Palo Alto City Council
November 10, 2025

6 2
2 7
APPROVAL NO. 2025-____
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 511 BYRON STREET, 660 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, 680 UNIVERSITY AVENUE/500 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD:

PLANNED COMMUNITY REZONING
[FILE NO 21PLN-00341]
On _______, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) approved a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment and Planned Community Rezoning, making the following findings, determinations, and declarations:

SECTION 1. Background.

A. On December 21, 2021 Architect Amanda Borden, on behalf of Smith Properties and Palo Alto Dental Research A Corp (“Applicant”) applied for a Planned Community Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to construct a 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;
Item 6
Attachment E - Draft Record
of Land Use Action

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
50 Packet Pg. 128 of 517

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.

Item 6
Attachment E - Draft Record
of Land Use Action

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
51 Packet Pg. 129 of 517

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 Item 6
Attachment E - Draft Record
of Land Use Action

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
52 Packet Pg. 130 of 517

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 Item 6
Attachment E - Draft Record
of Land Use Action

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
53 Packet Pg. 131 of 517

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.

Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained.

The project is consistent with Finding #5 because:

The project is consistent with the finding in that the project provides landscaped area around the perimeter wherever possible, including 9 new trees, and 4 new street trees (13 trees total), as well as in planter boxes on the rooftop garden. The project will protect the Coast Live Oak and provides measures to ensure the tree’s protection through construction. All plants proposed are very low to moderate water use, as well as native or regionally adapted.

Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning.

The project is consistent with Finding #6 because:

In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. The project proposed an all electric design and will be consistent with Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) requirements.

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.

PLANNING DIVISION

1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "660 University Ave., Palo Alto, CA,” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on 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 Item 6
Attachment E - Draft Record
of Land Use Action

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
54 Packet Pg. 132 of 517

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.

Item 6
Attachment E - Draft Record
of Land Use Action

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
55 Packet Pg. 133 of 517

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.

Item 6
Attachment E - Draft Record
of Land Use Action

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
56 Packet Pg. 134 of 517

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 Item 6
Attachment E - Draft Record
of Land Use Action

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
57 Packet Pg. 135 of 517

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 [email protected] 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 Item 6
Attachment E - Draft Record
of Land Use Action

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
58 Packet Pg. 136 of 517

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 Item 6
Attachment E - Draft Record
of Land Use Action

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
59 Packet Pg. 137 of 517

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.

38. SPILLOVER PARKING. As part of the TDM plan, the applicant shall propose a method to assess spillover parking created by the project, to the satisfaction of the Chief Transportation Official, and identify incentives or penalties to address spillover parking, if it occurs. This method may include but is not limited to:
a. 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.

39. DRIVEWAY APRON FOR WASTE COLLECTION: If the driveway apron is to be used for rolling out bins during waste collection, it shall have a smooth flow line (no more than ½-inch lip). The applicant shall confirm with Zero Waste/Green Waste that the driveway apron design is acceptable for collection use.

40. TRASH STAGING IN RIGHT-OF-WAY: Trash staging shall not occur within the public right-of-way. Any references to trash staging in the right-of-way shall be removed from the plan set.

URBAN FORESTRY

41. PROJECT ARBORIST. The property owner shall hire a certified arborist to ensure the project conforms to all Planning and Urban Forestry conditions related to landscaping/trees, as well as relevant CEQA Mitigation Measures.

42.TREE PROTECTION FENCING. Tree protection fencing shall be required for the street trees to remain, the neighboring Coast Live Oak, and for all tree/shrubs proposed to be maintained.

43. TREE-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. The property owner shall follow all conditions from the Urban Forester and all recommendations and guidelines listed in Section 6.1 of the February 7, 2024 Arborist Report prepared by David L. Babby, including but not limited to:
a. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION INSPECTION REQUIRED. Prior to any site work, contractor must call Urban Forestry at 650-496-5953 to schedule an inspection of any required protective fencing.

The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project.
b. Prior to mobilizing equipment to the site, install tree protection fencing for tree #10, utilize Type I Protection, which includes affixing 5- to 6-foot tall chain link onto 2-inch diameter steel posts spaced apart as needed to remain upright.
c. Digging for any bollards or permanent fencing within a TPZ, such as for #10, shall be manually performed using a shovel or post-hole digger. For any root encountered during the process with a diameter ≥2 inches, shift the hole over by 12 inches and repeat the process. d. All pruning shall be performed under the direction of the Project Arborist, conducted in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal code 8.10.020 regarding the prohibited use of excessive pruning for Quercus agrifolia species, in addition to the best management practices outlined in ANSI A300, and implemented by a California licensed tree-service contractor (D-49) with an ISA certified arborist in a supervisory role.

Item 6
Attachment E - Draft Record
of Land Use Action

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
60 Packet Pg. 138 of 517

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.

Item 6
Attachment E - Draft Record
of Land Use Action

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
61 Packet Pg. 139 of 517

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.”
Item 6
Attachment E - Draft Record
of Land Use Action

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
62 Packet Pg. 140 of 517

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.

Item 6
Attachment E - Draft Record
of Land Use Action

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
63 Packet Pg. 141 of 517

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 Item 6
Attachment E - Draft Record
of Land Use Action

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
64 Packet Pg. 142 of 517

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.

69. PAVEMENT RESTORATION: The applicant shall restore the pavement along the entire project frontage, curb-to-curb, by performing a 3.5” grind and overlay. The exact restoration limits will be determined once the resulting road condition is known following completion of heavy construction activities and utility lateral installations, at minimum the extent will be the project frontage.

70. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. To determine the impervious surface area that is being disturbed, provide the quantity on the site plan.

71. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS FINAL/ACCEPTANCE (STORM DRAIN LOGO): The applicant is required to paint “No Dumping/Flows to Matadero Creek” in blue on a white background adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. The name of the creek to which the proposed development drains can be obtained from Public Works Engineering. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan.

72. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS FINAL/ACCEPTANCE (ELEVATION CERTIFICATE): The "as-built" elevation of the lowest floor not used solely for parking or storage must be certified on the FEMA Elevation Certificate and accepted by Public Works inspector as meeting the Special Flood Hazard Area requirements prior to final City approval of the structure.

WATERSHED PROTECTION

73. Stormwater treatment measures
a. All Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements shall be followed. b. Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details. c. For all C.3 features, vendor specifications regarding installation and maintenance should be followed and provided to city staff. Copies must be submitted to Pam Boyle Rodriguez at [email protected]. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. d. Staff from Stormwater Program (Watershed Protection Division) may be present during installation of stormwater treatment measures. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 before installation. Add this bullet as a note to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan.

74. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org) - Add these bullets as a note to the building plans. a. Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-friendly-landscape- guidelines-sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance. b. Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved.

Item 6
Attachment E - Draft Record
of Land Use Action

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
65 Packet Pg. 143 of 517

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.

Item 6
Attachment E - Draft Record
of Land Use Action

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
66 Packet Pg. 144 of 517

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.

Item 6
Attachment E - Draft Record
of Land Use Action

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
67 Packet Pg. 145 of 517

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)
Item 6
Attachment E - Draft Record
of Land Use Action

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
68 Packet Pg. 146 of 517

6 2
2 7
SECTION 7. Term of Approval.

1.Planned Community Development Schedule. Sixty days prior to the expiration of the development schedule, the director shall notify the property owner in writing of the date of expiration and advise the property owner of Section 18.38.130. Failure to meet the approved development schedule, including an extension, if granted, shall result in:
(a) The expiration of the property owner's right to develop under the PC district. The director shall notify the property owner, the city council, the planning commission and the building official of such expiration; and (b) The director's initiating a zone change for the property subject to the PC district in accordance with Chapter

18.80. The property owner may submit a new application for a PC district concurrently with the director's recommendation for a zone change.

PASSED:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________ ___________________________ Director of Planning and Assistant City Attorney
Development Services
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:

1. Those plans prepared by KSH Architects titled “660 University Ave., Palo Alto, CA,” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on October 21 and 22, 2025.

Item 6
Attachment E - Draft Record
of Land Use Action

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
69 Packet Pg. 147 of 517

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
Item 6
Attachment F - Zoning
Consistency Analysis

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
70 Packet Pg. 148 of 517

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
Item 6
Attachment F - Zoning
Consistency Analysis

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
71 Packet Pg. 149 of 517

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 sidew alk 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 pr escribed by a city approved arborist. An outdoor deck will also be constructed beneath the existing oak tree without disturbing the existing Item 6
Attachment G - Applicant’s
Letter

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
72 Packet Pg. 150 of 517

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 wher e 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%) grou nd 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.

Item 6
Attachment G - Applicant’s
Letter

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
73 Packet Pg. 151 of 517

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) o n 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 req uired.

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)

Item 6
Attachment G - Applicant’s
Letter

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
74 Packet Pg. 152 of 517

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 consider ation 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 allowe d 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.

Item 6
Attachment G - Applicant’s
Letter

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
75 Packet Pg. 153 of 517

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Kinsey haffner <[email protected]>
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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
76 Packet Pg. 154 of 517

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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
77 Packet Pg. 155 of 517

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 certification 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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
78 Packet Pg. 156 of 517

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 <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 11:24 AM
To: Yang, Albert <[email protected]>
Cc: Kallas, Emily <[email protected]>
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

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
79 Packet Pg. 157 of 517

5 Get Outlook for iOS
From: Yang, Albert <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 10:49 PM
To: Kinsey haffner <[email protected]>
Cc: Kallas, Emily <[email protected]>
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: [email protected]

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 <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 8:46 PM
To: Yang, Albert <[email protected]>
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
80 Packet Pg. 158 of 517

6 Cc: Kallas, Emily <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 3:11 PM
To: Kallas, Emily <[email protected]>;
[email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Raybould, Claire <[email protected]>; Christopher Ream <[email protected]>; The Hamilton Sharon Fees <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> 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,

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
81 Packet Pg. 159 of 517

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 Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
82 Packet Pg. 160 of 517

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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
83 Packet Pg. 161 of 517

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 Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
84 Packet Pg. 162 of 517

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
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
85 Packet Pg. 163 of 517

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Tina Frisco <[email protected]>
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 respirator, 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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
86 Packet Pg. 164 of 517

2 Tina Frisco, RN
649 University Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
87 Packet Pg. 165 of 517

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Steven Atneosen <[email protected]>
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
[email protected]
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
88 Packet Pg. 166 of 517

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Rob Schreiber <[email protected]>
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,
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
89 Packet Pg. 167 of 517

2 Rob Schreiber

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
90 Packet Pg. 168 of 517

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Rachel Miller <[email protected]>
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 organizaƟon. Be cauƟous of opening aƩachments 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 transportaƟon, especially the 14 affordable homes. This project will promote sustainable lifestyles, support local businesses, and bring much needed housing opƟons to our community.

I hope the PTC will allow this project to move forward to council without further delay or modificaƟon.

Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community, Rachel Miller

Sent from my iPhone

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
91 Packet Pg. 169 of 517

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Owen Byrd <[email protected]>
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
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
92 Packet Pg. 170 of 517

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Mert Dikmen <[email protected]>
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
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
93 Packet Pg. 171 of 517

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Mary Beth Train <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 4:59 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Council, City; Co-Presidents Lisa Ratner and Hannah Lu; Steve Levy; [email protected]
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* - [email protected]

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
94 Packet Pg. 172 of 517

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Kinsey haffner <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 3:12 PM
To: Kallas, Emily; Planning Commission
Cc: Raybould, Claire; Christopher Ream; The Hamilton Sharon Fees; [email protected]
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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
95 Packet Pg. 173 of 517

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 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 Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
96 Packet Pg. 174 of 517

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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
97 Packet Pg. 175 of 517

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
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
98 Packet Pg. 176 of 517

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Hillary Thagard <[email protected]>
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 organizaƟon. Be cauƟous of opening aƩachments 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 transportaƟon, especially the 14 affordable homes. This project will promote sustainable lifestyles, support local businesses, and bring much needed housing opƟons to our community.

This project was introduced in 2021. It is Ɵme to act and end the delays. I hope the PTC will allow this project to move forward to council without further delay or modificaƟon.

Thank you for your leadership to support homes for all in our community, Hillary Thagard

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
99 Packet Pg. 177 of 517

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Heather Stewart-Bhardwaj <[email protected]> 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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
100

Packet Pg. 178 of 517

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
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
101

Packet Pg. 179 of 517

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Angela He <[email protected]>
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
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
102

Packet Pg. 180 of 517

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Christopher Ream <[email protected]>
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
[email protected]

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
103

Packet Pg. 181 of 517

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. 123
456
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
104

Packet Pg. 182 of 517

10/27/2025
2 Canopy if it were sliced off at the 41-foot TPZHowever, Applicant has arbitrarily decidedto 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 trunkAnd 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. 789
101112
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
105

Packet Pg. 183 of 517

10/27/2025
3 Trim back another 5 feet to give clearance for the residents on their balconiesCount them –30 feet to the face of the buildingminus6 feetfor balconies and constructionminus5 feet clearance for people on the balconiesbrings us to only 19 feet of canopy from the Tree trunk remaining –-compared to the 45 feetwe started withThe 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. 131415
161718
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
106

Packet Pg. 184 of 517

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 102030405060708090
102030405060708090TYP.17'-8 1/2"TYP.30'-0" OFFSETTREE PROTECTION ZONE9'-0TYP3 STALLSEVSE(INDEPENDENT PUZZLE)5 STALLS(INDEPENDENTPUZZLE)FUTUEVSR15'-0"15' MIN. / 30' MAX.) 192021
222324
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
107

Packet Pg. 185 of 517

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.“RootsThe 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’sTree Protection Report, filed March 3, 2025, page 10 102030405060708090TYP.17'-8 1/2"TYP.30'-0" OFFSETTREE PROTECTION ZONE9'-0TYP3 STALLSEVSE(INDEPENDENT PUZZLE)5 STALLS(INDEPENDENTPUZZLE)FUTUEVSR15'-0"15' MIN. / 30' MAX.) 102030405060708090
203040506070809010050
5060708090100102030405060708090100FeetRoots now. 51 ft radius.Actually, the roots extend out well beyond the 51 feet recorded.Roots after construction.20 ft radiusArea is a direct function of the square of the radius.51 x 51 = 260120 x 20 = 400400 / 2601 = 15.4% 252627
282930
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
108

Packet Pg. 186 of 517

10/27/2025
6 Moving on to other concerns we have about this project.

Parking –89 stalls required– 69 stalls actually provided20cars roaming around looking for parking RED FLAG –NOTEALL INTERIOR DEMISING AND PARTITION WALL SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO PERMIT SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL29 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 313233
343536
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
109

Packet Pg. 187 of 517

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 Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
110

Packet Pg. 188 of 517

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Christopher Ream <[email protected]>
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
[email protected]

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
111

Packet Pg. 189 of 517

THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: [email protected] October 5, 2025 Commissioners Planning and Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto, California Via: [email protected] [email protected] 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 Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
112

Packet Pg. 190 of 517

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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
113

Packet Pg. 191 of 517

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, Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
114

Packet Pg. 192 of 517

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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
115

Packet Pg. 193 of 517

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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
116

Packet Pg. 194 of 517

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"
PLPLOFFICE LOBBYSPEED RAMP DOWNTO P2 LEVELUNIVERSITY AVE. 10'-0"
10'-6"OFFICE PARKINGRESIDENTIAL PARKING
STAIRBEYOND7'-9" TYP.45.0°55'-0"LINE OF DAYLIGHT PLANE3'-6" 3'-6"
9'-9"13'-6"10'-6"14'-6"7'-0"FENCE7'-0"9'-9"EL. -1'-6" (NAVD 88 EL. 45.5')NEIGHBORINGPROPERTY GRADEP1 LEVELP2 LEVELLIFT PIT SECOND FLOOREL. 14'-8"THIRD FLOORFOURTH FLOOREL. 24'-5"EL. 34'-2"FIRST FLOOREL. 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" MIN.EL. -12'-1 1/8" ±EL. -26'-7 1/8" ±EL. -33'-7 1/8" ± CORR.TYP.
9'-9"12'-3"55'-5"1'-6"FIFTH FLOOREL. 43'-11"SIXTH FLOOREL. 56'-2"T.O. ROOF SLABEL. 70'-2"14'-0"T.O. PARAPET / ELEV.EL. 71'-8"OVERRUN / STAIRST.O. RAILINGEL. 73'-8"T.O. MECH. SCREENEL. 80'-2"3'-6"6'-6"MECHANICALSCREEN 54'-6" +/-
3'-6"
2'-2"SHORING/SOLDIER BREAMS
1/32"=1'-0"
3/-UNIVERSITY AVE

MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
BYRON STREET64G CARTCOMPOST64G CARTCOMPOSTRC64G CARTCOMPOST 64G CARTCOMPOST96G CARTWASTE96G CARTRECYCLING96G CARTWASTE96G CARTRECYCLING

ARCHITECTSKORTH SUNSERI HAGEY

SHEET NUMBERSCALEPROJECT NUMBERSHEET TITLE
DATENO.ISSUES AND REVISIONSDESCRIPTION

ARCHITECTSKORTH SUNSERI HAGEY
21003PLANNING SUBMITTAL12.01.22PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #105.13.22PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #208.15.22PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #408.28.23PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #510.31.23PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #612.20.23PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #702.07.24AD HOC REVISIONS05.02.24PLANNING RESUBMIITTAL #809.30.24

524 MIDDLEFIELD A3.3B ENHANCEMENT OF VISIBILITY OF LINE OF DAYLIGHT PLANE AND 524 MIDDLEFIELD MADE BY CHRISTOPHER REAM Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
117

Packet Pg. 195 of 517

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Christopher Ream <[email protected]>
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
[email protected]
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
118

Packet Pg. 196 of 517

THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: [email protected] October 3, 2025 Commissioners Via: [email protected] Planning and Transportation Commission [email protected] 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 Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
119

Packet Pg. 197 of 517

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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
120

Packet Pg. 198 of 517

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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
121

Packet Pg. 199 of 517

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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
122

Packet Pg. 200 of 517

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 Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
123

Packet Pg. 201 of 517

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 Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
124

Packet Pg. 202 of 517

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email [email protected]

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
[email protected]

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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
125

Packet Pg. 203 of 517

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email [email protected]

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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
126

Packet Pg. 204 of 517

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email [email protected]

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 trunk 1, 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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
127

Packet Pg. 205 of 517

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email [email protected]

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, 2
nd 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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
128

Packet Pg. 206 of 517

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email [email protected]

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 compliance 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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
129

Packet Pg. 207 of 517

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email [email protected]

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 20 th 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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
130

Packet Pg. 208 of 517

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email [email protected]

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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
131

Packet Pg. 209 of 517

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email [email protected]

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).

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
132

Packet Pg. 210 of 517

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email [email protected]

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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
133

Packet Pg. 211 of 517

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email [email protected]

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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
134

Packet Pg. 212 of 517

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email [email protected]

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 varying depths of between +/- 30 inches depth (2.5 feet below parking lot surface grade elevation) and the 7 foot depth limit of the GPR machine setting used by RB for his analysis.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
135

Packet Pg. 213 of 517

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email [email protected]

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 frequent basis than on a typical construction project, if the oak #10 root system and canopy is to be preserved 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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
136

Packet Pg. 214 of 517

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email [email protected]

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 far 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 sets 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 WLCA’s partial set of recommendations above on page 12 of this letter report.

Note that even if all of the above 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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
137

Packet Pg. 215 of 517

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email [email protected]

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 bifurcation of the codominant mainstems.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
138

Packet Pg. 216 of 517

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email [email protected]

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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
139

Packet Pg. 217 of 517

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email [email protected]

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 the soil is a historical cobble-based riparian soil profile with fast drainage (not verified).

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
140

Packet Pg. 218 of 517

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email [email protected]

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 local Palo Alto soil map, obtained from USGS Menlo Park headquarters.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
141

Packet Pg. 219 of 517

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email [email protected]

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 Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
142

Packet Pg. 220 of 517

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Cell (415) 203-0990 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Email [email protected]

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)

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
143

Packet Pg. 221 of 517

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 Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
144

Packet Pg. 222 of 517

.

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

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
145

Packet Pg. 223 of 517

Copied from page 10 of the report. Adjusted so the “y” scale is the same as the “x” scale.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
146

Packet Pg. 224 of 517

660 University Project Ream – Protect the Coast Live Oak October 3, 2025 A"achment C Mathema0cal Calcula0ons of Circle Segments Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
147

Packet Pg. 225 of 517

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 height
Definition: The number of square units it takes to fill a segment of a circle Try this Drag one of the orange dot that defines an endpoint of the segment. Adjust the segment 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=42cos−1 4−3.0
4 −(4−3.0)√2·4·3.0−3.02=17.2
area=r2cos−1 r−h
r −(r−h)√2rh−h2

r = 45’
h
The area of the circle cut off is a “segment.”
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
148

Packet Pg. 226 of 517

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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
149

Packet Pg. 227 of 517

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).

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
150

Packet Pg. 228 of 517

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.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
151

Packet Pg. 229 of 517

1 Kallas, Emily
From: [email protected]
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

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
152

Packet Pg. 230 of 517

2 Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
153

Packet Pg. 231 of 517

3 Slide 2

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
154

Packet Pg. 232 of 517

4 Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
155

Packet Pg. 233 of 517

5 Slide 3

Carol Gilbert
555 Byron St.

Palo Alto, CA 94301
650-323-2862
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
156

Packet Pg. 234 of 517

6 Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
157

Packet Pg. 235 of 517

1 Kallas, Emily
From: Faith Brigel <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]> 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 Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
158

Packet Pg. 236 of 517

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 | [email protected]
> www.cityofpaloalto.org
> <image002.png> Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped
> From: Faith Brigel <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2025 1:17 PM
> To: Kallas, Emily <[email protected]>
> Cc: Council, City <[email protected]>
> 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 Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
159

Packet Pg. 237 of 517

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 <[email protected]> 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 | [email protected]
> > www.paloalto.gov
> >
> >
> >
> > Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Faith Brigel <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 1:58 PM
> > To: Kallas, Emily <[email protected]>
> > 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 Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
160

Packet Pg. 238 of 517

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
> >
> >
> >
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
161

Packet Pg. 239 of 517

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 | [email protected]
www.paloalto.gov

From: Ali Sapirman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 6:37 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Armer, Jennifer <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Coy, Melinda@HCD <[email protected]>; Witt Turner <[email protected]>; Brianna Morales <[email protected]> Subject: HAC support for 660 University Ave.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of 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
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
162

Packet Pg. 240 of 517

Cell: (407) 739-8818 | Email: [email protected] To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all".

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
163

Packet Pg. 241 of 517

September 8, 2025
Dear Commissioners,
The Housing Action Coalition is a member-supported nonprofit that advocates for creating more housing

for

residents

of

all

income

levels

to

help

alleviate

the

Bay

Area

and

California’s

housing

shortage,

displacement,

and

affordability

crisis.

Our endorsement committee had the opportunity to review Smith Development’s proposal at 660

University,

and

we

proudly

endorsed

the

project.

Smith Development’s proposal would bring 66 much-needed new units to Palo Alto. We were impressed

with

the

project's

dedication

to

affordable

housing,

with

20 percent

of

the

units

for

lower-tiered

affordable

housing,

which

is

high
especially considering current economic
conditions.

By prioritizing affordable housing and urban development, we can create more sustainable

and

inclusive

communities

for

everyone.

In terms of Land Use and Density, the project site's central location with its proximity to essential downtown

amenities,

including

the

Caltrain

station,

and

the

inclusion

of

ample

bike

parking

facilities

underscore

a

commitment

to

promoting

environmental

sustainability

and

reducing

reliance

on

automobiles.

In terms of parking, our committee would like to see a reduction on the amount

of

parking

provided

for

the

project,

and

have

the

project

redirect

those

costs

to

increasing

the

overall

density

of

the

project.

In

terms

of

overall

design,
we commend the steps
Smith

Development

has

taken
to preserve the Oak tree on site, and even incorporated it into the design.

This project will be critical to support Palo Alto, and the Bay Area’s housing needs. Please move this

project

forward

without

delay.

Corey Smith , Executive Director Housing Action Coalition (HAC) Ali Sapirman, Advocacy and Policy Manager Housing Action Coalition (HAC) Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
164

Packet Pg. 242 of 517

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 <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 8:23 AM
To: Lait, Jonathan <[email protected]>; Armer, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Tran, Vickie <[email protected]>
Cc: Nose, Kiely <[email protected]>; Gaines, Chantal <[email protected]>; City Mgr <[email protected]>
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| [email protected] www.PaloAlto.gov -----Original Message-----
From: Faith Brigel <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2025 9:05 PM
To: [email protected]; Council, City <[email protected]> Cc: Faith Brigel <[email protected]>
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 Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
165

Packet Pg. 243 of 517

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
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
166

Packet Pg. 244 of 517

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 cautious of 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
[email protected]

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
167

Packet Pg. 245 of 517

THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: [email protected] August 18, 2025 Members Architectural Review Board City of Palo Alto, California Via: [email protected] [email protected] Re: ARB Meeting on August 21, 2025 660 University Project SECOND LETTER – Comments on Other than the Tree Board Members, The Hamilton is a senior living (55+) condominium development which shares the small block with the proposed development at 660 University Avenue. The Board of Directors of the Hamilton Homeowners Association (the “HHA”), with the support of its residents, has resolved to push for revising the proposed building that will materially adversely affect us and all our neighbors. • Balconies over University Avenue • Parking • Parking for Office Size Adjustment ? • No Parking for Fitness Center • Balconies in the Canopy • Setbacks • Daylight Plane Balconies over University Avenue Applicant shows 6-foot to 7-foot setbacks for the above-ground building along University Avenue. There are 36 balconies from the Second Floor to the Sixth Floor sticking out six feet into that “setback” so they come right to the edge of the public sidewalk or within one foot of it. They will have a clear glass railing set 3½ feet off the deck, with a clear glass sheet between the railing and the deck of the balcony.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
168

Packet Pg. 246 of 517

Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project August 18, 2025 Page 2 of 5 On warm, sunny Friday or weekend afternoons and evenings, there are going to be young people socializing on these balconies. The 3½ foot railing is an inviting place to rest your forearm as you hold a soft drink, a beer or a glass of wine. Geometry dictates that the drink is now another 6 -12 inches closer to the sidewalk floors below. Many residents in The Hamilton get some exercise by walking around our small block and their walk will pass under these balconies. I frequently see seniors from other parts of “Senior Corner” including this sidewalk as part of their walk. Please don’t drop a glass – you may kill someone. This is a grave, inexcusable, unnecessary danger. Those balconies must be removed. Parking Parking in downtown Palo Alto is a problem the City has been dealing with for years and continues to deal with. There is no parking on either University Avenue or Middlefield Road near the project. The Hamilton is on the short block of Byron between University and Hamilton and sees the parking problem every day. It is a narrow street to start with, but on every workday, every single parking spot on both sides of the street is filled all day long. This narrows the drivable room so that two cars going in opposite directions cannot pass; one must slowly pull into a driveway to make room for the other to pass. Every time a delivery vehicle stops on Byron Street during the day, it clogs and backs up Byron. The project does not provide any short-term parking for delivery vehicles, so Byron is going to get backed up many times a day. Applicant calculates that according to PAMC 18.52.040 a total of 81 parking stalls are required to serve the residents of the 70 residential units and 8 parking stalls to serve the workers in the non-residential office space on the ground floor, for a total of 89 stalls. But then Applicant invokes several arguments to reduce the number of stalls it is required to provide, starting with a 13% reduction claimed by TDM, down to only 69 actual parking stalls. Has the city staff carefully reviewed the TDM Applicant has submitted? Will it actually reduce the need for parking or is it only designed to reduce the daily use of cars: Is it designed to reduce the number of daily automotive commutes a person takes, while that person still owns a car to be used for weekend activity. Even though it may reduce daily congestion, that car still needs a place to park. Bottom Line – Applicant has cleverly eliminated 20 parking stalls (89 – 69 = 20). Those 20 stalls may have been eliminated in the project’s garage, but the cars have not been eliminated and the 20 cars that can’t find an empty stall in the project’s garage will be driving around downtown, commercial and residential, looking for a parking space and causing congestion that the TDM was supposed to reduce. My granddaughters and other family members might not come to visit me because of the inability to park nearby and friends will not want to come over as much as they used to.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
169

Packet Pg. 247 of 517

Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project August 18, 2025 Page 3 of 5 Parking for Office Size Adjustment ? Applicant has shown only 1,984 ft2 of non-residential office space on the First Floor (see Sheet A2.1) and has calculated that the code requirement for that is the 8 parking stalls I referred to in the above section. Last year, up until Applicant added a Fifth and a Sixth Floor in October 2024, the non-residential office space on the First Floor was 9,115 ft2 which calculated to a code requirement of 37 parking stalls, 29 more stalls than the current plans call for (37–8 = 29). I accept Applicant’s calculation of only 8 parking stalls as the First Floor is configured now.

Last Year – 9,115 ft2 Light blue is office space
Current – 1,984 ft2 Light blue is office space But, there is a warning flag – Applicant has inserted a notice on Sheet A2.1: ALL INTERIOR DEMISING AND PARTITION WALLS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO PERMIT SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL If Applicant’s plans get approved, will Applicant then go back to the configuration of the First Floor it had last year and collect a lot of monthly rent on the additional 7,131 ft2 of office space without incurring the obligation for the additional 29 parking stalls? It will be tempting to Applicant.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
170

Packet Pg. 248 of 517

Ream – More Comments re the 660 University Project August 18, 2025 Page 4 of 5 Emily Kallas, the City Planner on this project has informally told me that Applicant could only make minor adjustments not to exceed a total of 100 ft2. If this project is going to be approved, I strongly urge that the City Attorney get a binding written contract that limits Applicant to Ms. Kallas’s understanding of a maximum of 100 ft2 in adjustments. Without such a contract, we might have another 29 cars wandering around in addition to the 20 cars in the prior section above. No Parking for Fitness Center Applicant has said that the 1,829 ft2 Fitness Center on the First Floor will be exclusively for use by tenants in the building (residential and office), and thus no need to calculate any additional parking stalls. So, while the City Attorney is at it, get a written contract affirming that the Fitness Center will remain exclusive to tenants. Balconies in the Canopy The approval of the Architectural Review Board at its December 5, 2024 meeting was subject to several conditions being met. The first condition was “Remove balconies from within the Oak tree canopy.” (This can be found in the Staff Report for the upcoming August 21, 2025 Meeting, Item No. 2. Page 5 of 9.). Applicant has ignored this for its plans show 31 balconies including 5-foot clearance would intrude into the canopy (45-foot radius), and none have been removed. They need to be removed. Setbacks At the April 18, 2024 and again at the December 5, 2024 ARB meetings on this project, there was a lot of discussion about the lack of proper setback along Middlefield Road. Applicant has moved the above grade portion of the building back to form a 25-foot setback along Middlefield as requested, but the underground garage still extends right up to the property line with ZERO setback and a minimal amount of soil fill above the garage structure. (See Sheet A3.3A.) Will the City of Palo Alto be able to make improvements to Middlefield Road in the future with this garage flush up against the road? Not likely. Applicant has offered to provide a small area at the Middlefield/University corner of the property as an “accommodation” if the City were to want to make improvements along Middlefield Road. Any improvement would most likely be to improve travel along Middlefield Road. But Applicant’s offer is only for 27 feet down Middlefield from the corner, leaving 46.5 feet still obstructed by the garage. (See Sheet A1.1A.) Applicant needs to make the offer to the City for the entire length of the property along Middlefield. This brings out the fact that the garage also abuts both University Avenue and Byron Street with zero setbacks. Is this standard and acceptable? Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
171

Packet Pg. 249 of 517

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"
PLPLOFFICE LOBBYSPEED RAMP DOWNTO P2 LEVELUNIVERSITY AVE. 10'-0"
10'-6"OFFICE PARKINGRESIDENTIAL PARKING
STAIRBEYOND7'-9" TYP.45.0°55'-0"LINE OF DAYLIGHT PLANE3'-6" 3'-6"
9'-9"13'-6"10'-6"14'-6"7'-0"FENCE7'-0"9'-9"EL. -1'-6" (NAVD 88 EL. 45.5')NEIGHBORINGPROPERTY GRADEP1 LEVELP2 LEVELLIFT PIT SECOND FLOOREL. 14'-8"THIRD FLOORFOURTH FLOOREL. 24'-5"EL. 34'-2"FIRST FLOOREL. 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" MIN.EL. -12'-1 1/8" ±EL. -26'-7 1/8" ±EL. -33'-7 1/8" ± CORR.TYP.
9'-9"12'-3"55'-5"1'-6"FIFTH FLOOREL. 43'-11"SIXTH FLOOREL. 56'-2"T.O. ROOF SLABEL. 70'-2"14'-0"T.O. PARAPET / ELEV.EL. 71'-8"OVERRUN / STAIRST.O. RAILINGEL. 73'-8"T.O. MECH. SCREENEL. 80'-2"3'-6"6'-6"MECHANICALSCREEN 54'-6" +/-
3'-6"
2'-2"SHORING/SOLDIER BREAMS
1/32"=1'-0"
3/-UNIVERSITY AVE

MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
BYRON STREET64G CARTCOMPOST64G CARTCOMPOSTRC64G CARTCOMPOST 64G CARTCOMPOST96G CARTWASTE96G CARTRECYCLING96G CARTWASTE96G CARTRECYCLING

ARCHITECTSKORTH SUNSERI HAGEY

SHEET NUMBERSCALEPROJECT NUMBERSHEET TITLE
DATENO.ISSUES AND REVISIONSDESCRIPTION

ARCHITECTSKORTH SUNSERI HAGEY
21003PLANNING SUBMITTAL12.01.22PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #105.13.22PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #208.15.22PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #408.28.23PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #510.31.23PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #612.20.23PLANNING RESUBMITTAL #702.07.24AD HOC REVISIONS05.02.24PLANNING RESUBMIITTAL #809.30.24

524 MIDDLEFIELD A3.3B ENHANCEMENT OF VISIBILITY OF LINE OF DAYLIGHT PLANE AND 524 MIDDLEFIELD MADE BY CHRISTOPHER REAM Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
172

Packet Pg. 250 of 517

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
173

Packet Pg. 251 of 517

Please let me know if you have trouble opening either.

Thank you,
K Brown

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
174

Packet Pg. 252 of 517

Kay Brown

August 16, 2025

Emily Kallas Senior Planner
Planning and Development Dept. City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301

Dear Ms. Kallas,

I’m writing to you, once again, to express my concerns regarding traffic issues which will undoubtedly arise with the slated construction of 660 University. In my letter to you dated March 4, 2025, I outlined a number of already existing dangers on Byron St. as well as the potential for an exponential increase in traffic related accidents that will occur on Byron should 660 be given the go-ahead without a proper EIR traffic safety analysis and an in-depth mitigation plan to address said issues. (Below, I will attach my March 4th letter for reference).

As you (inclusive of planning department) must be aware, a thorough traffic EIR analysis must include the potential for both pedestrian and vehicle accidents. Unless, I have missed some interaction at meetings or documentation in follow-up reports, I have not seen (within the constructs of the EIR report) any reference to this aspect of 660’s scheduled demolition and construction project. Nor, have I seen an analysis of how an increase in population and autos might impact the safety of existing residents, patients, church-goers and nursery school attendees.

I was made aware at the last planning meeting that a few representatives from the planning commission visited the site one day to get a sense of the traffic situation. One representative stated that the lack of space on the narrow street, did present an issue.

However, no mitigating solutions were presented that evening nor later in any documentation.

A thorough EIR Traffic Safety Report encompasses multi-day and multi-time observations before an adequate analysis can me generated. Repeating, there is no formal EIR traffic safety analysis that has been completed that I can locate for 660. And, after such report has been submitted, there need be mitigating solutions to address said Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
175

Packet Pg. 253 of 517

hazards. The developer must provide in advance adequate alternatives (mitigating solutions ) for parking during construction. The City of Palo Alto Planning Commission must in good conscience provide adequate mitigating traffic solutions, as well, to address increased population/traffic upon project completion.

1. Again, where will the large construction vehicles park for demolition and building erection? Will they be parking on Byron, University or Middlefield?

2. When completed, where will all the new tenants of 660 park? According to the expected population of 660, 74 parking spaces are required. Yet, there’s a 30% reduction allowed under TDM. Only 52 stalls will be available. Clearly, the excess spaces required will overpopulate parking on Byron, University and adjacent streets. (While the TDM has a lofty ambition to encourage mass transportation, a 22 slot reduction in parking will undoubtedly exacerbate an already precarious narrow street scenario.)

3. Please take into consideration multimodal conflict points with the challenged population that exists in a 2 block radius of 660. There are 3 large elderly communities that surround 660. During the day, pedestrians with walkers, wheelchairs and canes regularly cross University to attend meals and activities at the Methodist Church across Byron from 660.

4. With, the increased residents and office workers at 660, what will be the impact on an already dangerous traffic situation? (Must be included in a formal EIR traffic safety report). And, appropriate mitigation steps need to be outlined by either developer or the City of Palo Alto Planning Commission in advance of a go-ahead for construction.

A transportation analysis was completed by Hexagon Transportation, a private consultant corporation hired by the developer. Hexagon addresses safety transiently.

Briefly, it states that Byron is a quiet street (ie. No danger factor ). The study does not address the width of the street, the traffic patterns on Byron, University nor the pedestrian population that traverses the streets. A legitimate EIR traffic safety analysis according to California codes) must be completed by a public agency, not a private corporation paid by the developer with a vested interest. Hexagon’s report is primarily an overview of traffic patterns in Santa Clara County. Where is the EIR traffic safety analysis that is required by the State of California?

Appreciate your time and attention.

Sincerely,

Kay Brown
Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
176

Packet Pg. 254 of 517

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
177

Packet Pg. 255 of 517

Kay Brown

March 4, 2025

Emily Kallas
Senior Planner
Planning and Development Dept.

City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301

Dear Ms. Kallas,

I’m writing to express my concerns regarding the intended project slated to be built at 660 University. This large apartment/multi-use facility is scheduled to come before you for determination on March 12, 2025. I would like to familiarize you with the current traffic issues on the 500 block of Byron St.

As it stands today, senior residents of 555 Byron as well as nursery school parents, church-goers and dental office patients encounter frequent near-misses entering and exiting their respective parking lots.

1. Currently parallel parking is permitted on both sides of the street, and the narrow residual allotment for 2-way traffic becomes unwieldy with one car needing to pull over to allow on-coming traffic to pass.

2. Byron is utilized frequently as an auto pass-through for traffic wanting to avoid the traffic light at University and Middlefield. Residents and patients in cars must to pull-over and brake to avoid the on-coming traffic. The cars travel swiftly without regard to elderly residents that are with walkers and wheelchairs as they attempt to cross the street.

3. Large commercial vehicles deliver food, linen, packages, etc or service plumbing, electrical, wifi tele-communication issues at the various facilities.

When these large trucks park on Byron, the danger factor is exacerbated. It is difficult to see or maneuver safely around the commercial vans, etc.

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
178

Packet Pg. 256 of 517

4. There are currently 3 large senior facilities within the 2 block radius.

Concern for Emergency Response Vehicles ability to access the streets at all times should be paramount

It is my understanding that the developer of 660 University intends to situate the ingress and egress to the underground parking directly on Byron St? With the dense apartment units and office spaces allotted to the new complex, accidents can be anticipated.

Also, please consider the situation that will arise during construction of the new complex. At any given time, there will be large construction vehicles needed to demolish existing structures and erect the final facility. Where will they park so as not to worsen an already dangerous situation…on University, on Middlefield?

I am under the impression that the developers are anticipating that many of the 660 University dwellers will not own cars and will be utilizing mass transport.

At the previous City Council meetings, a study initiated on the developers behalf stated that a majority of the tenants will not be coming and going in automobiles by a computer generated (formulation) pie in the sky scenario? If this is an accurate analysis, I am asking the city of Palo Alto to verify this information and stand by it’s assessment.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Appreciatively,

KB

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
179

Packet Pg. 257 of 517

From: Christopher Ream
To: Kallas, Emily; Architectural Review Board
Subject: 660 University - Letter re Tree
Date: Monday, August 18, 2025 1:51:14 AM
Attachments: Ream Letter re Tree - 20250818 w Attachments.pdf Importance: High
Emily,
Attached is my letter “Protect the Coast Live Oak”. Please distribute it to the Members of the Architectual Review Board, and to others as may be appropriate, in time for their review before the ARB Meeting this coming Thursday morning.

Thank you.

Chris
_________________________
Christopher Ream

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
180

Packet Pg. 258 of 517

Item 6
Attachment H - Public
Comments

Item 6: Staff Report
Pg.
181

Packet Pg. 259 of 517

660 University Project
Protect the Coast Live Oak
August 18, 2025