your consideration, Christopher Ream 3/32"=1'-0" PL PL OFFICE LOBBY SPEED RAMP DOWN TO P2 LEVEL UNIVERSITY AVE. 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " OFFICE PARKING RESIDENTIAL PARKING STAIR BEYOND 7' - 9 " T Y P . 45.0° 55 ' - 0 " 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 " FE N C E 7'- 0 " 9' - 9 " EL. -1'-6" (NAVD 88 EL. 45.5') NEIGHBORING PROPERTY GRADE P1 LEVEL P2 LEVEL LIFT PIT SECOND FLOOR EL. 14'-8" THIRD FLOOR FOURTH FLOOR EL. 24'-5" EL. 34'-2" FIRST FLOOR EL. 1'-2" (NAVD 88 EL. 48.16') BASE FLOOD ELEV. EL. 0'-0" (NAVD 88 EL. 47') 1' - 2 " 12 ' - 8 1 / 2 " ± 8' - 4 1 / 4 " 7' - 6 " M I N . EL. -12'-1 1/8" ± EL. -26'-7 1/8" ± EL. -33'-7 1/8" ± CORR. TYP.9' - 9 " 12 ' - 3 " 55 ' - 5 " 1'- 6 " FIFTH FLOOR EL. 43'-11" SIXTH FLOOR EL. 56'-2" T.O. ROOF SLAB EL. 70'-2" 14 ' - 0 " T.O. PARAPET / ELEV. EL. 71'-8" OVERRUN / STAIRS T.O. RAILING EL. 73'-8" T.O. MECH. SCREEN EL. 80'-2" 3'- 6 " 6' - 6 " MECHANICAL SCREEN 54 ' - 6 " + / - 3' - 6 " 2'-2" SHORING/SOLDIER BREAMS 1/32"=1'-0" 3/ - UNIVERSITY AVE MI D D L E F I E L D R O A D BY R O N S T R E E T 64G CA R T COMPO S T 64G C A R T COMP O S T R C 64G CARTCOMPOS T 64G CARTCOMPOST 96G CARTWASTE 96G CARTRECYCLING 96G CARTWASTE 96G CARTRECYCLING ARCHITECTS KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY SHEET NUMBER SCALE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE DATENO. ISSUES AND REVISIONS DESCRIPTION ARCHITECTS KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY 21003 PLANNING SUBMITTAL12.01.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #105.13.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #208.15.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #408.28.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #510.31.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #612.20.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #702.07.24 AD HOC REVISIONS05.02.24 PLANNING RESUBMIITTAL #809.30.24 524 MIDDLEFIELD A3.3B ENHANCEMENT OF VISIBILITY OF LINE OF DAYLIGHT PLANE AND 524 MIDDLEFIELD MADE BY CHRISTOPHER REAM 1 Kallas, Emily From:Christopher Ream <chrisshop@reamlaw.com> Sent:Saturday, October 4, 2025 4:47 PM To:Planning Commission; Kallas, Emily Subject:660 University - "Protect the Coast Live Oak" Attachments:Ream Letter re Tree - 20251003.pdf Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ! This message could be suspicious  Similar name as someone you've contacted.  This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Commissioners and Emily Kallas, Attached is my 5-page comment letter regarding the magnificent Coast Live Oak next to the property on which Smith Development proposes to build a development much too big for that small lot. There are three attachment to the letter; all together with the letter totaling 33 pages. Emily, could you please ensure that all the Commissioners are provided with this sufficiently before the PTC Hearing on Wednesday that they have adequate time to review it. Thank you. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 chrisshop@reamlaw.com THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: ream@reamlaw.com October 3, 2025 Commissioners Via: Planning.Commission@PaloAlto.gov Planning and Transportation Commission Emily.Kallas@PaloAlto.gov City of Palo Alto, California Re: PTC Meeting on October 8, 2025 660 University Project Protect the Coast Live Oak Commissioners, My wife Anne and I have been Palo Alto residents for more than 54 years and have been residents of The Hamilton for the past seven 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, correctly 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 is on 517 Byron Street but 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. There are three Attachments to this letter: A – Impact Analysis of Proposed 660 University Project, dated September 25, 2025, by Walter Levison Consulting Arborist (hereinafter referred to as “Levison Analysis”). B – Selected pages from Robert Booty’s GRP Scan, May 23, 2022 C – Mathematical Calculations of Circle Segments 660 University Project Protect the Coast Live Oak October 3, 2025 Page 2 of 5 TPZ – Tree Protection Zone Applicant’s arborist David Babby prepared a “Tree Protection Report” dated November 19, 2021 which was filed with Applicant’s original application in December 2021, and was updated with an updated version dated February 7, 2024 which Applicant has included with all subsequent sets of plans filed with the City. (I will refer to that report as “Babby Report”.) The Babby Report acknowledges that the Tree is a “protected tree” under PAMC 8.10 because of its 50-inch trunk and discusses the Tree repeatedly. 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. Applicant acknowledges this 41-foot TPZ requirement (Babby Report, p. 9), 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. Canopy The Tree has a beautiful canopy that stretches over the site, a mostly balanced canopy spreading nearly 90 feet across. Babby Report, p.3. With a 90-foot diameter, the canopy has a radius of 45 feet and because the Tree abuts the property line, its canopy stretches that 45 feet over the proposed 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 Applicant’s plans show that every apartment has at least one balcony 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 airspace clearance to maintain a free and clear space around the balcony, and you can be sure the Applicant will cut 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 now stretching 45 feet over Applicant’s property will be cut back 26 feet or more (15 + 6 + 5) and will then extend only 19 feet towards the proposed building. Applicant says it will cut back 15% of the canopy to clear the proposed building and then another 10% to allow room for construction, for a total of 25%. Babby Report, p.10. Walter Levison Consulting Arborist retained by the Hamilton Homeowners Association estimates 20% to 30% of the canopy will be removed. See Attachment A, the “Impact Analysis of Proposed 660 University Project,” dated September 25, 2025, by Walter Levison Consulting Arborist, p. 8 (hereinafter referred to as “Levison Analysis”). So, we have a basic agreement that the proposed project will cause an estimated 25% of the canopy to be lost. 660 University Project Protect the Coast Live Oak October 3, 2025 Page 3 of 5 Applicant admits it will have to cut off many limbs and branches, a 17-inch diameter limb, an 8- inch diameter limb, a dozen or so smaller branches ranging in size from 1 to 6 inches in diameter. Babby Report, p.10. This will raise a serious risk of infection. “Internodal cuts performed on the subject oak will have a severe negative effect on the tree’s overall health and structure, since relatively large diameter internodal cuts are subject to decay and dieback over time, with pests and pathogens able to enter into the pruning cut faces whereby wood decay progresses downward and into the remaining stem cross sectional area, further reducing tree stability and health (vigor).” Levison Analysis, p.8 Root Structure Robert Booty, arborist retained by Rincon Consultants on behalf of the City, reported that his GPR (ground penetrating radar) 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). This is consistent with the general assumption that a tree’s roots extend out 2x to 3x the drip line of its canopy (Levison Analysis, p.3) which would mean the Tree’s roots are going on out to 90 feet to 135 feet. But the Tree’s root structure on the north side, the side facing the proposed project, will be boxed in and severely cut back by the proposed two-story underground garage: auto ramp 32 feet to the west, subterranean exterior wall of the garage 36 feet to the north, and another auto ramp 30 feet to the east. See Sheet A2.P1 of Applicant’s plans. In addition, notwithstanding Applicant drawing a 30-foot radius circle on its plans, the Babby Report discloses that Applicant intends to disregard even that fake TPZ and there will be only 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.” Babby Report, p.10. In other words, if a construction crew is at least 20 feet from the Tree, they will be free to rip out as many roots as they like notwithstanding the deadly effect on the Tree. The most optimistically possible outcome for Applicant would be they end up with a semicircle of roots on the north side of the Tree with a radius of 25 feet (though nothing is stopping them from cutting that radius down to 20 feet, the 20-foot setback.). Even if we pretend that the Tree’s roots all stopped at 51 feet rather than extending out to the normal 90 feet or 135 feet, the root structure on the north side of the Tree would be reduced to only 25% of what it is now, a loss of 75% of those roots. ((∏x25x25)/(∏x51x51) = 24%) And those numbers are based upon the current root structure stopping at 51 feet; it would be much worse if we used the more likely 90 to 135 feet. 660 University Project Protect the Coast Live Oak October 3, 2025 Page 4 of 5 Tree Failure “It is WLCA’s [Walter Levison Consulting Arborist] 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 June and August 2025 sets of plan sheets, resulting in tree #10 potentially falling into a spiral of condition decline from which it cannot recover.” Levison Analysis, p.13. Levison’s prediction of a spiral of condition decline comes from the significant reduction of the water, minerals and sunlight the Tree needs. I also see a possibility of a sudden, radical failure – the Tree toppling over in a windstorm. As Applicant’s arborist reports, the Tree now has a balanced canopy. Babby Report, p.3. That balance will be completely lost if 25% of the canopy is sliced off. That is 25% of the whole canopy, but all of the removal is going to be from the north half of the canopy. Simple math tells you that 25% of the whole will be 50% of the north half. With the south half of the canopy now twice as large as the north, the Tree will want to tip over to the south towards The Hamilton. It gets worse: Leverage. The force effect of the weight of the canopy is a straight function of how far out that weight is from the Tree trunk: the further away from the trunk, the more force it will be exerting. You remember playing on a seesaw as kid: you could balance with your friend who weighed more or less than you by the heavier one sliding in towards the fulcrum (pivot point) and/or the lighter one sliding back away from it. Or if you don’t remember that, reach out and grab that water glass. When your arm is out straight away from your body it feels heavy, but when you pull your arm back in close to your body it feels much lighter. Applicant cutting back the canopy on the north side results in the canopy that is left there being close to the Tree’s trunk. The lighter kid has slid towards the fulcrum, not away from it. The dominance of the south side force over the north side force is even greater. I did some calculations of south side vs. north side and the results are in the table on the next page. “25% Agreement” is both arborists estimating a 25% cutback, and “Cutback to give balcony clearance” is my explanation on page 2 above of the need to maintain a free and clear space around each balcony. 660 University Project Protect the Coast Live Oak October 3, 2025 Page 5 of 5 See Attachment C for the details of how I calculated this. How could the Tree possibly survivor such radical, unbalanced decimation of its canopy? Maybe, just maybe, nature gave it a strong root structure on the north side to hold up the against the force trying to tip it over to the south. We know from Robert Booty’s GRP Scan (Attachment B) that there is a strong root structure on the north side extending out to at least 51 feet and probably more to maybe 90 feet or even 135 feet. But wait, Applicant plans to cut off those roots, none to survive past 30 feet, many cut off at 20 feet. That will reduce the root structure down to 25% of what it is now, probably less. See page 3 above. There is no way the Tree will survive if Applicant is allowed to go forward with its plans. Conclusion If Applicant’s plans are approved and it goes forward, how soon will the Tree topple over and crash into The Hamilton and others? It would destroy the Cardinal Dental office next to it and badly injure and maybe kill anyone in those offices at the time. The Hamilton community strongly opposes this application for over-excessive development on our small block and urges the Commission to require action to correct Thank you for your consideration, Christopher Ream Ratio of South’s Unbalanced Tipping Force To North’s Partial CounterBalance Force South North 25% Agreement Area of remaining canopy after segment is cut off 3,181 1,591 Distance from center of remaining canopy to tree trunk 18.18 8.9 FORCE (Area x Distance) 59,803 14,155 4.2 : 1 Cutback to give balconies clearance Area of remaining canopy after segment is cut off 3,181 1,658 Distance from center of remaining canopy to tree trunk 18.18 9.3 FORCE (Area x Distance) 59,803 15,419 3.9 : 1 660 University Project Ream – Protect the Coast Live Oak October 3, 2025 A"achment A Walter Levison Consul0ng Arborist Impact Analysis of Proposed 660 University Project September 25, 2025 ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 1 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Date: 12/15/2023 Revised: 9/25/2025 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 immediately adjacent to the proposed multi-story 660 University project. The original letter report submitted by WLCA was dated 12/15/2023 as noted on this page. The following reported information has been updated as of 9/25/2025, after WLCA’s thorough review of the most currently available plan sheets that are public record, accessible via City of Palo Alto’s official download site, such as June and August 2025 iterations of the applicant’s plan sheets: https://aca- prod.accela.com/paloalto/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?Module=Planning&TabName=Planning&capID1=21PLN&capID2=00000&capID3=00 341&agencyCode=PALOALTO&IsToShowInspection=no (Record 21PLN-00341) WLCA also reviewed: A. City of Palo Alto Urban Forestry Staff Catherine Mondkar’s testimony via Youtube, available as public record, from a formal hearing that occurred on 4/18/2024. B. David Babby Consulting Arborist’s most current arborist report iteration 2/07/2024, noted in this report as the “DB” report. C. Robert Booty arborist report dated 5/23/2022 which analyzed woody root extent using ground penetrating radar (GPR) machine, noted in this report as the “RB” report. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 2 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 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 facility with residential facility direction over the garage footprint. WLCA’s assignment was to determine whether the site work as currently proposed per the set of plan sheets (dated 2025) 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 proposed site redevelopment 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. A written report was originally submitted in 2023. 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 Babby (the DB report) 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 spread canopy). WLCA originally 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 DB dated 11/19/2021, which does not actually contain any site plan sheets (DB used a topographic survey sheet for his initial site tree map markup). WLCA subsequently reviewed 2025 iterations of the project plans downloaded from the City of Palo Alto, as noted above in this letter report, as well as an updated DB Consulting Arborist report dated 2/07/2024, which I will refer to as the “DB” report. That DB report includes the City-required tree protection plan sheets often referred to as the “T” set of sheets, that detail project arborist recommendations as well as City standard tree protection methods required to be implemented as project conditions of approval (PCOA), which are legally binding conditions required to be performed by applicant project teams applying for site entitlements. Digital images archived by WLCA in December 2023 are included in this report for reference of pre-project conditions. Basic Data Diameter: Assume 50 inches, per DB report. (+/- 4 feet). Spread: Approximately 90 feet total diameter, per DB and WLCA reporting. Health (Vigor): 70% per DB, 80% per WLCA. Structure: 40% per DB, 50% per WLCA. Overall Condition Rating: 50% (fair) per DB, 62% (good) per WLCA. Live Twig Density and Live Foliar Density: Good. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 3 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 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. (Refer to the RB report detailing roots mapped via use of a ground penetrating radar GPR machine). 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. Expected Construction-Related Tree Root Zone Impact and Canopy Impact Analysis Based on the most current 2025 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). 1 Per Harris et. al. 2004. Arboriculture 4th Edition. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 4 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 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 retaining wall excavation cut locations, resulting in further clearance pruning of the tree #10 northwest corner of canopy (not verified). This 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. This is a loss of roughly 50% from those sections of the canopy, and a loss of roughly 25% to 30% of the overall canopy biomass. The DB 2024 arborist report notes an expected loss of some 15% of the existing canopy (assumedly referring to a 15% loss of the total canopy biomass as a whole), though it is not clear if the DB report is also accounting for loss of canopy due to pruning to clear airspace related to an unknown width “construction corridor” between the tree #10 protection zone fencing, and the proposed two balconies that will extend toward the tree. Construction corridor airspace clearance typically requires full clearance to unlimited height, in order to allow for use of lift machines to perform exterior finishing work such as window installations, balconies, painting, etc. In WLCA’s experience, the width of a construction corridor can range anywhere from 5 feet to 20 feet in horizontal width, depending on the types of machinery required to complete the exterior finish work. In some cases, a construction elevator is required to be installed along the exterior of a new building, which may require up to 20 feet horizontal width. The DB report notes there will be significant pruning involved during the airspace clearance work, including a 17 inch diameter stem, an 8 inch diameter stem, and a dozen or so stems ranging from 1 to 6 inches diameter each. Again, this appears to only account for pruning to clear the new proposed building and balconies, but is assumedly not accounting for any construction corridor width airspace clearance tree pruning that may require an additional 5 to 20 feet in horizontal width to be completely cleared to unlimited vertical elevation (not verified). • 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 (e.g. 90 feet to 135 feet radius), and is currently obscured by hardscape and not able to be verified in terms of lateral distance of growth. The RB ground penetrating radar report root maps suggest that this is the case. See the 2022 RB report root map pages reproduced below in this WLCA report body for reference. Critical Root Zone (i.e. “CRZ”) in terms of structural root plate retention during work on a single side of a tree, is typically recommended as a so-called “tree protection zone” (TPZ) per 2016 BMP booklet “Managing Trees During Construction, 2nd Edition” of at least 6x, 8x, or 10x2 the diameter as a lateral offset from edge of mainstem, which in the case of tree #10, calculates to roughly 24 feet, 32 feet, or 40 feet radius, depending on which standard is used. Per the BMP book, coast live oak has a good tolerance of construction damage, but as a mature specimen, the TPZ multiplication factor that is most appropriate for use for tree #10 is either the 8x or the 10x factor (i.e. a TPZ radius of 32 feet radius, or 40 feet). 2 The applicant’s sheet L4.2 does indicate that the standard City-required tree protection zone (TPZ) is 10x trunk diameter, which equates to 41 feet offset radius, per the DB report. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 5 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cumulative Impact vs. Root or Canopy Impact Alone 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 rating, such that the combined root zone impact plus tree live canopy loss impact is relatively severe, even though the majority of the work would occur north of the so-called “Tree Protection Zone” of 32 feet offset radius (see WLCA markup showing hard construction related impact to 30 feet offset radius from trunk edge, which is slightly within a TPZ of 8x diameter offset). The DB report does not address cumulative impacts, and instead considers “roots” and “canopy” to be separate and distinct from one another, with a +/- 15% loss expected to each of roots and canopy per the DB report. In WLCA’s experience, construction related impacts to roots and canopy are neither separate nor distinct, and should instead be added together as a combined cumulative impact to the tree, bringing the actual impact to somewhere in the range of 30% to 40% or greater “cumulative impact”, which is “severe”.3 TPZ Radius / Multiple Distances Cited It is not clear why the DB 2024 arborist report continues to reference various different tree protection zone (TPZ) offset radius distances out from the trunk edge of oak #10. The actual required TPZ per City of Palo Alto, established in the City tree technical manual, is 10x diameter offset from mainstem, which equates to +/- 41 feet offset radius from mainstem edge of oak #10. However, per the DB 2024 report, the project as proposed per current plan iterations provides only some 30 feet offset from oak #10 mainstem as a horizontal separation between the tree mainstem edge and the new building footprint plus garage, and only a 20 foot radius protection offset from tree mainstem edge for limit of “ground disturbances” beneath the existing asphalt surfacing materials. This multi-tier TPZ setup will not be in compl iance with City of Palo Alto’s TPZ standards, unless very significant tree impact mitigation measures are adhered to with robust arborist site monitoring throughout the entire planned project buildout from start to finish, for all work that occurs within zero to 41 feet offset radius from the oak #10 mainstem edge. Note also that the proposed terrace/garden element of the project does not comply with even the shortest of the three (3) TPZ radii (i.e. the 20 foot offset radius TPZ), given that the proposed terrace will encroach to within just a few feet of the oak #10 mainstem edge, violating even this minimal 20 foot TPZ offset. Soil Compaction within the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) / Tree Protection Zone (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 32 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 3 This form of cumulative tree impact analysis was used by WLCA during contract consulting work for Barrie D. Coate and Associates of Saratoga, CA, under direction from firm Staff. Barrie D. Coate and Associates was considered at that time to be the preeminent arboriculture consulting firm in the Bay Area, and cumulative tree impacts were routinely determined in this manner. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 6 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 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). From a read of the RB ground penetrating radar report, one might think that the root system of the tree is only growing lateral woody roots at great depth (the report maps roots at highest density at distances some 5 to 7 feet below grade). However, trees do have extensively branches root systems with fine absorbing roots 1/32 inch to 1/16 inch diameter each, for example, which would assumedly not show up on the GPR root maps. The fact that the existing asphaltic surface parking lot over which the GPR testing was performed is considered a fill soil pad of great depth above the original tree #10 root system grade elevations, this does not mean that woody roots and/or fine absorbing roots are only present at great depth. In WLCA’s 27 years of consulting experience, the layer of older baserock base section just beneath older parking lot asphalt (especially very old parking lots from the early to mid 20th century) is a layer with conditions favorable to tree root extension and expansion growth in general. WLCA assumes that the root system of oak #10 extends up into the uppermost elevation of the soil profile, just beneath the asphaltic layer, where soil compaction is lowest, and oxygenation is highest. • TRAQ Risk: The removal of +/-25% to 30% of the overall canopy biomass of tree #10 for airspace 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, building foundation footing 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 individual 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, to as much as 17 inches diameter or more, 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. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 7 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 2025 WLCA QUICK-LOOK ANALYSIS OF THE MOST CURRENT ITERATIONS OF THE APPLICANT PLAN SHEETS (6/20/2025, 8/08/2025). 1. EXTERIOR: The proposed exterior of the building (solid lines) will be approximately 30 feet west of the subject oak tree mainstem edge per sheet A0.2A. 2. BALCONIES: The proposed edge of two new multi-story balconies (gray dashed line rectangles extending map- downward from the building exterior on this sheet) will be approximately 24 feet and 26 feet west of the subject oak mainstem edge, per sheet A0.2A. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 8 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture WLCA QUICK-LOOK ANALYSIS OF THE MOST CURRENT ITERATIONS OF THE APPLICANT PLAN SHEETS (CONTINUED) 3. CONSTRUCTION CORRIDORS ETC.: An additional minimum 5 horizontal feet of airspace clearance (or possibly far greater) is expected to be required to be able to build the proposed balconies, build other exterior features per plan and maintain a free and clear space around the balconies over time. This means the actual extent of pruning will be to a distance of 17 feet west of the mainstem edge of the subject oak specimen, removing at least 20 or more horizontal feet of the existing live canopy biomass, which is a loss of approximately 54% (or more) of the west quadrant of the canopy. Note that the pruning cuts are likely going to consist of “non-ANSI A300 conforming cuts”, since there are few if any remaining stem forks at which to cut back to at that location of 17 feet west of the mainstem, which means that the cuts will then have to be made using “internodal cuts”, performed at locations between branch forks: a poor pruning technique which is often referred to as shearing, topping, or shaving, hedging, etc. when performed on shrubs. See the WLCA markup at right, showing approximately where these cuts might be performed (shown to non-accurate scale, arrows point to locations that are “roughly” 17 feet west or so of the subject oak mainstem edge). Internodal cuts performed on the subject oak will have a severe negative effect on the tree’s overall health and structure, since relatively large diameter internodal cuts are subject to decay and dieback over time, with pests and pathogens able to enter into the pruning cut faces whereby wood decay progresses downward and into the remaining stem cross sectional area, further reducing tree stability and health (vigor). The canopy will be suddenly susceptible to sunscald/sunburn as sunlight will be able to penetrate deeply into the west side of the canopy once clearance pruning is performed to +/- 17 feet west of the mainstem edge, likely resulting in additional decline/death of remaining residual live wood and foliage in that west quadrant of the canopy. Coast live oaks as a species do tend to response relatively well to pruning and root pruning impacts during construction projects, but this degree of pruning is considered “severe”, even though it will only be impacting a single side of the symmetrical canopy. The City of Palo Alto notes that the expected pruning will be considered to be +/-15% of canopy loss overall for the entire tree canopy. However, it is WLCA’s opinion that the City and the project design team may not have actually considered the requirement that a construction corridor, of minimum 5 feet width (or far greater width) as noted above, will be cleared completely in terms of vertical airspace pruning of tree canopy live wood and foliage, and that the pruning cuts are likely going to be performed as shearing-type cuts at internodal locations, which is equivalent to topping pruning in that the tree’s long term response is going to be a profusion of epicormic shoots growing from near the pruning cut wounds, increased sunscald/sunburn, and long term progression of internal wood decay by fungi species that will progress inward and downward through the remaining stems from the large diameter pruning cut wounds made during project airspace clearance pruning. Also of note is the fact that the remaining canopy will be severely lopsided, and that TRAQ risk of whole tree failure and impact with various high value targets will be increased to some degree (as discussed elsewhere in this letter report per WLCA’s 2023 analysis). ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 9 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 2025 WLCA QUICK-LOOK ANALYSIS OF THE MOST CURRENT ITERATIONS OF THE APPLICANT PLAN SHEETS (CONTINUED) 4. UNDERGROUND PARKING: Sheet A2.P2 dated 8/08/2025 shows a proposed new underground parking curvilinear access road that will require deep excavation at approximately 29 to 30 horizontal feet offset from the mainstem edge of the subject oak. This position of the curvilinear underground driveway is relatively closer to the tree than shown in previous 2023 plan sheet iterations. See WLCA’s markup at right showing the gray driveway cut (deep excavation) and a vector of 29-30 feet true north of the tree mainstem edge. Note that in this image, the light gray dashed line is NOT the tree canopy dripline, and is instead a 30 foot radius demarcation by the project team on the plan sheet renderings. The actual tree canopy extends at least 37 feet north as indicated on the applicant’s plan sheets, (and extends some 45 feet radius northward per WLCA’s estimation in 2023 using a forestry tape). A tree protection zone of 10x calculates to 10 x 50” = 500 inches = approximately 41 feet radius offset from mainstem edge, for new construction. This means that the proposed underground driveway will encroach to far within the 41 foot protection zone. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 10 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 2025 WLCA QUICK-LOOK ANALYSIS OF THE MOST CURRENT ITERATIONS OF THE APPLICANT PLAN SHEETS (CONTINUED) OVER-EXCAVATION There may or may not be additional “over-excavation” (industry terminology: “over-ex”) required to be performed beyond the limit of excavation shown in this applicant plan sheet in gray coloration on plan sheet A2.P1 reproduced above on page 9 of this WLCA letter report. This is a subject for further research or discussion. Example: if the proposed retaining wall is to be located at the edge of the shown gray area on sheet A2.P1, then there may be a French drain or other type of drainage corridor that needs to be installed behind the wall, requiring over-excavation of some unknown number of horizontal feet, in order to accommodate a thin diameter or a thick diameter drainage curtain (e.g. thin Mirafi “drain core”, or traditional thick gravel-filled French drain system, etc.) that allows for water to drain vertically downward behind the retaining wall, and into a PVC piped drainage system from which water is pumped out in some manner. The thickness of a drainage area behind an underground parking garage retaining wall may be as thick as 3 feet or more (see image above for an example of how a traditional thick type French drain system appears behind a retaining wall). The “overex ” or “over-excavation” required for this item is typically not shown and not understood by laypersons to even exist, until the detailed design set of plans (aka “DD” set of plans) are rendered by a project team of professionals. A 3-foot width French drain system would bring the final excavation cut to within approximately 26-27 feet of the subject oak tree mainstem edge. Use of the more narrow “Miradrain” drainage curtain product, or similar, may reduce this required thickness to as little as 6 inches diameter. During his 27 years of construction project consulting experience, WLCA has worked on Bay Area projects where “over- excavation” was not indicated on rendered plans during the pre-project design stage, resulting in horizontal excavation that extended multiple feet farther than the limits of proposed new underground parking garage retaining wall excavation cuts as shown on birds eye view plan sheets. Nearby trees being protected in place ended up with significant unavoidable root loss due to this oversight by the project engineering teams. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 11 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 2025 WLCA QUICK-LOOK ANALYSIS OF THE MOST CURRENT ITERATIONS OF THE APPLICANT PLAN SHEETS (CONTINUED) At right is a snippet from Robert Booty arborist report dated 5/23/2022, which is public record as part of the applicant’s background documentation. Mr. Booty used ground penetrating radar (GPR) to determine an approximation of the root extent far below asphalt surface grade elevation, on the side of oak tree #10 facing proposed new building foundation excavation for both the building and underground parking garage retaining walls. Not shown on this image is the curvilinear underground parking garage work which will cut far more root mass than shown by Mr. Booty’s vector black line in the image at right. One of the parking garage roadways below ground is shown in a snippet above on page 8 of this WLCA arborist letter report. From the image at right from Booty arborist report dated 2022, and from the curvilinear below grade parking garage and driveway work shown on page 8 above, we can clearly see that the percentage of the root system to be removed will be very significant: possibly as much as 40-50% of the root system on the northwest side of the tree, not including damage from the proposed terrace/garden buildout area, which is discussed in item #5 below. We should assume from the Booty ground penetrating radar examination of the tree #10 root system that lateral woody roots continue to extend outward in all directions much farther than were recorded by Mr. Booty’s GPR machine, which means that an even greater percentage of the tree #10 root system will be damaged and destroyed during development of the proposed property per plans, since the tree’s structural and vigor life support system literally depends on this woody root system and the fine absorbing root mass attached to it, which is apparently far greater in extent than might have otherwise been known prior to the 2022 arborist report graphic root representations having been provided with scale bars by the applicant’s arborist Robert Booty. Note also that the RB report root maps indicate roots present at v arying depths of between +/- 30 inches depth (2.5 f eet below parking lot surf ace grade elevation) and the 7 foot depth limit of the GPR machine setting used by RB for his analysis. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 12 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 2025 WLCA QUICK-LOOK ANALYSIS OF THE MOST CURRENT ITERATIONS OF THE APPLICANT PLAN SHEETS (CONTINUED) TREE PROTECTION ZONE FENCING AND MONITORING BY ARBORISTS: It is not clear to WLCA as to the exact location of the official tree protection zone fencing, with an apparent 41 foot TPZ offset alignment indicated by the City of Palo Alto. Actual distance of construction-related impacts to both root system (soil pore space compaction by machinery driving, etc.) and canopy (pruning for vertical and/or horizontal airspace clearance of building, balconies, and an additional “construction corridor” east of the balconies of unknown required width), will necessarily mean that airspace work and some driving of lift vehicles will be occurring at locations between 17 feet west of mainstem edge and 30 feet west of mainstem edge. Additionally, the terrace/garden construction will occur at between 3 feet west of mainstem edge and 30 feet west of mainstem edge as an end-of-project end-phase landscape element of the design that has yet to be detailed in the proposed plan sheets. The conditions of project approval (COPA), set forth by City of Palo planning division and public works division as legally binding conditions, should ideally include specific wordage that indicates a tiered system of root zone protection (i.e. ground protection) for tree #10, such as: • GROUND PROTECTION: Robust ground protection of 6 to 12 inches thickness for the area between the oak tree mainstem edge and out to 30 feet west of mainstem edge, with frequent arborist consultant on- site monitoring on a weekly or twice-monthly basis to verify compliance by the project build team. See image at right showing this type of protection on a WLCA project in the past in Menlo Park, CA, which was a layer of 6 inches of coarse wood chips overlaid with exterior grade 1.0 inch “actual thickness” (or greater) plywood boards screwed together with steel screw plates. • ZERO IMPACT VS. PARTIAL IMPACT AREAS: If City Urban Forestry is recommending zero impact zone of 20 feet radius, then that area between 0 and 20 feet west of the mainstem will need to be hard-fenced at all times, with no access to the ground, which then sets up a problem for the final landscape buildout portion phase of the project when that protection will be required to be removed to allow for the proposed 735 sq ft terrace/garden element of the project to be built out. • MONITORING BY A PROJECT ARBORIST: The scheduling of project consulting arborist monitoring will potentially need to include daily or weekly on-site monitoring of a much more f requent basis than on a typical construction project, if the oak #10 root system and canopy is to be preserv ed and protected to the best possible extent on sides facing proposed new site construction work. The project arborist will likely need to be present on site during relatively long periods of the tree canopy pruning work as well as the garage retaining wall excavation work. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 13 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Conclusion & Recommendations If the proposed 660 University site plan project were built out as currently proposed per the June and August 2025 planning resubmittal versions of the plan sheets, WLCA expects that tree #10 would experience a relatively severe degree of below-ground live lateral woody root loss, and a relatively severe degree of above-ground live canopy pruning likely at internodal locations randomly dispersed along large diameter stems to within 17 feet of the mainstem edge, which, when combined as a cumulative below-ground and above-ground negative impact, would necessarily result in loss of tree vigor (health) and tree structure to a “severe” degree over the long term. The applicant’s Robert Booty ground penetrating radar report from 2022 substantiates the presence of oak #10 rooting out to distances f ar greater in radius than shown on the report root map images, suggesting that actual tree root loss caused by proposed construction as currently shown on the 2025 set of plan sheets may be far greater than the +/-15% loss of root system noted in the David Babby consulting arborist report. The tree’s safe and useful life expectancy in its current condition rating of “good” (+/- 62% overall condition rating) may be significantly to severely 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 June and August 2025 set s of plan sheets, resulting in tree #10 potentially falling into a spiral of condition decline from which it cannot recover. Project airspace clearance pruning of large diameter stems at internodal locations along the stems to clear the building, the balconies, and a construction corridor of unverified additional width, is expected to result in increased activity by pest and/or wood decay causing fungi species progressing inward and downward through the cross sectional areas of the stems, starting at the pruning cut wound faces at approximately 17 horizontal feet west of the mainstem edge, potentially causing an increase in risk of stem failure over time, with ever-increasing “fungal load” within the cross sectional areas of remaining cut stems. Due to wood decay-causing fungi colonization of the cross sections of various clearance-pruned stems at the west side of the subject tree as noted above, there would necessarily be a corresponding increase in severity of the TRAQ risk rating(s) 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 (note that this would need to be assessed at a future time, and is outside the scope of WLCA’s initial pre-project tree impact analysis 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. RECOMMENDATIONS See W LCA’s partial set of recommendations abov e on page 12 of this letter report. Note that even if all of the abov e recommendations indicated on page 12 of this WLCA letter report were to be strictly adhered to by the applicant build team and their team of professional consultants, this will not change the fact that at least +/- 50% or more of the tree’s west side of canopy live biomass will be removed to clear the proposed new building exterior, balconies, and a construction corridor of unknown required width with unlimited vertical clear airspace to the southeast of the balconies. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 14 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 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 ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 15 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 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. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 16 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 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 ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 17 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 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 ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 18 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 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 ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 19 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 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) 660 University Project Ream – Protect the Coast Live Oak October 3, 2025 A"achment B Selected pages from Robert Booty ’s GRP Scan May 23, 2022 . Arborist OnSite® Horticultural Consulting, Inc. ISA Certified Arborist Report Submitted To: Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 Project Location: 660 University Avenue Palo Alto, California Submitted By: Robert Booty, Registered Member # 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor The American Society of Consulting Arborists ISA Certified Arborist WC-4286 May 23, 2022 Copied from page 10 of the report. Adjusted so the “y” scale is the same as the “x” scale. 660 University Project Ream – Protect the Coast Live Oak October 3, 2025 A"achment C Mathema0cal Calcula0ons of Circle Segments Page 1 of 4 Calcula&ons Related to a Circle Segment Christopher Ream October 3, 2025 When a straight line is drawn across a circle, the two shapes produced are “segments” of that circle, a major segment and the smaller minor segment. I am dealing today only with the minor segment, the segment which is a semicircle or smaller. If you know the radius of the circle and the height of the segment, you can find the segment area from the formula below. where: r is the radius of the circle of which the segment is a part. h is the height of the segment. Note: The result of the cos-1 func2on in the formula is in radians. The foregoing was copied off the web at hKps://www.mathopenref.com/segmentareaht.html This same website as a very easy to use calculator which I use to enter the radius (r = 45) and the height (“h”), and it produces the Area. And then if I already know the Area and want to find the height (“h”), I can again enter r=45 and then make mulSple entries for height (“h”) unSl the calculator gives me the same Area which I already know. I used this technique to arrive at all the numbers in the table on page 5 of my October 3, 2025 letter “Protect the Coast Live Oak” and here is what I did. Area of a Circular Segment given its heightDefinition: The number of square units it takes to fill a segment of a circleTry this Drag one of the orange dot that defines an endpoint of the segment. Adjust thesegment height. Note the number of square units it takes to fill it and the calculation. If you know the radius of the circle and the height of the segment, you can find the segment area from the formula below. The result will vary from zero when the height is zero, to the full area of the circle when the height is equal to the diameter. where: r is the radius of the circle of which the segment is a part. h is the height of the segment. Note: The result of the cos-1 function in the formula is in radians. Another method If you know the central angle of the segment (the angle subtended by the segment at the center of the circle) you can use the method Area of a circular segment given the central angle. Applications Area =4 2 cos −1 4 −3.04 −(4 −3.0)√2·4·3.0 −3.0 2 =17.2 area =r 2 cos −1 r −h r −(r −h)√2rh −h 2 r = 4 5 ’ h The area of the circle cut off is a “segment.” Page 2 of 4 Start with the entries for the South side of the Tree, the semicircle of canopy facing south towards The Hamilton. 25% Agreement There will have been no cuYng back of the canopy on this side of the Tree, so the “Area of the remaining canopy ” is the area of the untouched semicircle, by the simple formula A = 0.5 x ∏r2 = 0.5 x ∏ x 45 x 45 = 3,181. As with a seesaw, or a crowbar, or any other kind of lever, you mulSple the weight applied by the length of the lever from the fulcrum. In our case, the weight of the remaining canopy is a direct funcSon of the area of the remaining canopy, and that weight can be considered applied at the center of the remaining canopy. The center of the remaining canopy is where the area of canopy outboard of that spot is equal to the area inboard. To find the “Distance from the center of the remaining canopy to tree trunk,” I needed to find what value of “h” will give me a segment area equal to 0.5 x 3181 = 1,590.5, one half of the “Area of the remaining canopy.” I used the calculator on the website at hKps://www.mathopenref.com/segmentareaht.html; entered r = 45, and tried mulSple entries for “h” unSl I got 1,590.5 for the Area. I did it and got “h” = 26.82. This was the distance from the perimeter of the circle to the “center ” of the remaining canopy; but I wanted the distance from the “center ” to the tree trunk, so I took the radius (“r ”) of 45 and subtracted the “h” of 26.82 to give me 18.18 as the length of the Lever. Now to get the Unbalanced Tipping Force, I mulSplied remaining canopy of 3,181 by the Lever of 18.18, and got 59,803. Cutback to give balconies clearance Since no canopy is to be removed on the South side of the Tree, the numbers for the Cutback are the same as those for the 25% Agreement. Page 3 of 4 Move on to the entries for the North side of the Tree, the semicircle of canopy facing north towards Applicant’s proposed building. This will be a liKle more complicated 25% Agreement Both arborists esSmate that 25% of the enSre canopy will be sliced off, but all of the removal is going to be from the North half of the canopy. Simple math tells you that 25% of the whole will be 50% of the North semicircle. The North semicircle is the same size as the South semicircle, or 3,181, and 50% of that is 1,590.5, and with that 1,590.5 removed, the remaining canopy is 1,590.5. Similar to the South side, I now needed to find the center of the remaining canopy, from where half of the remaining canopy, 0.5 x 1590.5 = 795.25, would be inboard and the other half, 795.25 would be outboard. SSll dealing with circle segments, I wanted to visualize a new segment that would account for both the outboard half of the remaining canopy (795.25) and the 50% to be sliced off (1,590.5) or a total of 2,385.75. (Note that 2,385.75 is 75% of the 3,181 semicircle.) To find that, I looked for the “h” value that, with “r ” sSll at 45, would produce an area of 2385.75, and found h = 36.1. As with the South side above, this was the distance from the perimeter of the circle to the “center ” of the remaining canopy; but I wanted the distance from the “center ” to the tree trunk, so I took the radius (“r ”) of 45 and subtracted the “h” of 36.1 to give me 8.9 as the length of the Lever. Now to get the Par=al CounterBalance Force, I mulSplied remaining canopy of 1,590.5 by the Lever of 8.9, and got 14,155. Cutback to give balconies clearance This is again a liKle different because don’t have simple calculaSons of areas, rather we have height of the segment sliced off and needed to use that to find the area of the canopy sliced off and thus the area of the remaining canopy. The radius of the canopy is 45 feet but the face of the proposed building is only 30 feet from the Tree trunk; therefore, Applicant must slice off a segment with an “h” of 15 feet. The face of the proposed building it is going to covered with mulSple balconies sScking out 6 feet beyond that face; therefore, another 6 feet of canopy would have to be sliced off. And finally, Applicant must provide clearance around the balconies so the residents can use them; therefore, another 6 feet of canopy would have to be sliced off. “h” = 15 + 6 + 5 = 26. I went to the online calculator at hKps://www.mathopenref.com/segmentareaht.html, entered r = 45 and h = 26, and got an Area of 1523 for the sliced off canopy. SubtracSng that from the 3,181 area of the semicircle and got 1,658 for the Area of the remaining canopy on the North side (3181 – 1523 = 1,658). Page 4 of 4 Noted that this area number is a li<le more than the 1,590.5 es?mate of the two arborists. That is likely due to the arborists accoun?ng for some addi?onal pruning required for construc?on which I did not take into account. Similar to the explanaSon above of how I found the “Lever ” under the “25% Agreement on the North side, I now needed to find the center of the remaining canopy, from where half of the remaining canopy, 0.5 x 1,658 = 829, would be inboard and the other half, 829 would be outboard. SSll dealing with circle segments, I wanted to visualize a new segment that would account for both the outboard half of the remaining canopy (829) and the 1,523 to be sliced off or a total of 2,352. To find that, I looked for the “h” value that, with “r ” sSll at 45, would produce an area of 2352, and found h = 35.7. As with the South side above, this was the distance from the perimeter of the circle to the “center ” of the remaining canopy; but I wanted the distance from the “center ” to the tree trunk, so I took the radius (“r ”) of 45 and subtracted the “h” of 35.7 to give me 9.3 as the length of the Lever. Now to get the Par=al CounterBalance Force, I mulSplied remaining canopy of 1,658 by the Lever of 9.3, and got 15,419. 1 Kallas, Emily From:carol.gilbert@icloud.com Sent:Friday, October 3, 2025 2:46 PM To:Kallas, Emily Subject:Slides for me on Oct 8th CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ! This message could be suspicious  Similar name as someone you've contacted.  This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast These are the few slides I would like to show when I talk at the Wed., October. 8th Planning and Transportation meeting. Slide 1 2 3 Slide 2 4 5 Slide 3 Carol Gilbert 555 Byron St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-323-2862 6 1 Kallas, Emily From:Faith Brigel <faithwb3@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 30, 2025 8:13 PM To:Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: Planning and Transportation Committee: 660 University Ave. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Emily, Thanks for your informative response. I am sorry that I did not realize that you were at that meeting. I came a few minutes late and so I missed the introductions. And I am sorry it took me this long to get back to you. I have been very busy the past few months. Several months ago after living beside a house for 4 years that was demolished and a large, new 2 story house with a large basement and large ADU constructed; I decided to move out of Palo Alto. The last 4 years have been filled with construction right beside my living quarters: the noise, the dust, the trucks, the constant building and builders there all day yelling to each other, 6 days a week. I had been in that house for 25 years, and I loved it. I had not planned on moving out. But the construction next door, made it impossible for me to have a good quality of life. They started that project in December, 2021. Almost 4 years ago! And they are not near finished. My main objection was that they built their house only about 1.5 feet from the property line. But speaking several times to the City I was told that it is according to code. So realizing that construction will now start all over again with another very large project, right across from my office building is very disconcerting. And again, I feel that no one in the City is showing any consideration for the neighbors. This building will be the most massive building in the area. It will be 6 stories with balconies, and insufficient parking spots. It will totally change the ambiance of this area. I appreciated our first talk when I felt that you had some understanding of my feelings. I wish that this project would go back to 4 stories! I just shared my situation with you for you to maybe understand my feelings a bit more. I assume that the City Council has already addressed this project? Thanks, Faith Faith W. Brigel > On Aug 21, 2025, at 5:23 PM, Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@paloalto.gov> wrote: > > Hi Faith, > I do not know why you think I was not there. I introduced myself, gave the staff presentation, and answered most of the Board members’ questions. > Construction activity is regulated through the City Code consistently for all projects. As such, this project will include a Construction Logistics Plan, reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department as a part of the Building Permit review. The standard condition states: > CONSTRUCTION LOGISTICS PLAN. A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all 2 impacts to the public including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, bus stop relocations, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors’ parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map. NOTE: Some items/tasks on the logistics plan may require an encroachment permit. > I cannot guarantee that there will never be a temporary road closure at any point during the construction. However, if it does occur, notice will be provided and it will be done following procedures and regulations set by the Public Works Department. Sincerely, > Emily > <image001.png>Emily Kallas, AICP > Senior Planner > Planning and Development Services Department > (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org > www.cityofpaloalto.org > <image002.png> Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped > From: Faith Brigel <faithwb3@yahoo.com> > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2025 1:17 PM > To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@paloalto.gov> > Cc: Council, City <city.council@PaloAlto.gov> > Subject: Re: Planning and Transportation Committee: 660 University Ave. > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. > > Hello Emily, > I attended the Architectural Review Board meeting this morning re the project at 660 University. I assume that you were not there. I spoke and several other neighbors made comments as well. > There are a couple of other points that I want to add. There were several comments made about guarding the tree that is adjacent to the construction. And that is good- but what about the people, the neighbors such as myself? This construction project is massive. And it will overwhelm my one story building. > I have owned that house across the street for 37 years. And it is more than 120 years old, and it is in good condition- there was no mention of respect or consideration to it as a neighbor. I need to know that this development will not adversely affect my building- both during the construction and once it is complete. > One of the members at the end mentioned that when the construction begins the neighbors should be given notice re closing the street, etc; > > It is absolutely not acceptable that Byron Street be closed for any amount of time due to their construction. This construct will take what? About 4 years?! > I have tenants who work there and have clients there daily. They need to have access to my building in order to do their work. And they need it quiet. > If they cannot enter Byron Street for any amount of time, or if construction trucks block access to my driveway, and if any of my tenants leave that > will effect my income. And the construction company will be responsible. > They need to find ways to contain the construction to their own property. And as I have mentioned before and other people have as well - this building is much too large for the space- and we the neighbors 3 in that area are relying on the Architectural Review Board and the City Council to protect the integrity of Palo Alto, and not to allow construction companies coming in to Palo Alto from other locations and building structures that are way out of proportion to the area as this one is. > > Emily can you pls forward this email to the Architectural Review Board? > > Thanks, > > Faith W. Brigel > > > > On Apr 30, 2025, at 3:46 PM, Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@paloalto.gov> wrote: > > > > Hi Faith, > > > > Thank you for your comments. This agenda item has been cancelled at the request of the applicant. You will receive another notice when it has been rescheduled. > > > > Thanks, > > Emily > > > > > > Emily Kallas, AICP > > Senior Planner > > Planning and Development Services Department > > (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@paloalto.gov > > www.paloalto.gov > > > > > > > > Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Faith Brigel <faithwb3@yahoo.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 1:58 PM > > To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@paloalto.gov> > > Subject: Planning and Transportation Committee: 660 University Ave. > > > > 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 4 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 > > > > > > 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.pdf Outlook-Logo__Desc.png Outlook-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. Please note HCD is copied on this email due to the history of delays the project has faced. Feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns. In solidarity, -- Ali Sapirman | Pronouns: They/Them Advocacy & Policy Manager| Housing Action Coalition 555 Montgomery St, San Francisco, CA 94111 Cell: (407) 739-8818 | Email: ali@housingactioncoalition.org To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all". 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) 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 AM To: 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 Velásquez Administrative Assistant Office 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 PM To: 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 clicking on 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 to this project that I hope you will consider. I have great concern that the size and a few other issues related to this construction 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 new projects being considered already, not just 660 University, and several of those other areas do not have as many 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 as the lack of parking, and the high-level of congested traffic in that area, and other issues. When questioned the responses that the developer gave were rather disappointing. Such as, when asked about parking and traffic congestion- he said that they assume that a lot of the residents will not drive cars. But that is an assumption not based on any facts or analysis! It is very possible on the other hand, that most, or many of the residents will have cars. 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 - they said fine they will do that but they will increase the height to 6 stories! If 6 stories is allowed this building will be the highest in that location. It will take of course longer to build, and it will permanently overwhelm, and possibly negatively 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., and Middlefield which is the entrance to the downtown of Palo Alto. The City has not had an official traffic analysis done. Only the developer of this project had one done. It would be important for the City to hire a neutral party to do one. 5-They will only be providing 78 parking spots for the whole building in a 2 level parking garage. This is to accommodate 70 multi-family residential units, plus 1900 sq. ft of offices, where tenants, and outsiders also will be coming 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 been like this for the 37 years that I have frequented that area. In fact, on 8/21 right after attending most of the ARB meeting I went over to my property on 518 Byron Street and there was a car parked blocking my driveway. When she 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 a hurry. 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 is very 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 ( on Byron Street). With various delivery trucks coming by - that is- Amazon, Door Dash, etc ., there will not be enough parking spots for them. So will they park in the middle of the street and block it for the neighbors? He suggested that this building of this size needs more spots for this type of parking. Very true. But will there be any follow up on this and 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 loves balconies.” 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 is east of downtown. Byron is not quite in the downtown area. It is a quieter area. That very large building of offices and 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 developers are 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 4 stories. Pls go back to the 4 stories. It will take less time to build, and it will be less overwhelming for houses such as mine, which is a beautiful Victorian style that has been there for 120 years. Once this huge construction project is built 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 in this mammoth structure as it is. I much appreciate your time to read my email and consider my points. Thank you, Faith Faith W. Brigel 518 Byron Street 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 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. 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. 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. 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? 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 DOWN TO P2 LEVEL UNIVERSITY AVE. 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " OFFICE PARKING RESIDENTIAL PARKING STAIR BEYOND 7' - 9 " T Y P . 45.0° 55 ' - 0 " 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 " FE N C E 7' - 0 " 9' - 9 " EL. -1'-6" (NAVD 88 EL. 45.5') NEIGHBORING PROPERTY GRADE P1 LEVEL P2 LEVEL LIFT PIT SECOND FLOOR EL. 14'-8" THIRD FLOOR FOURTH FLOOR EL. 24'-5" EL. 34'-2" FIRST FLOOR EL. 1'-2" (NAVD 88 EL. 48.16') BASE FLOOD ELEV. EL. 0'-0" (NAVD 88 EL. 47') 1' - 2 " 12 ' - 8 1 / 2 " ± 8' - 4 1 / 4 " 7' - 6 " M I N . EL. -12'-1 1/8" ± EL. -26'-7 1/8" ± EL. -33'-7 1/8" ± CORR. TYP.9' - 9 " 12 ' - 3 " 55 ' - 5 " 1' - 6 " FIFTH FLOOR EL. 43'-11" SIXTH FLOOR EL. 56'-2" T.O. ROOF SLAB EL. 70'-2" 14 ' - 0 " T.O. PARAPET / ELEV. EL. 71'-8" OVERRUN / STAIRS T.O. RAILING EL. 73'-8" T.O. MECH. SCREEN EL. 80'-2" 3' - 6 " 6' - 6 " MECHANICAL SCREEN 54 ' - 6 " + / - 3' - 6 " 2'-2" SHORING/SOLDIER BREAMS 1/32"=1'-0" 3/ - UNIVERSITY AVE MI D D L E F I E L D R O A D BY R O N S T R E E T 64G CA R T COMPO S T 64G CA R T COMPO S T R C 64G CART COMP O S T 64G CARTCOMPOST 96G CARTWASTE 96G CARTRECYCLING 96G CARTWASTE 96G CARTRECYCLING ARCHITECTS KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY SHEET NUMBER SCALE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE DATENO. ISSUES AND REVISIONS DESCRIPTION ARCHITECTS KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY 21003 PLANNING SUBMITTAL12.01.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #105.13.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #208.15.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #408.28.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #510.31.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #612.20.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #702.07.24 AD HOC REVISIONS05.02.24 PLANNING RESUBMIITTAL #809.30.24 524 MIDDLEFIELD A3.3B ENHANCEMENT OF VISIBILITY OF LINE OF DAYLIGHT PLANE AND 524 MIDDLEFIELD MADE BY CHRISTOPHER REAM Please let me know if you have trouble opening either. Thank you, K Brown 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 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 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. 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 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 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. 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 660 University Project Ream – Protect the Coast Live Oak March 4, 2025 A"achment A 660 University Project Ream – Protect the Coast Live Oak March 4, 2025 A"achment B 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 From:Kallas, Emily To:Christopher Ream Cc:Gilbert, Carol Subject:Re: 660 University Date:Monday, July 21, 2025 4:28:11 PM Attachments:Outlook-Logo__Desc.png Outlook-po3batwi.png Outlook-Logo__Desc.png Outlook-tkzgy4nh.png Hi Chris, Thank you for letting me know you did not receive my email on July 14th. The revised plans are also available on the project webpage: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/660-University-Ave You are correct that the plans have been reuploaded with the changes you identified. They also made changes to how the BMR units are distributed, and minor changes to the Middlefield setback area. We are currently targeting ARB on August 21, PTC on September 24, and Council on October 20 or November 3 depending on agenda availability. Thanks, Emily Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped From: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@paloalto.gov> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 4:18 PM To: Christopher Ream <chrisshop@reamlaw.com> Cc: Gilbert, Carol <carol.gilbert@comcast.net> Subject: Re: 660 University Hi Chris, Yes, we discussed this on July 14th. Please let me know if you did not receive my email that day. That information is correct. Thanks, Emily Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped From: Christopher Ream <chrisshop@reamlaw.com> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 4:16 PM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@paloalto.gov> Cc: Gilbert, Carol <carol.gilbert@comcast.net> Subject: 660 University Emily, Please give me an update on the status of the 660 University Project. It is my understanding that the developer is moving forward with its original application 21PLN-00341. Two new sets of plans and supporting documents were filed on 6/23/2025, C12_660 University Ave_PLAN1.pdf, C12_660 University Ave_PLAN2.pdf, and C12_660 University Ave_DOCS.pdf. My brief review of these plans reveals a major change: The top floor (sixth) is no longer office space but has been changed to 12 new residential units, and the total number of residential units has increased from 66 to 70. I am assuming that these new plans and documents supersede the prior filings. Am I correct in my understanding? Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 chrisshop@reamlaw.com 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 From:Faith Brigel To:Planning Commission Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: The 511 Byron St., 660 University Ave. 680 University Ave., 500 Middlefield Ave.Complex Date:Friday, March 14, 2025 6:35:17 PM Attachments:image001.png ATT00001.txt image002.png ATT00002.txt CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Panning Commission, I do not know if you got the email that I sent to you on March 12 right before the meeting. I am sorry that it was so late. I read some of what happened in the meeting and I would like to make a few comments. Firstly, I realize that these developers initially submitted their plans for this project in 2021. And I think that there may be the concern that since it has been such a long time- you should be more empathic to them, and just approve it. I would like to make the point that had their initial draft been different it may have gone through much faster and more smoothly. By different I mean more in line with the other buildings in this area. From the first draft this building has been mammoth, massive, and very out of character with this neighborhood. For several reasons this construction is wrong for that location. All the changes that they have made over the past few years have not brought it down in scale or size. In fact, it has gotten larger! When they were told that they need more setback- they said fine we will just add another story- so it went from four stories up to six stories! And so due to their own insistence that it remain massive in size - this process has lingered. And they have taken up your time. Secondly, I read that at least one of you believe that the final decision that was made at your meeting was wrong. And that you should have approved their current design. I want to say that you did the right thing. I am thrilled that their design was not approved. It is so wrong. I was fearing that only once it is built will you see how wrong it is. And by then of course it is too late. Thirdly, to mention several of the reasons why it is wrong: 1- It will be huge, gigantic, massive and totally out of scale with the neighbor’s buildings. There are NO 6 story buildings here. The highest is 4 stories. 2- That intersection of University and Middlefield is the gateway to downtown Palo Alto, and it is always congested. To accept this current design will add more congestion and traffic than it can bear. It will be a constant nightmare. 3- At one of the meetings the developer himself stated that they will have a two level parking garage in their new basement. But he added, there will NOT be enough parking spots for them. There will be 66 apartments. And only 78 spaces. What about the parking needs of their offices? That is not near enough what they will need. So where will they park? They will not be able to park on Byron Street which is a small, narrow street and as I wrote 3/12 it is always full. Rarely are there available spots. There will be very few spots on University, and very few on Middlefield. So this will become a serious and ongoing problem. 4- This area mostly consists of office buildings with professionals, attorneys, dentists, and therapists. Aside from the traffic, it is a quiet area. Allowing this gigantic construction with 66 studio apartments that will have balconies, plus offices will effect the ambiance negatively. We have no restaurants, nor bars in our area. It is quiet. 5- By allowing this development company to build a 6 story, complex sets a precedent for others to build that high in this area. A bad decision. 6- Personally, I have owned the small, one-story, beautiful, well maintained, 120 year old Victorian building across the street. This massive development will totally overshadow my building, which will negatively affect the quality of living of my tenants. One tenant has already told me that she might move out. And I think it might affect my daylight plane. 7- I understand that due to some contract not being signed by Palo Alto the developers can now build at their own discretion. But it seems that these developers realize the benefits of trying to get the Planning Commission and the City Council’s approval. But still this is not a reason to approve such a phenomenally mammoth building. Pease continue to use your discretion, and integrity as you did at that last meeting, and do not let a developer destroy what has been a tasteful, professional area just for their own greed. Thank you for your consideration. I would be happy to meet any of you on Byron Street to discuss this further. I have spent a lot of time on Byron since 1987, which is 38 years. Best regards, Faith Faith W. Brigel 518 Byron St. > On Mar 12, 2025, at 5:35 PM, Faith Brigel <faithwb3@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> Dear Planning Commission, >> I am not able to get to the meeting tonight. And I was not able to write any sooner. >> I hope that you see this email prior to the meeting. I have attended a couple of the other meetings on the construction on University Ave. and Byron. I own the building across the street. It is a single story Victorian house. I have been there since 1987. >> The construction submitted that is being discussed is much too large for this area. And I understand that now they are asking for it to be six stories. This is much too tall for this area. No other buildings here are that high. There is also a lot of traffic at that corner. The 2 level underground parking will not be large enough for their needs. So their parking needs will spill out onto Byron that is already completely taken every day, all day, except maybe Sunday. >> Please consider the quality of life that will be detrimentally affected by the neighbors by allowing that project to be so massive. Please have them scale it back to a more moderate size. >> Thank you for your consideration. >> >> Faith W. Brigel >> >>> On Mar 6, 2025, at 2:01 PM, Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> You are receiving this email because you have expressed interest in the Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) project proposed at 511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd (aka 660 University). This project. is being presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission on March 12, 2025 at 6pm. >>> The agenda, staff report, and attachments are available here: >>> https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16498 >>> The project plans, Draft EIR, Final EIR, and other project documents are available here: >>> https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/660-University-Ave >>> If you have any comments, please email them to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. There will also be the opportunity for public comments during the hearing. If you have any questions about the project you would like assistance with prior to the hearing, please email me at emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org. >>> Thanks, and see you next week, >>> Emily From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Planning Commission Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:660 University Date:Monday, March 10, 2025 4:23:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Commissioners, Please add your comments and forward to the City Council. This application is now in its 4th year of review. They deserve a decision by council. I attended all the ARB hearings in which opponents made their objections after which the ARB approved the project. The applicant has worked hard to meet concerns while preserving feasibility and choosing a compliant not builder's remedy application. This to my knowledge is the only housing proposal downtown of any significant size. Also it brings with it BMR units that the applicant was able to weight toward lower income residents. Housing downtown is a major city goal in our HE and approval of this project will be a promising start and\ bring the many benefits of downtown living to residents (I am one), to local businesses and to the environment. I look forward to seeing this application approved and see the new housing in my neighborhood. Stephen Levy This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report 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  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      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. 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? Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project November 26, 2024 Page 3 of 4 Daylight Plane There is a single family, one-story residence zoned RM-20 at 524 Middlefield Road, adjacent to the project. Upon a 1/21/2022 review of the initial filing by Applicant, Samuel Gutierrez advised Applicant of the requirement to observe a 45° daylight plane. Applicant complied, and in the next submission of plans, cut back the portion of the fourth floor next to the neighboring house. The fourth floor has remained cut back and compliant with the daylight plane in all subsequent plans submitted by Applicant including the current submission; but Applicant has now added two additional stories onto the building raising the height up to 82 feet, and disregarded the fact that these additional floors egregiously violate the daylight plane. The following is from Applicant’s submission. I have enhanced it to make the line of the daylight plane and the location of the neighboring house more visible. Balconies in the Canopy The approval of the Architectural Review Board at its December 5, 2024 meeting was subject to several conditions being met. The first condition was “Remove balconies from within the Oak tree canopy.” (This can be found at the top of the fifth page of the document filed on 3/3/2025 under the name “C11_660 University Ave_DOCS_Revised for PTC.pdf”). Applicant’s plans show 24 balconies would intrude into the canopy (45-foot radius), and none have been removed. 3/32"=1'-0" PL PL OFFICE LOBBY SPEED RAMP DOWN TO P2 LEVEL UNIVERSITY AVE. 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " OFFICE PARKING RESIDENTIAL PARKING STAIR BEYOND 7' - 9 " T Y P . 45.0° 55 ' - 0 " 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 " FE N C E 7' - 0 " 9' - 9 " EL. -1'-6" (NAVD 88 EL. 45.5') NEIGHBORING PROPERTY GRADE P1 LEVEL P2 LEVEL LIFT PIT SECOND FLOOR EL. 14'-8" THIRD FLOOR FOURTH FLOOR EL. 24'-5" EL. 34'-2" FIRST FLOOR EL. 1'-2" (NAVD 88 EL. 48.16') BASE FLOOD ELEV. EL. 0'-0" (NAVD 88 EL. 47') 1' - 2 " 12 ' - 8 1 / 2 " ± 8' - 4 1 / 4 " 7' - 6 " M I N . EL. -12'-1 1/8" ± EL. -26'-7 1/8" ± EL. -33'-7 1/8" ± CORR. TYP.9' - 9 " 12 ' - 3 " 55 ' - 5 " 1' - 6 " FIFTH FLOOR EL. 43'-11" SIXTH FLOOR EL. 56'-2" T.O. ROOF SLAB EL. 70'-2" 14 ' - 0 " T.O. PARAPET / ELEV. EL. 71'-8" OVERRUN / STAIRS T.O. RAILING EL. 73'-8" T.O. MECH. SCREEN EL. 80'-2" 3' - 6 " 6' - 6 " MECHANICAL SCREEN 54 ' - 6 " + / - 3' - 6 " 2'-2" SHORING/SOLDIER BREAMS 1/32"=1'-0" 3/ - UNIVERSITY AVE MI D D L E F I E L D R O A D BY R O N S T R E E T 64G CA R T COMP O S T 64G CA R T COMP O S T R C 64G CA R T COMP O S T 64G CARTCOMPOST 96G CARTWASTE 96G CARTRECYCLING 96G CARTWASTE 96G CARTRECYCLING ARCHITECTS KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY SHEET NUMBER SCALE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE DATENO. ISSUES AND REVISIONS DESCRIPTION ARCHITECTS KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY 21003 PLANNING SUBMITTAL12.01.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #105.13.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #208.15.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #408.28.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #510.31.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #612.20.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #702.07.24 AD HOC REVISIONS05.02.24 PLANNING RESUBMIITTAL #809.30.24 524 MIDDLEFIELD A3.3B ENHANCEMENT OF VISIBILITY OF LINE OF DAYLIGHT PLANE AND 524 MIDDLEFIELD MADE BY CHRISTOPHER REAM 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 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      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. 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 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 660 University Project Ream – Protect the Coast Live Oak March 4, 2025 A"achment A 660 University Project Ream – Protect the Coast Live Oak March 4, 2025 A"achment B 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. 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. 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) 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. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 5 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture • Heritage Tree Designation in City of Palo Alto There are currently +/- eight (8) trees listed on the City heritage tree list maintained by the City. Per the following information, trees are apparently not required to meet any specific “approval criteria” in terms of species, size, condition, or other relevant parameters, to be selected as formal heritage tree specimens in City of Palo Alto, other than that the trees are native oak species or redwoods located on private property: (Excerpt from a City Staff Report Online): “In 1996, Council enacted the Tree Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 8.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, to preserve and maintain specified native oaks, redwoods, and heritage trees on private property, and to protect them from disfigurement or removal, except in certain circumstances. Section 8.10.090 of the ordinance allows persons to nominate a tree on their property forheritage tree status. After Council approval of such designation, the tree is added to the heritage tree listing, which includes specific location, overall size, and canopy spread. The list is maintained by the Department of Public Works and available to the public on the City’s Urban Forestry website. Once designated, a heritage tree is protected by the provisions of the Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, unless removed from the heritage tree list by subsequent Council action at the request of the property owner.” Per the above information, protected size tree #10 (City tree tag #1572) appears to be an excellent candidate for inclusion in the City’s heritage tree designation program which protects native oaks on private properties. It is a specimen in good overall condition, with exceptional size in terms of both mainstem diameter (est. 50 inches), and canopy spread (90 feet total diameter), with good vigor, good buttress root flares, and good saddle-shaped wide angle forks of mainstem attachment. • David Babby Report 11/19/2021 Page 6 Per page 6 of the dev eloper’s arborist report by David Babby, tree #10 exhibits a “high” rating in terms of suitability for preservation (see below excerpt from page 6 of Babby report): 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”. 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 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. 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 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 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 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). 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.  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:    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    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    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 o 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 From:Austin Traver To:Kallas, Emily Subject:Neighbor, Opposed to 680 University Avenue Date:Friday, December 6, 2024 7:03:43 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Emily, My name is Austin, I own a home on Fulton St in downtown Palo Alto. I noticed that a developer has proposed to construct a massive building right next to my little condo. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/680-University-Avenue I live one building away, in a 10-unit complex. Our condo is already pretty cramped as it is, in terms of parking spaces, density, etc., This project seems like it will be very disruptive to the character of the nearby neighborhood community. Can you help me understand how I, as a resident of Palo Alto, can participate in our city’s decision on whether to allow this to go forward? I want my voice to be heard by my representatives. Sincerely, Austin Traver Sent from my iPhone 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  From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Kallas, Emily; Lait, Jonathan Subject:660 Univeristy project Date:Saturday, November 30, 2024 10:57:53 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Chair Rosenberg and committee members, I hope you are having a joyful Thanksgiving holiday. Please move this application forward with your comments and any remaining concerns. As the housing project on this site enters its fourth year of review, I believe the applicant and community deserve a hearing before the city council and timely decision. My comments below are as a DTN resident and economist with experience in housing economics and more than a dozen HCD advisory committee member meetings. As I always clarify before you, I have no expertise as an architect or arborist and will not comment on these issues. 1) I believe this is the only housing proposal of any significant size in DTN, an area identified as important for additional housing in our Housing Element and by you in previous meetings. 2) As with 3265 and 3150 ECR, this current application is the result of collaboration between the applicant and staff to respond to ARB comments and concerns while preserving the financial feasibility of the application. I have been pleased by the recognition and appreciation by ARB members of these twin objectives. As with 3265, the applicant has responded to concerns by adding height and other configuration changes. And, as the chair noted at the last meeting, the alternative to successful resolution of issues could be no project or in this case a builder's remedy application that the applicant has shelved for now in favor of this smaller project. 3) The applicant is proposing a large majority (10) of the 14 BMR units for low income residents including 6 for very and extremely low income residents. I am pleased the applicant i able to co this in the context of a feasible proposal. 4) This site has additional benefits as it will allow some/many trips to be done without driving and the residents will make a small but positive addition as customers for DTN businesses. I look forward to hearing council's review asap as we begin the process of adding housing in appropriate DTN locations. Stephen Levy From:Greg Welch To:Architectural Review Board; Kallas, Emily Cc:Ann Lewnes Subject:Public Feedback on the proposed project "660 University Ave" project [21PLN-00341] Date:Wednesday, December 4, 2024 7:58:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. My wife and I are writing as we will be unable to attend the ARB meeting at 8:30am on 12-5- 24 due to work conflicts. We own a unit on the north side, third floor of the Hamilton building ( at 555 Byron St.) just to the south of the proposed project. My house-bound, elderly mother-in-law occupies the unit and the sunlight through her windows and on her balcony represent most of her experience of the outdoors. We are very concerned that the proposed project could cut off all direct sunlight and require her to have to draw her blinds to have any sort of privacy. 1) the six-story height suggests a size and mass completely out of keeping with the surrounding neighborhood 2) at that height, the project threatens to loom over and literally overshadow the buildings around it. 3) Throughout Palo Alto, building standards preserve privacy by preventing neighbors from building structures that look down into backyards, or directly into windows in existing structures. How will that be accomplished on this project? Greg Welch Ann Lewnes 560 Center Drive Palo Alto, CA 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)             !" #$"!%&'()*+,$$!-"*"./ 3345645758 6938 :;,!+" >!),!- ?"( #"@'+,&A%*"./EJKL MNOKP QRKSKTOUMV WRQN QXULKVM QW UJM QRSOTKYOUKQTZ [M \OXUKQXL QW Q]MTUL OTV \PK\^KTS QT PKT^LZcadb _`ab cadb ebffghhgbijkhlnkgdgio db jpqkjhh fr jidsthg`hdgu htqqbkd vbk dsj qkbqbhjw sbthgio qkbxjud `d yyzkhgdr c|j gi wbnidbni _`ab cadb} ~sgh qkbxjud ngaa j ` dkjfjiwbth `hhjd db dsj ubffttk kjogbi `h ` nsbaj}wwgdgbi bv yy tigdh db dsj `kj` gh ` j`ubi bv sbqj gi `wwkjhhgio _`ab cadb€h qkjhhgiogio hsbkd`oj} ~sj qkbxjud€h qkbpgfgdr db wbnidbni `fjigdgjhl giuatwgio e`adk`gi hd`dgbis m ab|j `iw kgwj w`gar‚ `iw `fqaj gƒj q`kƒgiol f`ƒjh dsj qkbxjud `i `ddk`udg|j qa`uj db qkbfbdgio ji|gkbifjid`a hthd`gi`gagdr}b|jkl m `f q`kdguta`kar gfqkjhhjw r dsj qkbxjud€h ubffgdfjid db giuathg|gdr} …jddgio `hgwid bv dsj tigdh vbk abnjk‡dgjkjw `vvbkw`aj sbthgio hsbnu`hjh ` wjwgu`dgbi db qkb|gwgiokdtigdgjh vbk giwg|gwt`ah vkbf wg|jkhj hbugbjubibfgu `uƒokbtiwh db dskg|j gi dsj ubffgh hb gfqbkd`id} ˆr qkgbkgdg‰gio `vvbkw`aj sbthgio `iw tk`i wj|jabqfjidl nj u`i ukj` hthd`gi`aj `iw giuathg|j ubfftigdgjh vbk j|jkrbij} md gh ijujhh`kr vbk _`ab cadb db jpgio bqdgbih `iw `uubffbw`dj dsj ijjwh bv ` okbngio qbqta`dgbi `iw m tkoj rbt db d`ƒji r htqqbkdgio dsgh qkbxjud ngds ib vtkdsjk wja`r} vbkn`kw db ngdijhhgio dsj hsbkd djkf `iw abio djkf qbhgdg|j gfq`udh ds`d dsgh qkbxjud ng bi _`ab cadb `iw dsj htkkbtiwgio ubfftigdr} ~s`iƒ rbt} ebtadjkkbi}i}ubtadjkŠof`ga}ubf bio Žkg|j cq`kdfjid z ‘bhjl e`agvbkig` ’‹ Œy            ! " # $ %& ' (  ' )*+, -./0+12 3+*+,*4./0+1256+/7.,8;<=><=?=@ >A;B )C:D.1+ EDF:D0 G+1* 3+1H5.:6IJ++71K8OTUV WXYUZ [\U]U^Y_W` a\[X [b_VU`W [a _TW [\]Y^UcY_U[^d eW fYb_U[bV [a [gW^_V Y^` fZUfhU^] [^ ZU^hVdmpq jr klm stuj vukj vpwlxkmwkyptu zm{xm| }jtp~|pxkm x qkpj ‚ …†ss‡zi jr klm ˆpjˆjqm~ ljyqxpqxkŒ v{m ym t‚m ~t xkmn Ž ‘ t ~ tuqj m’ˆt tu •jyqx ‚ –jwyq vpmt t‚m ~t xkmn Ž— ƒ vk klnmmkx ‚ jr klm vz}‘ ˆumtqm tˆˆpj{m ojkl jr klm~ ˆumtqm pmwjnnm ~ kltk klm ”xkŒ ”jy wxu ~j qt ljyqx ‚ wpxqxqƒ …j nt Œ jr nŒ rpxm ~q t ~ rtn jykƒ ilm qjuykxj xq kj oyxu~ njpm ljnmq‘ rjp ˆqƒ „ wuy~x ‚ x rxuu ~m{mujˆnm kq mtp jyp wxkŒšq tu tk ŠŠ‹ † x{mpqxkŒ v{m ym xq m’twkuŒ |ltk |m jyp ~j| kj| wjnnmpwxtu ~xqkpxwk‘ t ~ ‰yqk ‹ƒ „k |xuu x wuy~m qwjpmq jr m| ljnmq‘ x wuy~x ‚ npm ljnmq j “”z |xuu opx ‚ njpm mx‚lojpq kj qljˆˆx ‚ t ~ kpt qxkƒmqm ljnmq ‚mk oyxukš …x wmpmuŒ‘pkž‘ ™ — ”lt x ‚ v{m      ! "''()*(+*+, '*-./ 0153& 657 8&39 !&3:5;<&&3="@ A 5 !A 5?&&5;<&&3="B C&5@ DE&4&E !DE&4&EC&5F5;G&03="KPQR STUQV WXQYQZU[S\ ]XWT W^[RQ\S W] [PS WXYUZQ_U[QWZ` aS bU^[QW^R W] WcSZ[R UZ\ bVQbdQZY WZ VQZdR`kh lmnfopfhq gor smttkuuff tftpfhnvz ghf jg{koq g |my}z~ jgo€nqk{koq jm~krgy {f ujkn gxx~ksgukmo }mhƒghr ƒkuj ymzh smttfoun gor goy hftgkokoq smosfhon znkoq xhm|fsu mo ujkn nkuf foufhn kun }mzhuj yfgh m} hf{kfƒv w pf~kf{f ujf gxx~ksgou guy rfnfh{f g jfghkoq pf}mhf ujf skuy smzosk~ gor uktf~y rfsknkmo foun pf~mƒ ghf gn g e† hfnkrfou gor fsmomtknu ƒkuj f‡xfhkfosf ko jmznkoq fsmom g rmˆfo ‰ie gr{knmhy smttkuuff tftpfh tffukoqn „n w g~ƒgyn s~ghk}y pf}mhf y‡xfhuknf gn go ghsjkufsu mh ghpmhknu gor ƒk~~ omu smttfou mo ujfnf knnzfn f ujkn kn ujf mo~y jmznkoq xhmxmng~ m} goy nkqok}ksgou nkˆf ko e†v go ghfg krfouk}kf }mh grrkukmog~ jmznkoq ko mzh ‰mznkoq Œ~ftfou gor py ymz ko xhf{kmzn tffukoqn Ž gor ŽŠ ‘ Œilv ujkn szhhfou gxx~ksgukmo kn ujf hfnz~u m} sm~~gpmhgukmo pfuƒffgor nug}} um hfnxmor um „l’ smttfoun gor smosfhon ƒjk~f xhfnfh{koq ujf }kogoskg m} ujf gxx~ksgukmo w jg{f pffo x~fgnfr py ujf hfsmqokukmo gor gxxhfskgukmo py „l m} ujfnf uƒko mp|fsuk{fn v ujf gxx~ksgou jgn hfnxmorfr um smosfhon py grrkoq jfkqju gor mujfh smo}kqzhf sjgkh omufr gu ujf ~gnu tffukoqv ujf g~ufhoguk{f um nzssfnn}z~ hfnm~zukmo m} knnzf|fsu mh ko ujkn sgnf g pzk~rfh“n hftfry gxx~ksgukmo ujgu ujf gxx~ksgou jgn njf~{fr }mjkn ntg~~fh xhm|fsu x~ksgou kn xhmxmnkoq g ~ghqf tg|mhkuy ”Š‘‹ m} ujf Š• ’…l zokun }mh ~mƒ kosmtf hfnkr }mh {fhy gor f‡uhftf~y ~mƒ kosmtf hfnkrfoun w gt x~fgnfr ujf gxx~ksgou k gp~f uf‡u m} g }fgnkp~f xhmxmng~ uf jgn grrkukmog~ pfof}kun gn ku ƒk~~ g~~mƒ nmtf–tgoy uhkxn um pf rmof ƒkujmzu rhk{koun ƒk~~ tg€f g ntg~~ pzu xmnkuk{f grrkukmo gn sznumtfhn }mh e† pznkofnnfn ghr um jfghkoq smzosk~“n hf{kfƒ gngx gn ƒf pfqko ujf xhmsfnn m} grrkoq jmznkoq k         !"# $% & '()%(* +,%-%-.)*/01%2-314 89:8:9;9< =>88 &?2B3(% CBD2B) E%(* +%(F/32G.,%%-(04%,2(1%7 +%2/AJ270%3273%227-(04K &GJ% (7 +%GJ%/J12A*BDB,1B7-314K 6BDGDG/33J3B-314A1B7J L8M ?EN6,,( Q( L89-;8-9<N-,*.K &%3A & OO; P72D 6,,( R17J-,*.KV[\] ^_`\a bc\d\e`f^g hcb_ bif]\g^ bh f[^ bcd`e\j`f\bek l^ m`if\bi] bh bn^ef] `eg ma\mo\ed be a\eo]k% & '()%(*rJ J,,( BB( .( AB OO; P72DB(J2G &DB7B ?2sB* PJB $(t&CE %0B7*%N %7* %JJ32%B* &%3A1B7 &q )A23A 273*BJ DB( 8;; ,%0BJ . ,(J .( AB ,(tB3- Š~† ‚Š’“Œ’”– 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 ATTACHMENT A: 100 Pages of Public Comments Supporting the Project (link)          ! "#$%!&'()%*% +, -. 123232425 6718 90'!  <!='!> ? + " *$'%@A, -. ( "%&$&)';+!=!A)!(,).D ?%+ E)'; "*%+$&)';+!=!A)!(,).;)!( FG2H I?J &'% 9=! L M((!+ N)! O('(- P)A'(,+QDUZ[\ ]^_[` ab[c[d_e]f gba^ ahe\[f] ag eZ] abc_d[i_e[adj k] l_he[ah\ ag am]de\ _df l`[ln[dc ad `[dn\j(-p;!+  !&A(+!(! @ ;! ? +q& )!!'(- ( r!!)*! s;,{ |}~|€‰‰Š…‹‚Œ 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. 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. 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          !" #$%& '#$%&(  !)*%&+,  (-./ 345454647 897: ;1%>*-  ?>@%>A B -C ' -D)*%&+,  (-./ 1>!! .>EEEEEB-%.> '+ %=ADG)& =(*$/&" I>*>$D>- 3" 4647 :943 J1%& '#$%&(  !)*%&+,  (-./.> '+ %=ADG)& =(*$/ O2%@>-!%& ;@>( ,-M>* E  $ !!%@>=%! >$ % -%.%2 >C +-$ !%C> + => -. 2%R %2( B> * %! + ,>2%2.  2 %2!(> 2%*> -> => ;-*=%>*-  ?>@%>A B -C $>>%2. 2 I>*>$D>- T" =  A% C%!* !D$%>C +- NN6 O2%@>-!%& ;@>2>( + => ! > =  C & 2C ! P * 22 >2C( SA>@>-" P = @> !-2. +>>%2.! D A-%%2. & ! &- >$ % CC->!! %! => 2& 2> 2 => * -C =  A ! !>2  $& * 2 ,! +-A -C %  => ;-*=%>*-  ?>@%>A B -C A= A% D> *2C*%2. =  A=>2 =%! ,-M>* A ! +%-! !D$%>C =>& A>-> C>!*-%D%2. % ! 7 !-& D%C%2C =  =>& 2>>C>C  A A%C>- !>D * =>& ! %C =  =>& *C C =  DD%C % T !-%>!( ;2C 2A -> C%2. =%! 2%*> P !>> =  =>& -> %2 + * ->U>!%2. D%C%2.! %2 =  -> -> 2>" A - =->> !-%>!( Q2> -> T - N !-%>!( P = @>!! => !->> +- G6 &> -!( P %! D> %+" @>-& A> >, W%*-% 2 =  %! @>- 34-& D%C%2.( P+ => 2>A *2!-*%2 %! A>C  D> N !-%>! E % A% @>-!= CA." 2C % A% 2>. %@>& >++>* 2C D!-* => C &%.= , 2 + $& D%C%2.(>2 %2 =>& >X, %2>C =  =>& A% D%C A >@> 2C>-.-2C . - .> +- ,>C =  =>-> A% !% 2 D> >2.= , -%2. +- =>%- >2 2!( K=%! %! !>-%! ,-> D%C%2.! =  -> =>-> *-->2& Y A=%*= -> $*= !$ >- = 2 A=  %! D>%2. !A &! @>-& C%++%*  +%2C( B&-2 H->> %! !$  !->> A%= @>-& %> , -%2. 2C , -%2. !, %!  >2( J>-!2! A-%2. %2 => -> 2 =>- !->>!" +>2  > ,!,! > -& %2 => $-2%2. 2C =>2 ! & =>->  C &(%2 + 1%CC>+%>C 2C O2%@>-!%& %! 2> + => >2- 2*>!  => CA2A2 ->                                                                !""# $!" %&"#'()!*+,!-.&&#/","01 456765859 45:7; <=.#-"! A#+.#/ B!"* %!"C)-.(D'!!,"01HMNO PQRNS TUNVNWRXPY ZUTQ T[XONYP TZ XMP TUVRWN\RXNTW] ^P _R[XNT[O TZ T`PWXO RWY _SN_aNWV TW SNWaO]fdge bcde fdge heiijkkjelmnkoqnjgjlr ge mstnmkk iu kgnelr kvtteng wen gxm tnetekmy tnezm{g cg ||} ~ljmnkjgu fmlvmmlg nmkjymlg ew bcde fdgeo p xcm tmnkelcddu mstmnjml{my gxm yjwwj{vdgu ew km{vnjlr vcdjgujlr jl gxm yeqlgeql cnmco c {xcddmlrm wc{my ‚u iclu jl evn {eiivljgu€nm{mlg dcq k{xeed rncyvcgmo p ƒleq kmmncd tmmnk qxeo ymktjgm km{vnjlr ze‚k jl bcde fd vlc‚dm ge wjly kvjgc‚dm xevkjlr lmcn‚u€ „eim xcy ge djm wcn wnei gxmjn qenƒtdc{mo qxjdmko djƒm iukmdwo kmggdmy wen ienm ieymkg c{{eiieycgjelk gxcl tnmwmnnmy yvm ge djijgmylk€eqlgeql cnmc jk xeim ge lvimnevk ivdgjwcijdu ‚vjdyjlrko iclu ew qxj{x cnm iv{x edygxjk tnetekmy ymmdetimlg€ …xmkm xeimko ewgml kv‚yjjymy wnei dcnrm kjlrdm†wcijdu xeeq jddmrcd ge ‚vjdy umg tdcu c {nv{jcd nedm jl tnejyjlr xevkjlr wen iclu nmlgmnko {elgnj‚v j‚ncl{u ew evn {eiivljgu€netekmy tnezm{g el ~ljmnkjgu fmlvm ewwmnk c tnjim de{cgjel qjgxjl qcdƒjlr yjkgcl{m ecjl cly c kxeng ‚jƒm njym wnei ƒmu ymkgjlcgjelko icƒjlr jg cl jymcd kteg wen {cn†djrxg en {cjjlr€ ‡xjdm {el{mnlk c‚evg gncwwj{ cnm cdjyo gxmu cnm ewgml emnkgcgmy€ …xm tnezm{gˆk de{mkjrl qjdd ijljij‰m jgk jitc{g el gncwwj{ qxjdm tnejyjlr iv{x†lmmymy xevkjlr jl gxm xmfdge€xm ‚mlmwjg ew evn {eiivljgu cly wvgvnm nmkjymlgko p kgnelrdu vnrm gxm cttnecd ew gxjk tne qjdd xmdt cyynmkk gxm elrejlr xevkjlr kxengcrm jl bcde fdge€ƒ uev wen uevn {elkjymncgjel€gg hdcnƒŒ rcnnmggŽricjd€{ei                 !"#$% &'$($# )!#$*+,-"./-0'!!$%#/#(1 456765859 4:;7 <='$0#- @$.'$% A-#" )-#B,0'+C*--/#(1GLMN OPQMR STMUMVQWOX YTSP SZWNMXO SY WLO STUQVM[QWMSV\ ]O ^QZWMSZN SY S_OVWN QVX ^RM^`MVU SV RMV`N\                    !  ! "    ! #      #     !#     "         #                                "&!    '                 #       #              "           )  #  !             "                  "$   #  !         !  *              "$ !              )  #  "     !      #         !    !    #'   '     #   "         #       +, #    !      #    !  #          !        "'+ -   ./  " 0   .1223           !"###$#% & !"###$#%' *+,-,+.+/ -0/+ 127#58 9 7: ;85< &85="#7!>?88$5@' C7=5@ &D8B"E7B@B?8BB7B@$#%'F G:7H5I G B &G B$G:7H5"J7!>184$5@'F 68B &AB868B$K87"J7!>184$5@'OTUV WXYUZ [\U]U^Y_W` a\[X [b_VU`W [a _TW [\]Y^UcY_U[^d eW fYb_U[bV [a [gW^_V Y^` fZUfhU^] [^ ZU^hVdol pqrjstjlu ksv wqxxoyyjj xjxtjlrzryksvosu q~ ynj wq}swo vorw}rroqs ynky jv yq osw}vosu j€ ksvosu ynj ‚mp ~qw}r k yq j€ ksv ynj kljk ‡oynq}y ljrylowyosu ynj ˆqsosu ksv vj‰jq xjsy ryksvklvr kvqujxjsy ‡oyn ksv ~jjvtkwŠ ~lqx lq jly| q‡sjlr os ynj kljk‹jsukujxjsy ksv wqktqlkyoqs ‡oyn ryk~~ tlq}uny |q} ynj } vkyjv Ž† ‚mp k o ‡jwqxjv ksv k lq‰jv yq xq‰j ~ql‡klv‹ ynj ‚mp jsukujxjsy ksv ynor xqlj ljwjsy jsukujxjsyz ‡j Šsq‡ ‡nky or sjjvjswok| ~jkrotj k owkyoqsr ksv krq ‡nky lj‰jsyr ~oskswok ‰oktooy|‹ ynj Œp ~ql ljwqusoˆosu ynj wloyowk ox qlykswj q~ ~oskswok ~jkrotooy| ~lqx ynj k j ksv jswq}lkuj |q} yq oswql qlkyj oy osyq ynj j€ ksroqs l}jr‹uj Œp yq kvq y ynj ‚mp ˆqsosu ksv vj‰jq xjsy ryksvklvr ~ql ynj lq jlyojr kw~qw}r kljk ksv lq jlyojr oxxjvokyj| rq}yn q~ {kykvjlq‹s ~ql ynjrj lq jlyojr ‘ tjoj‰j ynj qlouosk ryk~~ ljwqxxjsvkyoqs q~ k † ljkl rjy ‡o xkŠj k vo~~jljswj yq ‰oktooy|‹lj ynky ynj lq jly| q‡sjl voljwy| rq}yn q~ {kykvjlq tjq‡ ynj mljjŠrovj royj nk osyjljry os vj‰jq osu nq}rosu‹ •nq}un nj sq‡ nkr k p k owkyoqsz ‘ kx r}lj ntlosu ~qlyn k wqx oksy k owkyoqs ‡oyn ynj ‚mp l}jr‹j royjr klj sjkl ylksroy ksv –qt ksv rnq osu royjr‹ynj ‚mp l}jrz sqy ynj —˜mŒ™ l}jrz wks tlosu ~qlyn wqx oksy k owkyoqsr kwlqrr mp ~qw}r kljk‹q}v oŠj yq rjj xqlj nq}rosu qs ynj ‚mp royjr ~}lynjl rq}ynz os qlvjl yq nk‰j k wn}l ›}sj … …† wqxxoyxjsyz ‘ kx ljrylowyosu x| krŠ yq royjr kv–kwjsy yq ksv kwlqr kljk‹kos ~ql wqxtososu |q}l klwnoyjwy}lk j€ jlyorj ‡oyn ~oskswok ~jkrotooy| wqsrovjlkyo–jwyr ~ql‡klv‹             ! "#$ %&#'()*+ ,-!&&'.#,#/0 345654748 9:6; <=!'-# A' !'. B#+ %#C*-!)D(,#/0HMNO PQRNS TUNVNWRXPY ZUTQ T[XONYP TZ XMP TUVRWN\RXNTW] ^P _R[XNT[O TZ T`PWXO RWY _SN_aNWV TW SNWaO]fdge bcde fdge heiijkkjelmnkoqrdds krtteng gum uerkjlv tnewmxg cg yyz {lj|mnkjgs f|m jl }e~lge~l bcde fdge €ujk tnewm c gnmiml}erk ckkmg ge gum xeiirljgs cl} gum nmvjel ck c ~uedm}}jgjel eq yy rljgk ge gum cnmc jk c mcxel eq uetm jl c}}nmkkjlv bcde fdge‚k tnmkkjlvjlv kuengcvm €um tnewmxg‚k tneƒjijgs ge }e~lge~l cimljgjmko jlxdr}jlv hcdgncjl kgcgjel m j„m tcn„jlvo ic„mk gum tnewmxg cl cggncxgj|m tdcxm ge dj|mo ~ujdm tneiegjlv ml|jnelimjlc jdjgse|mno p ci tcngjxrdcnds jitnmkkm} s gum tnewmxg‚k xeiijgimlg ge jlxdrkj|jgs †mggjlv ckj}lg eq gum rljgk qen de~mnˆgjmnm} cqqen}c dm uerkjlv kue~xckmk c }m}jxcgjel ge tne|j}jlvngrljgjmk qen jl}j|j}rcdk qnei }j|mnkm kexjemxeleijx cx„vnerl}k ge gunj|m jl gum xeiijenjgjŠjlv cqqen}c dm uerkjlv cl} rn cl }m|mdetimlgo ~m xcl xnmcgm ienm krkgcjlc dm ckj|m xeiirljgjmk qen m|mnselm pg jk lmxmkkcns qen bcde fdge ge mƒtcl} uerkjlv etgjelk iie}cgm gum lmm}k eq c vne~jlv tetrdcgjel cl} p rnvm ser ge gc„m cxgjel s krttengjlvxg ~jgu le qrngumn }mdcs qen~cn} ge ~jglmkkjlv gum kueng gmni cl} delv gmni tekjgj|m jitcxgk gucg gujk tnewmxg ~j el bcde fdge cl} gum krnnerl}jlv xeiirljgs €ucl„ sernmdsoc ‹c ‹cgcncwjxxevŒvicjdxei Žmlg f|mlrmo ‘ekmo hcdjqenljc ’                 !"# $#%# &"'()*+#,-.#/!""(0'.'12 56787696: ;<98 =>!(/'# B(-!(0 C#', &#'D+/!*E)##.'12INOP QRSOT UVOWOXSYQZ [VUR U\YPOZQ U[ YNQ UVWSXO]SYOUX^ _Q `S\YOU\P U[ UaQXYP SXZ `TO`bOXW UX TOXb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`R aT]ZPV]Q V\ VbRYZQ TY[ aUPacPYX VY UPYcQ_hfig defg hfig jgkklmmlgnopmqsplilnt ig ouvpomm kw mxvvgpi ygp izo vpgvgmo{ zgxmlnt vpg|o}i ei ~~ €nl opmliw h o lnigsn defg hfig‚ hm e ƒ„woep defg hfig poml{oniq r …oflo o e vpg|o}i mx}z em izlm lm …gizmmepw en{ slff …o e ipokon{gxm emmoi ig gxp }gkkxnliw en{ ig izo potlgnef zgxmlnteto‚yos kxfil„yeklfw zgxmlnt vpg|o}im toi …xlfi noep szopo izow epo mgpofw noo{o{q ln izoigsn }gpo‚ ‡zo e{{lilgn gy ~~„xnlim sliz lkko{leio vpgulkliw ig ekonlilom en{ sefˆlntn}o ig izo jefipeln lm izo pltzi sew ig vpgkgio mxmielne…fo en{ pomlfloni {o ofgvkoni‚t eml{o ƒ vop}oni gy izo xnlim ygp fgsop„ilopo{ eyygp{e…fo zgxmlnt lm e sof}gkolikoni ig mipontizonlnt defg hfigŠm mg}lgo}gngkl} {l opmliw en{ o‹xliw‚ ri lm no}ommepwhfig ig ouven{ zgxmlnt gvilgnm en{ e}}gkkg{eio izo noo{m gy e tpgslnt vgvxfeilgn ewgx ig mxvvgpi en{ evvpg o izlm vpg|o}i sliz ng yxpizop {ofew‚ ygpsep{ ig moolnt izlm vpg|o}i …xlfi en{ kgpo flˆo li ln izo noep yxixpo‚ defg hfig noo{m k zgxmlnt en{ kgpo {onmliw ln evvpgvpleiofw vfenno{ epoem gy izo jliw‚ ‡zenˆ wgx‚pofwqm ‰xzm ‰xzmwmxz tkelf‚}gkhfigq jeflygpnle Ž ~ 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. 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. 3 Exhibit File From:Kathleen Rotow To:Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: 660 University Draft EIR - Now Circulating Date:Wednesday, April 3, 2024 11:52:55 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png Thanks Emily. I'm glad the review concluded that the Byron Ave entry and exit for this project made more sense than further slowing down Middlefield and University. It also keeps some of the inevitable noise from this project from disturbing the senior project across the street on University. On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 8:28 AM Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Kathleen, After the initial ARB review, the driveway was relocated to the Byron frontage, to reduce potential conflict on Middlefield. Thanks, Emily Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped From: Kathleen Rotow <kathleenrotow@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 4:46 AM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: 660 University Draft EIR - Now Circulating CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good Morning Emily, I have an initial question that you may be able to answer quickly. Given that I live within two blocks from the project on University Avenue, one of my concerns is the amount of additional traffic this project will generate on an already very congested corner. Probable additional traffic backups on both University Ave and Middlefield Ave. Will the entry and exits for parking be on University or Middlefield? Will there be any left turn entry into the parking for the project while heading west on University? Thank you, Kathleen Rotow Sent from my iPhone On Apr 2, 2024, at 5:58 PM, Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Good afternoon, This e-mail is to inform you that the Draft EIR for the 660 University project is now available here on our Planning Department website. The Notice of Availability is attached and has further information regarding the proposed project. The comment period for the Draft EIR begins today, Tuesday, April 2nd and will end on May 17, 2024. This e-mail is being provided to you because you are a neighboring jurisdiction, your agency has expressed an interest in the proposed project or because your agency may have an interest in the proposed project, or because you have been requested to be contacted regarding any project within the City of Palo Alto’s jurisdiction. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or to send comments. Regards, Emily <image001.png>Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org <image002.png> Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped <660_University_NOA signed.pdf> 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 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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) 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. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 5 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture • Heritage Tree Designation in City of Palo Alto There are currently +/- eight (8) trees listed on the City heritage tree list maintained by the City. Per the following information, trees are apparently not required to meet any specific “approval criteria” in terms of species, size, condition, or other relevant parameters, to be selected as formal heritage tree specimens in City of Palo Alto, other than that the trees are native oak species or redwoods located on private property: (Excerpt from a City Staff Report Online): “In 1996, Council enacted the Tree Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 8.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, to preserve and maintain specified native oaks, redwoods, and heritage trees on private property, and to protect them from disfigurement or removal, except in certain circumstances. Section 8.10.090 of the ordinance allows persons to nominate a tree on their property forheritage tree status. After Council approval of such designation, the tree is added to the heritage tree listing, which includes specific location, overall size, and canopy spread. The list is maintained by the Department of Public Works and available to the public on the City’s Urban Forestry website. Once designated, a heritage tree is protected by the provisions of the Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, unless removed from the heritage tree list by subsequent Council action at the request of the property owner.” Per the above information, protected size tree #10 (City tree tag #1572) appears to be an excellent candidate for inclusion in the City’s heritage tree designation program which protects native oaks on private properties. It is a specimen in good overall condition, with exceptional size in terms of both mainstem diameter (est. 50 inches), and canopy spread (90 feet total diameter), with good vigor, good buttress root flares, and good saddle-shaped wide angle forks of mainstem attachment. • David Babby Report 11/19/2021 Page 6 Per page 6 of the dev eloper’s arborist report by David Babby, tree #10 exhibits a “high” rating in terms of suitability for preservation (see below excerpt from page 6 of Babby report): 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”. 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 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. 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 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 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 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). 660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 A"achment B 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 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 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 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 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 From:Gennifer Wehrmeyer To:Kallas, Emily Cc:CPRU-Dropbox; Shree Dharasker Subject:VW File 34811 – Comments on DEIR for 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project Date:Friday, May 17, 2024 4:14:49 PM Attachments:image001.png You don't often get email from gwehrmeyer@valleywater.org. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Emily, The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project to merge three parcels to construct a four-story mixed-use building at 511 Bryon Street, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd in Palo Alto, received on April 2, 2024, and has the following comments: 1. Valley Water does not have any right of way or facilities within the project siteboundary; therefore, in accordance with Valley Water’s Water ResourcesProtection Ordinance, a Valley Water encroachment permit will not be requiredfor the project. 2. Valley Water previously commented on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) thatunderground structures should be designed for waterproofing that avoids theneed for permanent dewatering after construction is complete. As stated inSection 10-a, construction will involve excavation up to 38 feet below groundsurface, during which time dewatering will be used. It is unclear if dewatering willoccur after construction. Underground structures should be designed forwaterproofing and permanent dewatering should be avoided once constructionis finished. 3. Valley Water records indicate that no active wells are located on the subjectproperty. While Valley Water has records for most wells located in the County, itis always possible that a well exists that is not in the Valley Water’s records. Ifpreviously unknown wells are found on the subject property during development,they must be properly destroyed under permit from Valley Water or registeredwith Valley Water and protected from damage. For more information, please callthe Valley Water’s Well Ordinance Program Hotline at 408-630-2660. 4. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) FloodInsurance Rate Map (FIRM) 006085C0010H, effective May 18, 2009, the projectsite is within FEMA Flood Zone AH, an area with 1% annual chance of shallowflooding (usually areas of ponding), located between base flood elevations of 46feet and 47 feet. The project is required to follow the flood plain ordinance andnational flood insurance requirements. If you have any questions or need further information, you can reach me at gwehrmeyer@valleywater.org or at (408) 694-2069. Please reference Valley Water File 34811 on further correspondence regarding this project. Thank you, Gennifer Wehrmeyer ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CIVIL 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 From:Kathleen Rotow To:Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: 660 University Draft EIR - Now Circulating Date:Wednesday, April 3, 2024 11:52:55 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png Thanks Emily. I'm glad the review concluded that the Byron Ave entry and exit for this project made more sense than further slowing down Middlefield and University. It also keeps some of the inevitable noise from this project from disturbing the senior project across the street on University. On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 8:28 AM Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Kathleen, After the initial ARB review, the driveway was relocated to the Byron frontage, to reduce potential conflict on Middlefield. Thanks, Emily Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped From: Kathleen Rotow <kathleenrotow@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 4:46 AM To: Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: 660 University Draft EIR - Now Circulating CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good Morning Emily, I have an initial question that you may be able to answer quickly. Given that I live within two blocks from the project on University Avenue, one of my concerns is the amount of additional traffic this project will generate on an already very congested corner. Probable additional traffic backups on both University Ave and Middlefield Ave. Will the entry and exits for parking be on University or Middlefield? Will there be any left turn entry into the parking for the project while heading west on University? Thank you, Kathleen Rotow Sent from my iPhone On Apr 2, 2024, at 5:58 PM, Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Good afternoon, This e-mail is to inform you that the Draft EIR for the 660 University project is now available here on our Planning Department website. The Notice of Availability is attached and has further information regarding the proposed project. The comment period for the Draft EIR begins today, Tuesday, April 2nd and will end on May 17, 2024. This e-mail is being provided to you because you are a neighboring jurisdiction, your agency has expressed an interest in the proposed project or because your agency may have an interest in the proposed project, or because you have been requested to be contacted regarding any project within the City of Palo Alto’s jurisdiction. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or to send comments. Regards, Emily <image001.png>Emily Kallas, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org <image002.png> Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped <660_University_NOA signed.pdf> 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 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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) 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. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 5 of 12 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 12/18/2023 Walter Levison  2023 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture • Heritage Tree Designation in City of Palo Alto There are currently +/- eight (8) trees listed on the City heritage tree list maintained by the City. Per the following information, trees are apparently not required to meet any specific “approval criteria” in terms of species, size, condition, or other relevant parameters, to be selected as formal heritage tree specimens in City of Palo Alto, other than that the trees are native oak species or redwoods located on private property: (Excerpt from a City Staff Report Online): “In 1996, Council enacted the Tree Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 8.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, to preserve and maintain specified native oaks, redwoods, and heritage trees on private property, and to protect them from disfigurement or removal, except in certain circumstances. Section 8.10.090 of the ordinance allows persons to nominate a tree on their property forheritage tree status. After Council approval of such designation, the tree is added to the heritage tree listing, which includes specific location, overall size, and canopy spread. The list is maintained by the Department of Public Works and available to the public on the City’s Urban Forestry website. Once designated, a heritage tree is protected by the provisions of the Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, unless removed from the heritage tree list by subsequent Council action at the request of the property owner.” Per the above information, protected size tree #10 (City tree tag #1572) appears to be an excellent candidate for inclusion in the City’s heritage tree designation program which protects native oaks on private properties. It is a specimen in good overall condition, with exceptional size in terms of both mainstem diameter (est. 50 inches), and canopy spread (90 feet total diameter), with good vigor, good buttress root flares, and good saddle-shaped wide angle forks of mainstem attachment. • David Babby Report 11/19/2021 Page 6 Per page 6 of the dev eloper’s arborist report by David Babby, tree #10 exhibits a “high” rating in terms of suitability for preservation (see below excerpt from page 6 of Babby report): 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”. 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 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. 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 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 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 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). 660 University Project Ream Comments re Protection of the Coast Live Oak Tree April 16, 2024 A"achment B 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 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 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 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 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 From:Gennifer Wehrmeyer To:Kallas, Emily Cc:CPRU-Dropbox; Shree Dharasker Subject:VW File 34811 – Comments on DEIR for 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project Date:Friday, May 17, 2024 4:14:49 PM Attachments:image001.png You don't often get email from gwehrmeyer@valleywater.org. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Emily, The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 660 University Avenue Mixed-Use Project to merge three parcels to construct a four-story mixed-use building at 511 Bryon Street, 660 University Ave, and 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd in Palo Alto, received on April 2, 2024, and has the following comments: 1. Valley Water does not have any right of way or facilities within the project siteboundary; therefore, in accordance with Valley Water’s Water ResourcesProtection Ordinance, a Valley Water encroachment permit will not be requiredfor the project. 2. Valley Water previously commented on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) thatunderground structures should be designed for waterproofing that avoids theneed for permanent dewatering after construction is complete. As stated inSection 10-a, construction will involve excavation up to 38 feet below groundsurface, during which time dewatering will be used. It is unclear if dewatering willoccur after construction. Underground structures should be designed forwaterproofing and permanent dewatering should be avoided once constructionis finished. 3. Valley Water records indicate that no active wells are located on the subjectproperty. While Valley Water has records for most wells located in the County, itis always possible that a well exists that is not in the Valley Water’s records. Ifpreviously unknown wells are found on the subject property during development,they must be properly destroyed under permit from Valley Water or registeredwith Valley Water and protected from damage. For more information, please callthe Valley Water’s Well Ordinance Program Hotline at 408-630-2660. 4. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) FloodInsurance Rate Map (FIRM) 006085C0010H, effective May 18, 2009, the projectsite is within FEMA Flood Zone AH, an area with 1% annual chance of shallowflooding (usually areas of ponding), located between base flood elevations of 46feet and 47 feet. The project is required to follow the flood plain ordinance andnational flood insurance requirements. If you have any questions or need further information, you can reach me at gwehrmeyer@valleywater.org or at (408) 694-2069. Please reference Valley Water File 34811 on further correspondence regarding this project. Thank you, Gennifer Wehrmeyer ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CIVIL 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 You don't often get email from kathleenrotow@gmail.com. Learn why this is important From:Foley, Emily To:Klicheva, Madina Subject:FW: 660 University Ave Date:Wednesday, November 16, 2022 8:56:46 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png Emily Foley, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. From: Kathleen Rotow <kathleenrotow@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 1:43 PM To: Foley, Emily <Emily.Foley@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: 660 University Ave CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I am the owner of 789 University Ave and have feedback regarding The Notice of Preparation for the 660 University proposed project. I have several concerns about this project. I am opposed to rezoning from Low Density Multiple Family Residence (RM-20) to high density Planned Community (PC). It is inappropriate in the proposed location given the foreseeable increase in traffic, noise and pollution. All of the aforementioned will negatively affect public safety and quality of life for nearby residents. As we are all aware, this expansive project is directly across the street from an elderly senior living facility that necessarily includes a population that cannot respond to the public safety, pollution, traffic and noise issues in the same manner as other populations. On the other side of the proposed project, there is another senior living development. Additionally, many residential homes are located in close proximity and the increased traffic, pollution and noise would be prohibitive for the residential nature of the area. This project is clearly adjacent to low density residential and senior living facilities. It would dramatically change the character of the area and should not be approved. It is my understanding that this development is trying to squeeze approximately 65 dwellings onto an area zoned for up to 20 dwellings per acre. In addition, it includes office space that is comparable to the total square footage on the site as it stands currently. You would be allowing an increase from the current 9,216 square feet to 42,189 square feet. This increase does not adhere to the current zoning parameters or to the nature of the area. This project should not be approved. As the city is aware, the Middlefield/University intersection is already heavily congested with traffic and the noise currently generated is unacceptable. This large scale project will exacerbate an already busy and dangerous intersection and increase the noise level for area residents, including many seniors. Maybe the city should consider asking the developers to move the project next to one of their homes. I'm sure they would like the increase in traffic, noise and pollution not to mention the public safety issues it will generate. This project should be implemented elsewhere. This is the wrong project, in the wrong place and the wrong size. Respectfully, Kathleen Rotow P.S. The link provided for The Notice of Preparation is inaccurate. From:Foley, Emily To:Klicheva, Madina Subject:FW: 660 University Project comments Date:Wednesday, November 16, 2022 8:56:39 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png Emily Foley, AICP Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NEW Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours. From: Alan Brauer, M.D. <drbrauer@totalcare.org> Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2022 6:52 PM To: Foley, Emily <Emily.Foley@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: 660 University Project comments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Emily, As we are located directly across the street from the proposed 660 University project, we are concerned about 2 main issues:: 1. What are the noise mitigation measures that will be required? Our building is occupied primarily by mental health professional who engage in psychotherapy. This requires a quiet environment and we are concerned about intrusions into the ability of our professionals to conduct therapy sessions. 2. What measures will be required to permit unrestricted access to our driveway on Byron? 3. Additionally, should this project receive final approval, can you provide any time frame for the possible start of any demolition? Thanks for your attention to this important matter. Alan & Donna Brauer Owners, 630 University Ave., Palo Alto 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. W I L L I A M L. M c C L U R E J O H N L. F L E G E L D A N K. S I E G E L J E N N I F E R H. F R I E D M A N M I N D I E S. R O M A N O W S K Y L E I G H F. P R I N C E D A V I D L. A C H G R E G O R Y K. K L I N G S P O R N N I C O L A S A. F L E G E L K R I S T I N A A. FENT O N C A R A E. SILVER KIMBERLY J. BRUMMER C A M A S J . S T E I N M E T Z PHILIP S. SOU S A ____________ B R I T T N E Y L. S T A N D L E Y C H R I S T I A N D. P E T R A N G E L O J O S E P H H. F E L D M A N J O R G E N S O N, S I E G E L, M c C L U R E & F L E G E L, L L P A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W 1 1 0 0 A L M A S T R E E T, S U I T E 2 1 0 M E N L O P A R K, C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 0 2 5 -3 3 9 2 (6 5 0 ) 3 2 4 -9 3 0 0 F A C S I M I L E (6 5 0 ) 3 2 4 -0 2 2 7 w w w .j s m f .c o m November 15, 2022 O F C O U N S E L KENT MITCHELL ____________ R E T I R E D J O H N D. J O R G E N S O N MARGARET A. SLOAN D I A N E S. G R E E N B E R G ____________ D E C E A S E D M A R V I N S. S I E G E L (1 9 3 6 - 2 0 1 2 ) J O H N R.C O S G R O V E (1 9 3 2 - 2 0 1 7 ) Sent Via Email: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org Planning and Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Opposition to Project Proposed at 660 University Avenue Dear Honorable Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission, This letter is written on behalf of the Homeowner’s Association for The Hamilton, a continuing care retirement community for seniors with 36 units located at 555 Byron Street. The Hamilton is adjacent to the proposed mixed-use project which would consist of 65 residential units and 9,115 square feet of office (“Project”) at 660 University Avenue (“Property”). The residents of The Hamilton, whose average age is in the mid-80s, will be significantly impacted by the proposed Project. In addition, the Project will impact a number of other senior communities in this “Senior Corner” of Palo Alto, including Lytton Gardens and Webster House (and Channing House). Rather than proposing something compatible with the “Senior Corner,” the Project proposes a density and intensity far in excess of any surrounding development and in excess of what is allowed by the current residential zoning or the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This letter will highlight concerns with the merits of the Project as well as environmental impacts, and should be considered a comment letter on the Notice of Preparation. The Hamilton is concerned about impacts to transportation, air quality, noise, parking, pedestrian safety, land use/planning and the loss of a significant tree presented by Project with its unprecedented density and intensity. The Hamilton requests that the Planning and Transportation Commission (“PTC”) recommend that the Project be reduced to be more consistent with the existing residential zoning and compatible with the surrounding senior communities. 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. 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 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 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) From:Aram James To:Binder, Andrew; Tony Dixon; KEVIN JENSEN; Jeff Rosen; Sean Allen; Filseth, Eric (Internal); mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; Foley, Michael; Afanasiev, Alex; Lee, Craig; Council, City; Planning Commission; GRP-City Council; Bains, Paul; Winter Dellenbach; Shikada, Ed; Gennady Sheyner; Jay Boyarsky; Joe Simitian; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg Subject:minor-traffic-stops-plummet-in-months-after-lapd-policy-change? Date:Monday, November 14, 2022 11:31:11 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.  But why is PAPD Chief Andrew Binder unwilling to stop racially loaded pretext stops? and adopt a program similar to the LAPD ? See Binder’s answer on pretext stops- to Weekly reporter Gennady Sheyner in his Battling Bias in Policing piece dated Nov 4, 2022 ( see below the latines piece below) https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-11-14/minor-traffic-stops- plummet-in-months-after-lapd-policy-change?_amp=true https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/11/04/battling-bias-in-law- enforcement-what-data-reveals-about-the-palo-alto-police?utm_source=express- 2022-11-04&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=express 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 &nbsp; From:Clerk, City To:Council, City Subject:FW: Public Comment for City Council, Item 6 Date:Monday, November 10, 2025 8:05:42 AM Attachments:660 University Ave - City Council 11_10_25.docx image001.png image002.png image004.png Dear City Council, Please see the attached letter regarding Item #6. Thank you, Christine Prior Assistant City Clerk Office of the City Clerk (650) 329-2159 | Christine.Prior@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Jack Farrell <jack@yesinmybackyard.org> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2025 5:24 AM To: Clerk, City <City.Clerk@PaloAlto.gov> Subject: Public Comment for City Council, Item 6 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good morning, Please find attached correspondence from YIMBY Law regarding item 6 on the agenda for tonight's meeting of City Council. Sincerely, Jack Farrell he/himResearch Attorney 267-218-1147 Check out everything we achieved in 2024! ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ i This message needs your attention No employee in your company has ever replied to this person. Mark Safe Report CGBANNERINDICATOR Good morning, Please find attached correspondence from YIMBY Law regarding item 6 on the agenda for tonight's meeting of City Council. Sincerely, Jack Farrell he/him Powered by Mimecast Research Attorney 267-218-1147 Check out everything we achieved in 2024! 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org 11/10/2025 City of Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 city.clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org Via Email Re: 660 University Avenue Proposal, Agenda Item 6 Dear Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission, 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. This proposal consists of a mixed-use development with a ground floor office, 66 residential units and two below-ground parking levels. 13 units will be reserved for moderate income tenants, 1 for low income, and 1 for very low income. The proposal 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org was submitted under Palo Alto’s Planned Home Zoning community plan in an area zoned for multi-family residential use. As confirmed by previous committees and recommended by staff, this project complies with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, awning code, coordinated area plans, and design guides. The Revised EIR found no significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. This project has gone through four years of successive review and modification to reach this stage, where it is consistent with all necessary local conditions. Given these consistencies, this Commission 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. 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 From:Christopher Ream To:Christopher Ream; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Council, City; Kallas, Emily Cc:Kinsey Haffner; Carol Gilbert; Kay Brown; Peggy Forbes Subject:WITH LETTER ATTACHED - Re: City Council – Agenda 6: 660 University Avenue - Last Letter, Comment on Builder"s Remedy Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 10:18:34 PM Attachments:Ream Letter re SB330 - 20251108.pdf Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Councilmembers, Sorry I failed to attach my letter. I hope I have done so now. Chris From: Christopher Ream <ream@reamlaw.com> Date: Sunday, November 9, 2025 at 7:31 PM To: Mayor Ed Lauing <Ed.Lauing@PaloAlto.gov>, Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker <Vicki.Veenker@PaloAlto.gov>, Councilmember Patrick Burt <Patrick.Burt@PaloAlto.gov>, Councilmember George Lu <George.Lu@PaloAlto.gov>, Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims <Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov>, Councilmember Keith Reckdahl <Keith.Reckdahl@PaloAlto.gov>, Councilmember Greer Stone <Greer.Stone@PaloAlto.gov>, City Council <City.Council@PaloAlto.gov>, Kallas, Emily <Emily.Kallas@paloalto.gov> Cc: Kinsey Haffner <haffner_fk@hotmail.com>, Carol Gilbert <carol.gilbert@icloud.com>, Kay Brown <kayb49@sbcglobal.net>, Peggy Forbes <peggywforbes@gmail.com> Subject: City Council – Agenda 6: 660 University Avenue - Last Letter, Comment on Builder's Remedy Councilmembers, Please find attached my 2-page comment letter regarding the threat of Builder’s Remedy stepping in to take over the 660 University project. I hope you are able to review this prior to the meeting tomorrow evening. This is the last of my comment letters for tomorrow evening’s City Council meeting. Thank you for bearing with me. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: ream@reamlaw.com November 8, 2025 Mayor Ed Lauing Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker Councilmember Patrick Burt Councilmember George Lu Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims Councilmember Keith Reckdahl Councilmember Greer Stone City Council City of Palo Alto, California Ed.Lauing@PaloAlto.gov Vicki.Veenker@PaloAlto.gov Pat.Burt@PaloAlto.gov George.Lu@PaloAlto.gov Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov Keith.Reckdahl@PaloAlto.gov Greer.Stone@PaloAlto.gov City.Council@PaloAlto.gov Emily.Kallas@PaloAlto.gov Re: City Council MeeOng on November 10, 2025 660 University Avenue Project – Agenda Item 6 THIRD LETTER –There is NO Valid Threat of Builder’s Remedy Council Members, When the 660 University project was before the Architectural Review Board (“ARB”) and then the Planning and TransportaOon Commission (“PTC”), there were repeated comments by Members and Commissioners that this was not an a_racOve project, that it was too big on too small a lot, that it was going to cause serious traffic congesOon, and other negaOves; but they felt they had to approve it because Applicant had a Builder’s Remedy project standing by to replace it, and the Builder’s Remedy would be much worse. That threat is NOT valid. As my neighbor Kinsey Haffner has explained to you in his comments, Applicant made incurable mistakes in filing the applicaOon for the Builder’s Remedy resulOng in it no longer being a valid Builder’s Remedy applicaOon. I will go a step further and point out that Applicant’s enOre pre- applicaOon and applicaOon process was not valid because the City of Palo Alto had already adopted a Housing Element before Applicant filed any of its Builder’s Remedy applicaOons. The City of Palo Alto adopted a 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Housing Element on May 8, 2023. On August 3, 2023, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) sent Palo Alto a le_er with a 6-page detailed appendix poinOng out substanOal defects to be corrected. Palo Alto worked hard on it, and on April 15, 2024 a joint meeOng of the PTC and City Council adopted a substanOally revised Housing Element, which was then submi_ed to the Ream – There is NO Valid Threat of Builder’s Remedy November 8, 2025 Page 2 of 2 HCD. On August 20, 2024, the HCD approved that April 15, 2024 Housing Element with some technical modificaOons: “Thank you for submihng the City of Palo Alto’s (City) housing element that was adopted April 15, 2024 . . . .HCD is pleased to find the adopted housing element, including all technical modificaOons, in substanOal compliance with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq) as of the date of this le_er.” HCD letter to City of Palo Alto, August 20, 2024, page 1. The law provides that an applicant cannot use Builder’s Remedy if the jurisdicOon [City of Palo Alto] had adopted a Housing Element in substanOal compliance with the State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq). “(5) On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdicOon had adopted a revised housing element that was in substanOal compliance with this arOcle [Government Code §§65580 - 65589.11].” Government Code §65589.5(d)(5) HCD’s August 20, 2024 le_er confirms that the Housing Element adopted by the City of Palo Alto on April 15, 2024 is in substanOal compliance. “SubstanOal compliance” means not necessarily 100% compliance but close to it and that leaves room for the technical modificaOons. April 15, 2024 is the date to be dealt with. Applicant cannot argue that its applicaOon for a Builder’s Remedy project on the land pre-dated the Housing Element because Applicant’s earliest filing for Builder’s Remedy was a pre- applicaOon filed on May 8, 2024, together with other filings stretching out to September 3, 2024. They are all aoer Housing Element ’s April 15 date and thus do not confer any rights to Builder’s Remedy. The Hamilton community strongly opposes this applicaOon for excessive development on our small block. Please make clear that Builder’s Remedy is not applicable here so that you can consider the regular applicaOon for the 660 University Avenue project without fear of a threat of Builder’s Remedy. Thank you for your consideraOon, Christopher Ream P.S.: Last of my three comment le_ers. From:Christopher Ream To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Councilmember Patrick Burt; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Council, City; Kallas, Emily Cc:Kinsey Haffner; Carol Gilbert; Kay Brown; Peggy Forbes Subject:City Council – Agenda 6: 660 University Avenue - Last Letter, Comment on Builder"s Remedy Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 7:31:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Councilmembers, Please find attached my 2-page comment letter regarding the threat of Builder’s Remedy stepping in to take over the 660 University project. I hope you are able to review this prior to the meeting tomorrow evening. This is the last of my comment letters for tomorrow evening’s City Council meeting. Thank you for bearing with me. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com From:Christopher Ream To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Councilmember Patrick Burt; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Council, City; Kallas, Emily Cc:Kinsey Haffner; Carol Gilbert; Kay Brown; Peggy Forbes Subject:City Council – Agenda 6: 660 University Avenue - Comments Other than the Tree Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 7:18:43 PM Attachments:Ream Letter re Other Than Tree - 20251108.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Councilmembers, Please find attached my 6-page comment letter regarding several problems with the 660 University project other than the Tree. I hope you are able to review this prior to the meeting tomorrow evening. I am working on one more, short comment letter which I hope to be able to get to you later today. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com This message needs your attention This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: ream@reamlaw.com November 8, 2025 Mayor Ed Lauing Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker Councilmember Patrick Burt Councilmember George Lu Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims Councilmember Keith Reckdahl Councilmember Greer Stone City Council City of Palo Alto, California Ed.Lauing@PaloAlto.gov Vicki.Veenker@PaloAlto.gov Patrick.Burt@PaloAlto.gov George.Lu@PaloAlto.gov Julie.LythcottHaims@PaloAlto.gov Keith.Reckdahl@PaloAlto.gov Greer.Stone@PaloAlto.gov City.Council@PaloAlto.gov Emily.Kallas@PaloAlto.gov Re: City Council Meeting on November 10, 2025 660 University Avenue Project – Agenda Item 6 SECOND LETTER – Comments on Other than the Tree Councilmembers, The Hamilton is a senior living (55+) condominium development which shares a 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. At the ARB and the PTC hearings, the assumed threat of a Builder’s Remedy was brought up by some of the members and commissioners at those hearings. Please don’t let that happen at your hearing. As I explain in a subsequent letter to you, and my neighbor Kinsey Haffner has explained in his own letter to you, Builder’s Remedy is not a valid threat and should be ignored by you. I will address the following concerns in this letter: • Byron Street Jammed – Traffic Congestion • Parking Mechanical Lifts Parking for Office Size Adjustment ? No Parking for Fitness Center • Setbacks • Daylight Plane Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project November 8, 2025 Page 2 of 6 Byron Street Jammed – Traffic Congestion 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 we see the parking problem every day. Across the street is the First United Methodist Church which has activities going on most days and evenings of the week, including La Comida lunch service and a pre-school with many small children. 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. 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, and with 66 rental units in the project’s building, most of which are 1BR or Studio, there are going to be a lot of deliveries, so Byron is going to get clogged and backed up many times a day. How in the world are they going to build this six-story building? Where will construction equipment be located? There is no room; the building will cover almost the entire lot. When The Hamilton was built in the late 1990’s, they foresaw this problem and moved the front of the building back away from Byron Street and constructed a circular driveway that is wide enough and deep enough that a delivery van or Uber/Lyft car can park on the driveway, and then a second vehicle can park behind it or drive past it; the whole time leaving Byron Street free and clear. Byron Street Building on the right is where project would be. Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project November 8, 2025 Page 3 of 6 Parking Mechanical Lifts Of the 69 actual stalls Applicant intends to provide, 54 of them are mechanical lifts where raising or lowering your car, or someone else’s car, is required. Now, 46 of those 54 lifts are “Stackers” on the second (bottom) floor of the underground garage. They are reasonably straight forward, but there is potential for operator error, and the likelihood of mechanical failure from time to time. Sheet A2.PO-C in Applicant’s PLAN 2 filed 10/21/2025 describes the system. The other 8 stalls come from a five-car “Puzzle” and a three-car “Puzzle” on the first floor. These are complex mechanical structures in which cars, your car and other people’s cars, are lifted and lowered, shifted to the left and shifted to the right. It seems almost inevitable that there will be operator error and somebody’s car will be damaged, probably not the then temporary operator’s car. And mechanical failure is almost certain. Interestingly, Applicant has not included any description of these “Puzzles” notwithstanding that I have repeatedly raised this concern. 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. 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. 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 Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project November 8, 2025 Page 4 of 6 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. Last Year – 9,115 ft2 Light blue is office space 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 . 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. 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 Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project November 8, 2025 Page 5 of 6 offer is only for 27 feet along Middlefield Road 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 underground with zero setbacks. Is this standard and acceptable? 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. Too Much Time Several times in ARB & PTC hearings, a member or commissioner has said that they have spent too much time on this project, so let’s just vote to move it along. Yes, they have seen this project repeatedly and they have spent a lot of time on it. But the reason is that there are a lot 3/32"=1'-0" PL PL OFFICE LOBBY SPEED RAMP DOWN TO P2 LEVEL UNIVERSITY AVE. 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " OFFICE PARKING RESIDENTIAL PARKING STAIR BEYOND 7'- 9 " T Y P . 45.0° 55 ' - 0 " 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 " FE N C E 7' - 0 " 9' - 9 " EL. -1'-6" (NAVD 88 EL. 45.5') NEIGHBORING PROPERTY GRADE P1 LEVEL P2 LEVEL LIFT PIT SECOND FLOOR EL. 14'-8" THIRD FLOOR FOURTH FLOOR EL. 24'-5" EL. 34'-2" FIRST FLOOR EL. 1'-2" (NAVD 88 EL. 48.16') BASE FLOOD ELEV. EL. 0'-0" (NAVD 88 EL. 47') 1' - 2 " 12 ' - 8 1 / 2 " ± 8' - 4 1 / 4 " 7'- 6 " M I N . EL. -12'-1 1/8" ± EL. -26'-7 1/8" ± EL. -33'-7 1/8" ± CORR. TYP.9' - 9 " 12 ' - 3 " 55 ' - 5 " 1' - 6 " FIFTH FLOOR EL. 43'-11" SIXTH FLOOR EL. 56'-2" T.O. ROOF SLAB EL. 70'-2" 14 ' - 0 " T.O. PARAPET / ELEV. EL. 71'-8" OVERRUN / STAIRS T.O. RAILING EL. 73'-8" T.O. MECH. SCREEN EL. 80'-2" 3' - 6 " 6' - 6 " MECHANICAL SCREEN 54 ' - 6 " + / - 3' - 6 " 2'-2" SHORING/SOLDIER BREAMS 1/32"=1'-0" 3/ - UNIVERSITY AVE MI D D L E F I E L D R O A D BY R O N S T R E E T 64G CAR T COMPO S T 64G CA R T COMPO S T R C 64G CA R T COMPO S T 64G CARTCOMPOST 96G CARTWASTE 96G CARTRECYCLING 96G CARTWASTE 96G CARTRECYCLING ARCHITECTS KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY SHEET NUMBER SCALE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE DATENO. ISSUES AND REVISIONS DESCRIPTION ARCHITECTS KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY 21003 PLANNING SUBMITTAL12.01.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #105.13.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #208.15.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #408.28.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #510.31.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #612.20.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #702.07.24 AD HOC REVISIONS05.02.24 PLANNING RESUBMIITTAL #809.30.24 524 MIDDLEFIELD A3.3B ENHANCEMENT OF VISIBILITY OF LINE OF DAYLIGHT PLANE AND 524 MIDDLEFIELD MADE BY CHRISTOPHER REAM Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project November 8, 2025 Page 6 of 6 of problems with it as has also been expressed by members and commissioners at those hearings. 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 PS: This is the second comment letter I have sent you today; the earlier one dealt with the Magnificent Coast Live Oak Tree. I am preparing a third comment letter about the faux threat of Builder’s Remedy raised at the ARB and PTC hearings and will send that to you shortly. From:Kay Brown To:Council, City Subject:660 University Project /Agenda date: Nov. 10 Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 5:13:30 PM Attachments:March 4th letter to Palo Altowstudy request.docx Letter to Emily kallas (follow-up).docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Dear City Council Members, I sent the 2 attached letters below to Emily 1). March 4 letter sent to ARB 2). August 16 letter sent to PTC Local traffic safety issues described in these letters were ultimately ignored. The 2 commissions OK’d the 660 project without alternatives or mitigations being explored. The project was passed onto you (The City Council) for final approval. I’m asking that you take the time to read my 3 letters (the 3rd letter came to you on March 6). Thank you for your time and attention to these concerns. Kay Brown 650-269-1985 Powered by Mimecast Kay Brown 555 Byron St Apt 101 Palo Alto, CA 94301 kayb49@sbcglobal.net 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 par- ents, church goers and dental office patients encounter frequent near-misses en- tering 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. 4. There are currently 3 large senior facilities within the 2 block radius. Con- cern 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 accu- rate 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 650-269-1985 Kay Brown 555 Byron St Apt 101 Palo Alto, CA 94301 kayb49@sbcglobal.net 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 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 650-269-1985 From:Christopher Ream To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Councilmember Patrick Burt; Lu, George; Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Council, City; Kallas, Emily Cc:Kinsey Haffner; Carol Gilbert; Kay Brown; Peggy Forbes Subject:City Council – Agenda 6: 660 University Avenue - Save the Tree Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 4:29:48 PM Attachments:Ream Letter re Tree - 20251108.pdf Councilmembers, Please find attached my 5-page comment letter focused on the need to protect the magnificent coastal live oak tree that is in grave danger if the 660 University project goes forward as presently planned. I hope you are able to review this prior to the meeting tomorrow evening. I am working on two more comment letters which I hope to be able to get to you later today. Chris _________________________ Christopher Ream 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: ream@reamlaw.com November 8, 2025 Mayor Ed Lauing Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker Councilmember Patrick Burt Councilmember George Lu Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims Councilmember Keith Reckdahl Councilmember Greer Stone City Council City of Palo Alto, California Ed.Lauing@PaloAlto.gov Vicki.Veenker@PaloAlto.gov Patrick.Burt@PaloAlto.gov George.Lu@PaloAlto.gov Julie.Lythcott-Haims@PaloAlto.gov Keith.Reckdahl@PaloAlto.gov Greer.Stone@PaloAlto.gov City.Council@PaloAlto.gov Emily.Kallas@PaloAlto.gov Re: City Council Meeting on November 10, 2025 660 University Avenue Project – Agenda Item 6 Protect the Magnificent Coast Live Oak Councilmembers, The Hamilton is a senior living (55+) condominium development which shares the small block with the proposed development at 660 University Avenue. My wife Anne and I have been Palo Alto residents for more than 54 years and have been residents of The Hamilton for the past seven years. 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 would 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, correctly 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 is on 517 Byron Street but is close to 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. There are two Attachments to this letter: A – Impact Analysis of Proposed 660 University Project, dated September 25, 2025, by Walter Levison Consulting Arborist (hereinafter referred to as “Levison Analysis”). B – Selected pages from Robert Booty’s GRP Scan, May 23, 2022 660 University Project Protect the Magnificent Coast Live Oak November 8, 2025 Page 2 of 5 TPZ – Tree Protection Zone Applicant’s arborist David Babby prepared a “Tree Protection Report” dated November 19, 2021 which was filed with Applicant’s original application in December 2021, and was updated with an updated version dated February 7, 2024 which Applicant has included with all subsequent sets of plans filed with the City. (I will refer to that report as “Babby Report”.) The Babby Report acknowledges that the Tree is a “protected tree” under PAMC 8.10 because of its 50-inch trunk and discusses the Tree repeatedly. 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. Applicant acknowledges this 41-foot TPZ requirement (Babby Report, p. 9), 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. Canopy The Tree has a beautiful canopy that stretches over the site, a mostly balanced canopy spreading nearly 90 feet across. Babby Report, p.3. With a 90-foot diameter, the canopy has a radius of 45 feet and because the Tree is close to the property line, its canopy stretches that 45 feet over the proposed site. The TPZ applies to the canopy as well as the root structure, but Applicant has used its faux 30-foot TPZ to bring the exterior wall of the proposed building up to 30 feet from the trunk of the Tree. Applicant says it will cut back 15% of the canopy to clear the proposed building and then another 10% to allow room for construction, for a total of 25%. Babby Report, p.10. Walter Levison Consulting Arborist, retained by the Hamilton Homeowners Association, estimates 20% to 30% of the canopy will be removed. See Attachment A, the “Levison Analysis,” p.3. So, we have a basic agreement that the proposed project will cause an estimated 25% of the canopy to be lost. Applicant admits it will have to cut off many limbs and branches, a 17-inch diameter limb, an 8- inch diameter limb, a dozen or so smaller branches ranging in size from 1 to 6 inches in diameter. Babby Report, p.10. This will raise a serious risk of infection. “Internodal cuts performed on the subject oak will have a severe negative effect on the tree’s overall health and structure, since relatively large diameter internodal cuts are subject to decay and dieback over time, with pests and pathogens able to enter into the pruning cut faces whereby wood decay progresses downward and into the remaining stem cross sectional area, further reducing tree stability and health (vigor).” Levison Analysis, p.8 660 University Project Protect the Magnificent Coast Live Oak November 8, 2025 Page 3 of 5 Root Structure Robert Booty, arborist retained by Rincon Consultants on behalf of the City, reported that his GPR (ground penetrating radar) 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). This is consistent with the general assumption that a tree’s roots extend out 2x to 3x the drip line of its canopy (Levison Analysis, p.3) which would mean the Tree’s roots are going on out to 90 feet to 135 feet. But the Tree’s root structure on the northern side, the side facing the proposed project, will be boxed in and severely cut back by the proposed two-story underground garage: auto ramp 32 feet to the west, subterranean exterior wall of the garage 36 feet to the north, and another auto ramp 30 feet to the east. See Sheet A2.P1 of Applicant’s plans. In addition, notwithstanding Applicant drawing a 30-foot radius circle on its plans, the Babby Report discloses that Applicant intends to disregard even that fake TPZ and there will be only 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.” Babby Report, p.10. In other words, if a construction crew is at least 20 feet from the Tree, they will be free to rip out as many roots as they like notwithstanding the deadly effect on the Tree. The most optimistically possible outcome for Applicant would be they end up with a semicircle of roots on the north side of the Tree with a radius of 25 feet (though nothing is stopping them from cutting that radius down to 20 feet, the 20-foot setback.). Even if we pretend that the Tree’s roots all stopped at 51 feet rather than extending out to the normal 90 feet or 135 feet, the root structure on the north side of the Tree would be reduced to only 24% of what it is now, a loss of 76% of those roots. ((0.5 x ∏ x 25 x 25) / (0.5 x ∏ x 51 x 51) = 24%) And those numbers are based upon the current root structure stopping at 51 feet; it would be much worse if we used the more likely 90 to 135 feet. 1 Tree Failure “It is WLCA’s [Walter Levison Consulting Arborist] 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 June and August 2025 sets of plan sheets, resulting in tree #10 potentially falling into a spiral of condition decline from which it cannot recover.” Levison Analysis, p.13. Levison’s prediction of a spiral of condition decline comes from the significant reduction of the water, minerals and sunlight the Tree needs. In addition to that slow death for the Tree, there is the substantial probability of a sudden failure – the Tree toppling over in a windstorm, if not sooner during construction. 1 If we use the shorter normal of 90 feet, the reduction in roots would be a loss of 92% of the roots. ((0.5 x ∏ x 25 x 25) / (0.5 x ∏ x 90 x 90) = 8%) 660 University Project Protect the Magnificent Coast Live Oak November 8, 2025 Page 4 of 5 As Applicant’s arborist reports, the Tree now has a balanced canopy. Babby Report, p.3. That balance will be completely lost if 25% of the canopy is cut off. That is 25% of the whole canopy, but all of the removal will be from the northern half of the canopy, none from the southern half.2 Simple math tells you that 25% of the whole will be 50% of the northern half. With the southern half of the canopy now twice as large as the northern, the Tree will want to tip over to the south towards The Hamilton. It gets worse: Leverage. The force effect of the weight of the canopy is a straight function of how far out that weight is from the Tree trunk: The further away from the trunk, the more force it will be exerting. You remember playing on a seesaw as kid: you could balance with your friend who weighed more or less than you by the heavier one sliding in towards the fulcrum (pivot point) and/or the lighter one sliding back away from it. Or if you don’t remember that, reach out and grab that water glass. When your arm is out straight away from your body it feels heavy, but when you pull your arm back in close to your body it feels much lighter. Applicant cutting back the canopy on the north side results in the canopy that is left there being close to the Tree’s trunk. The lighter kid has slid towards the fulcrum, not away from it. The dominance of the south side force over the north side force is even greater. How could the Tree possibly survivor such radical, unbalanced decimation of its canopy? Maybe, just maybe, nature gave it a strong root structure on the north side to hold up the against the force trying to tip it over to the south. We know from Robert Booty’s GRP Scan (Attachment B) that there is a strong root structure on the north side extending out to at least 51 feet and probably more to maybe 90 feet or even 135 feet. But wait, Applicant plans to cut off those roots, none to survive past 30 feet, many cut off at 20 feet. That will reduce the root structure down to 25% of what it is now, probably less. See page 3 above. There is no way the Tree will survive if Applicant is allowed to go forward with its plans. Conclusion If Applicant’s plans are approved and they go forward, how soon will the Tree topple over and crash into The Hamilton and others? It would destroy the Cardinal Dental office on the property next to it and badly injure and maybe kill anyone in those offices at the time. The top of this 60- foot Tree will also reach and hit The Hamilton. Pray that none of our senior residents get hit. 2 The Tree is outside the southern property line of the project’s property. Only the canopy on the northern side of the Tree stretches over the project property (what I have been referring to as the “northern half”) and that is where Applicant intents to cut back the canopy. Applicant has no reason to cut canopy in the southern half, and indeed it would not be allowed to since that is land owned by a different person. 660 University Project Protect the Magnificent Coast Live Oak November 8, 2025 Page 5 of 5 The Hamilton community strongly opposes this application for over-excessive development on our small block and urges the Commission to require action to correct Thank you for your consideration, Christopher Ream PS: I am preparing two more comment letters on this 660 University Avenue project which I expect to be able to send to you over the weekend. One about other problems and concerns we have about the proposed large building, and the other about the faux threat of Builder’s Remedy raised at the ARB and PTC hearings. 660 University Project Ream – Protect the Magnificent Coast Live Oak November 8, 2025 A"achment A Walter Levison Consul0ng Arborist Impact Analysis of Proposed 660 University Project September 25, 2025 ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 1 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Date: 12/15/2023 Revised: 9/25/2025 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 immediately adjacent to the proposed multi-story 660 University project. The original letter report submitted by WLCA was dated 12/15/2023 as noted on this page. The following reported information has been updated as of 9/25/2025, after WLCA’s thorough review of the most currently available plan sheets that are public record, accessible via City of Palo Alto’s official download site, such as June and August 2025 iterations of the applicant’s plan sheets: https://aca- prod.accela.com/paloalto/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?Module=Planning&TabName=Planning&capID1=21PLN&capID2=00000&capID3=00 341&agencyCode=PALOALTO&IsToShowInspection=no (Record 21PLN-00341) WLCA also reviewed: A. City of Palo Alto Urban Forestry Staff Catherine Mondkar’s testimony via Youtube, available as public record, from a formal hearing that occurred on 4/18/2024. B. David Babby Consulting Arborist’s most current arborist report iteration 2/07/2024, noted in this report as the “DB” report. C. Robert Booty arborist report dated 5/23/2022 which analyzed woody root extent using ground penetrating radar (GPR) machine, noted in this report as the “RB” report. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 2 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 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 facility with residential facility direction over the garage footprint. WLCA’s assignment was to determine whether the site work as currently proposed per the set of plan sheets (dated 2025) 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 proposed site redevelopment 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. A written report was originally submitted in 2023. 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 Babby (the DB report) 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 spread canopy). WLCA originally 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 DB dated 11/19/2021, which does not actually contain any site plan sheets (DB used a topographic survey sheet for his initial site tree map markup). WLCA subsequently reviewed 2025 iterations of the project plans downloaded from the City of Palo Alto, as noted above in this letter report, as well as an updated DB Consulting Arborist report dated 2/07/2024, which I will refer to as the “DB” report. That DB report includes the City-required tree protection plan sheets often referred to as the “T” set of sheets, that detail project arborist recommendations as well as City standard tree protection methods required to be implemented as project conditions of approval (PCOA), which are legally binding conditions required to be performed by applicant project teams applying for site entitlements. Digital images archived by WLCA in December 2023 are included in this report for reference of pre-project conditions. Basic Data Diameter: Assume 50 inches, per DB report. (+/- 4 feet). Spread: Approximately 90 feet total diameter, per DB and WLCA reporting. Health (Vigor): 70% per DB, 80% per WLCA. Structure: 40% per DB, 50% per WLCA. Overall Condition Rating: 50% (fair) per DB, 62% (good) per WLCA. Live Twig Density and Live Foliar Density: Good. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 3 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 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. (Refer to the RB report detailing roots mapped via use of a ground penetrating radar GPR machine). 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. Expected Construction-Related Tree Root Zone Impact and Canopy Impact Analysis Based on the most current 2025 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). 1 Per Harris et. al. 2004. Arboriculture 4th Edition. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 4 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 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 retaining wall excavation cut locations, resulting in further clearance pruning of the tree #10 northwest corner of canopy (not verified). This 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. This is a loss of roughly 50% from those sections of the canopy, and a loss of roughly 25% to 30% of the overall canopy biomass. The DB 2024 arborist report notes an expected loss of some 15% of the existing canopy (assumedly referring to a 15% loss of the total canopy biomass as a whole), though it is not clear if the DB report is also accounting for loss of canopy due to pruning to clear airspace related to an unknown width “construction corridor” between the tree #10 protection zone fencing, and the proposed two balconies that will extend toward the tree. Construction corridor airspace clearance typically requires full clearance to unlimited height, in order to allow for use of lift machines to perform exterior finishing work such as window installations, balconies, painting, etc. In WLCA’s experience, the width of a construction corridor can range anywhere from 5 feet to 20 feet in horizontal width, depending on the types of machinery required to complete the exterior finish work. In some cases, a construction elevator is required to be installed along the exterior of a new building, which may require up to 20 feet horizontal width. The DB report notes there will be significant pruning involved during the airspace clearance work, including a 17 inch diameter stem, an 8 inch diameter stem, and a dozen or so stems ranging from 1 to 6 inches diameter each. Again, this appears to only account for pruning to clear the new proposed building and balconies, but is assumedly not accounting for any construction corridor width airspace clearance tree pruning that may require an additional 5 to 20 feet in horizontal width to be completely cleared to unlimited vertical elevation (not verified). • 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 (e.g. 90 feet to 135 feet radius), and is currently obscured by hardscape and not able to be verified in terms of lateral distance of growth. The RB ground penetrating radar report root maps suggest that this is the case. See the 2022 RB report root map pages reproduced below in this WLCA report body for reference. Critical Root Zone (i.e. “CRZ”) in terms of structural root plate retention during work on a single side of a tree, is typically recommended as a so-called “tree protection zone” (TPZ) per 2016 BMP booklet “Managing Trees During Construction, 2nd Edition” of at least 6x, 8x, or 10x2 the diameter as a lateral offset from edge of mainstem, which in the case of tree #10, calculates to roughly 24 feet, 32 feet, or 40 feet radius, depending on which standard is used. Per the BMP book, coast live oak has a good tolerance of construction damage, but as a mature specimen, the TPZ multiplication factor that is most appropriate for use for tree #10 is either the 8x or the 10x factor (i.e. a TPZ radius of 32 feet radius, or 40 feet). 2 The applicant’s sheet L4.2 does indicate that the standard City-required tree protection zone (TPZ) is 10x trunk diameter, which equates to 41 feet offset radius, per the DB report. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 5 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cumulative Impact vs. Root or Canopy Impact Alone 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 rating, such that the combined root zone impact plus tree live canopy loss impact is relatively severe, even though the majority of the work would occur north of the so-called “Tree Protection Zone” of 32 feet offset radius (see WLCA markup showing hard construction related impact to 30 feet offset radius from trunk edge, which is slightly within a TPZ of 8x diameter offset). The DB report does not address cumulative impacts, and instead considers “roots” and “canopy” to be separate and distinct from one another, with a +/- 15% loss expected to each of roots and canopy per the DB report. In WLCA’s experience, construction related impacts to roots and canopy are neither separate nor distinct, and should instead be added together as a combined cumulative impact to the tree, bringing the actual impact to somewhere in the range of 30% to 40% or greater “cumulative impact”, which is “severe”.3 TPZ Radius / Multiple Distances Cited It is not clear why the DB 2024 arborist report continues to reference various different tree protection zone (TPZ) offset radius distances out from the trunk edge of oak #10. The actual required TPZ per City of Palo Alto, established in the City tree technical manual, is 10x diameter offset from mainstem, which equates to +/- 41 feet offset radius from mainstem edge of oak #10. However, per the DB 2024 report, the project as proposed per current plan iterations provides only some 30 feet offset from oak #10 mainstem as a horizontal separation between the tree mainstem edge and the new building footprint plus garage, and only a 20 foot radius protection offset from tree mainstem edge for limit of “ground disturbances” beneath the existing asphalt surfacing materials. This multi-tier TPZ setup will not be in compl iance with City of Palo Alto’s TPZ standards, unless very significant tree impact mitigation measures are adhered to with robust arborist site monitoring throughout the entire planned project buildout from start to finish, for all work that occurs within zero to 41 feet offset radius from the oak #10 mainstem edge. Note also that the proposed terrace/garden element of the project does not comply with even the shortest of the three (3) TPZ radii (i.e. the 20 foot offset radius TPZ), given that the proposed terrace will encroach to within just a few feet of the oak #10 mainstem edge, violating even this minimal 20 foot TPZ offset. Soil Compaction within the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) / Tree Protection Zone (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 32 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 3 This form of cumulative tree impact analysis was used by WLCA during contract consulting work for Barrie D. Coate and Associates of Saratoga, CA, under direction from firm Staff. Barrie D. Coate and Associates was considered at that time to be the preeminent arboriculture consulting firm in the Bay Area, and cumulative tree impacts were routinely determined in this manner. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 6 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 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). From a read of the RB ground penetrating radar report, one might think that the root system of the tree is only growing lateral woody roots at great depth (the report maps roots at highest density at distances some 5 to 7 feet below grade). However, trees do have extensively branches root systems with fine absorbing roots 1/32 inch to 1/16 inch diameter each, for example, which would assumedly not show up on the GPR root maps. The fact that the existing asphaltic surface parking lot over which the GPR testing was performed is considered a fill soil pad of great depth above the original tree #10 root system grade elevations, this does not mean that woody roots and/or fine absorbing roots are only present at great depth. In WLCA’s 27 years of consulting experience, the layer of older baserock base section just beneath older parking lot asphalt (especially very old parking lots from the early to mid 20th century) is a layer with conditions favorable to tree root extension and expansion growth in general. WLCA assumes that the root system of oak #10 extends up into the uppermost elevation of the soil profile, just beneath the asphaltic layer, where soil compaction is lowest, and oxygenation is highest. • TRAQ Risk: The removal of +/-25% to 30% of the overall canopy biomass of tree #10 for airspace 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, building foundation footing 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 individual 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, to as much as 17 inches diameter or more, 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. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 7 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 2025 WLCA QUICK-LOOK ANALYSIS OF THE MOST CURRENT ITERATIONS OF THE APPLICANT PLAN SHEETS (6/20/2025, 8/08/2025). 1. EXTERIOR: The proposed exterior of the building (solid lines) will be approximately 30 feet west of the subject oak tree mainstem edge per sheet A0.2A. 2. BALCONIES: The proposed edge of two new multi-story balconies (gray dashed line rectangles extending map- downward from the building exterior on this sheet) will be approximately 24 feet and 26 feet west of the subject oak mainstem edge, per sheet A0.2A. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 8 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture WLCA QUICK-LOOK ANALYSIS OF THE MOST CURRENT ITERATIONS OF THE APPLICANT PLAN SHEETS (CONTINUED) 3. CONSTRUCTION CORRIDORS ETC.: An additional minimum 5 horizontal feet of airspace clearance (or possibly far greater) is expected to be required to be able to build the proposed balconies, build other exterior features per plan and maintain a free and clear space around the balconies over time. This means the actual extent of pruning will be to a distance of 17 feet west of the mainstem edge of the subject oak specimen, removing at least 20 or more horizontal feet of the existing live canopy biomass, which is a loss of approximately 54% (or more) of the west quadrant of the canopy. Note that the pruning cuts are likely going to consist of “non-ANSI A300 conforming cuts”, since there are few if any remaining stem forks at which to cut back to at that location of 17 feet west of the mainstem, which means that the cuts will then have to be made using “internodal cuts”, performed at locations between branch forks: a poor pruning technique which is often referred to as shearing, topping, or shaving, hedging, etc. when performed on shrubs. See the WLCA markup at right, showing approximately where these cuts might be performed (shown to non-accurate scale, arrows point to locations that are “roughly” 17 feet west or so of the subject oak mainstem edge). Internodal cuts performed on the subject oak will have a severe negative effect on the tree’s overall health and structure, since relatively large diameter internodal cuts are subject to decay and dieback over time, with pests and pathogens able to enter into the pruning cut faces whereby wood decay progresses downward and into the remaining stem cross sectional area, further reducing tree stability and health (vigor). The canopy will be suddenly susceptible to sunscald/sunburn as sunlight will be able to penetrate deeply into the west side of the canopy once clearance pruning is performed to +/- 17 feet west of the mainstem edge, likely resulting in additional decline/death of remaining residual live wood and foliage in that west quadrant of the canopy. Coast live oaks as a species do tend to response relatively well to pruning and root pruning impacts during construction projects, but this degree of pruning is considered “severe”, even though it will only be impacting a single side of the symmetrical canopy. The City of Palo Alto notes that the expected pruning will be considered to be +/-15% of canopy loss overall for the entire tree canopy. However, it is WLCA’s opinion that the City and the project design team may not have actually considered the requirement that a construction corridor, of minimum 5 feet width (or far greater width) as noted above, will be cleared completely in terms of vertical airspace pruning of tree canopy live wood and foliage, and that the pruning cuts are likely going to be performed as shearing-type cuts at internodal locations, which is equivalent to topping pruning in that the tree’s long term response is going to be a profusion of epicormic shoots growing from near the pruning cut wounds, increased sunscald/sunburn, and long term progression of internal wood decay by fungi species that will progress inward and downward through the remaining stems from the large diameter pruning cut wounds made during project airspace clearance pruning. Also of note is the fact that the remaining canopy will be severely lopsided, and that TRAQ risk of whole tree failure and impact with various high value targets will be increased to some degree (as discussed elsewhere in this letter report per WLCA’s 2023 analysis). ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 9 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 2025 WLCA QUICK-LOOK ANALYSIS OF THE MOST CURRENT ITERATIONS OF THE APPLICANT PLAN SHEETS (CONTINUED) 4. UNDERGROUND PARKING: Sheet A2.P2 dated 8/08/2025 shows a proposed new underground parking curvilinear access road that will require deep excavation at approximately 29 to 30 horizontal feet offset from the mainstem edge of the subject oak. This position of the curvilinear underground driveway is relatively closer to the tree than shown in previous 2023 plan sheet iterations. See WLCA’s markup at right showing the gray driveway cut (deep excavation) and a vector of 29-30 feet true north of the tree mainstem edge. Note that in this image, the light gray dashed line is NOT the tree canopy dripline, and is instead a 30 foot radius demarcation by the project team on the plan sheet renderings. The actual tree canopy extends at least 37 feet north as indicated on the applicant’s plan sheets, (and extends some 45 feet radius northward per WLCA’s estimation in 2023 using a forestry tape). A tree protection zone of 10x calculates to 10 x 50” = 500 inches = approximately 41 feet radius offset from mainstem edge, for new construction. This means that the proposed underground driveway will encroach to far within the 41 foot protection zone. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 10 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 2025 WLCA QUICK-LOOK ANALYSIS OF THE MOST CURRENT ITERATIONS OF THE APPLICANT PLAN SHEETS (CONTINUED) OVER-EXCAVATION There may or may not be additional “over-excavation” (industry terminology: “over-ex”) required to be performed beyond the limit of excavation shown in this applicant plan sheet in gray coloration on plan sheet A2.P1 reproduced above on page 9 of this WLCA letter report. This is a subject for further research or discussion. Example: if the proposed retaining wall is to be located at the edge of the shown gray area on sheet A2.P1, then there may be a French drain or other type of drainage corridor that needs to be installed behind the wall, requiring over-excavation of some unknown number of horizontal feet, in order to accommodate a thin diameter or a thick diameter drainage curtain (e.g. thin Mirafi “drain core”, or traditional thick gravel-filled French drain system, etc.) that allows for water to drain vertically downward behind the retaining wall, and into a PVC piped drainage system from which water is pumped out in some manner. The thickness of a drainage area behind an underground parking garage retaining wall may be as thick as 3 feet or more (see image above for an example of how a traditional thick type French drain system appears behind a retaining wall). The “overex ” or “over-excavation” required for this item is typically not shown and not understood by laypersons to even exist, until the detailed design set of plans (aka “DD” set of plans) are rendered by a project team of professionals. A 3-foot width French drain system would bring the final excavation cut to within approximately 26-27 feet of the subject oak tree mainstem edge. Use of the more narrow “Miradrain” drainage curtain product, or similar, may reduce this required thickness to as little as 6 inches diameter. During his 27 years of construction project consulting experience, WLCA has worked on Bay Area projects where “over- excavation” was not indicated on rendered plans during the pre-project design stage, resulting in horizontal excavation that extended multiple feet farther than the limits of proposed new underground parking garage retaining wall excavation cuts as shown on birds eye view plan sheets. Nearby trees being protected in place ended up with significant unavoidable root loss due to this oversight by the project engineering teams. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 11 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 2025 WLCA QUICK-LOOK ANALYSIS OF THE MOST CURRENT ITERATIONS OF THE APPLICANT PLAN SHEETS (CONTINUED) At right is a snippet from Robert Booty arborist report dated 5/23/2022, which is public record as part of the applicant’s background documentation. Mr. Booty used ground penetrating radar (GPR) to determine an approximation of the root extent far below asphalt surface grade elevation, on the side of oak tree #10 facing proposed new building foundation excavation for both the building and underground parking garage retaining walls. Not shown on this image is the curvilinear underground parking garage work which will cut far more root mass than shown by Mr. Booty’s vector black line in the image at right. One of the parking garage roadways below ground is shown in a snippet above on page 8 of this WLCA arborist letter report. From the image at right from Booty arborist report dated 2022, and from the curvilinear below grade parking garage and driveway work shown on page 8 above, we can clearly see that the percentage of the root system to be removed will be very significant: possibly as much as 40-50% of the root system on the northwest side of the tree, not including damage from the proposed terrace/garden buildout area, which is discussed in item #5 below. We should assume from the Booty ground penetrating radar examination of the tree #10 root system that lateral woody roots continue to extend outward in all directions much farther than were recorded by Mr. Booty’s GPR machine, which means that an even greater percentage of the tree #10 root system will be damaged and destroyed during development of the proposed property per plans, since the tree’s structural and vigor life support system literally depends on this woody root system and the fine absorbing root mass attached to it, which is apparently far greater in extent than might have otherwise been known prior to the 2022 arborist report graphic root representations having been provided with scale bars by the applicant’s arborist Robert Booty. Note also that the RB report root maps indicate roots present at v arying depths of between +/- 30 inches depth (2.5 f eet below parking lot surf ace grade elevation) and the 7 foot depth limit of the GPR machine setting used by RB for his analysis. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 12 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture 2025 WLCA QUICK-LOOK ANALYSIS OF THE MOST CURRENT ITERATIONS OF THE APPLICANT PLAN SHEETS (CONTINUED) TREE PROTECTION ZONE FENCING AND MONITORING BY ARBORISTS: It is not clear to WLCA as to the exact location of the official tree protection zone fencing, with an apparent 41 foot TPZ offset alignment indicated by the City of Palo Alto. Actual distance of construction-related impacts to both root system (soil pore space compaction by machinery driving, etc.) and canopy (pruning for vertical and/or horizontal airspace clearance of building, balconies, and an additional “construction corridor” east of the balconies of unknown required width), will necessarily mean that airspace work and some driving of lift vehicles will be occurring at locations between 17 feet west of mainstem edge and 30 feet west of mainstem edge. Additionally, the terrace/garden construction will occur at between 3 feet west of mainstem edge and 30 feet west of mainstem edge as an end-of-project end-phase landscape element of the design that has yet to be detailed in the proposed plan sheets. The conditions of project approval (COPA), set forth by City of Palo planning division and public works division as legally binding conditions, should ideally include specific wordage that indicates a tiered system of root zone protection (i.e. ground protection) for tree #10, such as: • GROUND PROTECTION: Robust ground protection of 6 to 12 inches thickness for the area between the oak tree mainstem edge and out to 30 feet west of mainstem edge, with frequent arborist consultant on- site monitoring on a weekly or twice-monthly basis to verify compliance by the project build team. See image at right showing this type of protection on a WLCA project in the past in Menlo Park, CA, which was a layer of 6 inches of coarse wood chips overlaid with exterior grade 1.0 inch “actual thickness” (or greater) plywood boards screwed together with steel screw plates. • ZERO IMPACT VS. PARTIAL IMPACT AREAS: If City Urban Forestry is recommending zero impact zone of 20 feet radius, then that area between 0 and 20 feet west of the mainstem will need to be hard-fenced at all times, with no access to the ground, which then sets up a problem for the final landscape buildout portion phase of the project when that protection will be required to be removed to allow for the proposed 735 sq ft terrace/garden element of the project to be built out. • MONITORING BY A PROJECT ARBORIST: The scheduling of project consulting arborist monitoring will potentially need to include daily or weekly on-site monitoring of a much more f requent basis than on a typical construction project, if the oak #10 root system and canopy is to be preserv ed and protected to the best possible extent on sides facing proposed new site construction work. The project arborist will likely need to be present on site during relatively long periods of the tree canopy pruning work as well as the garage retaining wall excavation work. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 13 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Life Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Conclusion & Recommendations If the proposed 660 University site plan project were built out as currently proposed per the June and August 2025 planning resubmittal versions of the plan sheets, WLCA expects that tree #10 would experience a relatively severe degree of below-ground live lateral woody root loss, and a relatively severe degree of above-ground live canopy pruning likely at internodal locations randomly dispersed along large diameter stems to within 17 feet of the mainstem edge, which, when combined as a cumulative below-ground and above-ground negative impact, would necessarily result in loss of tree vigor (health) and tree structure to a “severe” degree over the long term. The applicant’s Robert Booty ground penetrating radar report from 2022 substantiates the presence of oak #10 rooting out to distances f ar greater in radius than shown on the report root map images, suggesting that actual tree root loss caused by proposed construction as currently shown on the 2025 set of plan sheets may be far greater than the +/-15% loss of root system noted in the David Babby consulting arborist report. The tree’s safe and useful life expectancy in its current condition rating of “good” (+/- 62% overall condition rating) may be significantly to severely 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 June and August 2025 set s of plan sheets, resulting in tree #10 potentially falling into a spiral of condition decline from which it cannot recover. Project airspace clearance pruning of large diameter stems at internodal locations along the stems to clear the building, the balconies, and a construction corridor of unverified additional width, is expected to result in increased activity by pest and/or wood decay causing fungi species progressing inward and downward through the cross sectional areas of the stems, starting at the pruning cut wound faces at approximately 17 horizontal feet west of the mainstem edge, potentially causing an increase in risk of stem failure over time, with ever-increasing “fungal load” within the cross sectional areas of remaining cut stems. Due to wood decay-causing fungi colonization of the cross sections of various clearance-pruned stems at the west side of the subject tree as noted above, there would necessarily be a corresponding increase in severity of the TRAQ risk rating(s) 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 (note that this would need to be assessed at a future time, and is outside the scope of WLCA’s initial pre-project tree impact analysis 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. RECOMMENDATIONS See W LCA’s partial set of recommendations abov e on page 12 of this letter report. Note that even if all of the abov e recommendations indicated on page 12 of this WLCA letter report were to be strictly adhered to by the applicant build team and their team of professional consultants, this will not change the fact that at least +/- 50% or more of the tree’s west side of canopy live biomass will be removed to clear the proposed new building exterior, balconies, and a construction corridor of unknown required width with unlimited vertical clear airspace to the southeast of the balconies. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 14 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 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 ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 15 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 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. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 16 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 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 ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 17 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 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 ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 18 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 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 ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 19 of 19 Site Address: 660 University, Palo Alto, CA Iteration: 09/25/2025 Walter Levison  2025 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) 660 University Project Ream – Protect the Magnificent Coast Live Oak November 8, 2025 A"achment B Selected pages from Robert Booty’s GRP Scan May 23, 2022 . Arborist OnSite® Horticultural Consulting, Inc. ISA Certified Arborist Report Submitted To: Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 Project Location: 660 University Avenue Palo Alto, California Submitted By: Robert Booty, Registered Member # 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor The American Society of Consulting Arborists ISA Certified Arborist WC-4286 May 23, 2022 Copied from page 10 of the report. Adjusted so the “y” scale is the same as the “x” scale. From:justineforbes@mac.com To:Council, City Subject:660 University Project/Agenda 11/10/25 Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 4:07:23 PM Attachments:Justine revise copy 4word.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Please include attached letter for 660 University Project on 11/10/25 agenda Thank you, Justine Forbes MD (retired) Justine Forbes, MD (Retired) 555 Byron Street. #202 Palo Alto, CA, 94301 Resident 11/07/2025 The Hamilton Speaking on behalf of pedestrians I would like to make some comments on the 660 University Ave 6 story Builders Remedy Project. Smith Developers rejected their 4 story building plans because of a requirement to maintain a 40 ft protection of an oak tree and a 10 foot Setback on Middlefield to accommodate a future bicycle lane. The Smith Developers, instead, applied for State Senate Bill 330 for Builders Remedy. The Smiths Builders Remedy will include several below city standards plans, including a 2-level below city standard parking garage and also below standard property set-backs especially on Byron St. Byron St becomes the garbage storage along with the noisy compacting and removal, the center of traffic for bike and possibly motorcycle storage and exit from parking garage. Byron St has complicated traffic and parking problems for everyone at most times. These traffic and parking space availability problems include traffic from elder pedestrians. There are very few spaces to park in the entire area which leads to recirculation hoping there will be a parking space. These traffic and parking space availability problems include traffic from pedestrians. This area could be designated Elder Care Hub at the end of the commercial part of the City of Palo Alto. All of this includes the Webster House and Lytton Gardens, very large elder care and rehab facilities (situated across University from 660). Pedestrians in this Elder Care environment also include their wheelchairs and walkers, and unsteady gait and slow reaction times, confusion when requiring multiple responses at the same time. We all have a lot to manage. Cooperation for a safe environment is an enormous and essential necessity. Getting old is tough. One may have their functioning mind but the body is a different struggle to navigate, especially to be able to walk safely even with mobility devices. We are grateful for the safe environment we have had here. We are also grateful for any opportunities to be heard. Bottom LINE of importance for elder pedestrians is safety and environmental support. Respectfully submitted, Justine Forbes, MD (retired) From:Xenia Hammer To:Council, City Cc:emily.kallas@paolalto.gov Subject:660 University Project Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 1:42:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council, I am very supportive of adding housing, and the location at 660 University is a good one for housing. However, there are significant problems with the project proposal before you, and I urge you to correct these problems before approving the project. The project location at University and Middlefield is a crucial intersection and a gateway location at the entrance to downtown. These problems with the current proposal include: 1. Lack of passenger loading space 2. Disregard for required setbacks on 3 sides of the building 3. Impact on traffic on surrounding streets and traffic safety 1. Need a loading space in front of main residential entrance on University Ave: Section 18.52.040, chapter (d) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code clearly states: “Residential and mixed use structures with fifty (50) or more dwelling units shall provide at least one (1) on-site, short-term loading space for passenger vehicles, to be used by taxicabs and similar transportation and delivery services.” This requirement makes sense anywhere. In this location, on University Avenue immediately before Middlefield, this requirement is crucial. This is a This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report gateway for traffic in and out of downtown and for through traffic connecting 101 and Stanford. Imagine food delivery and rideshares pick-ups stopping on that block and tying up University Ave traffic. There is a bus stop on University before Middlefield in front of the proposed building. Without a loading space, any rideshare drop off or any food delivery will block the buses! Also, the parking provided for this project is already reduced, so residents will be using more rideshares, making the loading space even more important. All other buildings in that area have circular driveways with loading space. The requirement for the loading space has been brought up by you in prior meetings, and yet, the current plans do not accommodate this reasonable and necessary requirement. Please insist on a loading space in front of the main entrance on University Avenue 2. Setbacks – this project as proposed encroaches on required setbacks: University Ave: 7 feet vs required 16 feet Byron Street: 12 feet vs required 16 feet Side Yard garage ramp: 2 feet vs required 10 feet Middlefield: above grade setback requirement is met This is a gateway location to downtown, and setbacks are important for maintaining a welcoming feel with sidewalks that feel open and safe for everyone - including older people who live in nearby senior housing and families with strollers. In addition, setbacks are important for traffic safety to ensure visibility for cars making turns to and from University Ave. Setbacks are also necessary for any future traffic improvements on University Ave! Please insist on required setbacks! 3. Traffic and Pedestrian Safety at street crossings: Passenger loading space on University is crucial for smooth traffic flow in and out of downtown. In addition, it is important to provide for safe pedestrian senior citizens going to lunch from Lytton Gardens to First Methodist Church. Byron is a narrow street; and the traffic on Byron needs to be addressed. These concerns have been brought up at every stage and meeting on this project. Please note that the Architectural Review Board and the Planning & Transportation Commission noted these issues as serious problems with the project, but they voted to advance this project because of the threat of a larger Builders Remedy project. However, questions have been raised as to whether the Builders Remedy application is valid (see correspondence in the packet). In summary, I urge you to work with the developer to provide required setbacks and a passenger loading space on University before approving this project. Thank you very much, Xenia Hammer Palo Alto resident From:Patty Irish To:Council, City Subject:Action Item 6 Public Hearing 660 University Date:Friday, November 7, 2025 1:58:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Council Members, I write in support of the proposal for the new 6 story Mixed Use Building with 70 Multi-Family Residential Units at 660 University. The Smith Family has worked for four years to get this approved. They are a LOCAL family investing in their community. Something I think we want to value greatly. The location is excellent for persons to live productively. They are in walking distance to schools, transportation, work sites, and many services. I live in the general area myself and can do many things without a car. Please realize that in many cases you will get pushback for any changes made to our neighborhoods. This limits our vision of what is possible and also what is needed by others. Please think of the people who will benefit from living here - who may work here and drive long distances now. Also you are probably aware that the schools need additional children to be at their best. This housing will give some children a chance to go to our excellent schools nearby. Thank you for all your attention to housing at this time. It is an urgent need. And one you can help remedy. Patty Irish 850 Webster St. #628 Palo Alto, CA 94301 -- Patty Irish 850 Webster St. #628 Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-324-7407 650-245-3906 cell How do you tell a story that has been told the wrong way for so long? Virus-free.www.avast.com From:Kinsey haffner To:Kallas, Emily; Council, City Cc:Yang, Albert Subject:Development project for 660 University (660 University) Date:Friday, November 7, 2025 11:58:32 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i 660 University is on the Council agenda for its meeting on 12/10. Please include and consider these comments in connection with that agenda item. 1. Builder's Remedy: The developer of 660 University filed a parallel application to develop a project for 680 University (680 University). The 660 University and 680 University are development alternatives for the same three combined parcels. 680 University was filed, and to date has been treated as, a Builder's Remedy (BR) project. Analysis: There are two pivotal dates in this analysis. The first is the date a complete BR Preapplication is filed with the City (the project application’s “deemed complete date’” for BR purposes). The second is the date the State certified the City’s Housing Element (HE) was certified by the State. (HE Certification Date). To have BR status, 680mUnivrrsity must have a “deemed complete date” that is prior to the HE Certification Date (8/3/2024), which no longer is the case. The preapplication filed by the developer for 680 University met all the necessary BR criteria, so its filing date (5/14/2024) initially was the “deemed complete date” for the project. However, the formal application for 680 University filed by the developer on 9/3/2024 had technical defects (see other 660 University public comments by me) that made the BR Preapplication “deemed incomplete” (words from the relevant statute). As a direct effect and consequence, and automatically and by operation of law, 680 University lost and ceased to have a “deemed complete date.” Those defects probably can be remedied, but the result would be a new “deemed complete date” (i.e., the date the correction occurs). Since this correction has not yet happened, there is no complete BR Preapplication on file. Also, any new “deemed complete date” would be after, not before certification of the HE. However, 680 University continues to be treated by the City as if it is a BR application even though it does not qualify as such. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Tellingly, I am informed that the developer has not submitted any rebuttal to the above analysis. This implicitly acknowledges its correctness. Importance: We repeatedly heard at the past ARB and PTC hearings regarding 660 University that the Commissioner’s felt compelled to approve the project because, although they had very serious reservations and concerns, the BR alternative (680 University) would be worse. Thus the prior determinations of the ARB and PTC are biased and do not reflect their true and fulsome evaluation of 660 University. Also, the faux existence of a BR possibility in the form of 680mUnivrrsity effectively prevented consideration of the very challenging questions and concerns expressed below. Actions Required: The 660 University project must be either disapproved by the Council or referred/sent back to both the ARB and the PTC for additional review and action. If the Council declines to act otherwise, then additional specific actions are required, as noted below. 2. Traffic Impacts: While I recognize the City’s mandate to address the housing crisis and acknowledge that the Final EIR may technically satisfy VMT requirements, I must formally object to the project based on three critical, unmitigated operational and legal deficiencies. 1. The Operational Failure of TDM and the Need for a Performance Guarantee The City’s reliance on the TDM plan to achieve a 40% vehicle trip reduction is conceptually flawed. A legal mandate for success is not the same as guaranteed success. If the TDM measures—which include easily ignored or unused incentives like transit passes and bike parking —fail to achieve the target, the project, as currently proposed, will significantly worsen the existing traffic problems on Byron and surrounding major arterials by introducing the trip generation of 70 units and ground-floor office space. This has a further ripple effect out into the neighborhoods. The proposed Conditions of Approval (COAs) for remedial TDM measures are a weak enforcement lever that triggers after the safety hazard has already manifested. Recommendations for Strengthening: The City must demand strong TDM remediation efforts and a robust TDM Performance Bond from the developer. This bond should be equivalent to a substantial mitigation fee, held in escrow, and only released after the City confirms the 40% reduction target has been met for a minimum of three years of full occupancy. If the target is missed, the funds must be used by the City for punitive, enforceable mitigation measures (e.g., dedicated staff for traffic control or aggressive parking buyouts). 2. Unmitigated Public Safety Hazard on Byron Street The decision to place the primary vehicular access and egress for 70 high-density units and an office component onto the single 500 block of Byron Street, which dead-ends on University and Hamilton, creates an operational conflict that is an unmitigable public safety hazard, regardless of TDM success. Byron Street is narrow and serves as a high-vulnerability over-55 community (555 Byron). The inevitable queuing from the garage entrance onto Byron Street inevitably will create "nose-to- nose" and "plugged bottle" traffic congestion and traffic conflict on Byron and potentially on University and Hamilton, severely compromising both regular traffic in and out of, and emergency access to, both 555 Byron and 660 University. The problem here is that small incremental traffic additions to any already saturated situation can trigger significant problems. This operational flaw cannot be resolved with signage or a stacking lane; it is a fundamental design conflict. The Council must find that this specific, localized unmitigated safety hazard is unacceptable. On-demand stop lights at both ends of the 500 block of Byron would ease the ability of the new Byron traffic to merge into University and Hamilton, but the City must also evaluate (which it has not done) the broader impact of that possible solution. The lack of adequate delivery vehicle and traffic loading/unloading zones in proximity to the building entrance substantially increases the chance of double-parked vehicles on University, which is equally bad. 3. The Requirement for Explicit Findings on Cumulative Housing Element Impacts The Council is legally obligated under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) to make explicit, deliberate findings justifying its approval. This cannot be an implicit finding. We urge the Council to explicitly consider the systemic, cumulative risk the project poses to the entire Housing Element. If this project, due to its operational failure on Byron Street and related major and minor arterials, is allowed to possibly create severe, unmitigated gridlock, it will set a disastrous precedent. If and to the extent it will be legally and practically impossible to approve the surrounding MFA and Planned Unit sites that the City is mandated to develop, the "realistic achievability" of the entire Housing Element site inventory is in jeopardy. For these reasons—the lack of guaranteed TDM performance, the unmitigable safety hazard on Byron Street, and the potential negative ripple effect on the Housing Element—I urge the Council to reject the project as currently conditioned and demand the PTC evaluate the traffic effects of 660 University in the broader context of the HE as a whole in addition to requiring significant design revisions or robust, financially-backed TDM performance enhancements and guarantees. 3. HE Impacts: The current design for 660 University fails to align with the core purpose and legal mandates of the City’s certified HE and the underlying state law requiring housing for diverse household types. This concern is distinct from the previously raised issues regarding traffic, VMT, and public safety. 1. Failure to Accommodate Diverse Household Needs The California Housing Element law mandates that jurisdictions plan to accommodate "a variety of household sizes and types." The proposed unit mix at 660 University—comprising primarily of ~400 square foot studios, a small number of ~600 square foot 1-bedroom units, and minimal number of ~900 square foot 2-bedroom units—demonstrates a strategic effort to maximize density and revenue per square foot, at the expense of family and long-term residential needs. Micro-Unit Functionality: A 400 square-foot studio, equivalent in size to a mid-range hotel room, is functionally constrained. Such units offer minimal storage, compacted kitchenettes space necessary for a multi-year resident with standard possessions. This design effectively filters out couples, families, and individuals seeking long-term stability. Constrained Family Housing: The proposed 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units are only very marginally better in this regard and are also inadequate for comfortable family living. The 1-bedroom is not significantly better than the studio, and the 2-bedroom square footage is more aligned with a generous 1-bedroom unit in the Bay Area. The designed bedrooms within this footprint leaves insufficient common living area for families with two or more children or even two unrelated long-term roommates. The resulting building is architecturally structured to create a form of slightly more lengthy form of transient housing intended to serve almost exclusively single, highly mobile, high-income individuals—a specific niche that does not address the required "variety" of household types central to the HE mandate. 2. High Cost-Per-Square-Foot and Subversion of Purpose Market analysis of comparable nearby developments (such as The Mia on nearby Everett Ave.) shows that this model of hyper-dense, small units commands an exceptionally high rent per square foot, often in the $8.00 to $10.00 range, significantly exceeding the general Palo Alto market average of $4.00 to $7.00 per square foot for significantly larger units. This financial optimization suggests the project is designed for use as de-facto temporary but extended-stay lodging for Stanford students, corporate transferees, weekday "sleep only units" for workers whose permanent residences are far from Palo Alto, or temporary workers, in all instances other than, and rather than, permanent residential housing. When new housing development is overwhelmingly optimized for this transient, high-premium market, it raises serious policy questions: 1. Is this truly "housing" as envisioned by the HE, or is it a commercial lodging product designed to maximize revenue from corporate clients? 2. Does the creation of a building optimized for rapid resident turnover contribute to the stability and long-term community goals of the City? A pattern of approving projects that function as transient corporate housing, renting at an extraordinary premium, risks subverting the underlying purpose of the Housing Element, which is to identify sites that meet the general, long-term residential needs of the entire community. 3. Risk to Housing Element Compliance (Realistic Achievability) While a single market-rate project may not violate the technical unit count of the HE, approving a project template that results in inadequate unit diversity and high turnover creates systemic risk. The State's HCD reviews Housing Elements for “realistic achievability.” If the majority of the City’s new market-rate housing is characterized by these functionally constrained, premium-priced micro-units, HCD could credibly find that the City is failing to meet the diverse needs of its workforce, particularly families. This pattern could be cited as evidence that the HE is not realistically achieving the goal of accommodating all economic segments and household sizes, thereby making the entire HE vulnerable to a finding of non-compliance. Note, in this regard, the HE-related discussion with respect to traffic issues above. in this regard, note that the HE (Schedule D) does not allow more than 65 Toal Units for 660 University. In that regard, note that "maximum allowable amount" of units is not the same as "optimal amount" of units when 660 University is considered in its broader HE context. Conclusion and Call to Action I urge the City Council to utilize its discretionary authority to require addition ARB and PTC reviews of, and significant modifications, to 660 University. To align this project with the spirit and requirements of the Housing Element, the Council should demand a unit mix that includes: 1. A minimum required square footage for studio and 1-bedroom units to ensure basic livability for long-term residents. 2. An increase in the number and a substantial increase in the size of 1- and 2-, and possibly an addition of 3-, bedroom units to demonstrate a genuine commitment to accommodating family and non-single-person households. Approving the current design without these changes risks setting a problematic precedent that prioritizes maximum developer profit over the genuine, diverse, and stable housing needs of the Palo Alto community. Kinsey Haffner traffic problems by introducing the trip generation of 70 units and ground-floor office space. The proposed Conditions of Approval (COAs) for remedial TDM measures are a weak enforcement lever that triggers after the safety hazard has already manifested. Recommendation for Strengthening: The City must demand a robust TDM Performance Bond from the developer. This bond should be equivalent to a substantial mitigation fee, held in escrow, and only released after the City confirms the 40% reduction target has been met for a minimum of three years of full occupancy. If the target is missed, the funds must be used by the City for punitive, enforceable mitigation measures (e.g., dedicated staff for traffic control or aggressive parking buyouts). 2. Unmitigated Public Safety Hazard on Byron Street The decision to place the primary vehicular access and egress for 70 high-density units and an office component onto Byron Street creates an operational conflict that is an unmitigable public safety hazard, regardless of TDM success. Byron Street is narrow and serves a high-density, high-vulnerability over-55 community (555 Byron). The inevitable queuing from the garage entrance onto Byron Street will create "nose-to-nose" traffic congestion and conflict, severely compromising emergency access to both 555 and 660 University. This operational flaw cannot be resolved with signage or a stacking lane; it is a fundamental design conflict. The Council must find that this specific, localized unmitigated safety hazard is unacceptable. 3. The Requirement for Explicit Findings on Cumulative Housing Element Impacts The Council is legally obligated under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) to make explicit, deliberate findings justifying its approval. This cannot be an implicit finding. We urge the Council to explicitly consider the systemic, cumulative risk the project poses to the entire Housing Element. If this project, due to its operational failure on Byron Street, is allowed to create severe, unmitigated gridlock, it will set a disastrous precedent. It will be legally and practically impossible to approve the surrounding MFA and Planned Unit sites that the City is mandated to develop, thereby jeopardizing the "realistic achievability" of the entire Housing Element site inventory. For these reasons—the lack of guaranteed TDM performance, the unmitigable safety hazard on Byron Street, and the potential negative ripple effect on the Housing Element —I urge the Council to reject the project as currently conditioned and demand significant design revisions or robust, financially-backed TDM performance guarantees. Get Outlook for iOS From:Genna.Yarkin@hklaw.com To:Council, City Cc:Yang, Albert; Chelsea.Maclean@hklaw.com; Boyd Smith; Lund Smith; Alysa Tibbitts Subject:Applicant"s Public Comment - 21PLN-00341 (November 10th Council hearing) Date:Friday, November 7, 2025 11:34:51 AM Attachments:660 Univ - Letter addressing Builder"s Remedy status 11-7-2025 FINAL.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good morning Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers, On behalf of our client the Smith Development Group, attached please find the applicant’s public comment ahead of your November 10th hearing to consider approval of their PHZ Project at 511 Byron Street, 660 University Avenue, and 680 University Avenue (#21PLN-00341). Thank you, Genna Yarkin | Holland & Knight PRIDE She/Her/Hers Partner Holland & Knight LLP 560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, California 94105 Phone 415.743.6990 | Fax 415.743.6910 genna.yarkin@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.com ________________________________________________ Add to address book | View professional biography NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP ("Holland & Knight"), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of Holland & Knight, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to Holland & Knight in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of Holland & Knight, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality. 560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com Genna Yarkin +1 415-743-6990 Genna.Yarkin@hklaw.com Chelsea Maclean +1 415-743-6979 Chelsea.Maclean@hklaw.com Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Boston | Century City | Charlotte | Chattanooga | Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale Houston | Jacksonville | Los Angeles | Miami | Nashville | Newport Beach | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia | Portland Richmond | San Francisco | Seattle | Stamford | Tallahassee | Tampa | Tysons | Washington, D.C. | West Palm Beach November 7, 2025 Via E-mail (city.council@paloalto.gov) City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 9430 Re: 511 Byron St, 660 University Avenue, 680 University Project - Builder’s Remedy Application Status (Application #21PLN-00341) Dear Mayor Lauing and Councilmembers: Holland & Knight LLP represents Smith Development Group (the "Applicant") in connection with its proposed residential development at 511 Byron St, 660 University Avenue, 680 University/500 Middlefield Rd in Palo Alto. The purpose of this letter is to clarify the status of the Applicant's Builder's Remedy application (which was also applied for under the protections of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 or “SB 330”), and which has been the subject of recent public comment suggesting it may have expired. We note that it remains the Applicant’s strong preference to proceed with the 66-unit Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) version of the development (the “PHZ Project”), which is before you for consideration of approval on November 10, 2025. By contrast, the current Builder’s Remedy application contains 88 units, and could be increased to up to 131 units. Over the course of several years, the Applicant team has worked closely with City staff and incorporated significant feedback from various City decisionmakers to ensure that the PHZ Project is a vibrant and successful addition to the community. While the Applicant does not currently intend to return to the Builder’s Remedy application given the strong momentum behind the PHZ Project, we reiterate here that it remains viable and can be reactivated if necessary. Background and Timeline The Applicant is currently pursuing approval of a 66-unit residential project through the City's PHZ process, which includes 20% affordable housing. The Applicant also submitted an alternative Builder's Remedy application, which is currently tolled while the PHZ application proceeds City Council November 7, 2025 Page 2 #529057035_v1 through the approval process. The relevant timeline of the Builder’s Remedy application is as follows: • May 14, 2024: The Applicant submitted an SB 330 preliminary application proposing 110 dwelling units pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act (the “Builder’s Remedy Project”). • June 11, 2024: o The Applicant submitted a new/revised SB 330 preliminary application for the Builder’s Remedy Project, also proposing 110 dwelling units. o This submission established a new vesting date and created an obligation to submit a formal application within 180 days, or by December 8, 2024. (Gov. Code § 65941.1(e)) • August 20, 2024: The California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) certified the City’s Housing Element, cutting off the ability for any new Builder’s Remedy projects to be proposed, but allowing any Builder’s Remedy projects that had previously submitted SB 330 preliminary applications, to proceed so long as they subsequently meet deadlines and maintain vesting. • September 4, 2024: The Applicant submitted a formal application for development of the Builder's Remedy Project, proposing 88 dwelling units (an exactly 20% change from the previous 110 units). • October 2, 2024: The City responded to the Builder's Remedy Project application without raising any concerns about the unit count change. • December 2, 2024: The Applicant and the City executed a Tolling Agreement, pausing all deadlines related to the Builder's Remedy Project application while the PHZ Project application proceeds. • December 8, 2024: As noted above, prior to the tolling of all processing deadlines for the Builder’s Remedy Project’s application, this would have been the deadline to submit a formal application for development, and still maintain the Builder’s Remedy Project’s SB 330 vesting and its ability to proceed under the non-compliant Housing Element status that existed as of its SB 330 preliminary application date. The Builder's Remedy Application Remains Viable At the Planning and Transportation Commission (“PTC”) hearing for consideration of the PHZ Project on October 8, 2025, a member of the public argued that the Builder's Remedy Project application had expired because the formal application reduced the unit count by exactly 20% (from 110 to 88 units). Under Government Code Section 65941.1(d), if a development proponent City Council November 7, 2025 Page 3 #529057035_v1 "revises the project such that the number of residential units... changes by 20 percent or more," the preliminary application's vesting protections may be lost. However, as the City Attorney correctly noted during the PTC hearing and as the Staff Report for this hearing reiterates, this issue is readily curable. The Applicant retains the ability to submit a revised formal application for the Builder’s Remedy Project that adds one or more dwelling units, bringing it within the permissible change threshold. Specifically: • The Applicant had a right to submit a new formal application for the Builder’s Remedy Project within the original 180-day deadline. • When the Tolling Agreement was executed on December 2, 2024, the Applicant had 6 days remaining until the December 8, 2024 deadline. • If the Applicant chooses to terminate the Tolling Agreement and reactivate the Builder's Remedy application, it can immediately submit a revised formal application adding one or more units (and even up to 131 units, which would be a 19% increase from the original 110 units). In conclusion, the Builder's Remedy Project application remains a viable alternative should the PHZ Project application face any obstacles that are significant enough that the Applicant chooses to return to the Builder’s Remedy Project application. The unit count concern would be easily remedied, and it does not invalidate the Applicant's vesting rights under SB 330. Mr. Haffner’s Written Public Comment dated October 30 Included in your hearing packet is public comment that Mr. Haffner provided via email on October 30, to which we provide the following responses. We first wish to address the idea that the existence of the Builder’s Remedy application unduly influenced the PTC. It is important to note that the Applicant has been open to a significant amount of feedback from City staff, the public, and PTC members in multiple rounds of review. The version of the PHZ proposal that is coming before you has had the benefit of many changes to address that feedback, and the Applicant feels strongly that this process has been extensive, appropriate, and fair to all. Second with regard to Mr. Haffner’s mentions of the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”)’s certification of the City’s Housing Element, it is abundantly clear that regardless of the date of certification, the Builder’s Remedy Project gained vesting on the date of its SB 330 preliminary application. The date of the Builder’s Remedy Project’s formal application for development, is irrelevant for the purposes of establishing initial vesting (other than that it needed to occur within 180 days of the preliminary application to maintain such vesting). First, 2024’s AB 1886 established that a housing element is only "substantially compliant" for purposes City Council November 7, 2025 Page 4 #529057035_v1 of the Builder's Remedy when either HCD or a court makes that determination.1 AB 1886 further clarified that a housing element’s “substantial compliance” status is pegged to the date that a Builder’s Remedy project submits an SB 330 preliminary application, regardless of whether a jurisdiction later achieves certification from HCD, whether that certification is before or after a formal application is submitted.2 Mr. Haffner also makes much of the Tolling Agreement’s mistaken reference to a certain number of units contained in the Builder’s Remedy Project. However, it is abundantly clear from the agreement that the proposal is meant to toll deadlines related to processing of the Builder’s Remedy Project. A mere typographical error in description of the application, does not nullify the agreement between two parties who intended to bind each other to certain commitments and mutually understand themselves to be so bound. Finally, Mr. Haffner insists without adequate support that because the Applicant already submitted one formal application for development of the Builder’s Remedy Project, it may not substitute that application with a revised application. However, it is common practice for applicants to revise or replace proposals with new ones in the course of processing. Further, SB 330 simply does not indicate that a new or revised formal application may not been submitted within the 180 days following the submission of a preliminary application. Conclusion The Applicant remains committed to working with the City through the PHZ process to deliver housing, including affordable units, to Palo Alto. We believe this process offers benefits to both the City and the community, and we look forward to your consideration of the PHZ application when it comes before you on November 10. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Genna Yarkin Chelsea Maclean 1 Gov. Code § 65585.03 (as amended by AB 1886). 2 Gov. Code § 65589.55(a) (as amended by AB 1886). From:Faith Brigel To:Council, City Cc:Kallas, Emily; Faith Brigel Subject:660 University Ave. Builders" Remedy, Separate delivery entrance, Four stories. Date:Thursday, November 6, 2025 4:54:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Councilors of City Council, At the last Planning and Transportation Meeting an attorney from Stanford spoke publicly and brought to our attention a very interesting point. He explained that the Builders' Remedy is not as applicable to the 660 University construction as was originally thought, and he gave several reasons. The City attorney present did not seem to have that information. I am hoping that he has contacted you, or you have heard about this. Several of the commissioners stated that though there were several codes that were not being adhered to, the building is very large, and a lot of traffic will be generated in that already busy location - due to the Builders' Remedy they felt obliged to vote it in. However, if this is accurate and the Builders' Remedy cannot be enforced it seems that that would change how the commissioners ( and possibly yourselves) view this building. Another concern, is that now that they are putting the front area on Byron Street, but I believe that there are only two parking spots for any and all of the delivery vans, trucks, cabs, and other cars coming and going, etc. for this massive mixed use building; would it be possible to require that they place a separate entrance for delivery vans and trucks on Middlefield or University to thin out a little of the traffic off of Byron Street? This narrow street does not have the capacity to deal with ALL of the traffic, and deliveries that will be coming and going on a daily basis just for this one building not even considering all of the traffic for the church, the Hamilton building, the other buildings on Byron, plus the large complexes across the street of Lytton Gardens and the Webster House. It is very possible that there will be cars backed up on University and on Hamilton and this will be a traffic nightmare. My final concern, is the acceptance of this construction being six stories. There are no other buildings on Byron being that high. The Hamilton project is four stories high. And at four stories it looks very tall.This is an overly tall, compacted, dense building in an area that cannot contain it. I understand that the owner wants to increase his financial rewards, but he is not the only person to consider. I would like you to also consider the neighborhood. Pls revisit the acceptance of four stories for this building, and most important pls find out if it is accurate that the Builders’ Remedy is not applicable. Much appreciated, Faith W. Brigel 518 Byron Street From:Kay Brown To:Council, City Subject:Comment: 660 University Complex/Agenda 11/10/25 Date:Thursday, November 6, 2025 8:31:07 AM Attachments:660 letter to council--114.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Dear City Council Representative, Please include the following attachment below (5 Pages ) in letters/ comments re 660 University Project. The 660 development is slated to be on agenda this Monday November 10. Thank you for your help. Kay Brown 650-269-1985 Powered by Mimecast To: The Palo Alto City Council 11/4/25 From: Kay Brown Chart Below from Final EIR Report Pg 103 660 University The above chart appears in the Final EIR Report (Pg 103) completed by Rincon Consultants March 2025. I have searched through the Draft and Final EIR’s to locate mitigating measures for the above concerns. Reference to these issues are located in the Draft EIR 4.3 (pgs. 12-14). In the analysis compiled by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (hired by Smith Developers) which utilizes VMT to analyze traffic issues for the project, there is no mention of limitations of Byron Street, the intersection of Byron and University and safety issues regarding the popula- tion of the area. Smith Developers engaged Hexagon to respond to above potential impacts. In Hexagon’s transit overview, statement below is the only mention of Byron St. Byron Street is a north-south street that extends between University Avenue to the north and Hamilton Avenue to the south. Byron Street has a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph. Sidewalks are present on both sides of the street. There are no existing bike facilities on Byron Street. On- street parking is permitted on both sides of the street. Byron Street runs along the western boundary of the project site and provides direct access to the site via one full access driveway. 1). Hexagon’s conclusion (Draft EIR: 4.3 Pg 11), after giving a boiler plate analysis of Santa Clara transit, responds to Rincon’s concerns in chart above. “This impact would be less than significant without mitigation. No mitigation measures are required.” ____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Hexagon (Appendix E EIR) addresses Emergency Access (d. chart above). Access to the project site would be provided via one full access driveway on Byron Street, which emergency response vehicles would be able to use. The TIA (traffic impact analysis) evaluated site access and circulation and concluded that the project’s driveways and internal roadway network would be designed to current City standards and would accommodate the access requirements for emergency and passenger vehicles. In addition, all roadway users must yield to the right-of-way of emergency vehicles when emergency sirens and lights are on. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access and this impact would be less than significant. The above (answer to d. chart) addresses access only to 660 for emergency vehicles. It does not also take into consideration Emergency Response Vehicle access to senior communities that surround 660. This area is visited frequently by Emergency Response teams that arrive in mul- tiple vehicles. Hexagon’s analysis does not address the narrowness nor the limited parking that already exists on Byron. Even with siren’s blaring, it is very difficult for cars to pull over to allow Emergency Vehicle access. __________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 3). The initial draft EIR study ( page 78), also addresses Emergency response plans. “f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emer- gency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The project would involve the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a four-sto- ry mixed-use building. The new building would not obstruct existing roadways, require full road closures during construction, or require the construction of new roadways or access points. Therefore, the proposed building would not block emergency response or evacuation routes or in- terfere with adopted emergency response and emergency evacuation plans. No impact would oc- cur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.” (NO IMPACT) Where are demolition and constructions vehicles going to park? Again, there is no adequate parking on Byron. Will they park on University or on Middlefield? The set-backs have been minimized and cannot accommodate large vehicles. Emergency Access will certainly be im- pacted. (traffic safety alternatives/mitigations have been side-stepped). _____________________________________________________________________________ 4). On April 11, 2024, at a planning commission meeting, Eric Carlson, a Palo Alto resident, raised local traffic/safety concerns. The commission’s response to Mr. Carlson’s concerns… “As discussed in the Draft EIR, Byron Street is a local residential street that carries light traffic volumes throughout the day. Because the speed and volume of vehicular traffic would be low on Byron Street it is anticipated that traffic accessing the project site would not result in safety or operational impacts. In addition, the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc on February 15, 2024 (Appendix E to the DEIR)” No research consultants, no city entities mention the idiosyncrasy of Byron St, its narrowness, the elderly population that traverses it daily, nor the safety problems that currently exist. There is no adequate study that addresses Rincon’s “potentially significant impact” chart above. Rincon concludes "impacts would be significantly impacted and would be further ana- lyzed in the EIR.” Where are local concerns further analyzed by the EIR? Where are the miti- gation measures? ___________________________________________________________________________ In previous letters (dated 3/4/25 and 8/17/25) I sent to Emily , The Planning Commission, and City Council, I outlined existing traffic safety issues which will be exacerbated by the densely populated 660 project. Situation as it exists now…. 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. Page 3 2.Delivery trucks, tele-communication repair trucks, food delivery trucks for the church, linen deliveries, plumbers, electricians, multiple nursery school transport vehicles are parked along Byron which obstruct an already congested street. 3.Drivers on University that choose not to wait for light on Middlefield use Byron in attempt to side-step the traffic light. They zoom through Byron. The cars travel swiftly without re- gard to elderly residents with walkers and wheelchairs attempting to cross University on their way to daily church lunches. 4.This is not a normal residential street. The church is an event venue. Several times a week music, dance, ethnic and religious events are held. Parking exceeds spaces in the lot which flows out to Hamilton, Byron and adjacent residential streets. At times, church attendees park in the existing dental bldgs (660-680 University) lots on weekends and will not be available after 660 is erected. Architects of 660 were not required to provide a circular drive nor loading dock to accommo- date commercial vehicles. With the density of 660, there will be enumerable Amazon type de- liveries. The width of the driveway specified cannot accommodate commercial vehicles and also allow ingress and egress of occupants. Where will the garbage trucks pull up and not clog an already impacted Bryon St? The architects plan currently is for large vehicles to park along Byron (maybe 1 or 2 spots may fit on the Byron portion of 660. How will emergency vehicles access Byron efficiently? ___________________________________________________________________________ CEQA/EIR CEQA requires an EIR to identify potential significant safety related impacts. Rincon did this in above chart. CEQA advises the necessity to offer feasible mitigation measures to minimize outlined impacts (none). CEQA requires the need to explore alternatives to address safety con- cerns (none). CEQA requires technical studies to address safety issues (none). A comment by a transportation commissioner at recent October meeting, “Studies are expensive.” Agreed, studies are expensive. When Palo Alto commissions costly studies, better oversight is needed to address local issues. The city cannot be satisfied with boiler plate VMT studies that regurgitate Santa Clara thoroughfares and skirt over EIR matters of significant con- cerns. CEQA requires public input regarding safety concerns. Existing safety issues were dismissed outright by the Hexagon Study and no technical traffic safety studies were initiated. And, fi- nally…safety considerations must take into consideration the surrounding population (3 large elderly communities). Public comment re the safety configurations of University, Hamilton, and Byron were ignored. Page 4 Hexagon Conclusions (Transportation Study 2024/ restated in revised final EIR pg 13 Appendix E) “The impacts of the proposed project were evaluated in accordance with the procedures and guidelines specified by the City of Palo Alto. The analysis resulted in the following key findings: •Based on the City of Palo Alto VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) Policy, the project would have less- than-significant VMT impact for its residential and office components”. •The project would not create any impacts on pedestrian, bike, or transit facilities.” Developers cannot disregard public safety, including traffic concerns and cannot invoke Builders Remedy without providing some mitigations or modification to the project. In or- der to use Builders Remedy, they must provide alternative solutions to secure the safety of the population surrounding the planned development. A Builders Remedy project cannot be approved without considering local traffic safety. Palo Alto can impose conditions on a project requiring further studies, alternatives and mitigations if it poses a "specific adverse impact on public health and safety,” (Housing Accountability Act) The analyses offered by Hexagon have failed to take into consideration the cumulative impact on Byron and University. Hexagon has failed to conduct realistic local traffic assessments (only viewing it at off-hours?). This omission compromises the project's long-term viability, quality of life and safety for the surrounding community. And, lack of local data collection has skewed responses to Rincon’s EIR Chart of ‘Potentially Significant Impact’. Relying heavily on Santa Clara VMT requirements, Hexagon, the Developers and the Transportation Commission have leap-frogged over CEQA concerns / EIR consequential impacts (above chart) with the portent of potentially significant repercussions. Appreciate your time and attention, Kay Brown 650-269-1985 kayb49@sbcglobal.net Page 5 From:Alice Smith To:Council, City Subject:Item 6 on November 10th Agenda : Approval of 660 University Ave. Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 4:47:30 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. RE: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave [21PLN-00341]: Request for Approval of a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) on Three Parcels (511 Byron Street, 660 University Avenue, 680 University Avenue/500 Middlefield Road), to Demolish Existing Buildings and Provide a New Six Story Mixed-Use Building with Approximately 1,900 Square Feet of Office, 70 Multi-Family Residential Units, and a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. CEQA Status: A Draft Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024, and Ending on May 17, 2024. The City published a Final EIR in March 2025 and a revised Final EIR in October 2025. Zoning District: RM-20 (Multi-Family Residential). To the City Council of Palo Alto, I write to ask you to support the above-described New Six Story mixed use building to provide 70 multi-family residential units which I consider to be necessary and proper for the betterment of the future of the City of Palo Alto. Consider the benefits to the merchants, the schools, the community generally. The location is near already in place businesses and services (schools, public transportation, fire station, parks, accessible shopping, library and so on), The height is reasonable and the parking appropriate with more available nearby. As a nearby neighbor, I do support this new housing project in the Planned Home Zone and trust that you will vote yes. Alice Schaffer Smith Channing House 850 Webster Street #520 Palo Alto, CA From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Tim Persyn Cc:Council, City; Palo Alto Forward Subject:Re: 660 University Ave. Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 10:54:18 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. thanks!!! On 2025-11-05 10:27, Tim Persyn wrote: Dear City Council, I'm writing today to support the proposed development at 660 University Ave and I respectfully ask the council to approve it. As a Palo Alto resident for the past 10+ years, this housing proposal has been under review by the city for nearly one-third of the time that I've been a resident. Needless to say, it's been thoroughly reviewed and vetted. There are many reasons to support this development. Its downtown location puts it within walking distance of retail and services. It's also near Caltrain and adjacent to transit. Most importantly, 20% of the homes in this development will be affordable housing. This fact will help the city make progress on its fair housing goal. As we know, Palo Alto has developed a reputation as an exclusive city, but this proposed housing could help open up opportunity and change that direction. For these reasons, I support the proposed development at 660 University, and I ask the city council to support it, also. Sincerely, Tim Persyn 1 Dear Mayor Lauing and Council members, I write in support of the staff recommendations to approve the application for the 660 University project. I note that the site was adopted by council in the Housing Element site inventory for a project of this size. In addition, the applicant has worked for four years in an open and transparent process that offered multiple opportunities for both supporters and opponents to make public comments. The applicant has adopted many of the requests for modifying the application from both the ARB and PTC. The staff notes that the project has no significant negative environmental impacts and conforms to the Comp Plan. Adoption by the council will send a strong signal to other potential applicants that the City is serious about adding market-rate/mixed use housing downtown. As the applicant enters the fifth year with this project, it is time to approve it and move forward. Thank you Stephen Levy A suupportive downtown resident From:Tim Persyn To:Council, City Cc:Palo Alto Forward; slevy@ccsce.com Subject:660 University Ave. Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 10:27:33 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear City Council, I’m writing today to support the proposed development at 660 University Ave and I respectfully ask the council to approve it. As a Palo Alto resident for the past 10+ years, this housing proposal has been under review by the city for nearly one-third of the time that I’ve been a resident. Needless to say, it’s been thoroughly reviewed and vetted. There are many reasons to support this development. Its downtown location puts it within walking distance of retail and services. It’s also near Caltrain and adjacent to transit. Most importantly, 20% of the homes in this development will be affordable housing. This fact will help the city make progress on its fair housing goal. As we know, Palo Alto has developed a reputation as an exclusive city, but this proposed housing could help open up opportunity and change that direction. For these reasons, I support the proposed development at 660 University, and I ask the city council to support it, also. Sincerely, Tim Persyn This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City; Kallas, Emily Subject:660 University Avenue application Date:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 9:58:02 AM Attachments:Aupport for the 660 University project.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! letter of support for the staff recommendations This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report 660 University Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) Rezoning + Comp Plan Amendment Presenter: Emily Kallas, Senior Planner November 10, 2025 www.paloalto.gov 2 PROJECT OVERVIEW A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow existing office to be re - established in the MF Designation. A Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) ordinance to include: •A new six-story mixed-use building with 1,984 sf of office and 70 residential units, 20% of which will be affordable •Two levels of underground parking, with 78 parking stalls •A height exception to the 35 ft limit, •Reduced setbacks, including the Middlefield Special Setback Merges 3 existing parcels 1 PHZ/PC Process •Prescreening – October 2021 •Formal application – December 2021 •Initial PTC hearing – November 2022 •Initial ARB hearing – December 2022 •Significant redesign – September 2023 •ARB recommendation – April 2024 •PTC hearing – cancelled •Significant redesign – October 2024 •ARB recommendation – December 2024 •PTC hearing – March 2025 •Significant redesign – July 2025 •ARB recommendation – August 2025 •PTC recommendation – October 2025 •Council decision – November 2025 BACKGROUND / PROCESS 4 BUILDER’S REMEDY APPLICATION •Tolling Agreement valid through December 29, 2025 •Potential for up to 131 units •Potential for up to 101,823 sf floor area •No development standards, including Special Setback, height, daylight plane, parking •Would require review by the ARB and Council 5 NOTABLE CHANGES SINCE PTC HEARING •Decreased from 70 units to 66 (slightly decreased FAR) •Added bird safe glass per PTC recommendation •Removed balconies from tree protection zone per PTC and ARB recommendation 6 PROPOSED PROJECT ELEVATIONS UNIVERSITY AND INTERIOR 7 ELEVATIONS – MIDDLEFIELD AND BYRON 8 KEY CONSIDERATIONS •Comprehensive Plan Amendment •Zoning Allowances •Tree Protection Zone and Balconies •Future Use of the Special Setback •Parking and TDM Plan •Affordable Below Market Rate Units 9 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 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. 10 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT •Use is limited to new PC/PHZ projects, with existing commercial space, in the MF Comp Plan Designation •Approximately 35 properties out of the approximately 1,730 properties in the MF designation have been identified as having a non-residential use. •Majority existing uses are medical/dental offices •Majority located on the periphery of downtown areas 11 ZONING ALLOWANCES The project deviates from the underlying zone district in the following ways: •Height (71 feet 2 inches where a maximum 30 feet is allowed) •FAR (3.05:1 where a maximum 0.5:1 is allowed) •Density (126.9 dwelling units per acre where a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre is allowed) •Useable Open Space (86.2 square feet per unit where a minimum 150 square feet is required) •Parking (78 parking spaces where 89 are required) 12 ZONING ALLOWANCES •Setbacks encroachments: o Middlefield Special Setback – 0 feet below grade where 24 feet is required o Byron street side yard – 12 feet above grade, 0 feet below grade where 16 feet is required o University street side yard – 7 feet above grade, 0 feet below grade where 16 feet is required o Interior side yard – ramp to garage is 2 feet setback where 10 feet is required •Daylight plane (4th through 6th floors encroach into the 10 foot, 45- degree angle daylight plane adjacent to RM-20 zoned properties). 13 TREE PROTECTION ZONE AND BALCONIES •Protection of the Coast Live Oak (Tree #10) is a priority •The ARB and PTC both recommended removing the balconies from within the TPZ o Urban Forestry staff confirms that the balconies do not affect the health of the tree. •The applicant has reduced the project from 70 units to 66 to maintain a useable balcony for each unit •The alternative would be to maintain a 70 unit design, but not provide private useable outdoor space in 6 units. •Both options result in minor reductions to the total availability of useable open space on a per -unit basis. 14 FUTURE USE OF THE SPECIAL SETBACK •Project encroaches into the Middlefield Special Setback below grade •The purpose of the Special Setbacks is for implementation of Transportation Element Comprehensive Plan policies. •Proposed condition of approval to: o Dedicate a Public Access Easement over a portion of the 24-foot front yard special setback, including to a depth of 20 feet, for multi-modal transportation improvements o Any future easement may require the removal of site improvements (parking spaces, interior garage areas) o Exception for proposed stair and ramp location(s) to remain o May reduce parking from 78 to 72 parking spaces. 15 PARKING AND TDM PLAN •8% parking reduction proposed •TDM plans to reduce trips by 20% •Within the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) •Proposed condition of approval to address spillover parking 16 AFFORDABLE/BMR UNITS •20% BMR units provided is the Public Benefit for a PHZ project •Plan proposes 2 very-low income, 5 low -income, and 6 moderate-income. •This includes 5 studios, 7 one-bedrooms, and 1 two- bedroom units. •Staff recommends this be revised to 4 studios, 7 one- bedrooms, and 2 two-bedrooms. 17 PUBLIC COMMENTS •Over 50 comment emails received, both in support and with concerns. •Many neighbors at The Hamilton are concerned about construction impacts, traffic and parking, noise, and tree protection. •Assertion that the Builder's Remedy application is no longer valid •City Attorney has reviewed and determined that the Builder's Remedy project application ("680 University") can still be amended pursuant to the Tolling Agreement. 18 CEQA •A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been published and was in circulation April 2, 2024 – May 17, 2024 •A Final EIR analyzing 63 units and 9,115 sf of office was published in March 2025. •Analysis of the project changes was incorporated into a Revised Final EIR published October 1, 2025. The current project would not result in any new or more significant impacts beyond what was assessed in the previously published Draft and Final EIR documents. 19 RECOMMENDED MOTION It is recommended the City Council take the following actions: 1.Adopt the Resolution to certify the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); 2.Adopt the Resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element to modify the allowable uses in the Multiple Family Land Use Designation; and 3.Adopt the Planned Community (PC) Ordinance rezoning the subject property and approving the development plan and uses, public benefits, and 4.Approve the Record of Land Use Action with approval findings and conditions of approval. EMILY KALLAS, AICP Senior Planner emily.kallas@paloalto.gov 650-617-3125 660 UNIVERSITY CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION 11/10/2025 SMITH DEVELOPMENT BOYD & LUND SMITH KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY ARCHITECTS TED KORTH & AMANDA BORDEN THE GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIP INC. PAUL LETTIERI BKF ENGINEERS SAAGAR GHAI & BLAISE BAYENS ARBOR RESOURCES DAVID L. BABBY TDM SPECIALISTS, INC. ELIZABETH HUGHES TEAM INTRODUCTION PROJECT OVERVIEW July 2021 to May 2024: Project revised numerous times based on policymaker and staff feedback. September 2024: Project resubmitted as a 6-story mixed-use residential / office building with 2 levels of below grade parking. Dec. 2024: Project presented to and approved by ARB with ad hoc comments. Mar. 2025: Project presented to PTC. - Questions raised about the city’s requirement to provide 25% of the building area as non-residential use. Apr. 2025: City planning confirms that 25% non-residential requirement does not apply to project. June 2025: Project resubmitted as a 6-story mixed-use residential / office building with 2 levels of below grade parking. - Project revised to meet FEMA’s definitions of a mixed-use building in a special hazard flood zone. Aug. 2025: Project presented to and approved by ARB with one ad hoc comment. Oct. 2025: Project presented to and approved by PTC with proposed conditions of approval. Oct. 2025: Project resubmitted as a 6-story mixed-use residential / office building with 2 levels of below grade parking. - Project revised in response to the ARB ad hoc comment and PTC proposed conditions of approval. - Provides 1,984 SF of office space at the ground level. - Provides 66 units at Levels 2 - 6. - Provides 78 stalls with a parking reduction of 8%. - Provides space for possible future city improvements at the corner of University Ave. and Middlefield Road. - Maintains compliance with the 24-foot Middlefield Road special setback above grade. - Maintains and preserves the adjacent Coast Live Oak tree. 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT PLAN PROJECT SITE 660 UNIVERSITY AVENUE MID D L E F I E L D R O A D BY R O N S T R E E T UNIV E R S I T Y A V E N U E 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT PLAN (E) RESIDENTIAL 4-STORY BUILDING (E) RESIDENTIAL 4-STORY BUILDING (E) RESIDENTIAL 4-STORY BUILDING (E) MIXED-USE 4-STORY BUILDING (E) EDUCATIONAL 2-STORY BUILDING (E) OFFICE 2-STORY BUILDING (E) OFFICE 2-STORY BUILDING (E) OFFICE 2-STORY BUILDING(E) OFFICE 2-STORY BUILDING (E) OFFICE 2-STORY BUILDING (E) RESIDENTIAL 2-STORY BUILDING (E) OFFICE 2-STORY BUILDING (E) RESIDENTIAL 2-STORY BUILDING MIDDLEFIELD ROAD BYRON STREET UN I V E R S I T Y A V E N U E PROJECT SITE (E) RELIGIOUS 4-STORY TALL BLDG. (EQUIVALENT) (E) RESIDENTIAL 4-STORY BUILDING 4 3 2 (E) OFFICE 1-STORY BUILDING (E) RESIDENTIAL 3-STORY BUILDING (E) RESIDENTIAL 3-STORY BUILDING 5 6 7 1 8 WEBSTER STREET LY T T O N A V E N U E HA M I L T O N S T R E E T 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT PHOTOS 4. MIDDLEFIELD & UNIVERSITY CORNER3. UNIVERSITY & BYRON CORNER 2. BYRON STREET1. MIDDLEFIELD ROAD 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT PHOTOS 8. MIDDLEFIELD & UNIVERSITY_ LYTTON GARDENS SENIOR LIVING7. UNIVERSITY AVE _ WEBSTER HOUSE HEALTH CENTER 6. BYRON STREET _ CARDINAL DENTAL & THE HAMILTON 5. BYRON STREET _ FIRST SCHOOL & FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT EXISTING SITE PLAN 10'-11" 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT MIDDLEFIELD ROAD SETBACK DIAGRAM R C 64G CARTCOMPOST96G CARTWASTE 96G CARTRECYCLING 64G CA R T COMP O S T 64G CA R T COMP O S T YC2DETCAPMOC ETSAWYC2DETCAPMOC GNILCYCER YC2DETCAPMOC ETSAW2CYDETCAPMOC GNILCYCER (F U T U R E ) FIT N E S S CE N T E R 1,8 2 9 S F T.O . S L A B ( T Y P . F I R S T F L O O R ) EL . 1 ' - 2 " ( N A V D 8 8 E L . 4 8 . 1 6 ' ) LIN E O F C A N O P Y ( A B O V E ) LE A S I N G OF F I C E FF 4 8 . 1 6 ' FF 4 8 . 1 6 ' FF 4 5 . 6 ' FF 4 8 . 1 6 ' OF F I C E G A R D E N ( S E E L 1 . 1 ) RE S . T R A S H CO M P A C T O R R O O M 1,0 5 3 S F EL E C T R I C A L RO O M XF M R # 1 108 X 1 1 4 PA D XF M R # 2 88 X 7 4 PA D GA R A G E ST A I R GA R A G E ST A I R FF 4 5 . 5 ' FF 4 8 . 1 6 ' 1200A/460V FU T U R E T . I . T O I N C L U D E BA T H R O O M A N D CO N F I R M A T I O N O F F I X T U R E QU A N T I T I E S 1600A/208V FF 4 8 . 1 6 ' FF 48 . 1 6 ' FF 4 5 . 6 ' 5.7 ' FF 4 5 . 2 ' SP E E D R A M P D O W N T O B E L O W G R A D E P A R K I N G 22 % W I T H 1 1 % B L E N D S (2 2 % W I T H 1 1 % B L E N D S M A X A L L O W E D ) RE S . EL E V . RE S . ELE V . RE S I D E N T I A L LO B B Y 5,4 0 1 S F OF F I C E . ELE V . RE S I D E N T I A L M A I L B O X E S RE S . B I K E R M . # 1 18 R E Q . / 1 8 P R O V . SE C U R E ST O R A G E CO N F . RO O M OF F I C E 1,9 8 4 S F OF F I C E TR A S H RO O M CO W O R K I N G SP A C E JA N I T O R CL O S E T AG R LE A S I N G OF F I C E AG R AM A Z O N M A I L B O X E S GA M E L O U N G E ST O R . COFFEE BAR FIR E AC C E S S CO F F E E B A R LO U N G E SP A C E P R O V I D E D F O R B I K E LO C K E R S , F U T U R E O F F I C E TE N A N T T O I N S T A L L I N PR E F E R R E D L O C A T I O N STOR. MAIL TRASH PH O N E RO O M PH O N E RO O M PH O N E RO O M OF F I C E AG R FIT N E S S C E N T E R P A T I O MIDDLEFIELD ROAD BYRON STREET WEBSTER STREET FULTON STREET GUINDA STREET UN I V E R S I T Y A V E N U E HA M I L T O N A V E N U E FO R E S T A V E N U E HO M E R A V E N U E LY T T O N A V E N U E 24'-0" SETBACK 24'-3" SETBACK 24'-0" SETBACK 17'-11" SETBACK 8'-6" SETBACK 21'-8" SETBACK 20'-10" SETBACK15'-1" SETBACK 22'-3" SETBACK 20'-0" SETBACK 21'-10" SETBACK 21'-9" SETBACK 22'-5" SETBACK 18'-9" SETBACK 21'-10" SETBACK 19'-0" SETBACK 24' MIDDLEFIELD SPECIAL SETBACK (N) 24'-0" SETBACK 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT RENDERING _ VIEW FROM MIDDLEFIELD & UNIVERSITY 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT RENDERING _ VIEW FROM UNIVERSITY & BYRON 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT RENDERING _ VIEW FROM BYRON 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT RENDERING _ VIEW FROM MIDDLEFIELD 2024.12.05 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT GROUND FLOOR PLAN DANO. PROJ NORTH TN 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 R C 64 G C A R T CO M P O S T 96 G C A R T WA S T E 96 G C A R T RE C Y C L I N G 64G CARTCOMPOST 64G CARTCOMPOST YC2DETCAPMOCETSAW YC2DETCAPMOCGNILCYCER YC2DETCAPMOCETSAW 2CYDETCAPMOCGNILCYCER (FUTURE) FITNESS CENTER 1,829 SF T.O. SLAB (TYP. FIRST FLOOR) EL. 1'-2" (NAVD 88 EL. 48.16') LINE OF CANOPY (ABOVE) LEASING OFFICE FF 48.16' FF 48.16' FF 45.6' FF 48.16' OFFICE GARDEN (SEE L1.1) RES. TRASH COMPACTOR ROOM 1,053 SF ELECTRICAL ROOM XFMR #1 108 X 114 PAD XFMR #2 88 X 74 PAD GARAGE STAIR GARAGE STAIR FF 45.5' FF 48.16' 12 0 0 A / 4 6 0 V FUTURE T.I. TO INCLUDE BATHROOM AND CONFIRMATION OF FIXTURE QUANTITIES 16 0 0 A / 2 0 8 V FF 48.16' FF 48.16' FF 45.6' FF 45.7' FF 45.2' SPEED RAMP DOWN TO BELOW GRADE PARKING 22% WITH 11% BLENDS (22% WITH 11% BLENDS MAX ALLOWED) RES. ELEV. RES. ELEV. RESIDENTIAL LOBBY 5,401 SF OFFICE. ELEV. 2/A2.P1 RESIDENTIAL MAILBOXES AREA OF ASSISTED RESCUE, CBC 1009.7 RES. BIKE RM. #1 18 REQ. /18 PROV. SECURE STORAGE CONF. ROOM OFFICE 1,984 SFOFFICE TRASH ROOM COWORKING SPACE JANITOR CLOSET AGR LEASING OFFICE AGR AMAZON MAILBOXES GAME LOUNGE STOR. CO F F E E B A R FIRE ACCESS COFFEE BAR LOUNGE SPACE PROVIDED FOR BIKE LOCKERS, FUTURE OFFICE TENANT TO INSTALL IN PREFERRED LOCATION ST O R . MA I L T R A S H PHONE ROOM PHONE ROOM PHONE ROOM OFFICE AGR FITNESS CENTER PATIO ASSIGNED AREA TO ACCOMMODATE POSSIBLE FUTURE CITY IMPROVEMENTS AT GRADE AND TWO LEVELS BELOW-GRADE (APPROX. 425 SF) 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT P1 LEVEL PLAN 24'-0" (20' MIN.) 9'-0"12'-0"12'-0" 76'-8 1/2" ±32'-7" ±82'-10" ± 22 ' - 0 " (2 0 ' M I N . ) 24 ' - 0 " D R I V E A I S L E TY P . 18 ' - 0 " TY P . 225'-2 1/2" PROPERTY / GARAGE 73 ' - 6 " GA R A G E 10 0 ' - 1 " PR O P E R T Y / G A R A G E 2/- 5'-0" (PER PAMC 18.54) 10'-0" 9'-2 1/2" TYP. 8'-6 1/2" TYP. 17 ' - 8 1 / 2 " TY P . 30'-0 " O F F S E T TRE E P R O T E C T I O N Z O N E 12'-0"6'-7" 33'-1 1/2" ± 9'-0" TYP. R20' - 3 1 / 2 " (15' M I N . / 3 0 ' M A X . ) R44 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 2'-4"± 24 ' - 5 " 2' - 2 " 22 ' - 0 " (1 8 ' M I N . ) 2' - 2 " 7'-0"7'-0" PARKING LEVEL P1 20 STALLS (19,180 SF) OFFICE BIKE ROOM (8 PROV., 4 TYPE 1, 4 TYPE 2) SP E E D R A M P D N T O P 2 22 % W I T H 11 % B L E N D S (2 2 % W I T H 1 1 % BL E N D S M A X AL L O W E D ) SPEED RAMP UP TO GRADE 22% WITH 11% BLENDS (22% WITH 11% BLENDS MAX ALLOWED) +4" RES. EVSE CAR/ VANPOOL CAV +4" 1/A2.P0-A OFFICE ELEV XFMR (ABOVE) XFMR (ABOVE) THIS ADA ACCESS AISLE COUNTS AS 2 'CODE-PROVIDED' STALLS PER PAMC 18.52.040(B)(8) (1 PER STALL IT SERVES) THESE ADA ACCESS AISLES COUNT AS 1 EA. 'CODE-PROVIDED' STALLS PER PAMC 18.52.040(B)(8) (1 PER STALL THEY SERVE) THIS ADA ACCESS AISLE COUNTS AS 2 'CODE-PROVIDED' STALLS PER PAMC 18.52.040(B)(8) (1 PER STALL IT SERVES) THIS ADA ACCESS AISLE COUNTS AS 1 'CODE-PROVIDED' STALL PER PAMC 18.52.040(B)(8) (1 PER STALL IT SERVES) RES. ELEV RES. ELEV GARAGE STAIR GARAGE STAIR T.O. SLAB EL. -13'-8 1/8" (NAVD 88 EL. 33.3') T.O. RAMP EL. -1'-8 1/8" (CIVIL 45.31') RES. VAN EVSE RES. ACC. EVSE EVSE UNDESIGNATED VAN ACCESS. FUTURE EVSE RES. BIKE ROOM #2 (32 PROV.) TYPE 1: 16 PROV. TYPE 2: 16 PROV. 3 STALLS RES. EVSE (INDEPENDENT PUZZLE) ELEC. RM. BUILDING SERVICES +4"+4" BUILDING SERVICES 1/A2.P0-B VAN RE S . EV S E RE S . EV S E 5 STALLS RES. EVSE (INDEPENDENT PUZZLE) FUTURE EVSE UNDESIGNATED STD. ADA 24'-0" (20' MIN.) R15' - 0 " (15' M I N . / 3 0 ' M A X . ) 9'-0"9'-5 1/2"9'-0"8'-6" ASSIGNED AREA TO ACCOMMODATE POSSIBLE FUTURE CITY IMPROVEMENTS AT GRADE AND TWO LEVELS BELOW GRADE (APPROX. 425 SF), LOSS OF ONE (1) PARKING STALL AT P1 LEVEL CAR/ VANPOOL CAV 15'-2" 27 ' - 0 " P N 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT P2 LEVEL PLAN PARKING LEVEL P2 49 STALLS (17,401 SF) 225'-2 1/2" PROPERTY / GARAGE 73 ' - 6 " GA R A G E 10 0 ' - 1 " PR O P E R T Y / G A R A G E 49'-6 1/2" ±59'-8 1/2" ±82'-9" ± OFFICE ELEV (PIT) 9'-2 1/2" TYP. 8'-6 1/2" TYP. 24'-0" (20' MIN.) SP E E D R A M P U P T O P 1 20 % W I T H 10 % B L E N D S (2 2 % W I T H 1 1 % BL E N D S M A X AL L O W E D ) 6 STALLS (3X STACKER) 24 ' - 0 " D R I V E A I S L E TY P . 9'-0" TYP. 18 ' - 0 " TY P . 12.8' CLR HT ABOVE + 7.05' CLR PIT BELOW, TYP. 4 STALLS (2X STACKER) 6 STALLS (3X STACKER) 6 STALLS (3X STACKER)BUILDING SERVICES 6 STALLS (3X STACKER) 4 STALLS (2X STACKER) 26 ' - 1 1 / 2 " ± 17 ' - 8 1 / 2 " TY P . GARAGE STAIR GARAGE STAIR RES. ACC. EVSE RES. ELEV RES. ELEV T.O. SLAB EL. -27'-7 1/8" (NAVD 88 EL. 18.8') 6 STALLS (3X STACKER) BUILDING SERVICES RES. ACC. EVSE 8'-0" TYP. 1/A2.P0-B THESE ADA ACCESS AISLES COUNT AS 1 EA. 'CODE-PROVIDED' STALLS PER PAMC 18.52.040(B)(8) (1 PER STALL THEY SERVE) EVSE EV (X2)EV (X2)EV (X2)EV (X2)EV (X2)EV (X2)EV (X2)EV (X2) EV (X2)EV (X2)EV (X2)EV (X2)EV (X2)EV (X2)EV (X2)EV (X2)EV (X2)EV (X2)EV (X2) ELEC. RM. BUILDING SERVICES 4 STALLS (2X STACKER) EV (X2)EV (X2) 4 S T A L L S (2 X S T A C K E R ) EV ( X 2 ) EV ( X 2 ) R20' - 3 1 / 2 " ± (10M I N . / 3 0 ' M A X ) R44 ' - 0 1 / 2 " ± 24 ' - 5 " ± 2' - 2 " 34 ' - 0 " ± RES. BIKE ROOM #3 (30 PROV.) TYPE 1: 16 PROV. TYPE 2: 14 PROV. 33'-2" ± ASSIGNED AREA TO ACCOMMODATE POSSIBLE FUTURE CITY IMPROVEMENTS AT GRANDE AND TWO LEVELS BELOW-GRADE (APPROX. 425 SF), LOSS OF TWO (2) PARKING STALLS AT P2 LEVEL 15'-2" 27 ' - 0 " P N 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT BMR DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT SECOND FLOOR PLAN R C FOR MORE INFORMATION 2-HR RATED WALL, SEE A0.2A - C FOR MORE INFORMATION RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBILITY PORTIONS OF PARKING (P2 LEVEL PRIMARILY & RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF P1), FIRST FLOOR RESIDENTIAL AREA & FLOORS 2-4 AS WELL AS ROOF TERRACE TO COMPLY WITH CBC CHAPTER 11A, TYP. AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE IS PROVIDED AT ALL LEVELS (P2 - ROOF) FOR BOTH INTERIOR & EXTERIOR COMMON-USE RESIDENTIAL AREAS, WITH CHANGES IN LEVEL NOT EXCEEDING 12" OR BEING PROVIDED WITH A SLOPED WALK NOT EXCEEDING 5%, A RAMP NOT EXCEEDING 8.33%, OR ELEVATOR(S) PER CBC 1111A. PARKING FACILITIES WILL COMPLY WITH CBC 1109A. INTERIOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTES EXCEEDING 200 FT. SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC 1138A.1.2 / FIGURE 11A-1L. 8' - 0 " SE T B A C K 187'-2 1/2" BUILDING 12'-0" SETBACK 26'-0" SETBACK 18'-0"15'-0"15'-2 1/2" 64 ' - 6 " 8' - 0 " SE T B A C K 27 ' - 7 " SE T B A C K 10 0 ' - 0 " PR O P E R T Y 12'-0" SETBACK 26'-0" SETBACK 7' - 0 " SE T B A C K 10'-0" TYP. 1' - 0 " TY P . TRASH ROOM ELEC. ROOM RES. ELEV 10 0 ' - 1 " PR O P E R T Y / G A R A G E 187'-2 1/2" BUILDING 30'-0" RES. ELEV 30'-0"15'-0"30'-0"16'-0" 18'-0"15'-0"19'-0"15'-2 1/2"30'-0"30'-0"15'-0"15'-0"30'-0" 1'-0" 1' - 0 " TY P . D1 C G2 A G2 BH2 6' - 0 " TY P . 15'-0" 6' - 0 " TY P . 4'-0" RESIDENTIAL 15 UNITS 12,070 SF 5'-7" 25 ' - 7 " 134'-0" 18'-0" OFFICE ELEV 1' - 0 " 4'-0"4'-0"10'-0"5'-0"15'-0"2'-6"10'-0"2'-6"10'-0"2'-6"10'-0"2'-6"22'-0"4'-0"4'-0"10'-0"4'-6"4'-6" 2' - 0 " TY P . 2' - 0 " TY P . 1' - 0 " TY P . 1' - 0 " TY P . 6'-6" 1'-0" TYP. 1'-0" 10'-0"4'-0"3'-0"10'-0"3'-0" 2'-6" 10'-0" 2'-6" 4'-0"11'-0"11'-0"4'-0" 2'-7 1/4" 10'-0" 2'-7 1/4" 4'-0"22'-0"4'-0" 2'-6" 10'-0" 2'-6" 22'-0"4'-0"4'-0"10'-0" 1'-0" TYP. 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 1' - 0 " TY P . 5"5" 10" TYP. 6' - 0 " TY P . 225'-2 1/2" PROPERTY 5' - 0 " 29 ' - 0 3 / 4 " 32 ' - 5 1 / 4 " 26 ' - 6 1 / 2 " K2 G1 1' - 0 " TY P . 4'-0"4'-0"4'-0" 5' - 7 1 / 4 " 11 ' - 0 " 5' - 7 1 / 4 " 4' - 4 " 3' - 0 " 4' - 4 " 3' - 9 " 3' - 1 0 " 9' - 1 " 3' - 1 0 " 9' - 1 " 11'-0"11'-2 1/2"4'-0" 22 ' - 2 " 11 ' - 8 " 30 ' - 8 " 22 ' - 2 " 11 ' - 8 " 30 ' - 8 " 27 ' - 6 1 / 2 " SE T B A C K 2' - 0 " J H1 11'-0" SETBACK EH2 A D2 BLDG. SERV. (BMR) (BMR)(BMR) 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT THIRD FLOOR PLAN R C FOR MORE INFORMATION 2-HR RATED WALL, SEE A0.2A - C FOR MORE INFORMATION RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBILITY PORTIONS OF PARKING (P2 LEVEL PRIMARILY & RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF P1), FIRST FLOOR RESIDENTIAL AREA & FLOORS 2-4 AS WELL AS ROOF TERRACE TO COMPLY WITH CBC CHAPTER 11A, TYP. AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE IS PROVIDED AT ALL LEVELS (P2 - ROOF) FOR BOTH INTERIOR & EXTERIOR COMMON-USE RESIDENTIAL AREAS, WITH CHANGES IN LEVEL NOT EXCEEDING 12" OR BEING PROVIDED WITH A SLOPED WALK NOT EXCEEDING 5%, A RAMP NOT EXCEEDING 8.33%, OR ELEVATOR(S) PER CBC 1111A. PARKING FACILITIES WILL COMPLY WITH CBC 1109A. INTERIOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTES EXCEEDING 200 FT. SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC 1138A.1.2 / FIGURE 11A-1L. RESIDENTIAL 15 UNITS 12,175 SF 64 ' - 6 " 8' - 0 " SE T B A C K 187'-2 1/2" BUILDING 12'-0" SETBACK 26'-0" SETBACK 18'-0"15'-0"18'-0"15'-2 1/2" 30 ' - 8 " 11 ' - 8 " 8' - 0 " SE T B A C K 27 ' - 7 " SE T B A C K ( T Y P . ) 225'-2 1/2" PROPERTY 10 0 ' - 0 1 / 2 " PR O P E R T Y 12'-0" SETBACK 26'-0" SETBACK 11'-0" SETBACK 7' - 0 " SE T B A C K 1' - 0 " TY P . RES. ELEV 10 0 ' - 1 " PR O P E R T Y / G A R A G E 187'-2 1/2" BUILDING 30'-0" RES. ELEV 30'-0"15'-0"30'-0"16'-0" 18'-0"30'-0"19'-0"30'-2 1/2"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0" 1'-0" TYP. 1' - 0 " TY P . 10'-0" TYP. 6' - 0 " TY P . 10'-0" 6' - 0 " TY P . D1 H2 K2H2 D2 E H1 C G2 TRASH ROOM ELEC. ROOM 30 ' - 0 " S E T B A C K (P E R A R B F E E D B A C K ) G2 A A 22 ' - 2 " BG1 K1 BLDG. SERV. (BMR) (BMR)(BMR) 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT FOURTH FLOOR PLAN R C FOR MORE INFORMATION 2-HR RATED WALL, SEE A0.2A - C FOR MORE INFORMATION RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBILITY PORTIONS OF PARKING (P2 LEVEL PRIMARILY & RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF P1), FIRST FLOOR RESIDENTIAL AREA & FLOORS 2-4 AS WELL AS ROOF TERRACE TO COMPLY WITH CBC CHAPTER 11A, TYP. AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE IS PROVIDED AT ALL LEVELS (P2 - ROOF) FOR BOTH INTERIOR & EXTERIOR COMMON-USE RESIDENTIAL AREAS, WITH CHANGES IN LEVEL NOT EXCEEDING 12" OR BEING PROVIDED WITH A SLOPED WALK NOT EXCEEDING 5%, A RAMP NOT EXCEEDING 8.33%, OR ELEVATOR(S) PER CBC 1111A. PARKING FACILITIES WILL COMPLY WITH CBC 1109A. INTERIOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTES EXCEEDING 200 FT. SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC 1138A.1.2 / FIGURE 11A-1L. RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE TERRACE (685 SF) RESIDENTIAL 12 UNITS 11,160 SF RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE TERRACE (378 SF) RES. ELEV RES. ELEV 64 ' - 6 " 8' - 0 " SE T B A C K 187'-2 1/2" BUILDING 12'-0" SETBACK 26'-0" SETBACK 18'-0"15'-0"17'-11 1/2"15'-2 1/2" 17 ' - 3 " 11 ' - 8 " 8' - 0 " SE T B A C K 27 ' - 7 " SE T B A C K ( T Y P . ) 225'-2 1/2" PROPERTY 10 0 ' - 0 " PR O P E R T Y 12'-0" SETBACK 24'-0" SETBACK 11'-0" SETBACK 7' - 0 1 / 2 " SE T B A C K 1' - 0 " TY P . 10 0 ' - 1 " PR O P E R T Y / G A R A G E 187'-2 1/2" BUILDING 30'-0"30'-0"15'-0"30'-0"16'-0" 18'-0"30'-0"19'-0"30'-2 1/2"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0" 1'-0" TYP. 1' - 0 " TY P . 13 ' - 5 " D1 H1 K2G2 F1 F2 10'-0" TYP. 6' - 0 " TY P . 11'-0" 6' - 0 " TY P . 11'-0" 1' - 1 " TRASH ROOM ELEC. ROOM 30 ' - 0 " S E T B A C K (P E R A R B F E E D B A C K ) H2 K1 G1 22 ' - 2 " C E BLDG. SERV. (BMR) (BMR)(BMR) H2 PROJ NORTH 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT FIFTH FLOOR PLAN R C FOR MORE INFORMATION 2-HR RATED WALL, SEE A0.2A - C FOR MORE INFORMATION RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBILITY PORTIONS OF PARKING (P2 LEVEL PRIMARILY & RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF P1), FIRST FLOOR RESIDENTIAL AREA & FLOORS 2-4 AS WELL AS ROOF TERRACE TO COMPLY WITH CBC CHAPTER 11A, TYP. AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE IS PROVIDED AT ALL LEVELS (P2 - ROOF) FOR BOTH INTERIOR & EXTERIOR COMMON-USE RESIDENTIAL AREAS, WITH CHANGES IN LEVEL NOT EXCEEDING 12" OR BEING PROVIDED WITH A SLOPED WALK NOT EXCEEDING 5%, A RAMP NOT EXCEEDING 8.33%, OR ELEVATOR(S) PER CBC 1111A. PARKING FACILITIES WILL COMPLY WITH CBC 1109A. INTERIOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTES EXCEEDING 200 FT. SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC 1138A.1.2 / FIGURE 11A-1L. RESIDENTIAL 12 UNITS 11,160 SF 30 ' - 0 " S E T B A C K (P E R A R B F E E D B A C K ) RES. ELEV RES. ELEV 64 ' - 6 " 8' - 0 " SE T B A C K 187'-2 1/2" BUILDING 12'-0" SETBACK 26'-0" SETBACK 18'-0"15'-0"19'-0"15'-2 1/2" 11 ' - 8 " 22 ' - 2 " 8' - 0 " SE T B A C K 27 ' - 7 " SE T B A C K ( T Y P . ) 225'-2 1/2" PROPERTY 10 0 ' - 0 " PR O P E R T Y 12'-0" SETBACK 26'-0" SETBACK 7' - 0 " SE T B A C K 1' - 0 " TY P . 10 0 ' - 1 " PR O P E R T Y / G A R A G E 187'-2 1/2" BUILDING 30'-0"30'-0"15'-0"30'-0"15'-0" 18'-0"30'-0"19'-0"30'-2 1/2"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0" 1'-0" TYP. 1' - 0 " TY P . 13 ' - 5 " C E F2G1 10'-0" TYP. 6' - 0 " TY P . 11'-0" 6' - 0 " TY P . 11'-0" 1' - 0 " TRASH ROOM ELEC. ROOM 11'-0" SETBACK 17 ' - 3 " H2 K1 K2 H1 H2 F1 G2 D1 BLDG. SERV.(BMR) (BMR) PROJ NORTH 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT SIXTH FLOOR PLAN R C RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBILITY PORTIONS OF PARKING (P2 LEVEL PRIMARILY & RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF P1), FIRST FLOOR RESIDENTIAL AREA & FLOORS 2-4 AS WELL AS ROOF TERRACE TO COMPLY WITH CBC CHAPTER 11A, TYP. AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE IS PROVIDED AT ALL LEVELS (P2 - ROOF) FOR BOTH INTERIOR & EXTERIOR COMMON-USE RESIDENTIAL AREAS, WITH CHANGES IN LEVEL NOT EXCEEDING 12" OR BEING PROVIDED WITH A SLOPED WALK NOT EXCEEDING 5%, A RAMP NOT EXCEEDING 8.33%, OR ELEVATOR(S) PER CBC 1111A. PARKING FACILITIES WILL COMPLY WITH CBC 1109A. INTERIOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTES EXCEEDING 200 FT. SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC 1138A.1.2 / FIGURE 11A-1L. 64 ' - 6 " 8' - 0 " SE T B A C K 187'-2 1/2" BUILDING 12'-0" SETBACK 26'-0" SETBACK 17'-0" 21 ' - 2 " 8' - 0 " SE T B A C K 27 ' - 7 " SE T B A C K ( T Y P . ) 225'-2 1/2" PROPERTY 10 0 ' - 0 " PR O P E R T Y 12'-0" SETBACK 26'-0" SETBACK 11'-0" SETBACK 10 0 ' - 1 " PR O P E R T Y / G A R A G E 187'-2 1/2" BUILDING 17'-0" 30'-0"17'-0" 2'-0" TYP. 1' - 0 " 51 ' - 1 " 21 ' - 2 " 28 ' - 8 " RES. ELEV RES. ELEV RESIDENTIAL 12 UNITS 10,791 SF 30 ' - 0 " S E T B A C K (P E R A R B F E E D B A C K ) D1 C F1 G2 F2 H1 K2K1 G1 H2 2' - 0 " TY P . 10'-0" TYP. 6' - 0 " TY P . 30'-0"30'-2 1/2"30'-0"1'-0"30'-0"18'-0"1'-0" 11 ' - 8 " 16 ' - 3 " 16'-0"15'-0"30'-0" 11 ' - 8 " 30'-0"15'-0"30'-0"15'-2 1/2" 1'-0" 1' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 1'-0"1'-0" 40 ' - 1 1 " 8' - 1 1 " 2' - 0 " E BLDG. SERV. TRASH ROOM ELEC. ROOM (BMR) H2(BMR) PROJ NORTH 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENTEAST ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0" SIMULATED BOARD FORM CONCRETE PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'C' WOOD TEXTURE PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'A' PAINTED METAL RAILING, COLOR 'E' (STAIR TO BELOW GRADE PARKING) HORIZONTAL WOOD SLAT FENCE (TO OFFICE GARDEN) PAINTED METAL PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'F' 13 ' - 6 " BIRD SAFE GLASS, TYP. AT LEVEL 6 WOOD TEXTURE PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'A' BIRD SAFE GLASS RAILING WITH RAIL AND SHOE, TYP. COLOR 'E', TYP. AT ALL BALCONIES WOOD TEXTURE PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'A' CLEAR VISION GLASS, TYP. AT LEVELS 1-6 13 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 6 " (1 8 ' - 0 " M A X P E R CB C 1 5 1 1 . 2 . 1 ) 56 ' - 8 1 / 2 " ± (B U I L D I N G H E I G H T T O H I G H E S T O C C U P I A B L E F L O O R ) 79 ' - 8 1 / 2 " ± O V E R A L L H E I G H T 10 ' - 3 " 13 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " SIMULATED BOARD FORM CONCRETE PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'C' PAINTED METAL MECHANICAL SCREEN, TYP. COLOR 'F' PAINTED METAL PARAPET AND CANOPY, TYP. COLOR 'E' CLEAR VISION GLASS WITH SHADOWBOX BEYOND, TYP. AT LEVEL 6 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD ELEVATION 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENTNORTH ELEVATION (UNIVERSITY AVE) 3/32" = 1'-0" PAINTED HORIZONTAL SIDING PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'B' INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE PLANTER, TYP. COLOR 'C' PAINTED METAL MECHANICAL SCREEN, TYP. COLOR 'F' METAL MULLION, TYP. COLOR 'E' WOOD TEXTURE PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'B' PAINTED HORIZONTAL SIDING PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'B' PAINTED METAL PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'F' PROPOSED PUBLIC ART LOCATION PAINTED METAL CANOPY, TYP. COLOR 'E' SIMULATED BOARD FORM CONCRETE PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'C' PROPOSED PUBLIC ART LOCATION CLEAR VISION GLASS WITH SHADOWBOX BEYOND, TYP. AT LEVEL 6 PAINTED METAL PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'E' CLEAR VISION GLASS, TYP. AT LEVELS 1-6 13 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 6 " (1 8 ' - 0 " M A X P E R CB C 1 5 1 1 . 2 . 1 ) 56 ' - 8 1 / 2 " ± (B U I L D I N G H E I G H T T O H I G H E S T O C C U P I A B L E F L O O R ) 79 ' - 8 1 / 2 " ± O V E R A L L H E I G H T 10 ' - 3 " 13 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " PAINTED METAL PARAPET AND CANOPY, TYP. COLOR 'E' BIRD SAFE GLASS, TYP. AT LEVEL 6 BIRD SAFE GLASS RAILING WITH RAIL AND SHOE, TYP.COLOR 'C', TYP. AT ALL BALCONIES UNIVERSITY AVE ELEVATION 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENTWEST ELEVATION (BYRON STREET) 3/32" = 1'-0" PAINTED METAL CANOPY, TYP. COLOR 'E' INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE PLANTER, TYP. COLOR 'C' WOOD TEXTURE PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'A' PAINTED METAL ROLL DOWN DOOR, TYP. COLOR 'E' PAINTED METAL RAILING, COLOR 'E' (STAIR TO BELOW GRADE PARKING) 13 ' - 6 " PAINTED METAL PANEL, COLOR 'E' BIRD SAFE GLASS RAILING WITH RAIL AND SHOE, TYP. COLOR 'E', TYP. AT ALL BALCONIES BIRD SAFE GLASS, TYP. AT LEVEL 6 CLEAR VISION GLASS WITH SHADOWBOX BEYOND, TYP. AT LEVEL 6 PAINTED METAL MECHANICAL SCREEN, TYP. COLOR 'F' PAINTED METAL PARAPET, COLOR 'E' METAL MULLION, TYP. COLOR 'E' PAINTED HORIZONTAL SIDING PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'B' PAINTED METAL PANEL, COLOR 'F' SIMULATED BOARD FORM CONCRETE PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'C' PAINTED METAL PARAPET AND CANOPY, TYP. COLOR 'E' CLEAR VISION GLASS, TYP. AT LEVELS 1-6 13 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 6 " (1 8 ' - 0 " M A X P E R CB C 1 5 1 1 . 2 . 1 ) 56 ' - 8 1 / 2 " ± (B U I L D I N G H E I G H T T O H I G H E S T O C C U P I A B L E F L O O R ) 79 ' - 8 1 / 2 " ± O V E R A L L H E I G H T 10 ' - 3 " 13 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " BYRON STREET ELEVATION 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENTSOUTH ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0" PAINTED HORIZONTAL SIDING PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'B' WOOD TEXTURE PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'A' PAINTED METAL RAILING, COLOR 'E' (RAMP TO BELOW GRADE PARKING) SIMULATED BOARD FORM CONCRETE PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'C' PAINTED METAL MECHANICAL SCREEN, TYP. COLOR 'F' PAINTED METAL MULLION, TYP. COLOR 'E' PAINTED HORIZONTAL SIDING PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'B' PAINTED METAL PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'E' PAINTED METAL RAILING, COLOR 'E' (STAIR TO BELOW GRADE PARKING) PAINTED METAL PARAPET AND CANOPY, COLOR 'E' PAINTED METAL PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'F' 13 ' - 6 " BIRD SAFE GLASS RAILING WITH RAIL AND SHOE, TYP. COLOR 'E', TYP. AT ALL BALCONIES CLEAR VISION GLASS, TYP. AT LEVELS 1-6 BIRD SAFE GLASS, TYP. AT LEVEL 6 CORNER UNITS 13 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 6 " (1 8 ' - 0 " M A X P E R CB C 1 5 1 1 . 2 . 1 ) 56 ' - 8 1 / 2 " ± (B U I L D I N G H E I G H T T O H I G H E S T O C C U P I A B L E F L O O R ) 79 ' - 8 1 / 2 " ± O V E R A L L H E I G H T 10 ' - 3 " 13 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " CLEAR VISION GLASS WITH SHADOWBOX BEYOND, TYP.AT LEVEL 6 BIRD SAFE GLASS RAILING WITH RAIL AND SHOE, TYP.COLOR 'C', TYP. AT ALL BALCONIES PAINTED METAL PANEL, TYP. COLOR 'E' BIRD SAFE GLASS, TYP. AT LEVEL 6 CORNER UNITS REAR ELEVATION 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT BUILDING SECTION T.O. RAMP 10 ' - 0 " 13 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 3 " 13 ' - 2 1 / 8 " ± 14 ' - 6 " EL. -1'-8 1/8" ± (NAVD 88 EL. 45.31') P1 LEVEL P2 LEVEL EL. -13'-1 1/8" ± EL. -27'-7 1/8" ± RESIDENTIAL TRASH COMPACTOR ROOM MIDDLEFIELD ROADBYRON STREET 54 ' - 1 1 " LIFT PIT EL. -34'-7 1/8" ±7' - 0 " SECOND FLOOR EL. 14'-8" THIRD FLOOR FOURTH FLOOR EL. 24'-8" EL. 34'-8" 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " FIRST FLOOR EL. 1'-2" (NAVD 88 EL. 48.16') BASE FLOOD ELEV. EL. 0'-0" (NAVD 88 EL. 47') EL. -1'-9 1/2" ± (NAVD 88 EL. 45.2') SIDEWALK GRADE11 ' - 6 " 1' - 2 " 9' - 1 5 / 8 " 8' - 2 " M I N . ELECTRICAL ROOM 1' - 6 " FIFTH FLOOR EL. 44'-8" SIXTH FLOOR EL. 54'-11" T.O. ROOF SLAB EL. 67'-11" 13 ' - 0 " T.O. PARAPET / ELEV. EL. 69'-5" OVERRUN / STAIRS T.O. RAILING EL. 71'-5" T.O. MECH. SCREEN EL. 77'-11" 3' - 6 " 6' - 6 " LEASING OFFICE OFFICE PL PL RESIDENTIAL & OFFICE PARKING OFFICE ELEV. 8' - 4 1 / 4 " 8' - 2 " M I N . @ A D A PA R K I N G & D R I V E AI S L E , T Y P . RESIDENTIAL COMMMON AREA HVAC ENCLOSURE 8'-8" 6' - 0 " 7' - 2 " 13 ' - 8 " 37 3 / 4 " (3 6 " M I N . ) OFFICE ELEV. OVERRUN ASSIGNED AREA TO ACCOMMODATE POSSIBLE FUTURE CITY IMPROVEMENTS (APPROX. 425 SF), PROVIDED DEPTH OF 20' FROM SIDEWALK GRADE, LOSS OF THREE (3) TOTAL PARKING STALLS: ONE (1) STALL AT P1 LEVEL AND TWO (2) STALLS AT P2 LEVEL 20 ' - 0 " 15'-3" WATERPROOFING / STRUCTURAL RETROFIT ZONE FUTURE (N) RETROFIT WALL TO BE ADDED RESIDENTIAL PARKING NO. 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT BUILDING SECTION PLPL FITNESS CENTER SPEED RAMP DOWN TO P2 LEVEL UNIVERSITY AVE. 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " RESIDENTIAL PARKING 8' - 0 " T Y P . 46.0° LINE O F D A Y L I G H T P L A N E 3' - 6 " 3' - 6 " 10 ' - 0 " 13 ' - 6 " 11 ' - 6 " 14 ' - 6 " 7' - 0 " FE N C E 7' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " EL. -1'-6" (NAVD 88 EL. 45.5') NEIGHBORING PROPERTY GRADE P1 LEVEL P2 LEVEL LIFT PIT SECOND FLOOR EL. 14'-8" THIRD FLOOR FOURTH FLOOR 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 " ± 9' - 4 1 / 4 " 8' - 2 " M I N . EL. -13'-1 1/8" ± EL. -27'-7 1/8" ± EL. -34'-7 1/8" ± CORR. TYP.10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 3 " 55 ' - 5 " 1' - 6 " FIFTH FLOOR SIXTH FLOOR T.O. ROOF SLAB 13 ' - 0 " T.O. PARAPET / ELEV. OVERRUN / STAIRS T.O. RAILING T.O. MECH. SCREEN 3' - 6 " 6' - 6 " MECHANICAL SCREEN 54 ' - 6 " + / - 3' - 6 " 2'-2" SHORING/SOLDIER BEAMS NEIGHBORING PROPERTY ON MIDDLEFIELD ROAD 53 ' - 9 " EL. 24'-8" EL. 34'-8" EL. 44'-8" EL. 54'-11" EL. 67'-11" EL. 69'-5" EL. 71'-5" EL. 77'-11" OFFICE RESIDENTIAL & OFFICE PARKING 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT 660 UNIVERSITY OAK TREE _ ALTERNATE SECTION PL PL RESIDENTIAL LOBBY UNIVERSITY AVE. 10 ' - 5 " OFFICE PARKING RESIDENTIAL PARKING 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 13 ' - 6 " 11 ' - 6 " 14 ' - 6 " 7' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " EL. -1'-6" (NAVD 88 EL. 45.5') NEIGHBORING PROPERTY GRADE P1 LEVEL P2 LEVEL LIFT PIT SECOND FLOOR EL. 14'-8" THIRD FLOOR FOURTH FLOOR EL. 24'-8" EL. 34'-8" FIRST FLOOR EL. 1'-2" (NAVD 88 EL. 48.16') BASE FLOOD ELEV. EL. 0'-0" (NAVD 88 EL. 47') 1' - 2 " 13 ' - 8 1 / 2 " ± 9' - 2 1 / 4 " 8' - 2 " M I N . EL. -13'-1 1/8" ± EL. -27'-7 1/8" ± EL. -34'-7 1/8" ± 7' - 0 " FE N C E 36" 10 ' - 3 " 54 ' - 1 1 " 1' - 6 " FIFTH FLOOR EL. 44'-8" SIXTH FLOOR EL. 54'-11" T.O. ROOF SLAB EL. 67'-11" 13 ' - 0 " T.O. PARAPET / ELEV. EL. 69'5" OVERRUN / STAIRS T.O. RAILING EL. 71'-2" T.O. MECH. SCREEN EL. 77-11" 3' - 6 " 6' - 6 " 8' - 0 " 3' - 6 " CORR. TYP. MECHANICAL SCREEN RESIDENTIAL & 9' - 0 " NO. (DEFINED AS AN AREA WHERE ROOT DISTURBANCE IS PLANNED TO BE AVOIDED; WORK CAN STILL BE PERFORMED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE PROJECT ARBORIST; EXCEEDS ARBORIST RECOMMENDED 20’ TPZ) MAX. 6'-0" OF CANOPY TO BE PRUNED AS NEEDED 30'-0" MIN. ARB SETBACK 30’-10” +/- PROPOSED 30'-0" TREE PROTECTION ZONE 33’-0” MIN. ARB SETBACK (TO GARAGE WALL) 36’-2” +/- PROPOSED SHORING/SOLDIER BEAMS TIE BACKS AT 8’-0” AND 16’-0” BELOW GRADE AT ANGLE DOWN TO AVOID ROOTS SHORING RIG WILL BE LOCATED OUTSIDE TPZ (ON EXCAVATED SIDE) 2024.12.05 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN THANK YOU! 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT SECOND FLOOR PLAN R C 8' - 0 " SE T B A C K 187'-2 1/2" BUILDING 12'-0" SETBACK 26'-0" 18'-0"15'-0"15'-2 1/2" 64 ' - 6 " 8' - 0 " SE T B A C K 27 ' - 7 " SE T B A C K 10 0 ' - 0 " PR O P E R T Y 12'-0" SETBACK 26'-0" 7' - 0 " SE T B A C K 10'-0" TYP. 1' - 0 " TY P . TRASH ROOM ELEC. ROOM RES. ELEV 10 0 ' - 1 " PR O P E R T Y / G A R A G E 187'-2 1/2" BUILDING 30'-0" RES. ELEV 30'-0"15'-0"30'-0"16'-0" 18'-0"15'-0"19'-0"15'-2 1/2"30'-0"30'-0"15'-0"15'-0"30'-0" 1'-0" 1' - 0 " TY P . D C A1 A1 A1 A2 BH2 6' - 0 " TY P . 15'-0" 6' - 0 " TY P . 4'-0" RESIDENTIAL 16 UNITS 12,070 SF 5'-7" 25 ' - 7 " 134'-0" 18'-0" OFFICE ELEV 1' - 0 " 4'-0"4'-0"10'-0"5'-0"15'-0"2'-6"10'-0"2'-6"10'-0"2'-6"10'-0"2'-6"22'-0"4'-0"4'-0"10'-0"4'-6"4'-6" 2' - 0 " TY P . 2' - 0 " TY P . 1' - 0 " TY P . 1' - 0 " TY P . 6'-6" 1'-0" TYP. 1'-0" 10'-0"4'-0"3'-0"10'-0"3'-0" 2'-6" 10'-0" 2'-6" 4'-0"11'-0"11'-0"4'-0" 2'-7 1/4" 10'-0" 2'-7 1/4" 4'-0"22'-0"4'-0" 2'-6" 10'-0" 2'-6" 22'-0"4'-0"4'-0"10'-0" 1'-0" TYP. 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 1' - 0 " TY P . 5"5" 10" TYP. 6' - 0 " TY P . 225'-2 1/2" PROPERTY 5' - 0 " 29 ' - 0 3 / 4 " 32 ' - 5 1 / 4 " 26 ' - 6 1 / 2 " H1 G 1' - 0 " TY P . 4'-0"4'-0"4'-0" 5' - 7 1 / 4 " 11 ' - 0 " 5' - 7 1 / 4 " 4' - 4 " 3' - 0 " 4' - 4 " 3' - 9 " 3' - 1 0 " 9' - 1 " 3' - 1 0 " 9' - 1 " 11'-0"11'-2 1/2"4'-0" 22 ' - 2 " 11 ' - 8 " 30 ' - 8 " 22 ' - 2 " 11 ' - 8 " 30 ' - 8 " 27 ' - 6 1 / 2 " SE T B A C K 2' - 0 " J A1 11'-0" SETBACK EH1 A1 D BLDG. SERV. (BMR) (BMR)(BMR) 24'-0" MIN. SETBACK (P E R A R B F E E D B A C K ) 30 ' - 0 " S E T B A C K PROJ NORTH TN ARCHITECTS KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY SHEET NUMBER SCALE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE DATENO. ISSUES AND REVISIONS DESCRIPTION ARCHITECTS KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY 21003 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #702.07.24 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #105.13.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #208.15.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #311.02.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #408.28.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #510.31.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #612.21.23 AD HOC REVISIONS05.02.24 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #809.30.24 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #901.17.25 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #1006.20.25 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT FOURTH FLOOR PLAN R C RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE TERRACE (685 SF) RESIDENTIAL 13 UNITS 11,160 SF RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE TERRACE (378 SF) RES. ELEV RES. ELEV 64 ' - 6 " 8' - 0 " SE T B A C K 187'-2 1/2" BUILDING 12'-0" SETBACK 26'-0" 18'-0"15'-0"17'-11 1/2"15'-2 1/2" 17 ' - 3 " 11 ' - 8 " 8' - 0 " SE T B A C K 27 ' - 7 " SE T B A C K ( T Y P . ) 225'-2 1/2" PROPERTY 10 0 ' - 0 " PR O P E R T Y 12'-0" SETBACK 26'-0" 11'-0" SETBACK 7' - 0 1 / 2 " SE T B A C K 1' - 0 " TY P . 10 0 ' - 1 " PR O P E R T Y / G A R A G E 187'-2 1/2" BUILDING 30'-0"30'-0"15'-0"30'-0"16'-0" 18'-0"30'-0"19'-0"30'-2 1/2"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0" 1'-0" TYP. 1' - 0 " TY P . 13 ' - 5 " D H2 H1A2 F1 F2 A1 10'-0" TYP. 6' - 0 " TY P . 11'-0" 6' - 0 " TY P . 11'-0" 1' - 1 " TRASH ROOM ELEC. ROOM 30 ' - 0 " S E T B A C K (P E R A R B F E E D B A C K ) H1 H2 G 22 ' - 2 " C E A1 BLDG. SERV. (BMR) (BMR) (BMR) ARCHITECTS KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY SHEET NUMBER SCALE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE DATENO. ISSUES AND REVISIONS DESCRIPTION ARCHITECTS KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY 21003 PROJ NORTH TN PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #702.07.24 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #105.13.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #208.15.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #311.02.22 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #408.28.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #510.31.23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #612.21.23 AD HOC REVISIONS05.02.24 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #809.30.24 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #901.17.25 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #1006.20.25 24'-0" MIN. SETBACK 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT SIXTH FLOOR PLAN R C LEGEND RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBILITY PORTIONS OF PARKING (P2 LEVEL PRIMARILY & RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF P1), FIRST FLOOR RESIDENTIAL AREA & FLOORS 2-4 AS WELL AS ROOF TERRACE TO COMPLY WITH CBC CHAPTER 11A, TYP. AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE IS PROVIDED AT ALL LEVELS (P2 - ROOF) FOR BOTH INTERIOR & EXTERIOR COMMON-USE RESIDENTIAL AREAS, WITH CHANGES IN LEVEL NOT EXCEEDING 12" OR BEING PROVIDED WITH A SLOPED WALK NOT EXCEEDING 5%, A RAMP NOT EXCEEDING 8.33%, OR ELEVATOR(S) PER CBC 1111A. PARKING FACILITIES WILL COMPLY WITH CBC 1109A. INTERIOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTES EXCEEDING 200 FT. SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC 1138A.1.2 / FIGURE 11A-1L. ALL UNITS, INCLUDING PRIVATE OUTDOOR BALCONIES / TERRACES WILL BE EITHER ACCESSIBLE OR ADAPTABLE INCLUDING KITCHEN AND AT LEAST ONE BATHROOM, PER CBC 11A. THIS INCLUDES DOORS, PATH OF TRAVEL, APPLIANCE / FIXTURE CLEARANCES AS WELL AS ANY OTHER LIFE-SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. 64 ' - 6 " 8' - 0 " SE T B A C K 187'-2 1/2" BUILDING 12'-0" SETBACK 26'-0" 17'-0" 21 ' - 2 " 8' - 0 " SE T B A C K 27 ' - 7 " SE T B A C K ( T Y P . ) 225'-2 1/2" PROPERTY 10 0 ' - 0 " PR O P E R T Y 12'-0" SETBACK 26'-0" 11'-0" SETBACK 10 0 ' - 1 " PR O P E R T Y / G A R A G E 187'-2 1/2" BUILDING 17'-0" 30'-0"17'-0" 2'-0" TYP. 1' - 0 " 51 ' - 1 " 21 ' - 2 " 28 ' - 8 " RES. ELEV RES. ELEV RESIDENTIAL 12 UNITS 10,791 SF 30 ' - 0 " S E T B A C K (P E R A R B F E E D B A C K ) D C F3 A2 F2 H2 H1 G H2 A1 H1 2' - 0 " TY P . 10'-0" TYP. 6' - 0 " TY P . 30'-0"30'-2 1/2"30'-0"1'-0"30'-0"18'-0"1'-0" 11 ' - 8 " 16 ' - 3 " 16'-0"15'-0"30'-0" 11 ' - 8 " 30'-0"15'-0"30'-0"15'-2 1/2" 1'-0" 1' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 1'-0"1'-0" 40 ' - 1 1 " 8' - 1 1 " 2' - 0 " E BLDG. SERV. TRASH ROOM ELEC. ROOM (BMR) (BMR) ARCHITECTS KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY SHEET NUMBER SCALE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE DATENO. ISSUES AND REVISIONS DESCRIPTION ARCHITECTS KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY 21003 PROJ NORTH TN PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #809.30.24 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #901.17.25 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #1006.20.25 24'-0" MIN. SETBACK 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT TRANSIT INFORMATION Transit Information Distance to Palo Alto Caltrain Station - The project is located 0.61 miles from the Palo Alto Caltrain Station, Northbound Platform - The maximum allowable distance from a Caltrain station for zero parking is 0.5 miles. Transit Time to Palo Alto Caltrain Station - 10-15 minute walk to Caltrain - 5 minute bike ride to Caltrain - 6-7 minute bus ride - SamTrans bus 280, every 55-70 min. - SamTrans bus 281, every 20 min. - SamTrans late-night bus 296O, every 60 min. - SamTrans late-night bus 397OWL, every 60 min. - Dumbarton Express bus, every 35 min. - West-bound stop is located across University Ave - Dumbarton Express and SamTrans bus routes 280/281/296O/397OWL stop at Palo Alto Transit Center / Palo Alto Caltrain Station, Southbound Platform * Reasonable to expect that 10% of the project residents will walk/bike to work in downtown. * Reasonable to expect that 10% of the project residents will not own cars. VTA 21 BUS ROUTE: 1.12 MI. / 15 MIN. (WEEKDAYS EVERY 30 MIN.) DUMBARTON EXPRESS BUS ROUTE: 0.87 MI. / 10 MIN. (WEEKDAYS EVERY 35 MIN.) SAMTRANS 397 OWL LATE-NIGHT BUS ROUTE: 0.66 MI. / 6-7 MIN. (WEEKDAYS EVERY 60 MIN.) 0.5 MILE RADIUS (FROM PROJECT SITE) WALK ROUTE: 0.66 MI. / 10-15 MIN. BIKE ROUTE: 0.66 MI. / 5 MIN. PALO ALTO CALTRAIN STATION PROJECT SITE 660 UNIVERSITY AVE DISTANCE TO CALTRAIN: 0.61 MI. SAMTRANS 280 BUS ROUTE: 0.66 MI. / 6-7 MIN. (WEEKDAYS EVERY 55-70 MIN.) SAMTRANS 281 BUS ROUTE: 0.66 MI. / 6-7 MIN. (WEEKDAYS EVERY 20 MIN.) SAMTRANS 296O LATE-NIGHT BUS ROUTE: 0.66 MI. / 6-7 MIN. (WEEKDAYS EVERY 60 MIN.) 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT TRASH STAGING AND LOADING SIDE LOAD PICK UP VEHICLE FRONT LOAD PICK UP VEHICLE MUST HAVE SIGN INDICATING NO PARKING DURING SERVICE HOURS R C 64G CARTCOMPOST 64G CARTCOMPOST 2CY DETCAPMOCETSAW 2CYDETCAPMOCGNILCYCER 2CYDETCAPMOCETSAW 2CYDETCAPMOCRECYCLING ENTRY RES. LOBBY BY R O N S T R E E T (E) OFFSITE STREET PARKING STALL(S) TO BE SIGNED AND STRIPED FOR TRASH PICK-UP & LOADING ZONE (SEE TR0.1 - TR3.4 FOR TRASH MANAGEMENT PLAN & DETAILS) > TRASH STAGING: 36' LENGTH (RESIDENTIAL), STREET 18' LENGTH (OFFICE/RES.), SIDEWALK > LOADING (18' LENGTH) (OVERLAPS WITH RES. TRASH PICK-UP) EXT. STAIR TO PKNG RESIDENTIAL TRASH COMPACTORS / RESIDENTIAL LOADING PATH SPEED RAMP DN TO P1 PARKING (BELOW) 36 ' - 0 " RE S I D E N T I A L TR A S H S T A G I N G / P I C K - U P 18 ' - 0 " LO A D I N G 8'-6" 18 ' - 0 " OF F I C E T R A S H ST A G I N G 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT 660 UNIVERSITY OAK TREE _ PHOTOGRAPHS 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT 660 UNIVERSITY OAK TREE _ IMAGERY DATENO.DESCRIPTIO PLANN12.01.21 PLANN05.13.22 PLANN08.15.22 PLANN11.02.22 PLANN08.28.23 PLANN10.31.23 PLANN12.21.23 AD HOC05.02.24 PLANN02.07.24 PLANN09.18.24 L 4. TREE DISPOS A PLANN06.16.25 PLANNIN05.13.22 PLANNIN08.15.22 PLANNIN11.02.22 PLANNIN08.28.23 PLANNIN10.31.23 PLANNIN12.21.23 PLANNIN02.07.24 PLANNIN09.30.24 PLANNIN01.17.25 PLANNIN06.20.25 AD HOC 05.02.24 PLANNIN02.07.24 PLANNIN08.15.22 PLANNIN11.02.22 PLANNIN08.28.23 PLANNIN10.31.23 PLANNIN12.21.23 AD HOC 05.02.24 PLANNIN09.30.24 PLANNIN01.17.25 PLANNIN06.20.25 Existing Concrete Foundation Wall to Remain (Along Property Line Near Large Coast Live Oak) Precast Planter on Decorative Gravel over Existing Asphalt Precast Planter on Decorative Gravel over Existing Asphalt Wood Deck on Grade Horizontal Wood Slat Screen Fence, 7’ Height Existing Coast Live Oak Tree to Remain (Located on Neighboring Property) 2025.11.10 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT OAK TREE PROTECTION & SHORING ENCROACHMENT 24'-0" (20' MIN.) 12'-0" 22 ' - 0 " (2 0 ' M I N . ) 24 ' - 0 " D R I V E A I S L E TY P . 18 ' - 0 " TY P . 73 ' - 6 " GA R A G E 9'-2 1/2" TYP. 8'-6 1/2" TYP. 17 ' - 8 1 / 2 " TY P . 30’-0 ” M I N . A R B S E T B A C K (AT R A M P W A L L ) 30'-0 " T R E E P R O T E C T I O N Z O N E 20’-0” MIN. TPZ (ARBORIST RECOMMENDATION) 2 'CODE-PROVIDED' STALLS PER PAMC 18.52.040(B)(8) (1 PER STALL IT SERVES) THESE ADA ACCESS AISLES COUNT AS 1 EA. 'CODE-PROVIDED' STALLS PER PAMC 18.52.040(B)(8) (1 PER STALL THEY SERVE) A ACCESS AISLE COUNTS AS 2 ROVIDED' STALLS PER PAMC 18.52.040(B)(8) TALL IT SERVES) A ACCESS AISLE COUNTS AS 1 ROVIDED' STALL PER PAMC 18.52.040(B)(8) TALL IT SERVES) RES. ELEV GARAGE STAIR T.O. SLAB EL. -13'-8 1/8" (NAVD 88 EL. 33.3') RES. ACC. EVSE EVSE UNDESIGNATED VAN ACCESS. FUTURE EVSE 3 STALLS RES. EVSE (INDEPENDENT PUZZLE) ELEC. RM. BUILDING SERVICES +4" BUILDING SERVICES VAN RE S . EV S E RE S . EV S E 5 STALLS RES. EVSE (INDEPENDENT PUZZLE) FUTURE EVSE UNDESIGNATED STD. ADA 24'-0" (20' MIN.) R15' - 0 " 30’-0 ” M I N . A R B S E T B A C K (AT R A M P W A L L ) 31'-9 " + / - P R O P O S E D 33 ' - 0 " M I N . A R B S E T B A C K (A T G A R A G E W A L L ) 36 ’ - 2 ” + / - P R O P O S E D 36 " LEVEL P1 FLOOR PLAN PL PL OFFICE LOBBY 10 ' - 5 " OFFICE PARKING RESIDENTIAL PARKING 9' - 2 1 / 4 " 8' - 2 " M I N . 7' - 0 " FE N C E 36" 8' - 0 " T Y P . 3' - 6 " CORR. TYP. MECHANICAL SCREEN RESIDENTIAL &(DEFINED AS AN AREA WHERE ROOT DISTURBANCE IS PLANNED TO BE AVOIDED; WORK CAN STILL BE PERFORMED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE PROJECT ARBORIST; EXCEEDS ARBORIST RECOMMENDED 20’ TPZ) MAX. 6'-0" OF CANOPY TO BE PRUNED AS NEEDED 30'-0" MIN. ARB SETBACK 30’-0” MIN. SETBACK (ARBORIST RECOMMENDATION) 30’-10” +/- PROPOSED 30'-0" TREE PROTECTION ZONE 33’-0” MIN. ARB SETBACK (TO GARAGE WALL) 36’-2” +/- PROPOSED SHORING/SOLDIER BEAMS TIE BACKS AT 8’-0” AND 16’-0” BELOW GRADE AT ANGLE DOWN TO AVOID ROOTS SHORING RIG WILL BE LOCATED OUTSIDE TPZ (ON EXCAVATED SIDE) Oak Tree Protection & Shoring Encroachment - The project establishes a 30’ TPZ below grade at the ramp walls. - The project establishes a 33’ setback below grade, along the garage wall. - The TPZ applies to any soil compaction, grading, subexcavation, trenching, drilling / auguring, storm drains, swales, etc. - The proposed 30’ TPZ exceeds the project arborist recommendation of a 20’ TPZ. - The estimated impact to construct the proposed building is approximately 15-20% of the root zone. 2024.12.05 660 UNIVERSITY AVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT OAK TREE PROTECTION & SHORING ENCROACHMENT MAX. 5' EXCAVATION DEPTH MAX. 34'- 2 1/2' EXCAVATION DEPTH(B.O. CAR STACKER PITS) 9 SHORING BEAMS ENCROACHING ADJACENT PROPERTY 5 SHORING BEAMS ENCROACHING ADJACENT PROPERTY P2 OUTLINE RED DASHED Pro No Pliv L 56 L S SI T E L O G I S T I C S P L A N SITE LOGISTICS - SHORING ENCROACHMENT PLAN