City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Public Works
Meeting Date: October 19, 2026
Report #:2608-6616
TITLE
QUASI-JUDICIAL. 751 Waverley Street [26PLN-00034]: Appeal of Director’s Decision to Uphold the Issuance of the Permit, Confirming Approval to Remove Four Protected Coast Redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) Located at 751 Waverley Street under the Right Tree in the Right Place Principles for Removal in Palo Alto Municipal Code 8.10.050; CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Director's decision approving the Protected Tree Removal Application [26PLN-00034] to allow the removal of four protected coast redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens) located at 751 Waverley Street based on "Right Tree, Right Place" principles pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 8.10.050.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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, the St. Thomas Aquinas Church. This approval was granted pursuant to the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance outlined in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 8.10.050. 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 issued a Director’s Decision (Attachment A) upholding the Tree Removal Permit.
BACKGROUND
The applicant, St. Thomas Aquinas Site Committee member Helen Baumann, requested the removal of four protected status coast redwood trees on behalf of the St. Thomas Aquinas Church at 751 Waverley Street. The reason for the removal application was the close proximity of the tree's trunks and roots to the existing church foundation.
Planning Permit 26PLN-00034 was issued by the Planning and Development Services Department, with technical review and recommendations provided by Urban Forestry staff. The permit was issued as an Over-the-Counter permit on February 19, 2026. The Public Notice was posted at the site on March 10, 2026.
As part of this review, the Urban Forestry Section evaluated the submitted arborist report and conducted a site inspection. Based on this analysis, staff determined that the removal request met the applicable criteria under the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 8.10).
The permit was approved on the basis that the subject 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 building. PAMC 8.10.050(a)(1)(iii & iv) The approval included standard mitigation requirements consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance.
Request for Hearing
Hannah Ennerfelt, a neighbor residing at 735 Waverley Street, submitted an email containing her comments in opposition to the removal to the City on March 23, 2026. The request for a director’s hearing was received in a timely manner before the expiration of the final 14-day posting period. Staff confirmed that the appellant lives within the required 600-foot radius of the subject property to be eligible as an appellant.
ANALYSIS
Urban Forestry staff determined that the removal of the four coast redwood trees is warranted based on site conditions, structural impacts, and lack of feasible alternatives. These findings are consistent with the allowable criteria for removal of protected trees under PAMC Chapter 8.10.
The applicant’s arborist report is included as part of the Approved Tree Permit Packet (Attachment B).
City staff supported approval of the removal based on the following key findings:
1. Proximity to Structure
St. Thomas Aquinas Church is a registered historic landmark, completed in 1902 and the oldest church in Palo Alto. The four coast redwood trees are located less than three feet from the church foundation. Given the mature size and growth potential of this species, this proximity represents an inherent and ongoing conflict between the trees and the structure.
2. Evidence of Structural Impact
Multiple cracks are visible in the building foundation adjacent to the trees. In addition, a large surface root (approximately six inches in diameter) was observed growing directly against the foundation near one of the cracks. This condition constitutes direct evidence of tree–structure conflict.
3. Likelihood of Ongoing Damage
While root excavation was not performed, the proximity of the trees to the structure makes it highly likely that roots are interacting with the foundation and contributing to structural impacts.
4. Limited Feasibility of Mitigation
Root pruning in this context is not considered a viable mitigation strategy, as it could destabilize the trees and introduce additional safety risks. Given the species, size, and proximity to the structure, neither staff nor the applicant’s arborist were able to identify a practical alternative that would both preserve the trees and adequately protect the building.
5. Site Suitability (“Right Tree, Right Place”)
Coast redwoods are among the largest tree species and are not well-suited for locations immediately adjacent to building foundations. The current conditions reflect a longterm incompatibility between the trees and the built environment and do not conform to right tree in the right place principles.
Based on these factors, staff determined that removal is justified and consistent with the intent of the Tree Protection Ordinance.
A director’s hearing was held on April 23, 20261. 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.
The applicant’s arborist 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.
In addition to the appellant’s comments and the comments of the applicant’s arborist, community members spoke in favor of both possible outcomes. Some community members cited concerns about the impacts to neighborhood character, ecological value, and the 1 The municipal code sets forth the process for director’s hearings. To ensure the director is not both making a decision on a tree removal permit and then adjudicating on it at the hearing, the director is not involved in the review or decision making of any protected tree removal application. Decision on these applications are made by urban forestry managers. The director’s only involvement begins when an appeal is filed, a staff report is published, and the hearing conducted.
possibility of engineered solutions to the foundation damage as reasons to support retention of the trees. Other community members cited the status of the church as a historic building and the probability that if the trees were to be retained, the issue would come up again in a few years as the trees continued to grow.
The Director‘s decision found 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 found 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.
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 allow the applicant to remove the trees in question.
2. Schedule this appeal for a full hearing, which requires three members to pull the item from the consent calendar.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
A request for appeal requires a $618 fee from an appellant, which has been paid by the original appellant for the Director’s hearing.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of the public hearing (the Director’s Hearing) to be posted on the City’s website and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the subject property at least 3 days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was posted to the City’s website on April 20, 2026 which is 3 days in advance of the meeting.
Postcard mailing occurred on April 15, 2026, to neighbors within 300 feet of the property.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
CEQA Status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: 751 Waverley-Director's Determination-26May2026 Attachment B: Approved Tree Permit Packet [26PLN-00034] APPROVED BY:
Brad Eggleston, Director Public Works/City Engineer