1 Bhavani Potharaju
From: Vicki Young <[email protected]>
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
[email protected]
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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
Sent: 05 September 2025 04:13
To: Bhavani Potharaju <[email protected]>; Raybould, Claire <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 | [email protected]
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 <[email protected]>; Bhavani Potharaju <[email protected]> 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 | [email protected]
www.cityofpaloalto.org
Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped
6 From: Vicki Young <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 10:07 AM
To: Bhavani Potharaju <[email protected]>; Raybould, Claire <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 | [email protected]
www.cityofpaloalto.org
Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped
1 Bhavani Potharaju
From: Kerri <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]> 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 | [email protected]
www.cityofpaloalto.org
<image002.png>
Parcel Report | Palo Alto Zoning Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Forms & Applications | Planning Applications Mapped
From: Kerri Jung <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 10:03 AM
To: Bhavani Potharaju <[email protected]>
Cc: Raybould, Claire <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
Sent: 29 August 2025 10:05
To: Claire Raybould <[email protected]>
Cc: Bhavani Potharaju <[email protected]>
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
<[email protected]> 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 | [email protected]
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>