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 staff applied the relevant municipal code and gave a tentative approval. An appeal was raised to the Director of Planning, who reversed the sta ff’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-five 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