Hearing on 530 Barron Avenue project continued after neighbors protest removal of redwood grove

A City of Palo Alto planning hearing on a proposed new house at 530 Barron Avenue was continued after nearby residents urged the city to preserve a ring of century‑old redwood trunks that they said functions as a grove rather than a single tree.

Hearing officer Jonathan Late, director for planning and development services, explained he would not make a decision that day and would continue the matter so staff and the applicant could provide additional information, including the developer’s project valuation and any financial‑feasibility analysis required by the municipal code. “I will…continue this to a date, uncertain,” Late said, asking staff to work with the applicant and to move the review expeditiously.

Why it matters: The dispute centers on Palo Alto’s protected‑tree standards. Neighbors say the five‑trunk redwood ring provides irreplaceable canopy, habitat and neighborhood character and that a design alternative in the application packet (listed as Section G) could preserve most trunks with minimal loss of building area. The applicant said the alternative designs studied would not meet the family’s size, layout and parking needs and would introduce significant delays and costs.

Staff and code questions: At the hearing, a city consultant summarized the proposal as a two‑story, approximately 2,530‑square‑foot single‑family house with an attached garage and a detached roughly 497‑square‑foot accessory dwelling unit; the staff report cites the tree‑removal standard under the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Planning staff said the grove occupies about 48 percent of the site’s developable area while the code allows up to 25 percent in the cited provision. The project arborist’s reproduction‑cost estimate for the grove submitted in the packet was $96,000; staff said no applicant‑supplied financial‑feasibility analysis (the second part of the code’s two‑step test) was presented for review.

Neighbors’ case: Carrie Jung, an adjacent neighbor at 538 Barron Avenue, said the application treats the trunks as a single tree when above ground they appear as five mature trunks and constitute much of the site’s canopy. “Removing the grove would have equal ecological impact of removing five mature redwoods,” Jung said, urging the city to require the applicant to pursue the alternative design that she said would preserve the grove with only a small square‑footage loss.

Residents and local heritage advocates echoed that view. Bob Poole, a 47‑year resident, recalled houses built around trees and said alternatives should exist. Susan Borton, a member of Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, urged planners to seek creative compromises that retain neighborhood character.

Applicant’s case: Tom Sullivan, the property owner, said the family’s existing 1925 house is small and deteriorating and that the household needs a larger, functional layout for two sons. Sullivan said architects studied many options — including plans that would go into front or rear setbacks — but those alternatives would reduce usable space, create awkward layouts, jeopardize required second‑parking space, and could expose the new house to higher structural risk from roots and overhanging branches. “We’ve spent a couple months and a couple thousand dollars working with our architect to examine designs,” Sullivan said. He asked neighbors with ideas to share them directly.

Next steps: Late said he lacked the information to apply the code’s financial test — which compares twice the reproduction cost of the trees to either that cost or 10 percent of the project valuation, whichever is greater — and requested that the applicant provide project‑valuation figures and any financial‑feasibility analysis. He asked staff, including the city arborist and public works, to review the supplemental materials and scheduled a mailed notice for the reconvened hearing.

The hearing record included public testimony from at least seven neighbors and several written materials in the staff packet; no formal vote or determination was issued at the meeting.