Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2602-5987CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Monday, April 06, 2026 Council Chambers & Hybrid 5:30 PM     Agenda Item     10.QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 530 Barron Avenue [25PLN‐00021]: Appeal of Director’s Decision to Deny an Individual Review Application to Allow Partial Deconstruction of an Existing 924‐Square‐Foot Single‐Story Residence and to Allow the Construction of a New 2,528‐ Square‐Foot Two Story Single‐Family Residence with Attached One‐Car Garage, 303‐ Square‐Foot Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit and 497‐Square‐Foot of Existing House Converted to Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit. CEQA Status: Exempt from the Provisions of CEQA in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. Zoning District: R‐1 (Single‐Family Residential). City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: April 6, 2026 Report #:2602-5987 TITLE QUASI-JUDICIAL. 530 Barron Avenue [25PLN-00021]: Appeal of Director’s Decision to Deny an Individual Review Application to Allow Partial Deconstruction of an Existing 924-Square-Foot Single-Story Residence and to Allow the Construction of a New 2,528-Square-Foot Two Story Single-Family Residence with Attached One-Car Garage, 303-Square-Foot Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit and 497-Square-Foot of Existing House Converted to Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit. CEQA Status: Exempt from the Provisions of CEQA in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. Zoning District: R-1 (Single-Family Residential). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council take the following action: 1. Adopt the attached Record of Land Use Action, thereby denying the appeal and upholding the Director’s denial. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On January 26, 2026, the Director of Planning and Development Services denied the proposed Individual Review application for demolition of an existing home and construction of a new 2,528-square-foot two-story residence with an attached Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) and detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The proposed project includes removal of a 107- inch redwood tree, for which a protected tree removal permit would be required under Chapter 8.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The Director found insufficient evidence in the record to support the removal of the protected tree. Because the protected tree removal permit required to allow the project could not be issued, the project application was denied. On March 4, 2026, the property owner filed a timely request to appeal the Director’s tentative decision to Council in accordance with the process set forth in the municipal code. The applicant’s reasoning for the request is included in Attachment G. Adoption of the Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) in Attachment B would deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s decision to deny the project. Three members of the Council must vote to pull this item from the consent agenda in order to hold a hearing to discuss the project. BACKGROUND 1 A property location map is provided in Attachment A. The project plans are included in Attachment J. 1 In this case, staff followed the process for appeal of an IR application, as that is the primary application, though the primary issue revolves around proposed removal of a protected tree. The two appeal processes are similar. The Individual Review application was filed on January 23, 2025. Staff reviewed the project, determined that the project complied with the municipal code, and issued a tentative decision letter on August 28, 2025 (Attachment D). This decision was based in part on the urban forester’s determination that there were no feasible design alternatives that would preserve the protected Coastal Redwood tree and, therefore, removal was consistent with PAMC Section 8.10.050 (b)(2).3 This decision was based on the location of the protected tree and amount of obstructed buildable area, though no financial analysis was requested of the applicant. 4 In addition to the hearing requester’s comments, community members cited concerns about the impacts to neighborhood character, ecological value, and the possibility of creative architectural solutions as reasons to support retention of the tree. 5 3 PAMC Section 8.10.050 (b)(2): Retention of one or more trees would result in reduction of the otherwise- permissible buildable area of the lot by more than twenty-five percent, and there is no financially feasible design alternative that would allow for preservation of the tree(s). For the purposes of this subsection (a)(2), a financially feasible design alternative means a design alternative that preserves the tree(s) and would not increase the project cost by more than twice the reproduction cost of the tree(s) or ten percent of the given project valuation, whichever is greater. All tree protection zones impacting buildable area are included in the reduction of buildable area calculation. 4 The municipal code sets forth the process for director hearings. To ensure the director is not both making a tentative decision on the project and then adjudicating on it at the hearing, the director is not involved in the review or decision making of any single family individual review application. Decision on these applications are made by supervising managers in consultation with the assistant director. The director’s only involvement begins when after a staff report is published and the hearing conducted. 5 This is the property owner’s assessment of the lost useable area due to the revised configuration. The actual gross floor area reduction based on the zoning code definition is 519 square feet. 2. The layout would fragment living spaces, resulting in an awkward floor plan with a long connecting hallway and reduced room sizes. 3. Situating the residence beneath a tree canopy would likely pose challenges in securing homeowner's insurance. 4. The consulting arborist cautioned that building in close proximity to the trees increases the risk of future foundation damage from root growth. 5. While the alternative design would cost less to construct due to its smaller floor area, it would negatively impact the estimated resale value of the home by an amount exceeding twice the reproduction value of the tree, surpassing the applicable financial threshold. Based on the evidence presented in the record, the Director concluded that the requirements of PAMC 8.10.050(b)(2) were not met. Specifically, the applicant did not demonstrate that the alternative design would increase project costs as set forth in the code. While the applicant argued that preserving the redwood trees was impractical and inconsistent with the project objectives, and that the alternative design would reduce the resale value of the home, neither project objectives nor resale value are express criteria under the municipal code. The Director also noted that the proposed design and the alternative include the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and therefore do not differ significantly in overall programming, though the alternative design results in smaller bedroom sizes. Based on the above evidence, the Director denied the project on January 26, 2026 (Attachment C). The applicant appealed this decision on February 4, 2026 based on similar grounds previously stated. The appeal statement is provided in Attachment H. ANALYSIS The subject Individual Review application has been evaluated by staff and determined to meet the IR program's guidelines. The Individual Review program aims to ensure that new residential construction is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of architectural character, scale, massing, and streetscape appearance, while also being sensitive to neighbors' concerns regarding privacy. Notwithstanding compliance with the IR guidelines, the project has not, based on the information included in the administrative record, demonstrated compliance with the City’s regulations related to tree preservation. The regulations regarding whether the protected tree can be lawfully removed are set forth in Chapter 8.10 of the municipal code. A protected tree may not be removed unless it is determined by the urban forester (or Planning Director and City Council on appeal), based on an arborist report and other relevant information, that the tree(s) would either: 1. Die as a result of its proximity of a proposed development, and there is no financially feasible design alternative that would permit preservation of the tree. 2. reduce the otherwise permissible buildable area of the lot by more than twenty-five percent, and there is no financially feasible design alternative that would allow for preservation of the tree(s). Criterion 2 applies to the subject appeal, and the project clearly qualifies under the first prong. Tree 1, occupies 48% of the otherwise-permissible buildable area. The second prong addresses financial feasibility and is satisfied if the cost to preserve the tree exceeds twice the reproduction cost of the tree, which in this case amounts to approximately $188,600. Staff requested information from the applicant to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. In response, the applicant indicated that designing around and protecting the tree would actually cost less, as the resulting home would be smaller in square footage. The appellant continues to argue that the revised home design, however, is not aligned with project objectives, including a preference for a certain sized home and floor plan layout reflected in the original application. As noted previously, project objectives are not an evaluation criterion under the municipal code. Based on the foregoing, the Director determined that the only available action was to deny the application. Although staff encouraged the applicant to engage a contractor or other expert to provide cost estimates for the overall home construction or provide information on how designing around the tree would impact costs in order to demonstrate compliance with the code, the applicant has not done so. It is staff’s opinion that the costs to protect the tree could exceed twice the reproduction cost of the tree when factoring in increased complexity for construction design and methods, such as hand trowel excavation to protect the roots, specialized foundation treatment, on-site arborist monitoring, suspended utility routing, staging and anti-compaction efforts and potentially other considerations to protect the tree. However, the applicant has not provided the information to support this conclusion. In addition, staff has some reservations as to whether the revised alternative design protects the subject tree. While the redesign protects the roots from impacts, there would still be a fair amount of canopy trimming, which may undermine the trees’ health. This aspect of the redesign has not been fully analyzed. Community members may reference or advocate for a previously designed home for this property (under different ownership). That design relies on variances or discretionary relief from the code, which the property owner has indicated an unwillingness to request. Moreover, there is nothing in the municipal code that would compel the owner to redesign the project, unless it was found to be financially feasible to do so while preserving the protected tree. In this case, the applicant’s statements lead to a conclusion that it is financially feasible to redesign the home around the tree; however, as noted above, the applicant’s information may be incomplete, as it relies solely on the reduction in square footage without accounting for other relevant factors such as specialized construction methodologies, and related considerations. Nonetheless, given the absence of information sufficient to support removal of the protected tree under the municipal code, the Director denied the project. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Daily Post on March 27, 2026, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on March 25, 2026, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15303 (New Construction). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action Attachment C: Director’s Decision Letter Attachment D: Staff’s Tentative Decision Letter Attachment E: Arborist Report Attachment F: Requests for Director’s Hearing Attachment G: Applicant’s Justification for Removal of Protected Tree #1 Attachment H: Applicant’s Request for Appeal Attachment I: Public Comments Attachment J: Tentatively Denied Plans APPROVED BY: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Court_ Apartments 562 - Bldg 1 24.4' 41.0' 79.7' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 41.0' 24.4' 20.3' 65.0' 65.0' 65.0' 65.0'65.0' 65.0' 65.0'65.0' 65.0' 65.0' ' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 50.0' 113.3' 8.2' 42.5' 120.4' 26.7' 24.4' 113.3'45.0' 153.9' 42.1' 19.3' 7.9' 151.4' 7.9' 50.1 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 62.6' 88.2' 62.6' 88.2' 50.0' 113.6' 53.9' 94.6' 50.0' 176.0' 113.6' 18.0' 37.0' 30.7' 100.0' 70.0' 71.7' 27.1' 49.6' 62.6' 19.0' 47.2'71.7' 65.0' 106.0'150.0' 90.0' 9.7'2.0'22.0' 126.2' 50.0' 114.7' 32.6' 20.9' 95.8' 50.0' 95.8' 12.2' 40.6' 79.6' 50.0' 79.6' 21.0' 46.2' 47.6' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 107.9' 55.0' 107.9' 55.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 45.0' 107.9' 45.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 10.0' 94.0' 107.9' 106.0' 87.9' 15.7'2.0' 120.1' 104.3' 110.2' 15.7' 94.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 120.4' 50.5' 114.7' 127.4' 49.9' 44.5' 108.0' 93.8' 15.7' 98.0' 103.6' 103.6'167.5' 119.8' 89.0' 55.0' 111.8' 136.5' 136.7' 65.0' 148.8' 148.8' 153.9' 150.4' 150.4' 76.7' 37.7' 37.6' 100.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 119.8' 119.8' 101.6' 93.6' 66.0' 53.4' 5.9' 45.0' 118.0' 106.0' 161.2' 13.9' 101.2' 38.9' 18.9' 102.7' 175.8' 175.8' 175.8' 161.2' 161.2' 109.4' 109.4' 50.0' 80.6' 150.0' 161.8'7.5' 101.2' 19.2' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 110.0'110.0' 110.0'110.0' 110.0' 100.0' 89.0' 92.4' 7.9' 17.4' 524 528 530 562 3666 3748 3626- 3632 453- 467 3606 3516 547 3685 643 567 538 530 520 516 510 506 3705 374 3775 568 580 575 548 560 3785 379 3730 3760 3770 3780 3790 559 3691 480 3636 535 543 531 505 3700 3765 3745 3725 3748A BARRON AVENUE BARRON AVEN UE KENDALL AVENUE EAL EL CAMINO REAL NE 66 M-40 C This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Zone Districts Project Site 0' 90' Attachment A: Location Map CITY OF PALO ALTO I NC O R P O R A TE D CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f APRI L 1 6 189 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2025-10-07 22:03:47 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 0160185_20260318_ay16 1 3 2 6 2 ACTION NO. 2026-__ At its meeting on _________, 2026, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) upheld the Director’s decision denying the request for Individual Review for the demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new 2,530-square-foot two-story single-family residence, which included removal of a 107-inch coastal redwood tree making the following findings, determinations, and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. A. On January 23, 2025, Thomas Sullivan applied for an Individual Review application to allow demolition of a 924-square-foot one-story residence and construction of a new 2,530-square-foot residence (“The Project”). A planned attached 303 square-foot Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit and 497-square-foot Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit are shown for reference but are not subject to Individual Review. The project also requires the issuance of a Protected Tree Removal Permit, as the proposed structure requires removal of a 107-inch coastal redwood tree (“Tree #1”). B. The project site is comprised of one existing lot (APN No. 137-08-040) of approximately 5,932 square feet. The site contains a single-story, single-family development in a single-family residential (R-1) zoned neighborhood. C. Following staff review, on August 28, 2025, staff, on behalf of the Director of Planning and Development Services, tentatively approved the project, including removal of the protected tree, with conditions. D. On August 29, 2025, the City received two timely requests for a Director’s hearing from neighboring property owners at 3730 La Selva Drive and 538 Barron Avenue. E. On October 15, 2025, the Director held a duly noticed public hearing at which members of the public were provided an opportunity to comment. The Director determined that sufficient evidence had not been provided to demonstrate that a protected tree removal permit could be issued under PAMC Section 8.10.050(b)(2) for removal of Tree #1. The Director continued the hearing to allow the applicant to provide more information to support the proposed removal of Tree #1. F. On November 25, 2025, the applicant submitted supplemental information, which is reflected in the January 12, 2026, Director’s Hearing staff report. The supplemental information provides an alternative to the proposed project, an arborist report that concludes that the alternative would preserve the protected tree, and states that the cost to construct the project alternative would cost less than the proposed project. 0160185_20260318_ay16 2 3 2 6 2 G. On January 12, 2026, the Director held a duly noticed public hearing at which members of the public were provided an opportunity to speak and considered the supplemental information submitted as part of the public record. H. On January 26, 2026, the Director denied the application, finding that although the project meets the Individual Review Design Guidelines (for two-story development) as well as the development standards set forth for the R-1 Zone District, the applicant has not submitted information to show compliance with the findings for removal of a protected tree, as set forth in 8.10.050 of the municipal code. Because the tree removal permit could not be issued, and removal of the tree is necessary for the proposed project, the project application was denied. A. On February 4, 2026, Thomas Sullivan appealed the Director’s decision in accordance with the appeal process set forth in PAMC Section 18.77.075. B. On April 6, 2026, in accordance with PAMC Section 18.77.075, the appeal was placed on the City Council’s consent calendar. Based upon a review of the evidence in the record, and after all persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the City Council’s policies and procedures, the City Council upheld the Director’s decision denying the application. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City, acting as the lead agency for the Project, has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guideline section 15301, which provides an exemption for small structures. SECTION 3. Findings for Project Application Denial. The proposed improvements require the issuance of a Protected Tree Removal Permit pursuant to PAMC Chapter 8.10. Specifically, for removal of a protected tree when associated with a proposed development in the single-family (R-1) zone, PAMC Section 8.10.050(b)(2) requires a finding that: 1. There is no financially feasible design alternative that would allow for preservation of the tree(s). For the purposes of this subsection (b)(2), a financially feasible design alternative means a design alternative that preserves the tree(s) and would not increase the project cost by more than twice the reproduction cost of the tree(s) or ten percent of the given project valuation, whichever is greater. The valuation of the tree is estimated at $94,300. The construction cost for the design alternative was not provided though information from the applicant states that the alternative would decrease the cost of construction compared to the proposed project. Although the applicant asserts that the design alternative would reduce the total value of the project, PAMC Section 8.10.050 speaks only to the project cost. The applicant’s arborist stated that the alternative design would not adversely impact the tree in certain conditions. Therefore, the 0160185_20260318_ay16 3 3 2 6 2 evidence in the record establishes that the design alternative would allow for preservation of the tree and would not increase the project cost by more than twice the reproduction cost of the tree or ten percent of the project valuation. Accordingly, the required finding cannot be made. January 26, 2026 Tom Sullivan 530 Barron Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 SUBJECT: 530 Barron Avenue: Denial of Individual Review Application 25PLN-00021 On August 28, 2025, staff, on behalf of the Director of Planning and Development Services , conditionally approved Single Family Individual Review application 25PLN-00102 for a new two-story residence at 530 Barron Avenue. This approval was granted pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 18.12.110 and 18.77.075 based on the finding that the conditionally approved project plan set received July 8, 2025, met the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines , and complies with the R -1 zone district regulations and other applicable City regulations for development as conditioned. Prior to the approval becoming effective, the City received two timely requests for a Director’s Hearing . A Director’s Hearing was held on October 15, 2025, and continued to January 12, 2026. After consideration of all the evidence in the record, the Director of Planning and Development Services denies the proposed project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposal is a request by Tom Sullivan, for Single Family Individual Review to allow deconstruction of an existing 924-square-foot one-story residence, and construction of a new 2,528 -square-foot, two-story single-family residence with an attached one-car garage in the R -1 zoning district, as shown on the plans received on July 8, 2025. A Junior Accessory Dwelling unit and conversion of a portion of the existing residence into a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit are shown for reference but are not subject to Individual R eview. DIRECTOR’S HEARING Vicki Young , residing at 3730 La Selva Drive, and Kerri Jung, residing at 538 Barron Avenue, each requested a hearing within the 14-day hearing request period. Ms. Young expressed concern regarding removal of the protected redwood tree and stated disagreement that the findings set forth in Title 8 of the municipal code for removal of the tree had been met . Ms. Jung expressed that she believed that there were viable alternatives to save the protected redwood tree and requested a hearing to allow for further discussion. On October 15, 2025, the Director held a public hearing at which members of the public were provided the opportunity to comment. The applicant and those who requested the hearing were provided an opportunity to speak to their proposal and concerns, respectively. The Director determined that sufficient evidence had not been provided to comply with PAMC Section Docusign Envelope ID: F1890A66-0164-4CEB-BCF2-A8A1C2C24004 530 Barron Avenue Denial Individual Review 25PLN-00021 Page 2 of 3 8.10.050(b)(2) for removal of Tree #1, a protected 107 -inch diameter redwood tree, and hence continued the hearing, requesting more information be provided to support protected tree removal consistent with PAMC Section 8.10.050(b)(2). On November 25, 2025, the applicant provided supplemental information, which is reflected in the January 12, 2026, staff report. The documentation provides an alternative to the proposed project that includes a 1,783 square foot residence. A junior accessory dwelling unit and conversion of a portion of the existing residence into an accessory dwelling unit is also shown on the plans, similar to the proposed project, though accessory dwelling units are not subject to discretionary review . The documentation states that the cost to construct the proposed alternative would be less than the cost of construction of the proposed project because the floor area is smaller, but that this smaller floor area would impact the resale value by more than the threshold of twice the reproduction value of the tree. In addition, the documentation includes a statement by the applicant’s arborist that the alternative project would not adversely affect the tree “as long as the foundations were designed to bridge over the larger roots and compaction within the TPZ was kept to a minimum.” Prior to the January 12, 2026 hearing, staff suggested that the applicant provide additional information relating to PAMC 8.10.050(b)(2), such as the cost and feasibility of bridging the foundation for the alternative design and the extent to which compaction could realistically be avoided within the tree protection zone; the applicant chose not to do so. DECISION AND FINDINGS Although the project is found to meet the Individual Review Design Guidelines as well as the development standards set forth for the R -1 Zone District, the applicant has not submitted information to show compliance with the findings for removal of a protected tree, as set forth in 8,10.050 of the municipal code. For removal of a protected tree when associated with a proposed development, PAMC Section 8.10.050(b)(2) requires that, “there is no financially feasible design alternative that would allow for preservation of the tree(s). For the purposes of this subsection (a)(2), a financially feasible design alternative means a design alternative that preserves the tree(s) and would not increase the project cost by more than twice the reproduc tion cost of the tree(s) or ten percent of the given project valuation, whichever is greater.” The valuation of the tree is estimated at $94,300 . The construction cost for the alternative project was not provided. As noted above, information from the applicant states that it would be less than the cost of construction of the proposed project and the applicant’s arborist stated that the alternative design would not adversely impact the tree in certain conditions . On this record, the Director of Planning and Development Services finds that the applicant has not met the standard in PAMC 8.10.050(b)(2) for removal of a protected tree. Accordingly, this application for a two-story, single-family home project is denied. This denial will become effective 14 calendar days from the postmark date of this letter, unless an appeal is filed, as provided by Chapter 18.77.075 of the PAMC. An appeal may be filed by written request with the City Clerk before the date the Director’s decision be comes final. The written request shall be accompanied by a fee, as set forth in the municipal fee schedule. Only an Docusign Envelope ID: F1890A66-0164-4CEB-BCF2-A8A1C2C24004 530 Barron Avenue Denial Individual Review 25PLN-00021 Page 3 of 3 applicant, or the owner or tenant of an adjacent property may appeal. As the plans may have been revised since the original submittal, interested parties may wish to review the tentatively denied plans online at the City’s Planning webpage https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning - Development-Services/Current-Planning/Projects/530-Barron-Ave. If you need assistance reviewing the plans, you may visit the City’s Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue. Should you have any questions regarding this denial, please feel free to contact Claire Raybould at claire.raybould@paloalto.gov. Sincerely, Jonathan Lait Director of Planning and Development Services Attachment A : Conditions of Approval cc: Vickie Young, 3730 La Selva Drive , Palo Alto, CA 94306 Kerri Young, 538 Barron Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Docusign Envelope ID: F1890A66-0164-4CEB-BCF2-A8A1C2C24004 cc: Neighbor notification list (adjacent neighbors) Attachment: Conditions of Approval Property Owner August 28, 2025 Thomas Sullivan 530 Barron Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 SUBJECT: 530 Barron Avenue (25PLN-00021) Individual Review The Director of Planning and Development Services has conditionally approved your Single-Family Individual Review to allow deconstruction of an existing 924 square foot one-story residence, and to allow the construction of a new 2,528 square foot two story single-family residence with attached one car garage in the R-1 zoning district. A 303 square foot Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit and 497 square foot detached Accessory Dwelling Unit is also shown on the plans and subject to building permit review. This approval was granted pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 18.12.110 and 18.77.075. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Guideline Section 15303 (New Const ruction). As conditioned, the project meets all five of the Palo Alto Single-Family Individual Review Guidelines and complies with the R-1 Zone District development regulations. This approval will become effective 14 days from the postmark date of this letter, unless the Planning Department receives a written request for a Director ’s Hearing prior to the end of the business day 14 calendar-days after the postmark date. Only an applicant, or the owner or tenant of an adjacent property may request a hearing. As the plans may have been revised since the original submittal, interested parties may wish to review the tentatively approved plans online at the City’s Planning webpage bit.ly/PABuildingEye. This letter and attached conditions and findings shall be printed onto building permit plans relating to this approval. If the building permit has not been issued and construction commenced within two years from the effective approval date, this approval will expire. A written request for an extension may be submitted prior to the expiration date. The Director may grant a one-year extension of this approval. Should you have any questions regarding this approval or need help reviewing the plan set, please contact Bhavani Potharaju, Project Planner, at (408) 819-0452 or e-mail at bpotharaju@m-group.us. Sincerely, Claire Raybould, AICP Manager, Current Planning 530 Barron Avenue approval Individual Review 25PLN-00021 Page 2 of 8 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, " Proposed New 2-Story Home for the SULLIVAN FAMILY, 530 Barron Avenue, Palo Alto,” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on June 07, 2025, as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 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. Project plans submitted for Building permits shall incorporate the following changes: a. Privacy trees as described in COA #12, shall be revised from 15-gallon plantings to a minimum 24-inch box trees as detailed further in COA #12. 4. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. The proposed ADU and Junior ADU are subject to ministerial review and therefore only shown for informational purposes as part of this plan set. However, as a courtesy the following comment will be required to be addressed as part of any building permit review. a. In accordance with Housing and Community Development Department guidance and the City’s municipal code, the proposed attached JADU must be revised to show a 6- foot setback from the side yard property line. 5. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 6. OBSCURED/TRANSLUCENT GLAZING. All obscure glazing, as shown on the plan set, shall be permanent in nature and shall remain for the life of the structure. Obscure glazing is either decorative glazing that does not allow views through placed into the window frame or acid etched or similar permanent alteration of the glass. Films or like additions to clear glass are not permitted where obscure glazing is shown. Obscure glazing shall not be altered in the future and shall be replaced with like materials if damaged. If operable, these windows shall open towards the public right-of-way. 7. PRIVACY SCREENING. All screening, as shown on the plan set, shall be permanent in nature and shall remain for the life of the structure. Screening shall be a maximum of 15 percent open. Screening shall not be altered and shall be replaced with like materials if damaged. 530 Barron Avenue approval Individual Review 25PLN-00021 Page 3 of 8 8. REQUIRED PARKING. All single-family homes shall be provided with a minimum of one covered parking space (10-foot by 20-foot interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (8.5 feet by 17.5 feet). 9. 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. 10. NOISE PRODUCING EQUIPMENT. All noise producing equipment shall be located outside of required setbacks, except they may project 6 feet into the required street side setbacks. In accordance with 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. 11. DAYLIGHT PLANE. The daylight plane must clear the point where the wall plane intersects the top of the roof material. 12. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. A minimum of 60 % of the required front yard shall have a permeable surface that permits water absorption directly into the soil (Section 18.12.040 (h)). The building permit plan set shall include a diagram demonstrating compliance. 13. REQUIRED IR LANDSCAPING/CANOPY REPLACEMENT TREES. The following landscaping is required to ensure the project’s conformance with the City’s IR Guidelines and/or the City’s tree canopy replacement requirements and therefore must remain for the life of the structure. The required screening trees and shrubs shall be a minimum size of 24-inch box, measure at least eight (8) feet tall at planting, and shall be capable of growing up to 15 feet in height. a. Six 24-inch box trees shown on sheet A5, shall be planted and maintained along rear property line. b. Seven 24-inch box trees shown on sheet A5, shall be planted and maintained at the left side yard of the property. c. A total of eight 24-inch box replacement trees are required for removal of tree #2 on the site plan (Tree #1 in the arborist report). Replacement trees shall be planted and maintained on the property to meet City’s no net loss of canopy requirement . Privacy trees in COA #12a and #12b can be counted towards no net loss of canopy requirements. See comment #23 for further details. 14. LANDSCAPING. All existing landscaping shall remain unless approved for removal in the approved plan set. Show tree protection fencing to all trees and shrubs intended to remain on site and for the street trees. The tree protection shall be shown in the plans submitted for building permit, as shown on Sheet A1.4 and shall be installed at the beginning of construction. Landscape planting shall be installed as shown in the approved plans. Modifications to the landscaping plan shall be approved by Planning and Urban Forestry. 530 Barron Avenue approval Individual Review 25PLN-00021 Page 4 of 8 15. FENCES. Fences and walls shall comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 16.24, Fences, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Heights of all new and existing fencing must be shown on the Building Permit plans. a. Where an existing fence is non-compliant, a new Code compliant fence shall be constructed in its place. 16. JADU DEED RESTRICTION. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall complete the “OCCUPANCY, LAND USE, AND DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION AGREEMENT FOR JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT” (i.e. JADU Deed Restriction Agreement) for review and approval by the Director of Planning & Development Services. 17. PLANNING 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, fenestration and hard surface locations. Contact the planning department at 650 - 617-3117 or email Planner@CityofPaloAlto.org to schedule this inspection. 18. PERMIT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration, by emailing the Planning department at Planner@CityofPaloAlto.org. If a timely extension is not received, or the project has already received an extension and the applicant still wishes to pursue this project, they must first file for a new Planning application and pay the associated fees. This new application will be reviewed for conformance with the regulations in place at that time. 19. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval author ized 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. URBAN FORESTRY 20. The applicant's project to develop the site with the proposed removal of tree #1 is approvable by Urban Forestry under 8.10.050 B (2). Documents submitted during C3 demonstrate that there are no feasible design alternatives that would preserve tree #1. 21. The replacement value of tree #2 is eight new 24" box trees (two-thirds of the canopy loss) as defined by the Tree Technical Manual in section 3.20 C. table 3.1 of native and drought tolerant species and one-third of the appraised value of the tree as defined by the Tree Technical Manual in section 3.25 in the amount of $31,433 paid via in-lieu fee to the Palo Alto Urban Forestry Fund. (Note the appraised value of tree #1 is $94,300.) 530 Barron Avenue approval Individual Review 25PLN-00021 Page 5 of 8 22. URBAN FORESTRY GENERAL: The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. No waste material or construction byproducts are allowed within the TPZ. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated, and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 23. TREE DAMAGE: Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to the Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule apply pursuant to TLTM Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree and Landscape Technical Manual , Section 3.02. 24. TPZ EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY - TLTM, Sec. 3.03.6 - B5,6: Any approved grading, digging, potholing, or trenching within the TPZ of a protected tree shall be pe rformed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. (TPZ= 10x the tree diameter at 54" above grade) For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with a diameter of 2 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then CPA Standard Detail #504 shall be printed on the final plans and the buffer distances in TLTM Table 3-4, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be implemented by Contractor. Contractor must notify the Urban Forestry Section at (650) 496-5953 in advance of conducting any approved excavation within 10-feet of any street trees (or for any protected tree on EVSE projects). Urban Forestry may choose to monitor or review the work for compliance with the City’s Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) excavation standards. 25. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE: The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as st ated in the Tree Preservation Report and/or Sheet T-1 and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping or Urban Forestry inspection of the project is completed. 26. NO NET LOSS OF CANOPY: In order to comply with the City’s no net loss of canopy policy (PAMC 8.10.055; Urban Forest Master Plan Goals 6.A, 6.B, & 6.C; Comprehensive Plan, Natural Environment Chapter Goal N-2) all trees 4 inches DBH and larger are subject to replacement to avoid a loss of canopy at the neighborhood level. Replacement ratios are determined by table 3 -1 in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual, Section 3.02. New landscape tree plantings (24 inch box or larger) count towards the replacement total. Screening trees may also count toward the total depending on size and species selected. If unable to plant the required number of trees on site (our preferred solution) there is the option of paying in -lieu fees per each 24 inch box tree into the forestry fund. [Note: A replacement at ratio of 1:1 for trees listed as exempt species under PAMC 8.10.020 is recommended. Exempt trees may require full replacement on parcels zoned other than R1, RE, R-2, or RMD]. 27. PLAN CHANGES: Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written 530 Barron Avenue approval Individual Review 25PLN-00021 Page 6 of 8 letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to Planning and Development Ser vices Department for review by Planning, Public Works, or Urban Forestry. 28. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS: The final Plans submitted for a building permit shall include the location, DBH, canopy drip-line, and TPZ of all trees 4 inches DBH or greater as well as the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. T-1 SHEET SET, The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, T-1 Sheet Set (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website. A certified arborist shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement. b. TREE PRESERVATION REPORT (TPR), if indicated by Tree Disclosure Statement, All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, shall be printed on numbered T-1 Sheets (T-3, T-4, etc.) and added to the sheet index. c. TREE PROTECTION FENCING, The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing around each Protected Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (CPA Standard Detail #605) ZERO WASTE 29. REQUIRED DECONSTRUCTION. In conformance with PAMC 5.24, deconstruction and source separation are required for all residential and commercial projects where structures (other than a garage or ADU) are being completely removed, demolition is no longer allowed. Deconstruction takes longer than traditional demolition, it is important to plan ahead. For more information, visit www.cityofpaloalto.org/deconstruction. 30. SALVAGE SURVEY FOR REUSE. A Salvage Survey is required for deconstruction permit applications. The survey shall be conducted by a City approved reuse vendor. The survey submittal shall include an itemized list of materials that are salvageable for reuse from the project. The applicant shall source separate and deliver materials for reuse. Certification is required indicating that all materials identified in the survey are properly salvaged. Contact The ReUse People to schedule this FREE survey by phone (888) 588-9490 or e-mail info@thereusepeople.org. More information can be found at www.TheReusePeople.org. Please upload a completed copy to the deconstruction permit. 31. SOURCE SEPARATION FOR RECYCLING. The applicant shall source separate deconstruction materials into specific categories for recycling. Additional staging areas for source separated materials will need to be considered. All materials shall be delivered to one of the City approved materials recovery facilities listed in Green Halo, all records shall be uploaded to www.greenhalosystems.com. For more information, refer to www.cityofpaloalto.org/deconstruction 530 Barron Avenue approval Individual Review 25PLN-00021 Page 7 of 8 PUBLIC WORKS CONDITION OF APPROVAL The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit and/or Encroachment Permit. 32. PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD CONDITIONS SHEET: The Department of Public Work’s full-sized "Standard Conditions" sheet shall be included in the improvement plans and the applicant shall comply with all conditions listed in the sheet. The sheet can be obtained at t he following link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/engineering- services/webpages/forms-and-permits/pw-conditions-sheet-alternative-update-8.7.18.pdf 33. SIDEWALK, DRIVEWAY, CURB & GUTTER: The applicant shall meet with a Public Works inspector by calling 650-496-6929 to determine portions of sidewalk, curb, gutter, and driveway approaches that shall be replaced along the project frontage. These portions shall be indicated on the site improvement plans. In addition, a Site Inspection Directive sheet shall be completed, signed by the inspector, and scanned onto the plan set. The sheet can be obtained from a staff member of Public Works Engineering Services or at the following link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/public-works/engineering- services/webpages/forms-and-permits/other-guidelines/pwe-site-inspection-directive_rev- 2021.pdf 34. DRIVEWAY APPROACHES: The applicant shall comply with all regulations in PAMC Chapter 12.08 for driveway approaches. A summary of those regulations can be obtained at the following link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=69580.09&BlobID=66035 35. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION SHEET: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet shall be included in the improvement plans. The sheet can be obtained at the following link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/publicworks/engineering- Services/webpages/forms-and-permits/rwq_stormwater_plansheet_final_bw.pdf 36. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA WORKSHEET: The applicant shall fill out the Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments at the link below. The sheet shall be both emailed to pwecips@cityofpaloalto.org and included with the building permit submittal: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/engineering- services/webpages/forms-and-permits/impervious-area-worksheet-fillable.pdf 37. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The improvement plans shall be compliant with the “Grading & Drainage Guidelines for Residential Developments”. The sheet can be obtained at the following: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/engineering- services/webpages/forms-and-permits/grading-drainage-residential-guidelines.pdf 530 Barron Avenue approval Individual Review 25PLN-00021 Page 8 of 8 38. C.3 STORMWATER REGULATIONS: This project creates or replaces over 2,500 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant shall implement one or more of the following site design measures on improvement plans: a. Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. b. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. c. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. d. Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. e. Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. f. Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable sur faces. 39. STREETWORK PERMIT: All improvement plans shall include the following note adjacent to proposed work in the public right-of-way. “Any construction within the public right-of-way requires an approved Street work Permit from Public Works Engineering”. 40. DEMOLITION PLAN: The following note shall be placed adjacent to all affected trees on the Demolition Plan: “Excavation and trenching is restricted within the Tree Protection Zone (refer to T-1 Tree Protection Sheet) or as approved by the Urban Forestry D ivision at 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. 41. CONSTRUCTION STAGING: All improvement plans shall include the following note on the Site Plan and the Grading & Drainage Plan. “All construction materials and equipment shall be staged, stored, and stockpiled onsite and not on any public street”. 42. BARRON PARK: This project is located in Barron Park and shall comply with regulations for unimproved street areas. The guidelines can be obtained from the following link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/public-works/engineering- services/webpages/forms-and-permits/other-guidelines/paving-of-parking-areas-adjacent-to- the-edge-of-the-pavement-in-unimproved-street-areas-2021.pdf GREEN BUILDING & ENERGY REACH CODE REQUIREMENTS: 43. The proposed project shall conform with PAMC Section 16.14 (Green Building code) Information, ordinances and applications can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. If you have any questions regarding Green Building requirements, please call the Green Building Consultant at (650) 329-2179 or send an email to GreenBuilding@CityofPaloAlto.org. Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto 965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025 ___________________________________________________________________________ Tom Sullivan Site: 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto At your request I visited the above site for the purpose of inspecting and commenting on the Method: Palo Alto regulates the following trees: Locally Native Protected Species Trees Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum) 11.5" or more DBH Calocedrus decurrens) 11.5" or more DBH Quercus agrifolia) 11.5" or more DBH Quercus douglasii) 11.5" or more DBH Quercus kelloggii) 11.5" or more DBH Quercus lobata) 11.5" or more DBH Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 18" or more DBH Protected Mature Trees Any mature tree measuring 15" or more DBH Designated Trees Any tree designated for protection during review and approval of a development project. Public Trees / Street Trees "Public trees" include any tree, in any street, park, or public place in the city of Palo Alto. "Street Palo Alto requests that all trees with a trunk diameter greater than 6 inches at standard height be 1 | P a g e Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto 965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025 ___________________________________________________________________________ The location of the regulated trees on this site can be found on the plan provided by you. Each tree 1 to 29 Very Poor 50 to 69 Fair 70 to 89 Good 90 to 100 Excellent The height and spread of each tree is estimated. A Comments section is provided for any significant A Summary and Tree Protection Plan are at the end of the survey providing recommendations for Photos of the trees can be found in the Appendix at the end of the report. Appraised values and their calculations can be found in the Appendix at the end of the report. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to call. Robert Weatherill 2 | P a g e Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto 965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025 ___________________________________________________________________________ Tree Survey Tree# Species DBH Ht/Sp Con Rating Comments 1 Coastal redwood Sequoia sempervirens 107.2”@2’ 90/40 65 Good health, fair condition, Regulated Coastal redwood Sequoia sempervirens 51.0”90/20 Good health and condition Regulated Coastal redwood 36”est 80/30 Good health and condition, neighbor’s Sequoia sempervirens tree, Regulated Summary: Tree # 1 is a coastal redwood in the middle of the property. The tree is a Locally Native Protected Tree # 2 is a coastal redwood at the side of the property. The tree is a Locally Native Protected Tree # 3 is a coastal redwood on the rear neighbor’s property. The tree is a Locally Native Tree Protection Plan 1. The Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) should be defined with protective fencing. This should be 1/2” or 2” posts driven at least 2 feet in to the ground standing at Tree # 2: TPZ should be at 42 feet from the trunk of the tree, closing on the property line. This is The TPZ can be reduced to accommodate the new construction allowing for safe access to the Any work within the TPZ should be done with hand tools only. Any roots greater than 2” in diameter should be worked around rather than cut. 3 | P a g e Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto 965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025 ___________________________________________________________________________ Tree # 3: TPZ should be at 30 feet from the trunk of the tree, closing on the property line. This is The TPZ can be reduced to accommodate the new construction allowing for safe access to the Any work within the TPZ should be done with hand tools only. Any roots greater than 2” in diameter should be worked around rather than cut. 2. Any pruning and maintenance of the trees shall be carried out before construction The pruning should be carried out by an arborist, not by construction personnel. No limbs greater than 4” in diameter shall be removed. 3. Any excavation in ground where there is a potential to damage roots of 1” or more in diameter (2) 4 | P a g e Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto 965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025 ___________________________________________________________________________ 4. If roots are broken, every effort should be made to remove the damaged area and cut it back to (2) 5. Do Not:.(4) a. Allow run off or spillage of damaging materials into the area below any tree canopy. f. Secure cable, chain or rope to trees or shrubs. 6. Where roots are exposed, they should be kept covered with the native soil or four layers of (4) 7. Route pipes into alternate locations to avoid conflict with roots.(4) 8. Where it is not possible to reroute pipes or trenches, the contractor is to bore beneath the (4) 9. Compaction of the soil within the dripline shall be kept to a minimum.(2) If access is required to go 10. Any damage due to construction activities shall be reported to the project arborist or city arborist 11. Ensure upon completion of the project that the original ground level is restored 5 | P a g e Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto 965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025 ___________________________________________________________________________ Location of proposed home, ADU, tree requested for removal, protected trees and their Tree 6 | P a g e Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto 965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025 ___________________________________________________________________________ Glossary Canopy The part of the crown composed of leaves and small twigs.(2) An open wound, characterized by the presence of extensive decay and (1) Decay Process of degradation of woody tissues by fungi and bacteria through the (1) Dripline The width of the crown as measured by the lateral extent of the foliage.(1) A classification of plants showing similar characteristics. Root plate The point at which the trunk flares out at the base of the tree to become the root system. Species A Classification that identifies a particular plant. Standard Height at which the girth of the tree is measured. Typically 4 1/2 feet above References (1) Matheny, N.P., and Clark, J.P. Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. International Society of Arboriculture,1994. (2) Harris, R.W., Matheny, N.P. and Clark, J.R.. Arboriculture: Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs and Vines. Prentice Hall, 1999. (3) Carlson, Russell E. Paulownia on The Green: An Assessment of Tree Health and Structural Condition. Tree Tech Consulting, 1998. (4) Extracted from a copy of Tree Protection guidelines. Anon (5) T. D. Sydnor, Arboricultural Glossary. School of Natural Resources, 2000 7 | P a g e Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto 965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025 ___________________________________________________________________________ Certification of Performance(3) I, Robert Weatherill certify: * That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this * That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is * That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own, and are based on * That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined * That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been * That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as I further certify that I am a member of the International Society of Arboriculture and a Signed Robert Weatherill 8 | P a g e Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto 965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025 ___________________________________________________________________________ Terms and Conditions(3) The following terms and conditions apply to all oral and written reports and correspondence pertaining to 4.The scope of any report or other correspondence is limited to the trees and conditions specifically mentioned in those reports and correspondence. Advanced Tree Care and the consultant assume no liability 6.The consultant shall not be required to provide further documentation, give testimony, be deposed, or attend court by reason of this appraisal/report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, 9 | P a g e Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto 965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025 ___________________________________________________________________________ Appendix Photos of trees Tree # 1 10 | P a g e Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto 965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025 ___________________________________________________________________________ Tree # 2 11 | P a g e Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto 965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025 ___________________________________________________________________________ Tree # 3 12 | P a g e Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto 965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025 ___________________________________________________________________________ Addendum Appraised Value of Tree # 1 using Trunk Formula Method Tree# Species DBH Ht/Sp Con Rating Comments 1 Coastal redwood 107.2”@2’ 90/40 65 Good health, fair condition, Sequoia sempervirens 32.2”, 30.5”, 28.1”, 41.3”, 46.2” at 6 feet above grade Codominant at 2’, Regulated Tree # 1 is a large redwood with a trunk diameter of 107.2” at 2 feet above grade. The tree starts to Diameter of trunks at 6 feet above grade: 32.2”, 30.5”, 28.1”, 41.3”, 46.2”. To determine the cross-sectional area of the entire tree I have added the cross-sectional areas of each The resulting value of the tree is $94,300.00. See attached table of calculations. Appraised Value of Tree # 1 using Cost of Reproduction, Cost Compounding Technique Tree# Species DBH Ht/Sp Con Rating Comments 1 Coastal redwood 107.2”@2’ 90/40 65 Good health, fair condition, Sequoia sempervirens 32.2”, 30.5”, 28.1”, 41.3”, 46.2” at 6 feet above grade Codominant at 2’, Regulated Using the same figures adopted in the Trunk Formula Method for Health, Structure, Form, Years to parity in this location with ideal irrigation and growing conditions would be approximately Interest rate as of today current mortgage rate, 30yr fixed, 6.87% The resulting value of the tree is $41,300.00. See attached table of calculations. 13 | P a g e Advanced Tree Care 530 Barron Ave., Palo Alto 965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos June 23, 2025 ___________________________________________________________________________ Alternative design approach around Tree # 1 I took a look at the plans dated 6/17/25 and it would certainly be possible to build the house as shown Redwoods are quite tolerant to construction impacts and can easily live through heavy canopy Redwoods have a high-water requirement to keep healthy. The proposed landscape may not be able Redwood roots will follow paths of moisture and a tree that is healthy like this, may impact the The plans show the proposed home being 10 feet from the base of the tree and regardless of 14 | P a g e Advanced Tree Care and Consulting Inc. 965 East San Carlos Ave, San Carlos, CA 94070 650 839 9539 Valuation Appraisal Worksheet Based on Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition, 2nd Printing (2019) Date: 3/13/25 Depreciation Factors Line 9 Line 10 Line 11 1 Ss 34 0.8 0.6 0.5 62%Multi 75%75%4 4.75 $250.00 $52.63 5179.00 $272,578.95 $94,295 $94,300 1 of 1 3FQSPEVDUJPOꢀ.FUIPE $PTUꢀ$PNQPVOEJOHꢀ5FDIOJRVF Tom Sullivan 6/19/25Client name _____________________________________________________ Date _________ Case # ____________ꢀ 408 223 5896 tomsullivan3000@gmail.comPhone _________________________________________________________ꢀE-mail ______________________________ꢀ 530 Barron Ave, Palo AltoAddress ___________________________________________________________________________________________ꢀ 4VCKFDUꢀUSFF Coastal redwood, Sequoia sempervirensSpecies ________________________________________________ 107"2'1. Trunk diameter* (D) _________________ @ ______________ 622. Condition rating _________ % 80Health _______________________________________________________ 60Structure ______________________________________________________ 50Form ________________________________________________________ 3. Functional limitations ____________________________________________ 4. External limitations ______________________________________________ 75_________ % 75_________ % 3FQMBDFNFOUꢀUSFF Coastal redwood, Sequoia sempervirensSpecies ________________________________________________ 2.46"54"5. Trunk diameter* (D) _________________ @ ______________ Industry Standard 750.006. Replacement tree and installation cost (Source: ____________________)$__________ 0$__________ $750.00$__________ $BMDVMBUJPOT ꢁꢂ Years to parity (appraiser’s judgment)**75_________ yrs Current mortgage rate 30yr fixed 6.87ꢃꢄꢂ Interest rate Source: ____________________________________________ ꢃꢃꢂ Basic compounded cost (line 8 × [1+ line 10]line 9 ) ꢃꢅꢂ Depreciated compounded cosUA (line 11 × line 2 × line 3 × line 4) ꢃꢆꢂ Additional cleanup cost _________ % 109,457.86$__________ 26,269.88$__________ 15,000$__________ 41,269ꢃꢇꢂ Total (line 12 + line 13)$__________ 41,300ꢃꢈꢂ Rounded $__________ * Diameter and cross-sectional area may be replaced with plant area, volume, or height as appropriate. ** e age and cross-sectional area of the subject tree are not necessarily relevant. Its size (diameter, volume, and/or height) is relevant. reflect the appraiser’s best estimate at the time for a healthy specimen to reach a size where it provides equal A Apply depreciation if it is appropriate for the assignment. Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA. 3FWJTFEꢀJOꢀꢁꢂꢃꢄꢅꢀ$VSSFOUꢀBTꢀPGꢀ0DUPCFSꢀꢁꢂꢁꢂꢅ 1 Bhavani Potharaju From:Vicki Young <vickihyoung@yahoo.com> Sent:17 September 2025 05:31 To:Raybould, Claire; Bhavani Potharaju Subject:Re: 530 Barron Avenue Tentative Approval Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated. Claire Raybould Bhavani Potharaju Planning and Development Services Department Re: 530 Barron Avenue File No: 25PLN-00021 Dear Ms. Raybould and Ms. Potharaju: The August 28, 2025, Tentative Approval Letter for the 530 Barron Project states that the approval was granted pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 18.12.110 and 18.77.075. These sections govern review of second story construction and the low density residential review process. The letter does not state that the proposed application satisfies the municipal code requirements for removal of a protected tree. The 530 Barron property has two protected trees. I requested a Director’s Review of the Tentative Approval letter because I disagree with the conclusion that there is no design alternative that would allow for the preservation of the Coastal Redwood “grove” designated as Tree #1. The application does not meet the standards in Palo Alto Municipal Code regarding the removal of a protected tree. PAMC 8.10.010 sets standards for the removal of protected trees in recognition that trees and landscaping are an essential part of the city’s infrastructure. “It is the city's intent to encourage both the preservation of trees and the proactive incorporation of trees and their benefits within development.” Palo Alto Municipal Code 8.10.050 (b)(2) permits removal of a protected tree only if there is no financially feasible design alternative that would allow for preservation of the tree(s). For the purposes of this subsection (a)(2), a financially feasible design alternatives means a design alternative that preserves the tree(s) and would not increase the project cost by more than twice the reproduction cost of the tree(s) or ten percent of the given project valuation, whichever is greater. Catherine Mondkar of Urban Forestry noted the following deficiencies in the prior application. 1. the applicant must explore an additional alternative that would incroach into the TPZ of Tree #1 within a reasonable threshold that would construct the home in such a way the preserves the tree’s structural integrity without increasing the project cost by more than twice the reproduction cost 2 of the tree or ten percent of the given project valuation, whichever is greater. The third application includes an alternative design that would preserve Tree #1. 2. the consulting Arborist must clarify the specific reproduction cost of Tree #1. The C2 report referenced the appraised value, not the reproduction cost. The third application includes reproduction costs for Tree #1. 3. that the estimated construction cost of each alternative must be provided in order to compare them against the reproduction cost of Tree #1. No construction costs have been provided for either the proposed design or the alternative design. 4. The design alternative must be reviewed by the Consulting Arborist. The June 25, 2025, addendum to the Consulting Arborist’s report shows that he reviewed the alternative design and stated that it would certainly be possible to build the house as shown in the drawings. The tree would not be adversely impacted as long as the foundations were designed to bridge over larger roots and compaction within the TPZ was kept to a minimum. Redwoods are quite tolerant to construction impacts and can easily live through heavy canopy pruning without any problems. The tree in question is a massive Coastal Redwood that has five trunks growing from the base. Pruning of this grove to minimize the canopy over the prospective house would not leave a poorly proportioned redwood, since while some of the trunks might be heavily pruned, while others would remain intact. The Tentative Approval letter gives no grounds for rejecting the design alternative that preserves Tree #1. The applicant has not provided the project costs required for a determination under PAMC 8.10.050(b)(2) that a protected tree can be removed. I disagree that Documents submitted during C3 demonstrate that there are no feasible design alternatives that would preserve tree #1. Since the project costs were not presented, the requirements of 8.10.050(b)(2) have not been satisfied and the protected tree cannot be removed. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Vicki H. Young 3730 La Selva Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306 vickihyoung@yahoo.com Law Offices of Vicki H. Young 2211 Park Boulevard Palo Alto, California 94306 Telephone: 650-289-0635 Cell: 415-606-7699 Facsimile: 650-289-0636 On Monday, September 8, 2025 at 12:33:57 AM PDT, Bhavani Potharaju <bpotharaju@m-group.us> wrote: Hi Vicki, 3 The email is sufficient. Please list the reasons for appeal request in response to this email. It will help us summarize your concerns in the staff report. Thanks & Regards, BHAVANI POTHARAJU Associate Planner 408.340.5642 x126 c 408.819.0452 Timings: Mon- Fri, 7-10am PST a new design on urban planning m-group.us | M-LAB From: Vicki Young <vickihyoung@yahoo.com> Sent: 05 September 2025 04:13 To: Bhavani Potharaju <bpotharaju@m-group.us>; Raybould, Claire <claire.raybould@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: 530 Barron Avenue Tentative Approval [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated. Good afternoon, I have a question about my objections to the 530 Barron Avenue Tentative approval. I received a postcard saying that the written request for Director's Review is due 14 days from the date on the post card. That would be Sept. 11. Does my email requesting a Director's Appeal satisfy the written requirement, or do I need to submit something more formal by Sept. 11? Thank you. 4 Vicki Young Law Offices of Vicki H. Young 2211 Park Boulevard Palo Alto, California 94306 Telephone: 650-289-0635 Cell: 415-606-7699 Facsimile: 650-289-0636 On Friday, August 29, 2025 at 11:16:54 AM PDT, Raybould, Claire <claire.raybould@paloalto.gov> wrote: Apologies, I just realized I said September 15th. I meant October 15th. Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Manager, Current Planning Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@paloalto.gov www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped 5 From: Raybould, Claire Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 11:11 AM To: Vicki Young <vickihyoung@yahoo.com>; Bhavani Potharaju <bpotharaju@m-group.us> Subject: RE: 530 Barron Avenue Tentative Approval Good morning Vicki, Thank you for your e-mail. Yes, we do consider properties immediately across the street from the site to be adjacent. I’d appreciate if you could list the reasons you are requesting the hearing in response to this e-mail. This will allow staff to write a staff report that explains the project that was approved, and detail your concerns on the project for the Director of Planning. We will confirm the date/time of the director’s hearing (these are held on Wednesdays at 3:30 pm once a month. the next one I believe is scheduled for September 15th). At the Director’s hearing the Director will review the staff report, hear from the applicant and requestor(s). He will then issue a decision within 14 days of the hearing, which may include a reversal of the decision, no changes, or a revised decision with additional conditions of approval included. That decision may be appealed by the applicant or the requestor to Council. Thanks, Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Manager, Current Planning Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@paloalto.gov www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped 6 From: Vicki Young <vickihyoung@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 10:07 AM To: Bhavani Potharaju <bpotharaju@m-group.us>; Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: 530 Barron Avenue Tentative Approval CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Good morning Bhavani and Claire, I am responding to the email I received about the Tentative Approval for the 530 Barron Project. I live at the corner of Barron and La Selva Drive, directly across the street from the property. Is that considered "adjacent" to the property? Your letter says that only owners/tenants of an adjacent property can request a Director's Hearing. I would like to request a Director's Hearing. What are the next steps? Thank you. Vicki Young 3730 La Selva Drive Palo Alto, California 94306 Cell: 415-606-7699 Facsimile: 650-289-0636 On Thursday, August 28, 2025 at 09:09:12 PM PDT, Raybould, Claire <claire.raybould@paloalto.gov> wrote: 7 Good evening all, I’m reaching out because you had expressed an interest in the proposed Individual Review (IR) application for a new two- story home at 530 Barron Avenue and I wanted to inform you that the proposed project has been tentatively approved. I know there were expressed concerns, in particular, with respect to the proposed redwood tree removal on the property. Staff considered these important concerns through the review process, requesting that the applicant provide further exploration of alternatives to the layout/design, including exploration of a potential variance that may allow for the tree to be retained. Ultimately while the applicant did explore multiple alternatives, including a variance alternative, the proposed design was not modified in a manner that retained the redwood tree in question. A second large redwood tree closer to the side yard property line is proposed to be retained in the tentatively approved plans. I’m attaching the tentative approval letter for your awareness. Please feel free to reach out to myself or the project planner, Bhavani (cc’d) if you have any questions or concerns, including next steps if you chose to request a Director’s hearing on the proposed project. Please note that only an applicant, or the owner or tenant of an adjacent property may request a hearing. Claire Claire Raybould, AICP Manager, Current Planning Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@paloalto.gov www.cityofpaloalto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped 1 Bhavani Potharaju From:Kerri <kerjung@gmail.com> Sent:30 August 2025 01:51 To:Claire Raybould Cc:Bhavani Potharaju Subject:Re: 530 Barron Avenue Tentative Approval Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated. Hello Claire, We feel there are viable options that would save the larger strand of trees and would like to discuss. October 15th would work for us. Several neighbors reached out after receiving your email asking to attend the meeting once we have a date. I wanted to give you a heads up for planning purposes. Take care, Kerri Jung Sent from my iPhone On Aug 29, 2025, at 11:22 AM, Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@paloalto.gov> wrote: Good morning Kerri, I recognize that the outcome is not what you hoped. While I know we have had discussions on your concerns in the past, for the record can you explain your reason for requesting the appeal? This will provide staff the information necessary to prepare the staff report for the Director’s hearing. Hearings are held at 3:30 pm on Wednesdays once a month and I anticipate that the hearing in October will likely be held on October 15th, but I will coordinate the Director’s schedule/a room for the hearing before confirming. If you have a conflict at that time please let me know. Claire 2 <image003.png> Claire Raybould, AICP Manager, Current Planning Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@paloalto.gov www.cityofpaloalto.org <image002.png> Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped From: Kerri Jung <kerjung@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 10:03 AM To: Bhavani Potharaju <bpotharaju@m-group.us> Cc: Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@paloalto.gov> Subject: Re: 530 Barron Avenue Tentative Approval CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you, Bhavani. Would the previous email I sent suffice, or do I need to send a formal email to the director? Sincerely, Kerri Jung On Aug 29, 2025, at 9:27 AM, Bhavani Potharaju <bpotharaju@m-group.us> wrote: Hi Kerri, An email to formally appeal for the director’s hearing is sufficient. We will wait for the 14 day appeal period to complete and then schedule a hearing date. The meeting will be conducted at the City on a Wednesday at 3.30pm. You can attend in person or online. The next hearing date will likely be in the first or second week of October. Thanks & Regards, <image001.png> BHAVANI POTHARAJU 3 Associate Planner 408.340.5642 x126 c 408.819.0452 Timings: Mon- Fri, 7- 10am PST a new design on urban planning m-group.us | M-LAB From: Kerri <kerjung@gmail.com> Sent: 29 August 2025 10:05 To: Claire Raybould <Claire.Raybould@paloalto.gov> Cc: Bhavani Potharaju <bpotharaju@m-group.us> Subject: Re: 530 Barron Avenue Tentative Approval [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated. Hello Claire, Thank you for the update. This is very disappointing. Please advise on how to request a Director’s hearing. Sincerely, Kerri Jung 538 Barron Ave. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 28, 2025, at 9:09 PM, Raybould, Claire <Claire.Raybould@paloalto.gov> wrote: Good evening all, I’m reaching out because you had expressed an interest in the proposed Individual Review (IR) application for a new two-story home at 530 Barron Avenue and I wanted to inform you that the proposed project has been tentatively approved. I know there were expressed concerns, in particular, with respect to the proposed redwood tree removal on the property. Staff considered these important concerns through the review process, requesting that the applicant provide further exploration of alternatives to the layout/design, including exploration of a potential variance that may allow for the tree to be 4 retained. Ultimately while the applicant did explore multiple alternatives, including a variance alternative, the proposed design was not modified in a manner that retained the redwood tree in question. A second large redwood tree closer to the side yard property line is proposed to be retained in the tentatively approved plans. I’m attaching the tentative approval letter for your awareness. Please feel free to reach out to myself or the project planner, Bhavani (cc’d) if you have any questions or concerns, including next steps if you chose to request a Director’s hearing on the proposed project. Please note that only an applicant, or the owner or tenant of an adjacent property may request a hearing. Claire <image004.png> Claire Raybould, AICP Manager, Current Planning Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2116 | Claire.Raybould@paloalto.gov www.cityofpaloalto.org <image003.png> Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped <2025-0828 530 Barron Ave-Tent Approval Letter.pdf> Removal of Protected Tree (revised) Our application for removal of a protected tree was submitted as part of our ꢀ Previously, the best effort at creating a design alternative concept was put on find that the best ꢀ According to PAMC 8.10.050 (b), removing a protected tree is permissible if ꢀ “…it is determined by the urban forester… that…” “Retention of one or more trees would result in reduction of the otherwise- five percent, and there financially feasible design alternative that would allow for preservation of The municipal code speci fically calls out that the urban forester should make the firm that proper fically called out in the ꢀ Reduction of the otherwise-permissible buildable area of the lot is clear. Greater ꢀ Tree Protection Zone . Any attempt to achieve a house similar to the proposed zone for each tree. Section A shows how the best tree-preserving concept is ꢀ Square Footage. Section B shows a best attempt at an internal layout. The total fference 775 square feet. This by itself shows that the concept is not similar to the ꢀ Awkward Layout. Building around the tree leads to a very awkward and fit in a ꢀ Home Insurance . The alternative concept would need to be built largely under ꢀ We have talked to an insurance agent that said if a policy review is triggered finitive timeline on any ꢀ Foundation Damage . Our consulting arborist included a section in his report ꢀ Financial Feasibility . There was a request to estimate if the project cost of the ficantly more expensive than the proposed financially feasible”, but financially feasible design alternative” is that the financial viability will be ꢀ An alternative way to look at financial feasibility is to look at the opportunity cost ꢀ A proper design alternative to the proposed design must result in a house that is ꢀ (1) the useable living area of the best alternative concept is 775 square feet less,ꢀ (2) the layout would be unreasonably awkward, ꢀ (3) building under the tree canopy would make securing home insurance risky and ꢀ (4) the house would be at risk of future structural damage from the roots of the ꢀ Unfortunately, no reasonable design alternative exists that would allow for firm that the ꢀ Section A TOTAL AREA OF TPZ = 4656 SQ.FT. AREA OF TPZ COVERED BY EACH TYPE EXHIBIT - TREE 1 TPZ ANALYSIS TOTAL NEW TPZ COVERAGE = 27.2% TOTAL AREA OF TPZ = 5674 SQ.FT. AREA OF TPZ COVERED BY EACH TYPE EXHIBIT - TREE 2 TPZ ANALYSISTOTAL NEW TPZ COVERAGE = 26.3% Section B EXCESS HALLWAY Walkway through Cramped 1/2 sized Separate office Small, cramped Smaller master suite EXCESS HALLWAY Laundry room Common area for Smaller kids rooms Section C Before pruning After pruning from bottom 110’110’ 53’90’53’90’ 25’30’ 9’ House under tree canopy Links to more information about insurance risk https://homesmsp.com/2023/11/overhanging-tree-branches-make-home-uninsurable.html https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-carlos-family-says-home-insurer-dropped-them-with-no- https://www.reddit.com/r/homeowners/comments/13w36tp/ February 3, 2026 Dear Members of the City Council, Please grant our request for a City Council hearing. All we want to do is build a house on our lot for our family. We think we are being unfairly blocked from doing so. Our application for removal of a protected tree was submitted as part of an application to build a house. After evaluating the application in detail, the City sta ff applied the relevant municipal code and gave a tentative approval. An appeal was raised to the Director of Planning, who reversed the staff’s decision. We believe the Director’s decision is clearly at odds with the municipal code. The decision is also incomplete in that it does not explain how the decision is supported by the code, and it does not respond to several valid arguments that were presented in the application and later in the two Director’s hearings. Please give us a hearing so that you can ensure that the Palo Alto municipal code is being properly applied. Relevant code . According to PAMC 8.10.050 (b), removing a protected tree is permissible if “…it is determined by the urban forester… that…” “Retention of one or more trees would result in reduction of the otherwise- permissible buildable area of the lot by more than twenty-fi ve percent, and there is no financially feasible design alternative that would allow for preservation of the tree(s).” This 25% rule was added by the Council to provide an objective standard to make it more clear when removing a tree is allowed. It seems that it was written for our exact situation. With over 99% of the buildable area in the tree protection zone and 58% of the buildable area directly under tree canopy, there is no question that the 25% criteria is met. If it doesn’t apply to our situation, then it is hard to imagine a scenario where it does apply. In fact, while the rule was added to the code recently, it is a continuation of previous City practice. When the language was added at the one year update of the Tree Protection Ordinance, the City staff explained to the Council that “This rule has been used in past practice on residential lots that are dominated by large, centrally placed trees. Adding this reason for removal here addresses this oversight.” Meaning of “design alternative”. The final clause says “and there is no financially feasible design alternative…”. It does not say, “and there is no house can be built on the lot no matter how small and awkward”. The purpose is to protect trees where possible, without allowing them to be a significant barrier to development. By reading the plain meaning it is clear that by “design alternative” it means a house that is similar to the proposed house. This meaning is consistent with past practice of the City. This was the City’s intent as this section of code was being crafted, as confirmed by the head of Urban Forestry at one of the Director’s hearings. It was the interpretation of the City staff when the application was tentatively approved. It is also consistent with the City’s application of code for multi-family residential development. In our application we show that due to the location of the trees in the buildable area, it is not possible to build a similar house while preserving both trees. At best, we could build a house that is 500 s.f. less in area, more than 750 s.f. less in livable area (when you take into account absurdly long hallways), and that the resulting layouts would be very awkward. We also explicitly listed out design goals for the project, such as having a living room large enough to invite a few friends over. We showed how the large, centrally placed tree makes it impossible to meet the design alternatives. The fact that it is not possible to build a similar house while preserving both trees is not in dispute. Director’s interpretation. The Director’s decision seems to create a new interpretation of the meaning of “design alternative”. The decision implies, without much explanation, that any house that can be built on the lot is a fair design alternative, regardless of how small and awkward. It implies that as long as a house of some sort can be built for cheaper than the proposed house, then the tree cannot be removed. In the application we note that it is possible to build a smaller, awkward house on the lot that is not at all similar in function to our proposed house. We conceded that it obviously would be cheaper to construct because it would be so much smaller than the proposed house. The Director’s creative, narrow interpretation of the code does not align with the plain meaning of the code’s text. It does not align with the intent behind this provision at the time it was added, or the practice before it was written down. It does not align with the understanding of the Department of Urban Forestry, or the lower level staff in the Planning department. It does not align with current application of the code for multi- family residential development. If this view were to become the new interpretation of this provision, then it is hard to imagine the 25% rule could be applied to any future building project. It would essentially be an end-run around the provision. Regardless of how we currently personally feel about the City’s laws, they should be applied fairly until such time as the Council changes them in a transparent, legal process. Foundation Damage and Home Insurance. Besides the main reason that the 25% rule applies to our project, there are other good reasons to allow our proposed house and tree removal to go forward. Our consulting arborist included a section in his report advising that, while the tree would likely survive the construction process, it is best to avoid building so close to the large trees because the roots of the tree could eventually damage the house. It is also increasingly common for home insurance companies to require that a house does not have any large overhanging branches. This is happening nationally, but also here in Palo Alto. If our right to build a house is constrained by the City so that we can only build an awkward house under the canopy and close to the tree trunk, then we would be put at high risk of damage to our most valuable asset. There would also be a high risk to eventually have to cut down the tree in order to secure insurance or after foundation damage. No one would gain from that situation. It would be better to plan a house that works well with the lot and to plant appropriate replacement trees in locations that make sense (right tree, right place). Please grant us a hearing so that we can explain how the 25% rule applies to our project and also explore these other issues of future house damage if needed. Sincerely, Tom Sullivan and Cat Sullivan 1 Bhavani Potharaju From:John Hinton <jhinton@demattei.com> Sent:21 February 2025 04:50 To:Bhavani Potharaju Cc:Hinton, Jennifer Subject:FW: 530 Barron Ave Palo Alto (25PLN-00021) Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated. Mr. Bhavani Potharaju, My family owned 530 Barron until 2003. We bought it about 1998. When we took occupancy, the previous owner had just cut down one of the heritage redwoods on the property. We were left with the wood. In 1998, my children and I counted the rings on the fallen tree. We figure that it was at least 110 years old. The fallen tree was smaller than the other trees on the property. My family lived on the property for a year while our house was being built on La Selva Drive. We started to plan on what to do with the property when our house was completed. The existing house on the property was old and not worth remodeling. In order to build something that was financially viable, a new house would have to be near the maximum allowable on the property, but the trees were in the building envelope. We engaged an architect to help design something that would work (and save the trees). Our only hope was to apply for a variance to allow us to build outside of the standard building envelope. In 2002, we applied for such a variance, we had a hearing before the city council, and we were granted the variance. Our plan did not remove any trees and provided for a special foundation that would not harm the trees’ roots. In the end, we chose not to build a new house for economic reasons and therefore, our variance expired. I share this history with you for two reasons:  These trees are old, healthy, and beautiful. Our neighborhood would be poorer if they are removed. I’m sure a great majority of the neighborhood feels the same way.  There is an alternative. I’d be happy to share my plans with you and the current owners. John Hinton 408-690-0758 1 Bhavani Potharaju From:Kerri Jung <kerjung@gmail.com> Sent:23 February 2025 02:46 To:Bhavani Potharaju; Chris; Bhavani.Potharaju@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:Concerns Regarding Proposed Construction and Redwood Tree Removal at 530 Barron Avenue (File Number 25PLN-00021) Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated. Dear Ms. Potharaju, We are reaching out to formally express our opposition to the proposed construction project at 530 Barron Avenue and the potential removal of a significant redwood circle on the property. The redwood cluster on this property, made up of five trees, is over 100 years old and is important to both the history of the site and the Barron Park neighborhood. The existing home, built in 1926, was designed to accommodate these trees and when the current owners purchased the home in 2022, the listing specifically stated, "Buyer should investigate the different options to rebuild, expand, or remodel with the City of Palo Alto," which we believe was included due to the trees' protected status. We understand that the homeowners are seeking a waiver to remove the trees, citing limitations on construction. However, previous plans submitted to Palo Alto planners in 2002 showed that a two story home exceeding 2,000 square feet could be built on this lot while preserving the redwoods. Those plans included a setback adjustment to allow for a two-story home in the footprint of the existing house. This past proposal shows there are viable alternatives that would allow for new construction without the loss of these trees. We would support building plans that preserve these protected trees and we strongly encourage the city to explore these options with the homeowners. Beyond their historic value, these redwoods provide significant environmental benefits. Coast redwoods can sequester approximately 250 tons of carbon each and their root systems helps improve water quality. We have also noted some inconsistencies in the Planning Review Application. The application describes retaining a "portion of the existing residence as a new detached ADU," but this portion is already a functioning ADU that was rented out until two years ago. The proposed plan would replace an existing smaller, more affordable home with a large 2,530-square-foot house and an attached 303-square-foot JADU. This change not only compromises environmental integrity but also contributes to the ongoing displacement of modest-sized homes in our community. We appreciate the city’s careful review of this project and we look forward to discussing potential solutions with you during our March 6th meeting. We hope we can work toward an outcome that respects both the homeowners’ needs and the integrity of Palo Alto’s heritage trees. Sincerely, Kerri and Chris Jung 538 Barron Avenue 1 Bhavani Potharaju From:Francisco Martin <fmpublic@gmail.com> Sent:23 February 2025 14:27 To:Bhavani Potharaju Subject:Opposition to Redwood Tree Removal at 530 Barron Avenue (File Number 25PLN-00021) Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated. Dear Ms. Potharaju, My name is Francisco Martin and I live at 548 Barron Ave. Palo Alto, 94306 We have been informed that the owners of 530 Barron Ave (2 hours over from ours) have requested the removal of 5 redwood trees to build a larger home. A giant sequoia was removed from our front yard by the city a couple of years ago because it had an illness. This had a large impact on the neighborhood environment, where large protected trees are disappearing at an alarming rate. The removal of these other trees would have an even more significant impact and would radically transform our neighborhood to one without a soul. We would like to request that the proposal to build a new home be considered while respecting these centennial trees. Thanks for your consideration. - Francisco Martin 408-335-8589 1 Bhavani Potharaju From:maguerreros@gmail.com Sent:23 February 2025 07:04 To:Bhavani Potharaju Subject:Tree at 530 Barron Ave. Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated. Dear Ms. Bhavani Potharaju, Project Planner, It would be a pity to remove such a wonderful tree. I'm sure a project of a new or remodeled house can be created in order to preserve the tree. Manuel Guerrero 3765 La Selva Dr. 1 Bhavani Potharaju From:Vicki Young <vickihyoung@yahoo.com> Sent:25 February 2025 02:14 To:Bhavani Potharaju Cc:uriel.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:530 Barron Avenue, File No. 25PLN-00021 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated. Bhavani Potharaju Project Planner CPU Development Center Re: 530 Barron Avenue File No: 25PLN-00021 Dear Ms. Potharaju: I am writing about my concerns for the application to build a new two-story home at 530 Barron Avenue. The application calls for the removal of a magnificent Coast Redwood tree that should be spared. The tree is a protected species and meets the criteria for a heritage tree set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.090 - It is an outstanding specimen of a desirable species, it is one of the largest and oldest in Palo Alto, and it possesses distinctive form, size, age and location. I have lived across the street from this tree since 1987, and I view the tree trunks daily from my kitchen window. The 530 Barron address is located at the entrance of La Selva Drive. As described in the recent Barron Park Association Newsletter, La Selva Drive was part of the driveway leading to the mansion built by Sarah Wallis and later owned by Edward Barron. It curved through the extensive grove of ornamental trees and shrubs planted by those early landowners. Edward Barron purchased the Wallis estate in 1878. Our house is on the corner of Barron and La Selva. Records show that our house was built in 1927. Our neighbor at 538 Barron says that his house was built before then. The trees in the neighborhood were mature and verdant when we moved there almost 40 years ago. The “woodsy” character of the community sets Barron Park apart from other neighborhoods in Palo Alto. I believe that the Coast Redwood in question is approximately 100 years old, and almost 100 feet tall. It is almost 9 feet in diameter at 2 feet. While the arborist report describes the tree as a single tree, five large trunks have grown from the base, so the tree appears to be a small grove. Two of five trunks by themselves are large enough to almost qualify as protected trees under the Palo Alto Code. The tree is in good condition and is a Locally Native Protected Species. In reviewing earlier building applications for 530 Barron, I see that a former owner of the property applied for a variance in 2003 so that they could build a two story house at the location. The record number is Record 03IPT-00000-2053. The work description was for a rearyard setback variance and a rear yard daylight plane variance for the construction of a new two story single family residence. Not all 2 of the records for the application can be viewed on line, but the processing status shows that the Directors Decision was marked as Approved with Con. It is my understanding that the variances were requested so that the Coast Redwood tree/trees could be preserved. In light of the variance that was approved in 2003, I believe there must be a feasible design alternative that would permit preservation of the tree. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Vicki H. Young 3730 La Selva Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306 vickihyoung@yahoo.com 1 Bhavani Potharaju From:Kerri Jung <kerjung@gmail.com> Sent:19 May 2025 07:58 To:Bhavani Potharaju; Bhavani.Potharaju@cityofpaloalto.org Cc:Chris; Lait, Jonathan; Stone, Greer Subject:Updated Building Plan for 530 Barron Avenue (File Number 25PLN-00021) [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated. Dear Ms. Potharaju, We are writing to follow up regarding the proposed removal of the redwood ring at 530 Barron Avenue. Thank you for your thoughtful comments in the Corrections Table document; we’ll continue to check the city website for the property owners’ responses to the issues you raised. From the documentation, it’s clear the property owners would like to move forward with their project, and we believe there is a viable path that can support both their goals and the community’s interest in preserving these significant trees. As mentioned in our earlier message, the five mature redwoods in this ring provide environmental benefits to the neighborhood and to Palo Alto as a whole, including carbon sequestration, improved air and water quality, and natural cooling. These directly support the city’s broader climate and sustainability goals. In addition to their ecological value, the redwood ring is also a living neighborhood landmark that is both important to neighbors and contributes to Barron Park’s unique character. After reviewing the latest documentation, we believe the plan in “Section G: Small Tree Removal” offers a reasonable and balanced compromise. This plan would allow the homeowners to build a total of 3,132 square feet by removing a single smaller tree while preserving the five-tree redwood ring, a solution that is both viable and respectful of the site’s history. With appropriate setback variances, it seems possible to allow for new construction while protecting the environmental and community value of the redwoods. The arborist report is clear that this is a feasible plan, noting that the redwood ring is in good health and that this plan could proceed without adversely impacting the trees, as long as reasonable precautions are taken. We understand the homeowners have expressed concern about insurance due to tree overhang. However, after walking the surrounding neighborhood, we observed many homes, both older and newly built, with substantial tree overhang. Two examples include 739 La Para Avenue, which is beginning a construction project and has significant overhang from a large tree, and 3618 Laguna Avenue, where a new home is being built with a large oak tree overhanging a substantial portion of the structure. If helpful, we can provide a list of over 20 nearby addresses, both existing and recently constructed, that demonstrate this pattern, along with photos. These examples throughout our neighborhood show that mature canopy and new construction can safely coexist, and that insurance issues may not be as big a problem as the property owners fear. 2 Palo Alto has a long tradition of supporting heritage tree preservation through setback variances and thoughtful site planning. We encourage the city to continue that practice by supporting the Section G solution which preserves the redwood ring while allowing the homeowners to build. If the current plan proceeds, we would like to be notified of any public meetings or opportunities for comment prior to a final decision. Several neighbors are closely following this proposal and we would all appreciate the opportunity to participate in the process. Thank you again for your time, your careful review of this proposal, and your continued efforts to balance new development with stewardship of Palo Alto’s urban forest. Sincerely, Kerri and Chris Jung 538 Barron Avenue Palo Alto, California 1 Bhavani Potharaju From:Rune Olslund (rolslund) <rolslund@cisco.com> Sent:09 July 2025 09:23 To:Hinton Jenn Wagstaff Cc:Bhavani Potharaju; John Hinton; La Selva Group; Kerri Jung; pwps@cityofpaloalto.org; Jennifer Wagstaff Hinton Subject:Re: 530 Barron Ave Palo Alto (25PLN-00021) Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated. Hi Bhavani:: We live two houses from these trees. We see them every day. Going to work. Coming home from work. Walking our dogs. Heading out for dinner. Going by them when we go to the grocery store. Our neighborhood, Palo Alto and Santa Clara will be less if these old souls are sacrificed for another modern multi-million $ development. Please help do the right thing here. You would be so appreciated by all of us. Rune Sent from my iPhone On Jul 8, 2025, at 7:37 PM, Jenn Wagstaff Hinton <jennwaghinton@gmail.com> wrote: Good evening, Bhavani Potharaju. We are reaching out to you again after 5 months of efforts working with the current owners of 530 Barron - seeking ways to preserve the 100+ year old stand of Redwood trees, while assisting them with options we discovered in 2002 by working with the Canopy and Planning staff back at that time. We'd like to formally appeal any/all decisions by City Planning to allow the current owners to proceed with the tree removal, including the addition of this Project 25PLN-00021 to an upcoming City Council agenda to enable neighbors to share their concerns about the current removal plans. Please advise 2 when/how we may pursue this appeal path with your City Planning team and/or the City Council - including process, form submittals, and possible city council dates for review. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Jenn & John Hinton 3838 LaSelva Drive prior owners 530 Barron Ave. 650-704-1244 On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 10:58 AM Bhavani Potharaju <bpotharaju@m-group.us> wrote: Hi John & Jennifer, Thank you for reaching out to me with your comments. I have received your comments and sent it to other reviewing departments. I will keep you posted on the project review. Thanks & Regards, <image001.png> BHAVANI POTHARAJU Associate Planner 408.340.5642 x126 c 408.819.0452 Timings: Mon- Fri, 7-10am PST a new design on urban planning m-group.us | M-LAB 1 Bhavani Potharaju From:Payal Karsan <payalkarsan@gmail.com> Sent:15 October 2025 06:56 To:Bhavani Potharaju Cc:Sundip Karsan Subject:Letter in Support of 530 Barron Avenue Project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated. Payal and Sundip Karsan 3727 Cass Way Barron Park, Palo Alto, CA 94306 payalkarsan@gmail.com, sskarsan@yahoo.com October 14, 2025 City of Palo Alto Planning and Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Letter of Support for Cat and Tom Sullivan – Residential Construction at 530 Barron Avenue Dear Bhavani and City of Palo Alto Planning Department, I am writing as a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood to express my strong support for my neighbor, Cat and Tom Sullivan, and their plans to build a home on their property located at 530 Barron Avenue. Our neighborhood values both the preservation of Palo Alto’s natural environment and the ability of residents to responsibly develop and enjoy their properties. In this case, I understand there is a protected tree on the site that may affect the feasibility of construction. From what I know, Tom has been thoughtful and transparent throughout this process, engaging with professionals and the City to explore preservation and mitigation options. If it is ultimately determined that the tree must be removed to allow for construction, I respectfully urge the City to provide a clear and fair path forward — including reasonable mitigation measures — so that Cat and Tom can proceed with building their home. Supporting homeowners in finding practical solutions benefits the broader community and helps maintain the vibrant, family-oriented character of Barron Park. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Payal and Sundip Karsan Resident, Barron Park Neighborhood Palo Alto, California 1 Bhavani Potharaju From:Charlton Lui <charltonlui@hotmail.com> Sent:15 October 2025 01:07 To:Bhavani Potharaju Cc:Charlton Lui Subject:Request to Read Public Comment – 530 Barron Avenue (Sullivan Family Project) Application 25PLN-00021). Attachments:Formal Written Comment – 530 Barron Avenue.docx; Personal Comment – 530 Barron Avenue (for reading aloud).docx [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you know the content is safe. Be aware that the sending address can be faked or manipulated. Dear Ms. Potharaju, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing in support of the Sullivan family and their proposed project at 530 Barron Avenue (Application 25PLN-00021). Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the Director’s Hearing scheduled for Wednesday, October 15, 2025, but I would greatly appreciate it if my personal comment (attached) could be read aloud during the public comment portion of the hearing. This statement reflects my perspective as a Palo Alto neighbor who knows the Sullivans personally — our children go to school and play on sports teams together, and I have had the pleasure of coaching some of those teams. For the official record, I have also attached my formal written comment in support of the project. Thank you very much for your time and assistance in ensuring my comments are included in the hearing. Warm regards, Charlton Lui Palo Alto Neighbor Attachments: 1. Formal Written Comment – 530 Barron Avenue (Word Doc) 2. Personal Comment – 530 Barron Avenue (Word Doc, formatted for reading aloud) 1. Title: Support for the Sullivan Family – 530 Barron Avenue Project Dear Ms. Potharaju and Planning Staff, I am writing to express my support for the Sullivan family and their proposed project at 530 Barron Avenue (Application 25PLN-00021). The Sullivans currently reside in a 924-square-foot home, which is inadequate for their growing family of four. Their proposal to construct a 2,528-square-foot two-story residence with attached and detached accessory dwelling units is reasonable, well-planned, and consistent with the character of the neighborhood. While I understand there are concerns regarding the removal of an existing tree, the Sullivans have taken care to comply with all city regulations, demonstrating a commitment to minimizing environmental impact. Their project represents a thoughtful approach to creating a safe, comfortable, and livable home for their family while remaining engaged members of the Palo Alto community. I respectfully urge the City to approve their application. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Charlton Lui | Palo Alto Neighbor | CharltonLui@mac.com Title: Public Comment – Support for the Sullivan Family Address: 530 Barron Avenue, Palo Alto Hello, my name is Charlton Lui, and I am a Palo Alto neighbor of the Sullivan family. Our kids go to school and play on sports teams together, and I have had the pleasure of coaching some of those teams. The Sullivans are one of the kindest, most generous families you could meet, always willing to help others and contribute positively to our community. Their current 924-square-foot home is far too small for their family of four. Their proposed rebuild to a 2,528-square-foot home is thoughtful, modest, and consistent with the character of the neighborhood. They have followed all City guidelines and have taken care to minimize any impact from tree removal. Families like the Sullivans make Palo Alto a stronger and more connected community. I wholeheartedly support their project and respectfully urge the City to approve it. Sincerely, Charlton Lui Palo Alto Neighbor Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Use the map to find “530 Barron Avenue” and click the green map icon link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information The project website with a link to the project plans is also available at: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/530-Barron-Ave