City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: December 8, 2025
Report #:2511-5422
TITLE
QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2451 Cowper Street [25PLN-00102]: Appeal of Director's Decision to Approve an Individual Review Application to Allow Deconstruction of an Existing Single-Family Residence and Detached Garage and to Construct a 2,380-Square-Foot Two-Story Residence. Zoning District: R-1 (Single-family Residential). CEQA Status: Exempt in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15303.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council decline to hear the appeal and uphold the Planning and Development Services Director’s approval of the Individual Review (IR) application for a new two-story home at 2451 Cowper Street.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This request is an appeal of the Director’s approval of a Single-Family Individual Review (IR) application for a new two-story home. On July 3, 2025, staff, on behalf of the Director, tentatively approved the IR application for the new residence. An adjacent property owner at 2450 Tasso Street requested a Director’s Hearing, citing concerns about construction noise, timing, and related impacts. The Director of Planning and Development Services determined that these concerns are outside the scope of the IR application, which focuses on site planning, neighborhood compatibility, architectural form, streetscape character, and privacy.
Accordingly, no substantive changes were made to the initial approval letter.
The appellant subsequently filed a timely appeal to Council to review the Director’s decision.
Three or more Council member votes would be required to remove this item from the consent calendar and schedule it for a future hearing.
BACKGROUND
The property owner, Zenshu Zhao, submitted the subject IR application on April 15, 2025.
Following modifications to address department comments on the initial plans, the project was tentatively and conditionally approved on July 3, 2025. Staff’s decision was appealed to the Director of Planning and Development Services. Following a public hearing on September 10,
2025, the Director upheld the approval on September 17, 2025. The Director’s decision has now been appealed to Council.
Review and Appeal Process
The Individual Review program applies to construction of new two-story homes and second story additions. The program is intended to protect neighborhood character through context- appropriate, compatible design that respects neighbors’ privacy, scale, and streetscape in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code [PAMC] Section 18.12.110(a)). Development applications subject to the IR regulations must be consistent with the IR guidelines (PAMC Section 18.12.110(d)) in addition to compliance with the PAMC. The IR guidelines include criteria related to:
(1) Basic site planning;
(2) Neighborhood compatibility for height, mass, and scale; (3) Resolution of architectural form, massing, and roof lines; (4) Visual character of street facing facades and entries; and (5) Placement of second-story windows and decks for privacy.
Individual Review applications are reviewed and approved through the Low-Density Residential Review Process set forth in PAMC Section 18.77.075. Following a staff level tentative decision on an Individual Review application, any adjacent property owner or occupant may request a Director’s Hearing within 14 days of the decision. If requested, the Director sets and conducts a noticed public hearing on the project, receives testimony, and makes a decision that becomes final 14 days thereafter. The Director is not involved in the application processing for any IR application to ensure impartiality for any appeal filed. Following the Director’s decision, and within the 14-day appeal period, owners or occupants of abutting properties may appeal the decision to Council. Appeals are placed on the Council consent calendar.
Council may approve the item on consent, adopting the findings and confirming the Director’s decision. Or, with a vote of three or more Council members, may remove the project from the consent calendar to allow further discussion at a future hearing. This appeal hearing would be scheduled as soon as practical, and neighbors would be notified in accordance with PAMC Section 18.77.075.
Appellant’s Concerns
The appellant initially commented on the project in June 2025, expressing concern regarding the impact of noise and activity associated with demolition and new construction on his young children and baby that was due in September 2025. Standard conditions of approval, such as compliance with the noise limit requirements set forth in PAMC Title 9 were incorporated into the approval letter. Regulations that are already required in accordance with state and federal regulations to protect public health were not incorporated as conditions of approval, but are required to be addressed prior to and during construction (e.g. lead based paint and asbestos abatement) and compliance with standard dust control requirements in accordance with Public Works requirements and Bay Area Air Quality Management District requirements. Following a tentative decision on the project issued July 3, 2025, the appellant requested a timely Director’s hearing on July 15, 2025 (Attachment B) to address concerns related to construction noise.
Specifically, the appellant requested that construction of 2451 Cowper Street begin no earlier than March 2026 in order reduce the noise impact on his newborn and requested that the construction hours be limited to between 10am to 3pm with noon breaks to accommodate nap schedules.
Staff held a meeting with the appellant and the applicant to discuss the applicants concerns.
The applicant at the time offered to voluntarily incorporate additional measures to further reduce noise and to work in good faith to avoid noisy construction activities during certain hours to accommodate his family’s individual needs as an alternative to continuing through the appeal process. These included offering a pre-construction meeting with their contractor and the neighbor as well as adding additional padding to the rear fence to further reduce noise levels. However, the appellant chose to continue discussions through the formal appeal process. A Director’s Hearing was scheduled and held on September 10, 2025.
Director’s Hearing and Decision
On September 9, 2025, staff received a letter (Attachment C) from the appellant’s attorney. The letter expressed concern that the City’s tentative approval did not protect nearby residents, especially young children, from hazardous materials, particularly with respect to lead, asbestos, dust, and diesel emissions, as well as excessive noise, and that no enforceable conditions had been imposed to mitigate these risks. Additionally, the letter also disputed the City’s reliance on a CEQA exemption and stated that the project did not fully meet Individual Review Guidelines on privacy and buffering, urging denial until stronger safeguards were required. During the hearing, the appellant’s attorney reiterated these comments.
On September 17, 2025, following the Director’s Hearing, the Director of Planning and Development Services issued a revised approval finding that the project, as submitted on June 9, 2025, and as conditioned, is in compliance with both the Municipal Code and the Individual Review Design Guidelines. No new conditions of approval were added as a result of the Director’s Hearing. However, the Director modified three conditions for clarity and accuracy, including:
(1) Removing a standard privacy related condition of approval for balconies (no balconies are proposed as part of this project);
(2) Clarifying a condition relating to maintaining the ADU path of travel while also maintaining a planting area for the side yard screening trees; and (3) Revising the condition related to impact fees to remove references to public art fees, which are not required for accessory dwelling units.
The revised approval letter is included in Attachment D.
On September 30, 2025, the appellant appealed the Director’s approval of the IR application, based on concerns for the noise impact on his newborn baby.
ANALYSIS
The subject project was reviewed in accordance with the Individual Review (IR) Guidelines and the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Staff and the Director have determined that the project, as submitted and conditioned, fully satisfies all five IR criteria:
Basic Site Planning. The project’s layout is appropriate for the lot, ensuring adequate setbacks, usable open space, and circulation.
Neighborhood Compatibility (Height, Mass, Scale). The proposed two-story addition is consistent with surrounding residential development, minimizing visual impacts and maintaining the character of the neighborhood.
Architectural Form, Massing, and Roof Lines. The design harmonizes with neighboring structures, employing roof lines and massing that reduce bulk and preserve the streetscape.
Visual Character of Street-Facing Facades and Entries. Facade composition, materials, and entries are designed to enhance the public-facing appearance, consistent with the IR guidelines.
Placement of Second-Story Windows and Decks for Privacy. Window and deck placement have been carefully considered to prevent intrusion on neighbors’ private spaces.
The concerns raised by the appellant, including noise, construction timing, dust, and air quality, are outside the scope of the discretionary IR entitlement. These issues are addressed through ministerial regulations and standard permitting processes, including compliance with municipal construction hour restrictions, Bay Area Air Quality Management District requirements, and state/federal standards for hazardous materials. As such, while these concerns are legitimate for construction management purposes, they do not constitute grounds for modifying or denying the IR approval.
Accordingly, the project as reviewed by staff complies with all IR criteria, and the issues raised by the neighbor fall outside the discretionary review process. Staff recommends that Council uphold the Director’s decision to approve subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment C.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Staff’s review of the IR application was processed using applicant provided funds paid in accordance with the municipal fee schedule. A request for appeal requires a $618 fee from an appellant in accordance with the fee schedule, which the applicant paid. If the council chooses not to hold a public hearing to discuss the appeal, these fees would be returned to the appellant.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 150 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Postcard mailing and notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on November 26, 2025, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting.
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, no other comments have been received.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project includes demolition of an existing single-family home and construction of a new single-family home in the single-family residential zone district. Therefore, this project is exempt from the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, which exempts construction of new, small structures, including but not limited to, one single-family residence in a residential zone.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Appellant’s Request for a Director’s Hearing Attachment C: Letter from Appellant’s Attorney to the Director of PDS Attachment D: Director’s Decision Letter Tentatively Approving the Application Attachment E: Project Plans
APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director