PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
250 Hamilton Avenue, 6th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2151
May 26, 2026
Applicant:
Helen Bauman
151 Coleridge Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
[email protected]
Appellant:
Hannah Ennerfelt
735 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
[email protected]
SUBJECT: 751 Waverley Street (26PLN-00034) Tree Removal Permit On February 19, 2026, the Planning and Development Services Department approved a Tree Removal Permit allowing the removal of four protected Coast Redwood trees at 751 Waverley Street. This approval was granted pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 8.10.050 (the “Tree Protection Ordinance”).
Prior to the approval becoming effective, a timely request for Director’s Hearing was received and a Director’s Hearing was held on April 23, 2026. On May 26, 2026, the Director of Public Works upheld the Tree Removal Permit.
DIRECTOR’S HEARING
The hearing was requested by Hannah Ennerfelt. At the hearing, the appellant spoke about the historical significance of the trees, their ecological value and use by a number of bird and other species, and the trees’ contribution to property values and Palo Alto’s urban forest. She presented a petition against removal of the trees signed by over 250 individuals. She argued that there was insufficient evidence to justify removal because there was no independent structural assessment of the church foundation to prove that cracks in the foundation were caused by the trees. She also asserted that removal as a remedy did not seem proportional, and that alternatives such as root pruning, structural reinforcement, and adjustments to hardscape or drainage should be considered. The appellant asked that removal be denied or at least delayed until additional evidence could be provided to justify the permanent loss.
The applicant’s arborist, Eric Krebs, described his conclusion that the trees, which are between 1 foot 10 inches and 2 feet 11 inches from the church’s foundation, are far too close to the building, that planting the trees in this location was a mistake, and that the trees have outgrown their location. He described the cracks in the foundation and stated that the tree root plates have almost reached the foundation and that the trees will continue to grow and cause even more damage. He asserted that redwood trees should be at least 20 feet from any structure and require a lot of space to grow successfully. He also described that there is not enough space for root pruning, and that cutting structural roots to protect the foundation would cause the trees to become hazardous.
The Hearing Report from the Urban Forestry Section described the permit application and approval process, and Urban Forestry’s conclusion that the trees met the criteria for removal under Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.050(a)(1)(iii & iv) because the trees are too large for the space in which they are planted and are causing, or are reasonably likely to cause, substantial structural damage to an existing Docusign Envelope ID: A1290B62-8B16-8DD4-8011-16E7F26B3DB6 751 Waverley Street Protected Tree Removal
Director’s Determination 26PLN-00034
building. The Hearing Report further described the trees’ proximity to the structure, evidence of structural impact, likelihood of ongoing damage, limited feasibility of mitigation, and site suitability (“Right Tree, Right Place”) as factors justifying removal.
The Hearing Officer inquired about the permit being an over-the-counter permit and any differences in the permit process and review by staff compared to a standard tree removal permit process. Urban Forestry staff described the relatively new over-the-counter permit process as following all of the same administrative steps and a full Urban Forestry review. The Hearing Officer also asked about the language in the report regarding substantial structural damage to an existing building and the citation of PAMC
8.10.050(a)(1)(iv), which references impacts to the foundation of a residence, given that the church is not a residence. Urban Forestry staff responded that the Right Tree, Right Place criterion in 8.10.050(a)(1)(iii) is the correct code section for this circumstance. They repeated the minimum 20 feet clearance mentioned by Mr. Krebs and said that they would recommend 25-30 feet of clearance, and that redwood tree buttress flares can become enormous as the trees age. The Hearing Officer inquired about the evidence that the trees caused damage to the foundation, and learned that the full foundation was not assessed, but that foundation cracks had been observed at three of the four trees. The Hearing Officer also asked about other mitigations beyond root pruning, as well as the potential to remove only the two closer trees, noting that the four trees are listed as being 2’7”, 2’11”, 2’0”, and 1’10” from the foundation.
There were no additional mitigation ideas specific to the building, although it was stated that the driveway could be redesigned to mitigate its damage by tree roots. With respect to removing two of the trees, Urban Forestry staff stated that it could introduce the possibility of a larger hazard, because root grafting by redwood trees could result in continued use of the abandoned root system of the removed trees by the remaining ones.
DECISION AND FINDINGS
The Director of Public Works finds that the trees in question meet the requirements for approval of a Tree Removal Permit, and the approval of the permit is upheld.
The Director finds that the trees do not conform to “Right Tree, Right Place” principles contained in the current Tree Protection Ordinance due to the very close proximity of the trees to the foundation structure. The Director considered the arguments by the appellant that additional analysis should be conducted to prove that the foundation cracks were caused by the trees, and to determine whether the four trees are contributing equally to any impacts. Because the structure is not a residence, foundation damage alone is not an allowable criterion under the Tree Protection Ordinance for protected tree removal. Given how close these trees are to the foundation and the lack of mitigation options, the Director determined that removal should be allowed under the Right Tree, Right Place criterion even if the trees could be shown not to have caused existing foundation damage, because it is clear that the trees are too close to the building. The Director finds that given the trees’ location, they will have worsening impacts on the structure over time, and that removal now aligns with the Tree Protection Ordinance and will allow more appropriate mitigation trees to be planted. Lastly, the applicant at the Hearing expressed a willingness to wait until after bird nesting season to proceed with the removals, and this approval is therefore conditioned that the trees may not be removed until after August 31, 2026.
This approval will become effective 14 calendar days from the postmark date of this letter, unless an appeal is filed, as provided by Chapter 8.10.140 of the PAMC. An appeal of this decision to City Council may be filed by written request with the City Clerk before the date the Director’s decision becomes Docusign Envelope ID: A1290B62-8B16-8DD4-8011-16E7F26B3DB6 751 Waverley Street Protected Tree Removal
Director’s Determination 26PLN-00034
final. The written request shall be accompanied by a fee, as set forth in the municipal fee schedule. Only an applicant, or the appellant may appeal this decision.
This approval expires in 12 months from the effective date.
Should you have any questions regarding this hearing decision, please feel free to contact Uriel Hernandez at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Brad Eggleston
Director of Public Works
cc: Neighbor notification list
Docusign Envelope ID: A1290B62-8B16-8DD4-8011-16E7F26B3DB6 Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: A1290B62-8B16-8DD4-8011-16E7F26B3DB6 Status: Completed Subject: Complete with Docusign: 751 Waverley-Director's Determination-26May2026.pdf Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 3 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 1 Initials: 0 Peter Gollinger
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto , CA 94301
[email protected]
IP Address: 2601:640:cb7c:7
Record Tracking
Status: Original
5/26/2026 12:46:45 PM
Holder: Peter Gollinger
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Brad Eggleston
[email protected]
Director of Public Works
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 170.85.54.112
Sent: 5/26/2026 12:48:37 PM
Viewed: 5/26/2026 12:51:30 PM
Signed: 5/26/2026 12:52:00 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 5/26/2026 12:48:37 PM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 5/26/2026 12:51:30 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 5/26/2026 12:52:00 PM Completed Security Checked 5/26/2026 12:52:00 PM
Payment Events Status Timestamps