Atherton City Council
July 16, 2025

Sid
e
Pro
p
ert
y Line
9'-6" plate height
0 5' 10' 20' A-10
R
e
ar Pro
p
ert
y Line
Front
Pro
p
ert
y Line
37'-4 3/4"
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
S
e
t
b
a
ck
37'-4 3/4"
Maximum Height @
2nd Floor Roof Sheathing
Elev. =524.00'
Top of Plate @ Second Floor
Elev. =517.20'
Top of Plywd. Subfloor
@ Second Floor
Top of Plate @ First Floor
Main House
Elev. =508.13'
Elev. =506.73'
Top of Plywd. Subfloor
@ First Floor
Elev. =496.62'
3 0'-0"
21'-10"
2 8'-7 1/2"
M
a
ximum
ALLO
W
A
BLE height
a
b
o
v
e
A
v
e. Gra
d
e
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
M
a
ximum height
of hous
e
a
b
o
v
e
A
v
e. Gra
d
e
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
M
a
ximum
sid
e
w
all height
of hous
e
a
b
o
v
e
A
v
e. Gra
d
e
Proposed Front Setback Proposed Front Setback
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
S
e
t
b
a
ck
3 1/2
12 Northeast Elevation
1/4" = 1'-0"
Top of Plywd. Sheathing
@ Attached ADU
Top of Plate @
Attached ADU
Elev. =509.95'
Elev. =506.25'
15'-0"
M
a
x. ALLO
W
A
BLE height
of A
D
U
a
b
o
v
e
A
v
e. Gra
d
e
10'-10 1/2"
800 sf Attached ADU
Sid
e
Pro
p
ert
y Line
Sid
e
Pro
p
ert
y Line
6'-0"
26'-0" 26'-0"
Sid
e
S
e
t
b
a
ck
Sid
e
S
e
t
b
a
ck
Maximum Height @
2nd Floor Roof Sheathing
Elev. =524.00'
Top of Plate @ Second Floor
Elev. =517.20'
Top of Plywd. Sheathing
@ Attached ADU
Top of Plate @
Attached ADU
Elev. =509.95'
Elev. =506.25'
Top of Plywd. Subfloor
@ First Floor
Elev. =496.62'
Average Grade
Elev. =495.37'
(Calculated per City Requirements)
3 0'-0"
21'-10"
2 8'-7 1/2"
M
a
ximum
ALLO
W
A
BLE height
a
b
o
v
e
A
v
e. Gra
d
e
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
M
a
ximum height
of hous
e
a
b
o
v
e
A
v
e. Gra
d
e
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
M
a
ximum
sid
e
w
all height
of hous
e
a
b
o
v
e
A
v
e. Gra
d
e
800 sf Attached ADU
Side Setback
15'-0" M
a
x. ALLO
W
A
BLE height
of A
D
U
a
b
o
v
e
A
v
e. Gra
d
e
10'-10 1/2"
Side Setback
Top of Plywd. Subfloor
@ Second Floor
Top of Plate @ First Floor
Main House
Elev. =508.13'
Elev. =506.73'
Southeast Elevation
1/4" = 1'-0"
19'-0 1/2"
Distance btw. Rear Property Line
and attached ADU
12 5
12 5
3 1/2
12 14'-7"
Date
Sheet Title
Scale
Job No.

Z
a
k
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
9 0
0 C
o
l
l
e
g
e
Av
e
n
u
e
M
e
n
l
o
P
a
r
k,
C
A
9 4
0 2
5 6
5 0.3
2 9.9
7 6
7 N
e
w
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
9 4
P
a
l
m
e
r
L
a
n
e
A
t
h
e
r
t
o
n
,
C
A
9 4
0 2
7 As Noted
March 5, 2025
C-28919
Ren.: 8/31/25
Kelly W. Johnson
Licensed
Architect
State of
California
Kelly W. Johnson
ATTACHMENT 1

12 5
12 5
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
S
e
t
b
a
ck
37'-4 3/4"
Maximum Height @
2nd Floor Roof Sheathing
Elev. =524.00'
Top of Plate @ Second Floor
Elev. =517.20'
Top of Plywd. Subfloor
@ Second Floor
Top of Plate @ First Floor
Main House
Elev. =508.13'
Elev. =506.73'
Top of Plywd. Subfloor
@ First Floor
Elev. =496.62'
3 0'-0"
21'-10"
2 8'-7 1/2"
M
a
ximum
ALLO
W
A
BLE height
a
b
o
v
e
A
v
e. Gra
d
e
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
M
a
ximum height
of hous
e
a
b
o
v
e
A
v
e. Gra
d
e
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
M
a
ximum
sid
e
w
all height
of hous
e
a
b
o
v
e
A
v
e. Gra
d
e
Proposed Front Setback
Proposed Front Setback
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
S
e
t
b
a
ck
Top of Plywd. Sheathing
@ Attached ADU
Top of Plate @
Attached ADU
Elev. =509.95'
Elev. =506.25'
15'-0"
M
a
x. ALLO
W
A
BLE height
of A
D
U
a
b
o
v
e
A
v
e. Gra
d
e
10'-10 1/2"
800 sf Attached ADU
Distance btw. Rear Property Line
and attached ADU
37'-4 3/4"
Proposed Front Setback
12 5
R
e
ar Pro
p
ert
y Line
Front
Pro
p
ert
y Line
37'-4 3/4"
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
S
e
t
b
a
ck
37'-4 3/4"
18'-5"
8'-0"
Maximum Height @
2nd Floor Roof Sheathing
Elev. =524.00'
Top of Plate @ Second Floor
Elev. =517.20'
Top of Plywd. Subfloor
@ Second Floor
Top of Plate @ First Floor
Main House
Elev. =508.13'
Elev. =506.73'
Top of Plywd. Subfloor
@ First Floor
Elev. =496.62'
Average Grade
Elev. =495.37' (Calculated per City Requirements)
3 0'-0"
21'-10"
2 8'-7 1/2"
M
a
ximum
ALLO
W
A
BLE height
a
b
o
v
e
A
v
e. Gra
d
e
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
M
a
ximum height
of hous
e
a
b
o
v
e
A
v
e. Gra
d
e
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
M
a
ximum
sid
e
w
all height
of hous
e
a
b
o
v
e
A
v
e. Gra
d
e
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
S
e
t
b
a
ck
Proposed Front Setback
Distance btw. Main house
and detached Garage
Distance btw. Rear Property Line
and detached Garage
Max. height @ Roof Sheathing
of Detached Garage
Top of Plate @
Detached Garage
Elev. =508.13'
Elev. =506.73'
9'-2"
12'-2"
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
M
a
ximum height
a
b
o
v
e
A
v
e. Gra
d
e
Mech.

Duct,
Typ.

Mech.

Duct,
Typ.

Building Section A - A
1/4" = 1'-0"
R
e
ar Pro
p
ert
y Line
Front
Pro
p
ert
y Line
Mech.

Duct,
Typ.

Mech.

Duct,
Typ.

Building Section B - B
1/4" = 1'-0" 0 5' 10' 20'
A-11
HVAC Equip.
14'-0"
A-12
1 Wall
Section, Typ.
1-car Garage
12 5
12 5
19'-0 1/2"
ADU Kitchen
Average Grade
Elev. =495.37' (Calculated per City Requirements)
Average Grade
Elev. =495.37' (Calculated per City Requirements)
3 1/2
12 14'-7"
Date
Sheet Title
Scale
Job No.

Z
a
k
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
9 0
0 C
o
l
l
e
g
e
Av
e
n
u
e
M
e
n
l
o
P
a
r
k,
C
A
9 4
0 2
5 6
5 0.3
2 9.9
7 6
7 N
e
w
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
9 4
P
a
l
m
e
r
L
a
n
e
A
t
h
e
r
t
o
n
,
C
A
9 4
0 2
7 As Noted
March 5, 2025
C-28919
Ren.: 8/31/25
Kelly W. Johnson
Licensed
Architect
State of
California
Kelly W. Johnson
ATTACHMENT 1

2-Story Wall Section over Crawl Space
3/4" = 1'-0"
1 A-12
A-12 Pier & Grade Beam Foundation System. See Structural drawings for additional information & details.

Mech.

Duct,
Typ.
2" conc. rat-proofing over min. 15-mil thickness vapor barrier (Viper Vaporcheck, stegowrap, etc.) over sand over gravel. Vapor barrier to extend up exterior crawlspace walls min. of 6" and be mechanically fastened in place. Installation to adhere to Class 1 Vapor Retarder Code Standard for crawlspace ventilation requirements R408. S.S.D. and Soils Report for additional information.

Slope to area drains
See G & D drawings.
12" min. 18"
B
a
ckfill
For additional sub-surface drainage information and
depth of drain system, see Grading and Drainage Plns.

Filter fabric (TC Mirafi 140N or equivalent)
Perforated Pipe (4" min. dia., sloped to drain, perforations down, 2" to 3" of filter material below pipe.

Filter Material- 1/2"-3/4" drain rock.
12"
Min.

Cra
wls
p
a
c
e
Cle
aranc
e
Soil backfill to be compacted to 90%
Top of Plywood Subfloor @ Second Floor
Elev. = 508.13'
Top of Plate @ First Floor
Elev. = 506.73'
Top of Plywood Subfloor @ First Floor
Elev. = 496.62'
Average Grade
Elev. = 495.37'
10'-1 3/8" 1'-3"
subflo
or t
o
t
o
p
of pla
t
e
Plywood & face of
concrete to be FLUSH
Smooth troweled stucco finish. 7/8" 3 coat
plaster system o/ 2 layers of grade D building paper
o/ 1/2" plywood typ. Metal lathe shall be attached
to wood supports as req'd in building code. Provide
Texture samples for Architect's approval.
3/4" solid wood flooring over 3/4"
plywd. over TJI's. S.D.D. 2nd floor to be
fully insulated to reduce noise etc...
4"
Min.

Min.

Slope finished grade away from house for min. of 3' at 5% gradient in landscaped areas, and 2% where slabs abut the structure. See Grading Plan
8"
1'-4
3/4"
1'-4" 10'-0" 1'-4"
Top of Plate @ Second Floor
Elev. = 517.20'
9'-0"
subflo
or t
o
t
o
p
of pla
t
e
2'-0"
Pnt. K-style gutter. Typ. @ all locations on house.

Architect to sign off on profile. See Elevations & Roof Plans for downspout locations.

Provide ptd. galv. mtl. drip edge.

R-21 High Density Eco-Touch Fiberglas
Insuation for 2 x 6 Exterior Walls by
Owens Corning or Approved Equal, Typ. in
all locations.

Ptd. wd. base. Profile to be
approved by Architect, Typ.

Ptd., 1 x 4 T&G soffit boards.
plywd. to face
of outrigger
Typ. Window &
Trim Detail
T
o
p
of Wind
o
w, A.F.F. C
o
ordina
t
e
s
o
tha
t
D
o
or &
Wind
o
w
H
e
a
d
s
align
X
A-X
Windows to be Weathershield Comtemporary
Collection, alum. clad exterior, painted wood
interior. Or Approved Equal.

Window installed with flashing paper 4
sides. Install head flashing o/ jamb
flashing o/ sill flashing paper, typ.

Ptd., 5/8" gyp. bd. with
Level 5 smooth finish, typ.

Window Header, S.S.D.

Top of Fin. Flr. @ First Floor
(Calculated per City Requirements)
Elev. = 496.68'
7'-0"
Fin. Flo
or. t
o
Fin. Clg. S
truc
t. S
truc
t.
21'-10"
Gra
d
e
t
o
t
o
p
of Pla
t
e (M
A
X. Allo
w
e
d
2 2'-0")
Top of Fin. Flr. @ Second Floor
Elev. = 508.19'
Provide 5/8" gyp. bd. with Level 5
smooth finish, typ.

Provide 26 ga. galv. weep screed. 4" min. above grae or 2" min. above conc. or paving CRC Section R703.7.2.1
2'-0" Min.
8'-0"
T
o
p
of Wind
o
w, A.F.F. C
o
ordina
t
e
s
o
tha
t
D
o
or &
Wind
o
w
H
e
a
d
s
align
Gra
d
e
t
o
t
o
p
of ply
w
d. she
a
thing
@ highe
s
t
2nd flo
or ro
of
(M
A
X. Allo
w
e
d
3 0'-0")
2 8'-7 1/2"
2 x 6 Ptd. Fascia Board
Date
Sheet Title
Scale
Job No.

Z
a
k
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
9 0
0 C
o
l
l
e
g
e
Av
e
n
u
e
M
e
n
l
o
P
a
r
k,
C
A
9 4
0 2
5 6
5 0.3
2 9.9
7 6
7 N
e
w
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
9 4
P
a
l
m
e
r
L
a
n
e
A
t
h
e
r
t
o
n
,
C
A
9 4
0 2
7 As Noted
March 5, 2025
C-28919
Ren.: 8/31/25
Kelly W. Johnson
Licensed
Architect
State of
California
Kelly W. Johnson
ATTACHMENT 1

1 Memo
To: The Atherton Planning Commission
From: Sally D Bentz-Dalton, Town Arborist
CC: Gerry Martin, Assistant Planner
Date: 4/28/25
Re: Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) Exception 94 Palmer
I have reviewed the application at 94 Palmer and offer the following observations and recommendations for your review:

The applicant is applying for TPZ exceptions for the following:

T14 = 16" diameter which is 7'-8" from driveway = 5.7X the diameter of tree.

T15 = 18" diameter which is 8'-10" from driveway = 5.9X the diameter of tree. Shared.

T16 = 32" diameter which is 9'-10" from driveway = 3.7X the diameter of tree. Shared/ Neighbor’s tree.

T17 = 24" diameter which is 10'-7" from driveway = 5.3X the diameter of tree. Neighbor’s tree.

T18 = 16" diameter which is 9'-5" from driveway = 7.0X the diameter of tree. Shared.

T19 = 19" diameter which is 9'-11" from driveway = 6.3X the diameter of tree. Neighbor’s tree.

The following requests are not in front of the Planning Commission and is for information only.

T9, T10, T12 exempt from TPZ requirements at Existing Driveway Location only.12- Neighbor’s T13 = 24" diameter which is 18'-10" from driveway = 9.4 X the diameter of tree. More than 8x. Neighbor’s T21 & T22 exempt from TPZ requirements at ADU location only. Neighbor’s trees.

T23 = 22" diameter which is 14'-8" from wood deck = 8.0X the diameter of tree. Staff exception. Neighbor’s T24 = 22" diameter which is 16'-3" from wood deck = 8.8X the diameter of tree. Staff exception. Neighbor’s ATTACHMENT 1

2 Per tree inventory by Dsoto Tree and Arborists Services dated 9/15/22 The 6 trees are all Coast Live Oaks with a good condition rating.

Trees #16, 17 and 19 are on the neighbor’s side.

Tree #15, 18 and 19 are shared trees.

This was a lot-split. The applicant is using the existing driveway footprint from the front parcel but needs to extend it to get to the back of the parcel.

The applicant is proposing an Easypave gravel driveway as the new driveway material. The driveway per Menlo Fire must be 16’ wide. However, the applicant reviewed the site with Menlo Fire agreed to let them narrow the driveway for a limited portion around trees T9, T10 & T12. Sheet A-3 for this agreed upon configuration and for the minimal impact to Tree T13.

ATTACHMENT 1

3 The applicant is proposing using a permeable & porous, gravel driveway system such as the BODPAVE 85 Porous Pavers made by Terram in this location (or an approved equal product with similar attributes). It will allow water to pass through the driveway, using this type of system allows us to excavate much less and use much less base rock than a typical concrete driveway.

The applicant pointed out that portion of this proposed driveway location, there currently exists a concrete swimming pool and concrete patio. These items will be demolished, and the gravel driveway will replace a portion of these concrete structures. Only in this pool deck location would we consider exempt from the TPZ’s because we are replacing the ground cover in the same location. However, we are replacing it with a better, porous material that will allow for better water percolation down into the soil.

Analysis:

The applicant needs a driveway to access the 1 car garage. I am concerned that many of these are shared or neighbor trees. So much care needs to be considered. However, the applicant has decreased the width of the driveway to allow more room as well as implementing material that will require less grading and base rock. The material the applicant is proposing using is only 2” of easy pave and 2” of gravel plus subgrade. This material is better for the roots of the tree and will cause less compaction.

In conclusion:

The Oak trees are in good condition and have a good construction rating to construction impacts. The applicant updated the design for a smaller driveway as well as materials. If the applicant does outreach to the neighbor that owns the subject trees, I can recommend the TPZ requests below with the conditions.

T14 = 16" diameter which is 7'-8" from driveway = 5.7X the diameter of tree.

T15 = 18" diameter which is 8'-10" from driveway = 5.9X the diameter of tree.

T16 = 32" diameter which is 9'-10" from driveway = 3.7X the diameter of tree.

T17 = 24" diameter which is 10'-7" from driveway = 5.3X the diameter of tree.

T18 = 16" diameter which is 9'-5" from driveway = 7.0X the diameter of tree.

T19 = 19" diameter which is 9'-11" from driveway = 6.3X the diameter of tree I can approve with the conditions of approval below.

The following are requirements:

1. The Applicant must provide outreach to the neighbor owning trees subject to this request, ensuring that they are aware of the project scope, prior to issuance of a related building permit.

2. The Project Arborist is required to be on hand during excavation for the demo of the existing driveway and excavation of new driveway.

3. Excavations are required to be performed carefully and by hand 8x away or less to avoid tearing or pulling roots.

4. The Project Arborist or their designated person should cut all roots larger than 1 inch in diameter with a sharp saw on the side of the excavation closest to the tree (s).

5. No roots over 2” to be cut.

6. All work in this are required to be documented in the quarterly arborist reports.

7. Install Easypave grid to as shown in submitted detail.

ATTACHMENT 1

4 The information included in this memo is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices.

Sincerely,
Sally Bentz
Town Arborist
Certified Arborist WE#9238AM
ATTACHMENT 1

Town of Atherton
Planning Department
80 Fair Oaks Lane
Atherton, California 94027
Phone: (650) 752-0544

TOWN OF ATHERTON PLANNING COMMISSION

DRAFT VARIANCE AND TREE PROTECTION ZONE EXCEPTION CERTIFICATE (APPROVAL)
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT the Atherton Planning Commission, at a regular meeting thereof, held on May 28, 2025, approved Front and Rear Yard Variances and Tree Protection Zone Exceptions to Kelly Johnson of Zak Johnson Architects, applicant on behalf of property owners 94 Palmer Lane, LLC, pursuant to Atherton Municipal Code (AMC) Chapters 8.10.050, 17.16,

17.32, and 17.53 to construct a new single-family dwelling with a detached garage and attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at 94 Palmer Lane (Assessor’s Parcel Number 060-163-290).

1. The Variance is limited to the scope of work as shown on the plans prepared by Zak Johnson Architects, dated March 5, 2025, and does not establish setbacks or design exceptions for future improvements associated with the property.

2. A separate formal application for any future site improvements shall be submitted to the Planning Department. This and all other present and future improvements to the property shall comply with zoning provisions applicable to developments on urban lot splits per AMC Chapter 17.53 and any other applicable ordinances.

3. The Tree Protection Zone Exceptions are limited to Tree #14, one (1) 16-inch Coast Live Oak, Tree #15, one (1) 15-inch Coast Live Oak, Tree #16, one (1) 32-inch Coast Live Oak, Tree #17, one (1) 24-inch Coast Live Oak, Tree #18, one (1) 16-inch Coast Live Oak, and Tree #19, one (1) 19-inch Coast Live Oak, as reviewed by the Planning Commission at its May 28, 2025 meeting.

4. The Applicant must provide outreach to the neighbor owning trees subject to this request, ensuring that they are aware of the project scope, prior to issuance of a related building permit.

5. The Project Arborist is required to be on hand during excavation for the demo of the existing driveway and excavation of new driveway.

6. Excavations are required to be performed carefully and by hand 8x away or less to avoid tearing or pulling roots.

7. The Project Arborist or their designated person should cut all roots larger than 1 inch in diameter with a sharp saw on the side of the excavation closest to the tree (s).

8. No roots over 2” to be cut.

ATTACHMENT 1

9. All work in this are required to be documented in the quarterly arborist reports.

10. Install Easypave grid to as shown in submitted detail.

11. Applicant, its contractors, employees, assigns and agents shall comply with all applicable state laws and the Town’s Municipal Code.

12. If no action has been taken in one year, this approval will become null and void.

13. Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town of Atherton and its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the Town, or its agents, officers and employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council concerning this project. ______________________________
Brittany Bendix
Town Planner
Effective Date:

Town of Atherton
Planning Department
ATTACHMENT 1

80 Fair Oaks Lane
Atherton, California 94027
Phone: (650) 752-0544

TOWN OF ATHERTON PLANNING COMMISSION

DRAFT VARIANCE AND TREE PROTECTION ZONE EXCEPTION CERTIFICATE (DENIAL)
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT the Atherton Planning Commission, at a regular meeting thereof, held on May 28, 2025, denied Front and Rear Yard Variances and Tree Protection Zone Exceptions to Kelly Johnson of Zak Johnson Architects, applicant on behalf of property owners 94 Palmer Lane, LLC, pursuant to Atherton Municipal Code (AMC) Chapters 8.10.050, 17.16,

17.32, and 17.53 to construct a new single-family dwelling with a detached garage and attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at 94 Palmer Lane (Assessor’s Parcel Number 060-163-290).

1. Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town of Atherton and its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the Town, or its agents, officers and employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council concerning this project. ______________________________
Brittany Bendix
Town Planner
Effective Date: ___________

ATTACHMENT 1

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, TOWN OF ATHERTON, MAY 28, 2025 P. 1

PLANNING COMMISSION

SPECIAL MEETING

DRAFT MINUTES

TOWN OF ATHERTON

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
80 FAIR OAKS LANE

ATHERTON, CALIFORNIA
MAY 28, 2025
6:00 P.M.

This meeting was held in person with the option for staff and the public to join online.

1. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Eric Lane, Chair
Bob Polito, Vice Chair
Paul Tonelli, Commissioner
Sandy Levison, Commissioner
Jerome Leugers, Commissioner
Town Planner Brittany Bendix, Senior Planner Tom Ford, and Town Arborist Sally Bentz-Dalton.

Chair Lane called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

A. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
I. Election of Planning Commission Chair
MOTION to nominate Eric Lane as Planning Commission Chair:

M/S Levison /Polito Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 II. Election of Planning Commission Vice Chair
MOTION to nominate Bob Polito as Planning Commission Vice Chair:

M/S Tonelli /Lane Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chair Lane opened the public comments period.

There being no public comments, Chair Lane closed the public comments period.

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held on December 11, 2024, as presented.

M/S Tonelli/Levison Ayes: 4 Noes: 0 Abstain: 1 Absent: 0 ATTACHMENT 2

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, TOWN OF ATHERTON, MAY 28, 2025 P. 2

4. PUBLIC HEARING
a. General Plan Consistency Determination for the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2025/26 Through 2029/30.

Senior Planner Tom Ford presented the staff recommendation that the Planning Commission find the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for fiscal years 2025/26 through 2029/30 consistent with the Atherton General Plan. He explained that the CIP supported City Council’s budget planning, with specific projects identified through Council priorities and adopted master plans.

Senior Planner Tom Ford summarized the three major CIP categories: Streets and Transportation; Drainage; and Town Buildings, Parks and Facilities. He also identified the relevant General Plan elements that support the CIP: Land Use, Circulation, Community Safety, and Open Space and Conservation. Each of the proposed projects aligns with multiple goals and policies within these elements.

Senior Planner Tom Ford elaborated on specific examples, including five transportation projects supported by the Circulation Element, two drainage projects tied to the Community Safety and Open Space Elements, and civic accessibility and park upgrades linked to the Land Use and Open Space Elements.

Chair Lane clarified that the Planning Commission’s role was limited to determining whether the CIP was consistent with the General Plan and not to approve budget decisions or project selections, which were under the Town Council’s authority.

Commissioner Tonelli stated that budget planning sessions, including reviews of capital projects, were typically joint meetings between the Finance Committee and the City Council. He recommended that the Planning Commission be invited to participate in those sessions.

Town Planner Brittany Bendix agreed, adding that the upcoming inclusionary housing study session may serve as a test case for further collaboration.

MOTION that the Planning Commission find that the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2025/2026 –2029/2030, including the projects in that program, is not a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is consistent with the Atherton General Plan for the reasons noted in the Staff Report.

M/S Levison /Tonelli Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 b. Accessory Structure and Fencing Variances (VAR25-001) at 2 Dinkelspiel Station Lane (APN 060-321-220).

Town Planner Brittany Bendix clarified that the applicant for the variance request was the library, with the Town serving as the property owner. She reported that staff recommended the approval of the variances requested under Atherton Municipal Code Sections 17.40.0440 (accessory buildings and structures) and 17.46.030 (fencing standards). The garden design included ADA-accessible features, a willow hut, branch tunnel, mirrored posts, a boulder climbing mound, a sculptural tree stump, landscaping, and good neighbor fencing.

Town Planner Brittany Bendix stated that a variance was required due to deviation from uniform design standards along the property line. The proposed eight-foot-tall, good neighbor fence would replace and ATTACHMENT 2

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, TOWN OF ATHERTON, MAY 28, 2025 P. 3 extend an existing fence, designed in consultation with adjacent neighbors to address visibility and noise concerns. She outlined the four required variance findings, including special circumstances, no special privileges, no adverse public impact, and consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Code.

Staff concluded that all findings were met, citing the uniqueness of the property’s public use, collaborative efforts with neighbors, and alignment with local planning policy.

Commissioner Tonelli supported the project, inquiring about feedback from neighboring residents and any measures to prevent the public from entering the area outside of library operations.

Town Planner Brittany Bendix clarified that only two adjacent residential properties were directly affected, and that no neighbors had reached out following the project’s public notice. New gates would be installed at both ends of the garden area to secure it during off-hours.

Landscape Architect Jeffrey Miller noted that the Children’s Garden project had previously been presented to City Council. He described extensive outreach and collaboration with neighboring property owners, including multiple site meetings. The proposed good neighbor fence would extend from one end of the library building to the other, with a portion involving the addition of lattice to an existing fence to ensure continuity.

Landscape Architect Jeffrey Miller emphasized that the project was not a playground but a naturalistic children's garden featuring no play structures, and that accessibility was achieved through a zigzag ramp designed around existing underground utilities and that the existing redwood trees on site would be protected. No new trees would be planted, but native plantings were proposed in the understory. A decomposed granite area near the building would be replaced with pavers to prevent water splash damage.

Landscape Architect Jeffrey Miller outlined access points, including gates at both ends of the garden and connections to the library through the Makers Room and staff areas. The garden would include an artist-designed bench and additional stump seating, with drainage directed into the landscape.

Chair Lane commented that any future noise concerns would likely be addressed by the library through adjustments to programming, access control, or usage guidelines.

MOTION that the Planning Commission approve the Variance at 2 Dinkelspiel Station Lane to allow the construction of new landscaping and play structures within the required side yard setback based on the findings enumerated in the staff report.

M/S Levison/ Leugers Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 c. Front and Rear Setback Variances (VAR24-003) and Tree Protection Zone Exceptions (PTPZ25- 00002) at 94 Palmer Lane (APN 060-163-290).

Town Planner Brittany Bendix presented a request for front and rear yard setback variances and a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) exception at 94 Palmer Lane, noting a typographical error in the staff report, correcting the provided rear setback from 17 ft 4 in to the actual 37 ft 4.75 in. She explained that while the strict application of R1-A standards would leave only 185 sq ft of buildable area, the applicant had drawn from an existing R1-A provision allowing setback reductions based on parcel age and length.

Town Planner Brittany Bendix clarified that the applicant opted to pursue a traditional-style singlefamily home with an ADU, rather than the SB9 option of two 800-square-foot units with four-foot setbacks. The resulting challenge was compliance with R1-A development standards, including the ATTACHMENT 2

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, TOWN OF ATHERTON, MAY 28, 2025 P. 4 required 60-foot front and rear setbacks, which severely restricted the buildable area. She presented the project layout, which included a 2,961-sq-ft residence, 800-sq-ft attached ADU, and detached garage, with access from a driveway along the flagpole section. The site’s allowable floor area ratio was just under 3,000 sq ft, which the applicant had not exceeded.

Town Planner Brittany Bendix recommended approval of both the variance and TPZ exception to facilitate the construction of a new single-family residence, detached garage, and attached ADU. She explained that the 0.32-acre flag lot, located in the R1-A zoning district, was created in 2022 through an SB9 urban lot split. She also noted that the home complied with height and side setback requirements and provided separate external access for the ADU via a patio, consistent with code. She also clarified that Junior ADUs (JADUs) were limited to 500 sq ft, had shared bathroom allowances, and included ownership restrictions.

Chair Lane questioned whether future SB9 applicants could be provided with clearer guidance on potential building footprints during the lot split processing, emphasizing the need to evaluate impacts such as tree preservation early, rather than after the split.

Senior Planner Britt noted that under SB9, applicants may not be subject to TPZ or heritage tree removal requirements, similar to how ADUs are treated. Under SB9, applicants may construct either two 800- square-foot SB9 units or a main residence with one ADU, but not both.

Architect Kelly Johnson appeared on behalf of the applicant, Andrea Magozo, the owner of 94 Palmer Lane. She explained stated that the lot was split in May 2023 and that she began working on the project shortly thereafter. She held her first meeting regarding the need for a setback variance in April 2024.

Over the past year, she has worked closely with multiple planners and the planning department, submitting revised plans and additional information as requested.

Architect Kelly Johnson emphasized that the design was developed thoughtfully and respectfully, maintaining appropriate scale and setbacks consistent with the Palmer Lane neighborhood. She noted that the project team collaborated with the Town Arborist and fire department to ensure the protection of heritage trees while maintaining site access and emergency response readiness.

Town Arborist Sally confirmed that, given the applicant’s cooperation and proactive efforts to protect the trees, she was comfortable recommending approval of the TPZ exceptions.

MOTION that the Planning Commission approve the requests for Front and Rear Setback Variances (VAR24-003) and Tree Protection Zone Exceptions (PTPZ25-00002) to construct a new single-family dwelling with detached garage and attached ADU at 94 Palmer Lane (APN 060-163-290) and categorically exempt the project from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under AMC Section 15.32.100 and CEQA Section 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land).

M/S Lane/Polito Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0
d. Heritage Tree Removals (HTR25-001) at 18 Faxon Forest Road (APN 070-180-360).

Town Planner Brittany Bendix reported that staff recommended approval of the removal of two coast live oaks but denial of the removal of three trident maples. She noted that the Town Arborist Sally Bentz-Dalton supported removal of only one oak due to confirmed foundation damage, while planning staff extended support to both oaks based on proximity to hardscape and foundation concerns.

ATTACHMENT 2

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, TOWN OF ATHERTON, MAY 28, 2025 P. 5 Town Planner Brittany Bendix provided background that the 1.33-acre R1A-zoned lot was located at the terminus of Faxon Forest Road, under common ownership with two adjacent vacant lots, and included a single-family home built circa 1995. Recent landscaping renovations were driving the tree removal request. The two coast live oaks proposed for removal were in good to fair health and located within the footprint of new pathways. The three trident maples were also in good to fair health, with removal attributed to aesthetic landscaping changes. A total of 15 replacement trees were proposed.

Town Arborist Sally Bentz-Dalton found no structural or health issues necessitating removal for any of the five trees, except for tree No. 1, which showed hardscape and foundation impacts supported by engineering reports. Tree No. 2 lacked such evidence but was still supported by staff due to its location.

Both staff and the Town Arborist opposed the removal of the trident maples. The applicant confirmed the request was part of a broader landscape redesign.

Chair Lane questioned how the new concrete pathway was approved given its proximity to one of the oaks, implying that it had been poured with the expectation the tree would be removed.

Town Planner Brittany Bendix clarified that tree removal had not been approved as part of the landscaping work.

Commissioner Polito asked whether a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) exception had been required for the hardscape, noting the work appeared professionally executed.

Town Arborist Sally Bentz-Dalton responded that the applicant had applied for several permits and had her conduct a site review prior to beginning work. She confirmed she initially denied the oak removals, but supported the removal of tree No. 1 once engineering reports confirmed foundation damage. Tree No. 2 had no such documentation, only hardscape impacts.

Applicant Nasrin Hashemi described his long-term residence and ownership, stating that the two oaks near the house were mistakenly planted during the original landscaping in the late 1990s and had since caused hardscape damage and encroached on the structure. He explained the aesthetic motivation behind removing the trident maples as part of a broader landscape redesign, noting that numerous heritage trees would remain and four 16-foot redwoods would be planted. He reiterated his commitment to preserving the property’s wooded character, with no plans to expand or build additional structures.

Chair Lane maintained concerns about approving the removal of the trident maples solely for aesthetic reasons, given their healthy condition and the limitations of the ordinance.

Town Arborist Sally Bentz-Dalton reiterated that the final decision rested with the Commission, though she cautioned against setting a precedent for future aesthetic-based removals.

Chair Lane questioned what justification, beyond aesthetics, the Commission could rely on to approve the removal of the healthy trident maples, stating that the ordinance offered little flexibility in such cases.

Town Planner Brittany Bendix explained that the Commission could weigh other factors, such as the overall number of heritage trees on-site and the owners’ track record of stewardship, when shaping future policy or giving direction to staff.

Chair Lane proposed separating the vote.

ATTACHMENT 2

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, TOWN OF ATHERTON, MAY 28, 2025 P. 6 MOTION that the Planning Commission approve the Heritage Tree Removal Permit (HTR25- 001), at 18 Faxon Forest Road for the removal of two (2) coast live oaks, trees No. 1 and No. 2.

M/S Lane/Polito Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0
Commissioner Polito noted that the two trees near the entryway were likely problematic in the fall, expressing greater concern about the rear tree’s interference and asking about the proposed location for new redwoods.

Nasrin Hashemi indicated that the redwoods would be planted on the left side of the property, as viewed from the front, near the only adjacent neighbor.

Commissioner Polito then asked about the location of the architectural multi-trunk maple trees and referenced the difficulty interpreting the landscape plan.

Nasrin Hashemi responded that there were 26 heritage trees on the lots and 12 on the specific parcel, adding that the shedding from maples could impact the water feature planned near the front entrance.

Chair Lane cautioned against placing new trees too close to existing oaks.

Town Planner Brittany Bendix clarified that the approved replacement list included eight ornamental cherry or Japanese maple trees, two architectural multi-trunk maple trees, four redwood trees, one pine tree, and ten ficus trees. She confirmed the ficus trees were mentioned in the applicant’s letter but were not part of the conditions of approval.

Town Arborist Sally Bentz-Dalton noted that although code typically required oak tree replacement with other oaks, she approved redwoods at the applicant’s request due to the high number of oaks already on the property.

Commissioner Polito supported removing two trees in the front due to maintenance concerns and commended the applicant’s stewardship, noting their efforts supported environmental preservation.

Commissioner Levison also commended the applicant’s responsibility and proactive approach, noting his commitment to preserving the property’s wooded character and respecting the ordinance process.

MOTION that the Planning Commission approve the Heritage Tree Removal Permit (HTR25- 001), at 18 Faxon Forest Road for the removal of three (3) trident maple tree Nos. 3, 4, and 5, subject to the draft conditions as listed in the Draft Heritage Tree Removal Permit Certificate.

M/S Polito/Tonelli Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 e. Heritage Tree Removal (HTR25-003) at 98 Maple Avenue (APN 060-331-250).

Chair Lane noted that two letters of opposition from Paul Quinlan at 49 Maple, referencing concerns related to the tree ordinance and project design, and another from Darren and Amy Torre at 57 Maple with similar objections. Both letters would be included in June 2025’s meeting packet for consideration.

Town Planner Brittany Bendix confirmed that she had responded to both emails, acknowledging receipt and noting that the project would be continued to the following month’s hearing.

ATTACHMENT 2

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, TOWN OF ATHERTON, MAY 28, 2025 P. 7 Chair Lane highlighted that public comment and previous Commission feedback, such as during the December hearing, often strengthened staff’s position when requesting additional information from applicants. He cited this as an example, where the Town Arborist had requested further cavity testing of a tree, and the continuance would ideally allow time for that testing and documentation.

MOTION that the Planning Commission approve the requested continuance of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit (HTR25-003) at 98 Maple Avenue for the removal of one (1) coast live oak tree, to the June 2025 Planning Commission meeting.

M/S Lane/Polito Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0

5. STAFF REPORTS
Town Planner Brittany Bendix announced the coordination of a potential study session with City Council on inclusionary housing policy now that the housing element had been certified and requested that the Planning Commission respond with its availability so that quorum could be reached.

Commissioner Polito expressed concern that during joint meetings, the City Council often had access to significantly more information through regular one-on-ones with the City Manager, which left Planning Commissioners at a disadvantage.

Chair Lane agreed, stating that the lack of access to background discussions made the Commission appear uninformed during meetings.

Town Planner Brittany Bendix offered to work with the Chair and Vice Chair on a strategy to improve information flow, confirming that communication would be frequent ahead of the upcoming meeting and that any non-confidential insights would be shared to assist with preparation.

6. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
There were no reports at this time.

7. ADJOURN
M/S Polito/____ Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0
The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 4
Date: Monday, June 9th, 2025
From: Michael Templeton
80 Palmer Lane Atherton
To: Atherton Town Council [email protected]
Elizabeth Lewis, Mayor Town of Atherton
Stacy Holland, Vice Mayor Town of Atherton
Diana Hawkins-Manuelein, Council Member
Rick DeGolia, Council Member
Bill Widmer, Council Member
CC: Eric Lane, Chair Planning Commission [email protected] Brittany Bendix, [email protected]
Subject: Grievance Letter sent to Council within 10 days of May 28th Planning meeting regarding Variance requests for 94 Palmer Lane.

Unfortunately I missed the May 28 planning meeting where the Applicant was granted front & rear setback variances that would allow the construction of a proposed 2950 sq foot, two story residence (plus an 800 sq foot ADU & and a detached 1 car garage) in what used to be the mostly empty (except for pool house & pool) 10,000 sq foot backyard of 94 Palmer Lane, a parcel adjacent to mine. This small (by Atherton standards) lot was created when the Applicants did an SB 9 lot split for the original approximately .5 acre 94 Palmer Lane property. I feel the granting of the variances will create a privacy steeling, enormously intrusive, two story structure (with windows peering down on everything I do) only 26 feet from the side of my property line that will invade my back yard. I would prefer for the Town to ultimately reject the variances, and to only permit two 800 square foot ADUs that are allowed without any variances. I was told that the Town’s rational for allowing the variances was that this would give the Town the ability to require the 26 foot side yard setback between the Applicants property (94 Palmer Lane) and mine (80 Palmer Lane). But given the almost doubling of the height of the proposed structure (vis a vis a single story ADU) to be allowed therein & the traffic within their 26 foot side yard setback that will also double as an entry way/ drive way, and intrusive windows looking down directly into my back yard, I feel this would be a poor trade off.

Among other things, my back yard will become their Front yard.

Additionally, the Applicant’s proposed two story structure will have 10 foot ceilings on the first floor and 9 foot ceilings on the second floor, thus creating a very tall structure.

The width of the side of the occupied 2nd story facing me would be 28 feet, but the visual impact will be much more when the roof & overhangs are considered. Because the length of the building facing me, under the second story is approximately 50 feet, the total length of the building that will be facing me (26 feet from my property line) if the front of the proposed 1 car garage is included (also facing me 26 feet from property line) will be close to 60 feet. If the 9 foot “walkway” to the detached garage is included, along with roof eaves specified at 2 feet, then my side view of the proposed building expands to

ATTACHMENT 4
approximately 74 feet. The linear length of property line is approximately 125 feet. I feel the visual foot print facing me is excessive.

Additionally the visual screening the Applicants are relying on (for some of their structure), are my 5 oak trees running along the shared property line, plus 1 shared oak, plus 1 oak on their property. The oaks provide canopy screening, but I would have to put in a significant amount of “under story” screening to occlude the direct visual sightline into my back yard from windows on their second story as well as other parts of the 74 linear feet presented by the side of their building. To accomplish this I would need to trim the upper canopy of the oaks to provide additional light for the “under story” screening. Since the Applicants want to use the 25 feet adjacent to my property line as their drive way, they will not be planting significant screening on their side. I would also argue that most of the other screening along the drive way is on my property. So I feel that I would be the one “burdened” enormously with the job to get their residence adequately screened.

One of my other concerns is noise related. Atherton’s ordinances in the past have required doors to be facing the front, rear, or to the inside of the parcel. Door opening to the side (towards the adjacent parcel) were disallowed. I have a neighbor who turned an illegal side door facing my house into their main entrance. They continually slammed this door & I could hear it in my house. The Applicant’s proposed building has their building’s main entrance facing my back yard with a door directly facing the side and towards my back yard.

What’s past is prologue. The Applicants also split off the main house that was on the 94 Palmer Lane parcel to become 98 Palmer Lane. This house was “renovated” in the summer of 2022 and spring of 2023, and put up for sale in the spring/summer of 2023.

The Applicants did not find a buyer. (In fact one potential buyer’s agent called me to ask if I would be willing to sell my house; they had a family and wanted a back yard for their children and their agent told me the Applicants said they would never sell.) So the Applicant “re-renovated” the house in the fall of 2023 and into the spring of 2024. During this several years renovation period, nearly all the renovation work on 98 Palmer has been done by going down the driveway on 94 Palmer Lane and in through the side door entrance that faces my property (they took down a section of the existing fence when necessary). It was not done by going through the front entrance on Palmer Lane. So they would have a string of trucks parked in the 94 Palmer Lane driveway, and often when one of the contractors needed to cut something, they would drag it out into the 94 Palmer Lane driveway and I would hear all the glorious noise. This has been incredibly disturbing to me over several years. I would envision that this will also happen during the several years of construction of the new building at 94 Palmer Lane. There will be a line of trucks parked in the “driveway” along my property line, and a lot of the work flow will go in through “front” door facing my property. So essentially my back yard becomes directly across from their front entrance.

Because they would probably be rewarded with substantially more profit, the Applicants would prefer to put large a 2950 sq foot structure (plus ADU and detached garage)

ATTACHMENT 4
instead of just building two 800 sq foot ADUs. And in order to do this, the Applicants also claim that they need a variance because the allowable front and rear set backs would only allow a 5 foot wide main residence. But please remember that this is a conundrum of their own making. The Applicants chose to SB 9 a small (for Atherton) lot. Probably because the cost of the approximately .5 acre lot was less several million less than a house on a 1 acre lot. But if the Applicant can get somewhere between 4 and 5 million for the proposed structure, they can effectively double their money in just a few years.

And so the process will continue.

I do not think the Town of Atherton should be urban lot splitting these small parcels; I think most people who buy in Atherton do so for the privacy and space; I look at 98 Palmer Lane (the separate main house created from the 94 Palmer Lane SB 9) and I think it is a bit of a travesty. The new owner never used the small off street parking places that were provided, but instead parked on the street. He has now decided to put in a paver lined driveway all of 10 feet wide; but to accomplish this he cut down two heritage trees that were in the way. This last act has opened up an expansive, unsightly view of the side of a neighboring large two story residence; apparently he doesn’t care. It also appears he has removed all the side screening on the side of the house facing the 94 Palmer Lane driveway. Go figure that one too.

As for the proposed residence at 94 Palmer Lane, I think it has an incredibly large footprint on the lot. In addition to the enormous deck, there is also a large patio area, and some walkways consisting of huge concrete blocks. Including the driveway, it probably takes up 2/3 to ¾ of all available ground. If someone were to persist in building it, I would suggest trying to significantly reduce its impact; getting rid of the 1 car attached garage could eliminate the need for 1/3 of the driveway & the tree protection zones. If main entrance were moved to the front of the structure, it would greatly eliminate impact to the side neighbor (me). The structure’s foot print could be further reduced by enlarging the upstairs area, and then bringing the detached ADU under a main roof.

What appears to stop this from happening is a limitation on how much second floor area you can have; but maybe a variance could be sought for this, and it would lessen the structure’s overall impact. Measure twice and cut once – didn’t the Applicant learn anything from having to re-renovate 98 Palmer Lane? Although I get a sense of “planning fatigue” on the part of the Applicant, spending more time on design could make an enormously better product. But you have to THINK.

As to why I missed the planning meeting, all I can say is I have in the past regularly received targeted notices of tree removal and tree protection zones impacted in my neighborhood. Neither I nor my neighbor received any such targeted notice this time.

One of the presentations slides at the planning meeting even calls for “neighbor outreach before permit” about my trees along the fence line as they are impacted greatly by the proposed residence’s driveway. But there was no outreach to me at all about the request for these large variances to accommodate a huge structure that will clearly impact my privacy. I had even talked to Gerry Martin in the planning department on the 22nd of April about 94 Palmer Lane. I asked if any building permits for 94 Palmer Lane had been applied for or issued (and there were none), but nothing was mentioned about anything

ATTACHMENT 4
that had been apparently going on in the planning department for many months (it sounded like at least a year from the video of the meeting) or about any variances that were applied for.

After considering the concerns presented here that I was unable to raise at the Planning Commission meeting on May 28th, I hope the Atherton Town Council will consider my grievance regarding the Planning Commission’s granting of variances for front and rear setback at 94 Palmer Lane.

Sincerely,
Michael Templeton
650-323-3367

AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES
I, Denise Kaspar , being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the County of Orange on the 16th day of May , 2025, that I deposited 87 notices as described below in the United States Post Office, a Public Awareness Notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit:
(See list attached hereto and made part hereof)
that said persons are the property owners of said property who are entitled to a Public Hearing Notice:

APN: 060-163-290
Subject: 94 PALMER LN
ATHERTON CA 94027
that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above.

ATTACHMENT 5

July 7, 2025
Ms. Elizabeth Lewis, Mayor
Ms. Stacy Holland, Vice Mayor
Ms. Diana Hawkins-Manuelian, Council Member
Mr. Rick DeGolia, Council Member
Mr. Bill Widmer, Council Member
Town of Atherton
Planning Department
c/o Brittany Bendix, Consulting Town Planner
80 Fair Oaks Lane
Atherton, CA 94027
Re: Applicant / Owner Response to Appeal of Planning Commission’s May 28th 5-0 Approval of Front and Rear Setback Variances (VAR24-003) to construct a new single family dwelling with an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at 94 Palmer Lane (APN 060-163-290).

Via Email
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:

As the applicant of the above referenced project, we respectfully request that you follow Planning Staff’s recommendation and uphold the Planning Commission’s May 28th unanimous 5-0 approval of the above referenced setback variances. This approval was appealed by Mr. Michael Templeton of 80 Palmer Lane via email dated June 9th, 2025. For the reasons set forth in this letter, we respectfully request that you deny his appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval of the setback variances.

The Design Challenge
The parcel at issue is 0.32 acres and was created by an urban lot split approved in 2023 by the Town pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 9 and Atherton Municipal Code (AMC) Section 17.53. It is situated at the edge of the Town’s boundaries in a neighborhood of comparably sized properties that range in lot size from 0.12 to 0.77-acres. The parcel is zoned R-1A which requires 60 foot front and rear setbacks and 26 foot side year setbacks. Applying these setbacks would result in a buildable area of approximately 185 square feet which is hardly big enough for a single room let alone a single-family house.

Carefully Designed Solution
We began working with the Planning Department in April of 2024 to discuss the process and the requirements to submit for a front & rear setback variance for 94 Palmer Lane to allow for a single-family home. Throughout this 15 month process we have made multiple submissions and have been assigned and reassigned to multiple Town planners. At each step in the process, we were required to provide additional information before we were granted the opportunity to go before the Planning Commission.

ATTACHMENT 6

We listened carefully to the Planning Department. We worked diligently and spent many, many hours and resources designing a solution for this property that would be compatible with the neighborhood and respect the privacy of the immediate neighbors. We worked with the Town Arborist and the Fire Department to provide the maximum protection for the Heritage Trees and still allow the property to be accessed and protected in a disaster.

The solution that we presented to the Planning Commission is respectful to the neighbors in scale and in its distance from the property lines. It is a good fit for this community and is in line with the development standards along Palmer Lane. The project complies with all R-1A development standards with the exception of the front and rear yard setback requirements from which we are seeking a variance. The proposed front and rear setbacks are 37 feet and 4.75 inches which equate to 30% of the lot depth of 124.78 feet. This corresponds to Section 17.32.040(D)(1) which provides that “for lots of record prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 146 (April 16, 1946) with a depth of less than two hundred feet, the front and rear yards shall each be thirty percent of the lot depth with a minimum of thirty feet.”
It is important to note that although the appellant complains of the 26 foot setback facing his property, we are not asking for a reduced side setback and this 26 foot setback is allowed without a variance. The side setbacks we have used are standard for R-1A development in this neighborhood and respect the privacy of the neighbors. We located the attached ADU to the North side of the property because the North Fair Oaks neighborhood currently has this type of density and it is a better fit in that location. It should also be noted that the front face of the designed house is more than 180’ from the edge of the street. Each time we made design decisions, we focused on respecting the neighbors and fitting into this community. This project is a common sense solution. And the Planning Commission supported us 5-0.

Proposed Additional Concession to Address Appellant’s Privacy Concern We have carefully read Mr. Templeton’s letter and looked for ways to address his concerns, most of which we note do not result from our requested variances from the front and rear setbacks. The owner of 94 Palmer Lane, Mr. Magozo, and Town Planner Brittany Bendix met in person with Mr. Templeton after he submitted his letter. Together they brainstormed some possible solutions that might make Mr. Templeton more supportive of this project. Although we feel that the current tree canopy is very dense and will shield the sightlines, we would be willing to obscure all of the glazing in the lower portion of the 2nd story windows that face Mr.Templeton’s property. The attached diagram shows where we would include this window treatment.

We thank you for your consideration and invite each of the council members to take the opportunity to visit the site before the City Council meeting. We trust that you will find that the requested variances meet all of the findings set forth in Atherton Municipal Code Chapter 17.16 and California Government Code Section 65906, including that the granting of the variance will not “adversely affect the interest of the public or the interest of the residents and property owners in the vicinity of the premise in question.”
Sincerely,
Kelly Johnson, Zak Johnson Architects
Andre Magozo, Owner of 94 Palmer Lane
ATTACHMENT 6

ackack
Proposed Setback
37'-4 3/4"
8'-0"
12 5
Proposed Setback
Proposed Front Setback
Distance btw. Main house
and detached Garage
Standing Seam Metel Roof on 1st floor roofs
only. Ribs to be 12" o.c. typ. Color to be
approved by Architect.

Ptd., smooth troweled, stucco finish, typ.

Texture samples to be approved by Architect.
1 x 6 T&G vertical, stained cedar
wd. siding with "square" reveal
Alum. Clad Exterior, pnt. wd. interior, dual glazed
windows with simulated divided lights, Typ.

Weathershield Contemporary Collection or
Approved Equal.

Composition Shingle roofing on 2nd floor roof only.
12 5
12 5
Provide Obscured Glazing in Lower portions
of windows.

ATTACHMENT 6

94 Palmer Ln
Aerial view to 80 Palmer
2nd story - Office View
16 Feet High
Fence
Height
ATTACHMENT 6

Item No. 9
Town of Atherton
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT – REGULAR AGENDA
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

GEORGE RODERICKS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ANTHONY SUBER, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/ CITY CLERK
DATE: JULY 16, 2025
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPOINTMENT TO THE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATION
Review one applicant for a vacancy on the Environmental Programs Committee (EPC). There presently 3 vacant seats eligible for appointment. The term expiration dates are June 30, 2027, June 30, 2028, and June 30, 2029.

BACKGROUND
Staff conducts continuous recruitments for vacant seats on Town Committees. The EPC has had one vacant seat since July 2024, another since February 2025, and received a resignation from Chair Farrell effective after the July 17, 2025, meeting. Without the appointment of the applicant the EPC will be unable to meet for lack of a quorum.

The EPC has one applicant for consideration that could fill a term of either June 30, 2027, June 30, 2028, or June 30, 2029.

The candidate is Sophia Tang, who applied on July 7, 2025. She expressed interest in filling the term expiring in June 2028.

Appointment Process
There is one applicant for three (3) vacant seats. It is recommended that the Council consider appointment to the Committee by making a motion for the applicant and the specific term and the City Clerk will conduct a roll call vote. If the candidate receives a majority vote the seat will be filled. If the candidate does not receive a majority vote the Council can direct staff to continue recruitment for the vacant seat.

FISCAL IMPACT
None

EPC Appointment
JULY 16, 2025

GOAL ALIGNMENT
This Report and its contents are in alignment with the following Council Policy Goals:
• Goal D - Be Forward Thinking

POLICY FOCUS
The Council is not obligated to appoint any of the candidates to any of the positions and may choose to extend the candidate recruitment process as it deems necessary. The Council reserves complete discretion in appointments.

Town Commissions and Committees represent a key component of civic engagement within the community. The participation of the members is a vital part of the Town’s public engagement and review process. These groups can gather public input on issues and provide feedback and recommendations to the City COuncil for consideration.

When evaluating applicants for Commissions and Committees, the City Council should consider the role of each committee, the amount of oversight needed, cost-effectiveness, efficiency in decision-making, and the desire of the City Council for direct policy involvement on particular issues.

PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with this agenda item being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting in print and electronically. Information about the project is also disseminated via the Town’s electronic News Flash and Atherton Online. There are approximately 1,200 subscribers to the Town’s electronic News Flash publications. Subscribers include residents as well as stakeholders –to include, but be not limited to, media outlets, school districts, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, service provides (water, power, and sewer), and regional elected officials.

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE FEEDBACK/REFERRAL
This item has not been before a Town Committee or Commission

ATTACHMENTS

1. Committee Application

2. Committee and Commission Roster

Dear Mr. Anthony Suber,
I hope this message finds you well.

My name is Sophia Linh Thuy Duong, and I’m writing to express my heartfelt interest in joining the Atherton Environmental Programs Committee. I recently submitted my application for the Atherton Tree Committee, but the opportunity to directly contribute to the Environmental Program Committee is really special to me.

With great pride and a deep sense of purpose, I am writing to express my interest in serving on the Town of Atherton’s Environmental Programs Committee. As someone laying the foundation for a new chapter of life in the U.S., I view it as both a privilege and responsibility to contribute to the community that I now call home — and that has meant so much to my family for nearly two decades.

My roots in Atherton run deep. My father, Lap Tang, has lived in this town since 2007 — first in the red brick house on 303 Atherton Avenue, and now in Lindenwood, where he is warmly embraced by neighbors and friends. He arrived in the United States as a Vietnamese refugee in 1975 and went on to become a pillar of the Vietnamese-American community. As the Founder and Developer of Grand Century Mall and Vietnam Town in San Jose, he was recently honored with a 50-year award for his lifetime contributions to community building. His dedication to creating spaces of belonging and pride for others continues to be my greatest inspiration.

I am proud to follow in his footsteps, anchoring my life here with my two young sons, William (age 6) and Anthony (age 2). Becoming an Athertonian is a dream come true, and I am wholly committed to building a stable, thriving, and meaningful future for my family — one grounded in community, sustainability, and purpose.

Professionally, I bring a unique blend of entrepreneurial experience and cultural perspective. Over the past decade, I built and scaled companies across manufacturing and digital media in Vietnam, while also managing real estate and leading cross-functional teams across Asia and the U.S. I currently serve as Executive Assistant to the Chairman at Gami Group and the NT Family Office, where I support complex strategic initiatives with clarity, discretion, and drive.

But beyond resumes and roles, I am a woman shaped by resilience. Raised by separated parents since the age of five, I learned early on to lead with empathy, grit, and gratitude. Whether navigating boardrooms or bedtime stories, I bring full presence and intention to everything I do. The time I spend walking and talking with my sons — and sharing quiet moments with my father — gives me the energy to

Audit and Finance Committee
Name Appointment Expiration
Walter Sleeth 6/2020 6/30/2027
Kate Scolnick 6/2020 6/30/2028
Suanne Jain 6/2025 6/30/2029
Stephen Brickley 6/2025 6/30/2029
Thomas Hill 1/2022 6/30/2026
Name Appointment Expiration
Samantha Michel 6/2025 6/30/2027
Jerome Leugers 6/2019 6/30/2027
David Jones 6/2020 6/30/2028
Steve Seabolt 6/2025 6/30/2029
Tom Owen 6/2020 6/30/2028
Environmental Programs Committee
Name Appointment Expiration
VACANT 6/30/2027
VACANT 6/30/2025
Gregory Loew 6/2021 6/30/2027
Amy Farrell (resigned for July) 6/2022 6/30/2028
Kenneth Frederick 6/2022 6/30/2026
Park and Recreation Committee
Name Appointment Expiration
VACANT 6/30/2026
Alex Keh 6/2019 6/30/2027
Julianna Robertson 6/2019 6/30/2027
Robert Roeser 10/2022 6/30/2026
Dorothy Hunter 7/2024 6/30/2028
Frank Merrill 6/2022 6/30/2028
Walter Robinson 6/2021 6/30/2027
Planning Commission
Name Appointment Expiration
Jerome Leugers 2/2025 6/30/2027
Paul Tonelli 6/2023 6/30/2027
Sandy Levison 6/2024 6/30/2028
Bob Polito 3/2023 6/30/2029
Eric Lane 6/2022 6/30/2026
Commissions & Committees Roster
2025-26

FOUNDATION APPOINTMENT
Transportation, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
Committee

Item No. 10
Town of Atherton
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT – REGULAR AGENDA
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

GEORGE RODERICKS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: STEVEN D. MCCULLEY, POLICE CHIEF
DATE: JULY 16, 2025
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO IMPLEMENT A

RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM ON MAPLE

AVENUE (BETWEEN STATION LANE AND EL CAMINO REAL)

AND ON ASHFIELD ROAD (BETWEEN THE TOWN CENTER

AND EL CAMINO REAL)

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution establishing a Residential Permit Parking Program on Maple Avenue (between Station Lane and El Camino Real) and on Ashfield Road (between the Town Center and El Camino Real), restricting on-street parking to permit holders during specified hours.

BACKGROUND
The neighborhoods surrounding the Atherton Town Center and Library have experienced persistent parking congestion, particularly during popular library programs and community events.

This overflow parking has significantly impacted residential streets, most notably Maple Avenue and Ashfield Road, as well as adjacent streets such as Dinkelspiel Station Lane, Walnut Avenue, and portions of the Town Center parking lot.

At its May 27, 2025, meeting, the Transportation, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Safety Committee reviewed this issue, received public input, and recommended the implementation of a residentonly permit parking program on Maple Avenue, with Ashfield Road considered as part of a broader parking and circulation strategy.

The FY 2025/26 Adopted Budget includes funding for a comprehensive study reviewing parking and circulation in the Town Center area including the Town Center, Ashfield Road, Maple Avenue, Walnut Avenue, and Dinkelspiel Station Lane. Additionally, the evaluation will include a review of creating a pedestrian pathway along Dinkelspiel Station Lane from the Town Center to Watkins

IMPLEMENT A RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM ON MAPLE AVENUE JULY 16, 2025

Avenue. In the interim, specific measures are needed to mitigate near-term parking challenges for affected residents.

ANALYSIS
Over the past year, several operational measures have been implemented to address traffic and parking concerns, including:
· Speed surveys confirming low traffic speeds (< 20 mph). · Installation of traffic calming features (e.g., speed humps on Maple Avenue). · Red curb painting to improve visibility near Station Lane. · Library program redistribution to Holbrook-Palmer Park and schedule staggering. · Library patron education regarding alternative parking and congestion mitigation.

While these measures have provided some benefit, parking overflow and congestion remain ongoing challenges. A resident-only parking permit program is a next step to directly address neighborhood spillover.

PROPOSED PROGRAM DETAILS
Affected Streets:
• Maple Avenue (Between Station Lane and El Camino Real) • Ashfield Road (Between Town Center and El Camino Real) Restrictions:
• Resident-Only (and Guest) Permit Parking Only
• Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM
Permits Available To:
• Residents of Maple Avenue and Ashfield Road (4 per address) • Temporary guest permits also available
• Final procedures and criteria will be established by the Town Manager or their designee and posted on the Town’s website or available with the City Clerk Implementation Elements:
• Placard-based permit system for easy issuance and enforcement • Signage installation prior to enforcement
• Enforcement conducted by Code Enforcement or Patrol personnel, as available • Staff recognize the need for consistent and equitable enforcement and will monitor impacts and resourcing needs.
• Final procedures and criteria will be established by the Town Manager or their designee and

IMPLEMENT A RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM ON MAPLE AVENUE JULY 16, 2025

posted on the Town’s website or available with the City Clerk

FISCAL IMPACT
Minimal short-term fiscal impact. Signage and permit placards can be accommodated within existing Police and Public Works budgets. Long-term program costs and staffing demands are undetermined at this time and will be reassessed following the program implementation.

GOAL ALIGNMENT
This Report and its contents are in alignment with the following Council Policy Goals:
• Goal C - Maintain Conservative Fiscal Policies and Financial Transparency • Goal D - Be Forward Thinking

POLICY FOCUS
Adoption of this resolution is consistent with Council goals of enhancing neighborhood livability, supporting local mobility, and ensuring equitable access to Town services. Authority is provided by California Vehicle Code §22507 and Atherton Municipal Code Chapters 10.04 and 10.16.

PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with this agenda item being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting in print and electronically. Information about the project is also disseminated via the Town’s electronic News Flash and Atherton Online. There are approximately 1,200 subscribers to the Town’s electronic News Flash publications. Subscribers include residents as well as stakeholders –to include, but be not limited to, media outlets, school districts, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, service provides (water, power, and sewer), and regional elected officials.

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE FEEDBACK/REFERRAL
Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee (meets as needed)

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution: Resident Permit Parking on Maple Avenue & Ashfield Road B. Letter of Notice to Residents

4920-3765-6659.1 014537.002

TOWN OF ATHERTON
RESOLUTION NO. [2025-XX]

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ATHERTON

IMPLEMENTING PERMIT PARKING ONLY ON MAPLE AVENUE (BETWEEN

STATION LANE AND EL CAMINO REAL) AND ASHFIELD ROAD (BETWEEN THE TOWN CENTER AND EL CAMINO REAL) BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 9:00 AM AND 6:00 PM, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Atherton is authorized by the California Vehicle Code (CVC 22507) and the Town Municipal Code (Chapters 10.04 and 10.16) to regulate on-street parking in order to promote public safety and the general welfare of its residents; and
WHEREAS, residents of Maple Avenue and Ashfield Road have expressed concerns about non-resident vehicles parking in their neighborhood for extended periods, creating congestion, reducing available parking for residents, and impacting quality of life; and WHEREAS, the Town has conducted a parking analysis and public outreach with affected residents, and has determined that restricting parking to permit-only during business hours is warranted and appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the implementation of permit-only parking on Maple Avenue (between Station Lane and El Camino Real) and Ashfield Road (between the Town Center and El Camino Real) during designated hours is in the public interest and will help alleviate parking impacts in the neighborhood.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Atherton finds as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein fully.

2. Permit Parking Established: Parking on Maple Avenue (between Station Lane and El Camino Real) and Ashfield Road (between the Town Center and El Camino Real) shall be restricted during designated hours to vehicles displaying a valid residential or guest parking permit issued by the Town.

3. Hours of Restriction: The permit-only parking restriction shall be in effect from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, excluding Town-recognized holidays.

4. Permit Issuance: Residential and guest permits shall be issued by the Town to qualifying residents in accordance with procedures and criteria established by the Town Manager or their designee.

4920-3765-6659.1 014537.002

5. Enforcement: Vehicles parked on Maple Avenue (between Station Lane and El Camino Real) or Ashfield Road (between the Town Center and El Camino Real) during restricted hours without a valid permit shall be subject to citation and/or towing in accordance with Town’s Municipal Code and state law.

5. Signage: Appropriate signage indicating the permit parking restriction shall be installed at least thirty (30) days on Maple Avenue (between Station Lane and El Camino Real) and Ashfield Road (between the Town Center and El Camino Real) prior to the enforcement of this resolution.

6. Effective Date: This resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption, with enforcement to commence following the installation of required signage and notice to residents.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Atherton at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of July 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Elizabeth Lewis, Mayor
__________________________________
Anthony W. Suber, City Clerk
__________________________________
Mona Ebrahimi, City Attorney

4918-0251-3491.1 014537.002
July __, 2025
Dear Residents,
On July 16, the City Council will be considering a resolution to implement a Resident-only Permit Parking Program for Maple Avenue (between Station Lane and El Camino Real) and Ashfield Road (between the Town Center and El Camino Real). The proposed program would restrict on-street parking on these streets to residents and their guests Monday through Friday, from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., excluding federal and state holidays.

The program is being considered at the request of residents on these streets and in response to increased library patronage and its impact on neighborhood parking availability, traffic circulation, and pedestrian safety. The Council will review the proposed program as part of its broader efforts to address these concerns in collaboration with the community.

Community participation is strongly encouraged. Residents are invited to attend the meeting to share their perspectives and help shape an effective and balanced solution.

If the Council adopts the permit parking program, the Police Department will follow up with residents regarding the permit application process and other implementation details.

Meeting Information
Topic: Resolution – Resident-Only Permit Parking on Maple Avenue and Ashfield Road Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2025
Time: 6:00 p.m.

Location: Atherton Town Council Chambers, 80 Fair Oaks Lane, Atherton, CA 94027 For questions or to provide input in advance, please contact Police Chief Steve McCulley at [email protected] or (650) 688-6500. The agenda will be available online on or after July 11 at the following web address: https://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/641/Agendas-Minutes. A Zoom link will be available.

Thank you for your continued engagement and commitment to our community.

Sincerely,
Steven D McCulley
Chief of Police

Item No. 11
Town of Atherton
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT – REGULAR AGENDA
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

GEORGE RODERICKS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ROBERT OVADIA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: JULY 16, 2025
SUBJECT: REVIEW THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PARK AND

RECREATION COMMITTEE REGARDING THE PICKLEBALL

PROGRAM AT HOLBROOK-PALMER PARK AND PROVIDE

DIRECTION TO STAFF

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council review the recommendations from the Park and Recreation Committee regarding the pickleball program at the Park; and provide direction regarding changes to the pickleball program including potential restriping of the courts, permanent facilities, changes in hours, use, and instructional use of the courts.

BACKGROUND
The pickleball trial at Holbrook-Palmer was initiated at the end of January 2024, with shared use of a tennis court (Court 1). In September 2024, based on recommendations from the Park and Recreation Committee, the City Council expanded the reservable hours of the pickleball courts as follows:
• Mornings (until noon) – daily
• Evenings (after 4pm) – Tuesdays and Thursdays
• All day – Sunday
As with tennis, access to the court reservation system is limited to key holders. Drop-in/open play usage of the courts has not been approved.

There is heavy demand for the pickleball courts, with reservation hours reaching 195 hours in April 2025, 255 hours in May 2025, and 206 hours in June 2025. There have been complaints regarding availability of the courts due to the heavy usage and instructional use of the courts. There are similar complaints regarding availability of the regular tennis courts.

At this time, due to the limited number of pickleball courts, and concerns regarding impacts to

HPP Pickleball Program
JULY 16, 2025

availability for general use, instructional usage of the pickleball courts has not been allowed.

At its May and June City Council Study Sessions regarding the FY 2025-26 budget, the Council received information regarding a potential donation to improve access to pickleball at HolbrookPalmer Park. The donor offered to restore the clay court (Court 3) to a standard tennis court and convert Court 1 to full time pickleball. This information was shared with the Park and Recreation Committee at their June 4, 2025, meeting.

At the meeting, staff provided the dimensions required for various layouts that could be considered in court conversion and/or relocation (possibly to the hand ball court). The Committee reviewed the options. The Committee’s initial recommendation was that Court 1 be converted to a pickleball only court and that the clay court, due to its limited usage (see chart below), be converted back to a regular hard court for tennis. A second alternative was also recommended for further review included the demolition of the handball court and the construction of two pickleball courts between the tennis courts and the pathway to Felton Gables, along the rail side of the park. This second alternative was less desired as it did not increase the number of pickleball courts. Final recommendations were pending information on approximate costs.

At the meeting, the Committee also requested an opportunity to review and discuss the pickleball program, hours and usage.

At its July 2, 2025, meeting, the Park and Recreation Committee received additional information regarding court reservation, concerns regarding instructional use, improvement options and alternatives to provide additional facilities for pickleball, as well as preliminary cost estimates for the various alternatives. The Committee received input from Player Capital Tennis and members of the public and recommended the following regarding the pickleball program:

1. Short Term - Restripe Court 1 to overlay 4 pickleball courts over the tennis court as compared to the current configuration of two courts over the tennis court – provide additional nets to accommodate the new courts.

2. Long Term – Remove the handball court located between the tennis courts and the Felton Gables Safe Routes pathway and construct two self-enclosed pickleball courts. Potentially donor funded.

ANALYSIS
As noted above, there is a heavy demand for pickleball at Holbrook-Palmer Park. The following chart, excerpted from the June 2025, Parks Division Report, depicts the usage of the courts at Holbrook- Plamer Park:

Month PC Court
Hours
# of
Student
s
Private
Lessons
Key
Holder
Hours
Clay
Court
Hours
Pickleball
Court
Hours
24-Jul 812 415 443 465 64 75
24-Aug 705 408 433 380 39 117.5

HPP Pickleball Program
JULY 16, 2025

24-Sep 805 315 407 395 15 116
24-Oct 797 342 397 325 22 132.5
24-Nov 667 345 415 362 6 169
24-Dec 642 295 367 322 15 125
25-Jan 597 299 351 321 9 167
25-Feb 660 301 433 395 12 188
25-Mar 676 294 408 323 19.5 187.5
25-Apr 693 335 452 365 18 195.5
25-May 698 375 455 353 15 255
25-June 784 435 475 320 20 206
Total 8,586 4,159 5036 4,326* 254.5 1,754
* corrected
As noted in the chart, pickleball usage is significantly higher than that of the clay court, and clay court usage averages approximately 20 hours/month. Summer usage of the clay court usage peaks with Player Capital usage of the court for their summer tennis camps. Clay court revenue associated with non-resident usage was reported by Player Capital Tennis to be less than $2,000 per year. Such revenue has not yet been shared with the Town.

Court Conversions
Attached to this report are depictions of various tennis and pickleball layouts for review by the Committee for a recommendation to the City Council. Though formal cost estimation has not been conducted, the following options are ordered in approximate least cost to most cost:
 Permanent conversion of Court 1 to pickleball – resurfacing, striping and net installation  Permanent conversion of Court 1 to pickleball, and conversion of the clay court to hard court tennis
 Demolition of the handball court and construction of two pickleball courts, with reconversion of Court 1 to tennis – note that new fencing and access will be required for the pickleball courts and the rear tennis courts.
 Conversion and expansion of Court 5 to accommodate pickleball, with reconversion of Court 1 to tennis. Also included is the conversion of the clay court to hard-court tennis.

Note that there are different layout options showing pickleball court striping in the space of a tennis court, ranging from two courts (current) to four courts.

Approximate construction cost ranges, not including design and construction management, are provided as follows:
• Court 1 – resurfacing, striping and nets: $25,000 - $35,000 • Court 3 – removal of clay court and reconstruction as hard court: $150,000 – 200,000 • Handball Court – removal of handball court and replacement with two pickleball courts:
$250,000 - $300,000

HPP Pickleball Program
JULY 16, 2025

• Court 5 – removal of handball court, expansion of Court 5 and restriping to accommodate four pickleball courts, including resurfacing of Court 1 to tennis only: $200,000 - $250,000 *Note – these are rough magnitude costs only.

As noted above, after review and deliberation, the Committee recommended both short and longterm improvements to add pickleball facilities at Holbrook-Palmer Park as follows:

1. Short Term - Restripe Court 1 to overlay 4 pickleball courts over the tennis court as compared to the current configuration of two courts over the tennis court – provide additional nets to accommodate the new courts

2. Long Term – Remove the handball court located between the tennis courts and the Felton Gables Safe Routes pathway and construct two self-enclosed pickleball Courts. Potentially donor funded.

Monitoring and maintenance of the clay court is difficult and increasingly expensive as compared to the limited use the court receives. Though Player Capital Tennis is responsible for day-to-day oversight and management, including watering and spreading, the greater burden is with the Town, including issues with the irrigation system and court refresh and repairs.

Staff is seeking Council direction regarding the recommendations from the Park and Recreation Committee on short and long-term options; as well as considerations regarding conversion of the handball courts.

Court Hours and Use
The Committee also discussed the potential of increasing pickleball use of Court 1 to all day on Saturday and the addition of drop-in/open play. After deliberation and discussion, including input from Player Capital Tennis, there was a concern about impacts to tennis court availability with added hours on Saturday, as it is a heavy demand day, and how drop-in/open play would be monitored and managed. Player Capital Tennis will be evaluating modifications to the reservation system to limit tennis reservations on Court 1 when other hard courts are available, potentially improving availability of the pickleball courts. Ultimately, the Committee recommended that the hours and reservation requirements stay the same and that the recommendation to modify the striping on Court 1 would improve court availability.

Staff is seeking Council direction regarding the Committee’s recommendations on use hours and reservations.

Pickleball Instruction
The Committee also discussed if instructional usage of the pickleball courts should be permitted.

The current agreement with Player Capital Tennis recognizes them as the exclusive provider of tennis lessons at the Park Tennis Facility. This is interpreted to extend to pickleball at this time as it is on an existing tennis court within the existing tennis facility that was converted after the agreement. There have been complaints regarding the extent of instructional usage, initially

HPP Pickleball Program
JULY 16, 2025

purported to be by Player Capital Tennis, as well as desires by some members of the community wanting to use their own instructors and others wanting to instruct on the courts. As noted above, staff has been trying to restrict instructional use to maximize play opportunities by the community.

While possible to provide, Player Capital Tennis has refrained from offering pickleball lessons at this time. Once additional courts are provided there is an opportunity to allow instructional use on the pickleball courts.

Staff is seeking Council direction regarding instructional imitations, including if the existing agreement with Player Capital should extend to pickleball instruction, the number of courts/hours that instructional use would be permitted, if outside instructors should be permitted on the courts and the type of agreement for such authorization to instruct on the pickleball courts.

FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impact will depend on the options selected and if a donor or donors can be found to offset costs.

GOAL ALIGNMENT
This Report and its contents are in alignment with the following Council Policy Goals:
• Goal D - Be Forward Thinking
• Goal E - Maintain and Improve Public Infrastructure
• Goal F - Build Community & Promote Civic Engagement

POLICY FOCUS
The policy focus for this item is regarding potential improvement and or expansion of pickle ball program and facilities at Holbrook-Palmer Park.

PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with this agenda item being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting in print and electronically. Information about the project is also disseminated via the Town’s electronic News Flash and Atherton Online. There are approximately 1,200 subscribers to the Town’s electronic News Flash publications. Subscribers include residents as well as stakeholders –to include, but be not limited to, media outlets, school districts, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, service provides (water, power, and sewer), and regional elected officials.

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE FEEDBACK/REFERRAL
Park and Recreation Committee (meets each month)

HPP Pickleball Program
JULY 16, 2025

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 –Pickleball Court Dimensions and Layout Options

Pickleball Theoretical
Layout Options
1

Pickleball Court Sizing Information
2

Pickleball Court Sizing Information
3

Existing Courts with
joint use of Court 1
1 2
4 3
5 6
4

Court 1 – conversion to
3 Pickleball courts
Court 3 – conversion to
hard court
5

Court 1 – conversion to
4 Pickleball courts
Court 3 – conversion to
hard court
6

Handball Court –
conversion and
Expansion to
2 Pickleball courts
7

Court 3 – conversion to
hard court
Court 5 and Handball Court –
Conversion to
4 Pickleball courts
8

Item No. 12
Town of Atherton
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT – REGULAR AGENDA
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: GEORGE RODERICKS, CITY MANAGER
DATE: JULY 16, 2025
SUBJECT: SENIOR TASK FORCE REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT

FOR MARKETING MATERIALS

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the Council provide direction regarding a request from the Senior Task Force for financial support to market and advertise a Senior Seminar that will take place at HolbrookPalmer Park on September 27, 2025.

BACKGROUND | ANALYSIS
The Senior Task Force (STF) received City Council support to be treated as a Designated Group.

Designated Groups are independent organizations recognized by the Town that provide a clear community benefit. These groups are not charged rental or usage fees for Town facilities, however, they are responsible for reimbursing the Town for any direct costs associated with their events.

The Town does not have any financial obligations or ties to these groups. In cases where the Town collaborates with these groups on community events, support is typically limited to setup and takedown assistance, advertising through official Town channels (e.g. website, social media, email), and light refreshments. The groups are invited to promote events and activities to the broader community using Town media that includes the Athertonian, News Flash alerts, and the Town website.

The Senior Task Force is coordinating an event to take place on Saturday, September 27, 2025, at Holbrook-Palmer Park focusing on educating seniors on planning activities needed in deciding to either age in their current home or make arrangements to transition to a senior living or senior community. The event will open with a discussion on demonstrating a framework for individuals to assess their current situation and explore options like aging in place, downsizing, co-housing, intergenerational living, and senior communities. Visitors will have an opportunity to engage with speakers on a more personal note and/or meet with a select group of local resources that can provide more insight on what practical steps are needed, costs, and where to get started.

The STF engaged the City Council Ad Hoc Committee made up of Council Members HawkinsManuelian and Mayor Lewis to share event details and request support to mail a stand-alone

Senior Task Force Request
JULY 16, 2025

1 1
4 7
postcard to all residents advertising the event. Staff has been in regular communication with the STF to share the scope of what has been approved by Council related to Designated Groups and offered to include a postcard design in the August release of the Athertonian to serve as a savethe-date notice for residents. That has been designed and will be included in the August Athertonian release (Attachment 1). STF members are requesting Council funding for the cost of mailing a postcard to all Atherton residents. The money would cover printing and mailing; staff estimates the costs to be no more than $2,000 based on the last several postcard mailings.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Senior Task Force is requesting financial support to cover the cost of mailing a post card to advertise the event to Atherton residents. It is estimated at $1,800 - $2,000.

GOAL ALIGNMENT
This Report and its contents are in alignment with the following Council Policy Goals:
• Goal F - Build Community & Promote Civic Engagement

POLICY FOCUS
The policy focus for the Council is consideration of financial support for a Designated Group. The Town traditionally partners with Designated Groups to provide support through existing Town channels (e.g. website, social media, email, existing mailings such as Athertonian). Groups are encouraged to use these outreach mechanisms. Providing separate financial support for independent outreach or other uses is outside the scope of traditional Town support for Designated Groups.

PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with this agenda item being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting in print and electronically. Information about the project is also disseminated via the Town’s electronic News Flash and Atherton Online. There are approximately 1,200 subscribers to the Town’s electronic News Flash publications. Subscribers include residents as well as stakeholders –to include, but be not limited to, media outlets, school districts, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, service provides (water, power, and sewer), and regional elected officials.

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE FEEDBACK/REFERRAL
This item has not been before a Town Committee or Commission. It has been reviewed by a City Council Ad Hoc Committee that is made up by Council Member Hawkins-Manuelian and Mayor Lewis.

ATTACHMENTS

Senior Task Force Request
JULY 16, 2025

1 1
4 7

1. Senior Expo Postcard – 9.27.2025

LivingWell: Atherton Senior Expo
Presented by the Town of Atherton and the Senior Task Force Saturday,
September 27, 2025
10:00AM - 12:00PM
Holbrook-Palmer Park at
Jennings Pavillion
Emmy has a new leash on life by finding her best
“place” in the Atherton Police Department. Join her
for our educational and information exchange on
ensuring that you can live in your chosen home.

Town of
Atherton
Senior Expo