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
The subject property owner seeks to redevelop a single-family zoned parcel that contains an existing one story 924 square foot home built in 1925. The applicant proposes a new two-story structure that would include an accessory dwelling unit and junior ADU. The accessory dwelling units are permitted by state law and not the basis of the appeal. The new home is subject to the city’s individual review application process – a discretionary action, subject to requests for a director’s hearing and appeal to the City Council. The project also requires a Tree Removal Permit under PAMC Chapter 8.10. Tree Removal Permits are also subject to appeal to the Planning Director and City Council.1 A property location map is provided in Attachment A. The project plans are included in Attachment J.
Located on the parcel are two redwood trees that are defined as protected trees and subject to the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.10, which was amended in 2022 to strengthen tree protection standards. The application includes a request to remove one of the protected trees, identified as Tree #1 in the application material.
An applicant prepared arborist report has been reviewed by the city’s urban forester and is included on the project plans (Attachment E). Tree 1, located near the midpoint of the lot has been referred to as redwood fairy ring by some neighbors and appears to be a collection of five clustered trees likely originating from a previous tree that is no longer present. However, for the purpose of the urban forester’s evaluation, Tree 1 is considered a single tree with multiple trunks and its total circumference evaluated accordingly. Tree 2 is a single redwood that is also located near the midpoint of the property but adjacent to a side property line.
A protected tree may be removed if its retention, along with any other trees whose protection zones impact the buildable area, would reduce the otherwise permissible buildable area of the lot by more than 25% and no financially feasible design alternative exists. A financially feasible alternative is one where the cost of preserving the tree does not exceed twice its reproduction cost or ten percent of the total project valuation, whichever is greater. Buildable area is the portion of a parcel on which a structure may be built by right, without a variance or exception.
The protected trees on the subject property, including the tree canopies, occupy 99% of the buildable area and meet this threshold for removal; Tree 1 alone occupies approximately 48%.
The reproduction cost of Tree 1 is $94,300, as calculated by the project arborist and approved by the City’s urban forester. Twice that amount is $188,600. The applicant has not provided a total project valuation but noted it could cost upwards of one million dollars. Ten percent of that figure represents $100,000. Accordingly, if the cost to retain the protected tree exceeds $188,600, the tree may be removed.
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.
Following the tentative decision, two qualifying requests for a director’s hearing were received.
The reasons cited include that the applicant never provided the construction cost estimates required by the municipal code to justify removing the protected Coastal Redwood (Tree 1), meaning the legal threshold for tree removal was never met. And, a viable alternative design that preserves the tree exists, but was rejected without explanation (Attachment F).
A director’s hearing was held on October 15, 2025.4 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.
The Director found that the absence of a financial analysis, as required by the municipal code, prevented a determination on the project, and continued the matter to allow the applicant time to prepare the required analysis.
A second Director's hearing was held on January 12, 2026. The applicant submitted a refined alternative design and additional documentation in support of its request to remove Tree #1 (Attachment E). The documentation identified the following concerns with the alternative design:
1. It reduces the total square footage of the home by 775 square feet of usable living area.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.
Next Steps
The City Council has two options on how it can proceed with this appeal.
1. Uphold the Director's decision and deny the appeal. This would require the applicant to refile the application to move forward, including payment of applicable application fees.
The applicant would need to modify the design or submit additional information demonstrating that the cost to preserve the tree exceeds twice its reproduction cost.
Any action on a future application would likely be appealed by neighbors if the tree were found eligible for removal. Resolution through a subsequent Council appeal would likely take approximately six months from the date a new application is filed.
2. The Council could schedule this appeal for a full hearing, which requires three members to pull the item from the consent calendar. This would allow the applicant to present additional cost information to the City Council that was not part of the administrative record. The Council's decision would be final and would likely be reached in late summer.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
A request for appeal requires a $618 fee from an appellant, which has been paid. In accordance with the fee schedule, 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. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto 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.
Public Comments
Staff received several comments throughout the review process from neighbors encouraging the applicant to preserve the tree and a letter of support for the project from two neighbors. All written comments on the project, including the timely requests for hearing from the neighboring properties, are provided in Attachment I.
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