Palo Alto ARB backs 6‑story mixed‑use project at 660 University with tree‑protection condition

The Palo Alto Architectural Review Board voted 3–2 on Aug. 21 to recommend City Council approve a planned‑home‑zoning (PHZ) application for a six‑story mixed‑use building at 660 University Avenue, provided the applicant removes or reconfigures balconies so they do not encroach into the protected oak tree zone.

The ARB’s recommendation follows a lengthy staff and applicant presentation and a 12‑minute public comment period during which neighbors and advocacy groups raised concerns about the project’s size, tree impacts, parking and construction impacts. The board’s motion — approved by Chair Chen, Vice Chair Adcock and Board Member Rosenberg and opposed by Board Members Hirsch and Georges — directed the applicant to ensure balconies facing the neighbor‑protected oak do not intrude into the tree protection zone shown in project materials.

Staff planner Emily Callis told the board the PHZ application would replace two existing office buildings with a new six‑story mixed‑use building containing about 1,894 square feet of ground‑floor office and 70 residential units, 20% of which will be below‑market‑rate. The proposal includes two levels of underground parking with 78 spaces, a requested height exception above the 35‑foot limit, reduced setbacks and a daylight‑plane allowance that is part of the PHZ request. Callis said a draft environmental impact report (EIR) has been circulated and the final EIR is being prepared.

Applicant representatives said the project was revised after earlier ARB and Planning & Transportation Commission feedback. Architect Ted Korth said the sixth floor was converted from office to residential to reduce glazing and concentrate office space on the ground floor, and that the applicant had reduced glazing on the top floor by roughly 30% compared with an earlier submittal.

Neighbors and interest groups were split. Christopher Ream, speaking for a group of seven speakers, urged the board to protect the adjacent coast live oak, which his submitted materials — citing the project arborist — described as a roughly 50‑inch trunk with a canopy spreading about 90 feet. “Once they have that building there, … they’re going to have to slice it off,” Ream said, warning root cuts and canopy pruning could undermine the tree. Consulting arborist David Babay, who spoke for the project team, said pruning would be “highly selective” and that scaffolding and limited, supervised pruning would create the clearance needed for construction and for any bolted‑on balconies.

Other public commenters urged the board to approve the housing. Ali Saberman of the Housing Action Coalition said delays worsen the Bay Area housing shortage and asked the board to move the project forward. A downtown resident and economist, Steven L., also urged approval, saying the site is well suited to housing and noting the project represents a substantial downtown housing proposal.

Board discussion centered on two tensions: preserving the protected oak tree and allowing private open space for every unit via balconies. Several board members said the stacked balconies adjacent to the oak appear to intrude into the tree protection zone indicated in the plans; others said the applicant’s tree consultant and the city arborist had described mitigation and construction methods to protect the tree. Board Member Jojart (new to the board) and others asked the applicant to show construction shoring and foundation details to demonstrate how the below‑grade work would avoid root damage.

On parking and operations, the applicant said the project reduced its proposed parking reduction (from prior submittals) to about a 13% reduction versus code, and that 78 stalls are proposed in two underground levels. The project includes long‑term bike parking (some relocated to grade per earlier ARB direction) and short‑term bike racks near the University Avenue frontage. Neighbors raised concerns about stacker parking reliability, deliveries and potential spillover into surrounding streets.

Other items the ARB discussed but did not make conditions of approval included: the proposed daylight‑plane encroachment (the PHZ requests an allowance), the project’s tree‑value bond recommended by Urban Forestry, and a small portion of the site set aside to accommodate potential future city improvements at the corner of University Avenue and Middlefield Road. Staff and the applicant said the city had not defined a specific use for that corner but asked the applicant to allow a retrofit option; the applicant said accommodating a future light pole or similar foundation could cost parking stalls but was willing to design foundation capacity if needed.

The ARB vote: Rosenberg, Adcock and Chen in favor; Jojart and Hirsch opposed. The board’s action was to recommend Council approve the PHZ application “based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval in attachment B,” with the explicit direction that balconies facing the protected oak tree be reconfigured or removed so they do not encroach into the tree protection zone shown in the plans. Staff will transmit the ARB recommendation to the Planning & Transportation Commission and to City Council as the PHZ application continues through the city’s review process.

The project team said it will continue design refinements and return with amendments as needed for council review. Planning staff noted the final EIR and council review remain to come before any building permits.

Votes at a glance: The ARB voted 3–2 to recommend Council approval (yes: Chair Chen, Vice Chair Adcock, Board Member Rosenberg; no: Board Members Hirsch and Georges).