Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Neighbors and homeowner clash over removal of protected redwoods at 530 Barron Avenue
Loading...
Summary
At a continued Palo Alto director's hearing, applicant Tom Sullivan asked to remove a protected redwood that he said makes building a comfortable family home impractical; neighbors and the city's urban forester disputed that a financially feasible, tree-preserving alternative has been shown, and the director said he will issue a written decision within 14 days.
The director's hearing on a proposed house at 530 Barron Avenue in Palo Alto ended without a decision after more than an hour of testimony for and against removing protected redwood trees.
Applicant Tom Sullivan, who owns the property, told the hearing he needs to remove a multi-trunk redwood on the lot to build a 2,528-square-foot, two‑story home with an attached garage and accessory dwelling units. "Trees are great, but there is one tree on our property that is in the way of me building a comfortable house for my family," Sullivan said, and said he would plant replacement trees if removal were allowed.
Neighbors including Vicky Young and Carrie Jung urged the director to deny removal, arguing the city's tree-protection ordinance (PAMC 8.10.050) allows removal only when a retention scenario reduces permissible buildable area by more than 25% and there is no financially feasible design alternative that meets project goals. "The data to meet the requirement to remove a protected tree has not been met," Young said, saying the applicant conceded alternative designs would not raise construction costs above the statutory threshold for removal.
City staff described two options in the record: one interpretation that no feasible alternative exists (so a valuation would not be needed) and a second that the code requires a valuation and that the submitted information does not meet that requirement, which would support recommending denial and forwarding that recommendation to counsel. Staff also noted the administrative record did not include a concrete construction cost estimate for the applicant's proposed design.
Peter Golinger, the city's urban forester, told the hearing the ordinance's 25% test measures disturbance to the tree protection zone (TPZ) within the buildable envelope, not canopy cover. He said the TPZs for the two redwoods cover more than 99% of the property's buildable area and that removing either tree would still leave impacts above the 25% threshold in the urban-forestry calculation. "The 25% rule is actually measuring the tree protection zone that takes up the buildable area, not the canopy cover," Golinger said.
The applicant and several neighbors disagreed over whether the alternative layouts presented in packet materials would meet the project's stated goals (Sullivan listed bedrooms for two children, flexible ADU/JADU space for aging parents, a large living room and kitchen, and resale considerations) while preserving the trees. Sullivan said his design team had explored alternatives and that the best tree-preserving alternatives would reduce livable area by hundreds of square feet (staff materials reference a reduction of about 775 square feet in usable living area; the applicant cited alternatives of roughly 500 square feet smaller). Neighbors argued the alternatives preserve bedrooms, parking and basic program elements and so qualify as financially feasible under the code.
Staff, the applicant and the urban forester also discussed technical points: whether elevated bridge structures count toward TPZ disturbance (bridges constructed above grade may not count), the effect of pruning limits (pruning more than 25% of roots or canopy is restricted and could harm the tree), and whether insurance-driven trimming would effectively force pruning beyond allowable limits.
The urban forester said staff had not received concrete financial estimates for the alternative design that would allow an apples‑to‑apples comparison required by the ordinance. The applicant estimated construction would exceed $1,000,000 but did not provide a detailed hard cost estimate in the record. Staff cited a replacement-value figure for the principal redwood of about $94,000 in their materials.
Director Jonathan Laid said he would review the administrative record and issue a written decision within 14 days; he noted either side could appeal to the City Council, which would consider any appeal on its consent calendar and could pull the item for a future public hearing.
The hearing record contains competing factual and legal interpretations: neighbors say the code's financial-feasibility standard has not been satisfied and that the packet shows a tree‑preserving alternative; the applicant says alternatives are not similar to his stated project goals and would make the house awkward and undersized. The urban forester's TPZ explanation framed the technical threshold the director must apply. The director did not announce a decision during the meeting.
