1 | P a g e
Town of Atherton
Planning Department
80 Fair Oaks Lane
Atherton, California 94027
Phone: (650) 752-0544
DATE: MAY 28, 2025
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: BRITTANY BENDIX, CONSULTING TOWN PLANNER
SUBJECT: Requests for Front and Rear Setback Variances (VAR24-003) and Tree Protection Zone Exceptions (PTPZ25-00002) to construct a new single-family dwelling with an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at 94 Palmer Lane (APN 060- 163-290).
CEQA: This proposal has been determined to be categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to: CEQA Section 15303, New Construction and CEQA Section 15311, Accessory Structures.
RECOMMENDATION:
For the reasons outlined in this staff report, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Front and Rear Setback Variances and the Tree Protection Zone Exception requests for distances ranging from to 3.7- to 7-times the respective trunk's diameter at breast height, noted as 3.7x to 7x, for six heritage trees.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located at 94 Palmer Lane (APN 060-163-290) and is a 0.32-acre flag lot within the R-1A zoning district. The property is located along the northeast edge of the Town, situated on Palmer Lane, between Middlefield Road and Fair Oaks Avenue. In 2023, the subject property was created through the approval of an urban lot split, pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 9 and Atherton Municipal Code (AMC) Section 17.53. The original parcel included the front property, 98 Palmer Lane, and was approximately 0.55 acres, established in 1922.
Immediately east of the subject site is the community of North Fair Oaks, under the jurisdiction of San Mateo County. Neighboring properties along Palmer Lane are developed with single-family dwellings and range in lot size from 0.12- to 0.77-acres, diminishing in size as lots approach Fair Oaks Avenue. To the rear of the property, lots fronting onto Holbrook Lane similarly become smaller beyond the town’s boundary. All of the properties within this area and under Atherton’s jurisdiction are zoned R-1A, which requires a minimum lot size of one acre. The inconsistency between the zoning and the existing Atherton lots date to a 1922 subdivision (Barney Park) that predates the Town of Atherton’s incorporation and adoption of its zoning code. See Figure 1 for a map identifying the subject and neighboring properties and the Town’s boundary.
ATTACHMENT 1
May 28, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report
94 Palmer Lane – Variance and PTPZ
2 | P a g e
Figure 1: Locator Map, Parcel Map (Google Maps, 2023)
Subsequent to the property’s completion of the lot split in 2023, the property owner is now seeking to develop the lot with a single-family dwelling and accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The state’s urban lot split law requires the Town to approve development under certain criteria that accommodate two dwelling units up to 800 square-feet each and require a minimum four-foot setback. However, the Town provides an option through AMC Section 17.53 for property owners to develop beyond the 800 square foot limits, if the project conforms to the development standards of the underlying zoning district.
At this location, the required setbacks would be determined by the R-1A development standards. The applicant is seeking a variance from the R-1A standards for the front and rear yard requirements to accommodate a primary residence with an attached ADU. See Figure 2 for a site layout of the lot’s developable area and the location of the trees. The buildable area resulting from an application of R1A setbacks results in a buildable area of approximately 185 square feet.
In addition to the variance request, the proposed driveway that accesses the detached garage requires an exception from the Town’s tree protection zone (TPZ) requirements for six heritage trees, subject to approval by the Planning Commission. These exceptions accommodate a driveway, as shown in Figure 3.
Both applications and corresponding narratives are provided at Attachments 1, 2, and 3. A reduced plan set is provided at Attachment 4.
ATTACHMENT 1
May 28, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report
94 Palmer Lane – Variance and PTPZ
3 | P a g e
Figure 2: Developable Area Comparison and Tree Locations (Attachment 4, Sheet A-2) ATTACHMENT 1
May 28, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report
94 Palmer Lane – Variance and PTPZ
4 | P a g e
Figure 2: Developable Area Comparison and Tree Locations (Attachment 4, Sheet A-3) PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project proposes construction of a 2,961 square-foot primary residence with a detached singlecar garage and an attached 800 square-foot ADU. Per Atherton Municipal Code Section 17.53.050, any proposed single-family dwelling greater than 800 square-feet is subject to the R-1A development standards, which include 60-foot front and rear setbacks for the main building. The project provides front and rear setbacks of 37-feet 4.75-inches, which require approval of a variance by the Planning Commission. Tables A, B, and C provide the development standards for the proposed main building, detached garage and attached garage. The project complies with all R-1A development standards with the exception of the front and rear yard requirements.
As described in the applicant’s variance request (Attachment 2) the proposed front and rear main building setbacks correspond to a provision in AMC Section 17.32.040(D)(1) that allows for a reduction from the standard 60-foot minimum setback for lots that were established prior to 1946 and have a depth less than two hundred feet. The reduced front and rear setbacks are equal to thirty percent of the lot depth, with a minimum of thirty feet.
Excluding the flag portion of the lot, the remaining area has a lot depth of 124.78 feet. The proposed setbacks equate to thirty percent of that depth, or 37-feet 4.75-inches.
ATTACHMENT 1
May 28, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report
94 Palmer Lane – Variance and PTPZ
5 | P a g e
Table A: Required and Proposed Main Building R-1A Development Standards Standard Required Proposed Status
Front Setback 60-feet min 37-feet 4.75-inches Does not comply Rear Setback 60-feet min 17-feet 4-inches Does not comply Side Setback 26-feet min 26-feet Compliant
Height 30-feet (max) overall
22-feet (max) sidewalls
30-feet to peak
21-feet 10-inches Compliant
Floor Area Ratio
(square feet)
3,007 sf max overall
1,049 sf max above 1st floor
2,961.4 sf overall
1,009.6 above 1st floor Compliant
Table B: Required and Proposed Accessory Buildings (Garage) Development Standards Standard Required Proposed (As Built) Status
Front Setback
Min. 120-feet or 30-feet
behind the main structure,
whichever is less
More than 90-ft behind the
main structure Compliant
Rear Setback 10-feet min 18-feet 5-inches Compliant
Side Setback 10-feet min 26-feet Compliant
Distance from
Main Building 8-feet min 8-feet 1.75-inches Compliant
Height 15-feet max 12-feet 2-inches Compliant
Table C: Required and Proposed ADU (800 square feet) Development Standards Standard Required Proposed (As Built) Status
Front Setback 0 feet min 67-feet 4.75-inches Compliant
Rear Setback 4-feet min 19-feet 0.5-inches Compliant
Side Setback 4-feet min 6-feet Compliant
Distance between
structures N/A Attached to Main Residence Compliant
Height 30-feet max 15-feet Compliant
ATTACHMENT 1
May 28, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report
94 Palmer Lane – Variance and PTPZ
6 | P a g e
The Planning Commission may grant a Tree Protection Zone Exception (PTPZ) in the R-1A Zoning District for the construction of driveways in new areas that are within a distance from a heritage tree that is less than 8 times the diameter of the trunk at breast height, noted as “8x.” For areas of the lot where driveways are pre-existing, the required TPZ is 3x. Table D provides a summary of the heritage trees that require PTPZs less than 8x to accommodate a new driveway in an area previously undisturbed. The exceptions range from 3.7x to 7x.
The applicant is proposing an Easypave gravel driveway as the new driveway material and must be a minimum of 16 feet in width to comply with access requirement by Menlo Fire. Where possible, the applicants have also worked with Menlo Fire to further reduce the width around trees that are not subject to this request (trees number T9, T10, and T12).
Table D: Summary of Subject Heritage Tree Proposed for Heritage Tree Removal Tree # Tree Species Diameter Breast
Height (dbh)
Tree Protection Zone
Exception (PTPZ)
Request
Comment
T14 Coast Live Oak 16” 5.7X Good
T15 Coast Live Oak 18” 5.9X Good; Shared tree
T16 Coast Live Oak 32” 3.7X Good; Shared, Neighbor’s tree T17 Coast Live Oak 24” 5.3X Good;
Neighbor’s tree
T18 Coast Live Oak 16” 7.0X Good; Shared
Tree
T19 Coast Live Oak 19” 6.3X Good; Neighbor’s Tree
FINDINGS ANALYSIS
Variance Request
To grant a variance, the Planning Commission must make four findings contained in Atherton Municipal Code Chapter 17.16 and California Government Code Section 65906.
The following analysis by staff addresses each finding:
A. There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, such that the strict application of this title deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical land use zoning district classifications.
Staff review: Finding met.
The 0.32-acre subject property is uniquely small, even prior to its 2023 lot split, compared to other R-1A lots that must have a minimum size of 1-acre. Additionally, the property is situated at the edge of the Town’s boundaries, next to properties that range in lot size from
0.12- to 0.77-acres. The strict application of 60-foot front and rear yard setbacks deprives ATTACHMENT 1
May 28, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report
94 Palmer Lane – Variance and PTPZ
7 | P a g e
the property owner of reasonable development of a residence, otherwise consistent with R1A development standards.
B. Granting the Variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated.
Staff review: Finding met.
The development pattern on Palmer Lane is inherently inconsistent with regard to lot size and applicable development standards given the disparity between the R-1A standards, age of lots (circa 1922) and transition between jurisdictional controls. The applicant is requesting a variance to apply setback standards that are consistent with an existing R-1A exception provision that would apply to lots of a similar characteristic. Therefore, while a variance is required, its granting does not convey special privileges.
C. Granting 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.
Staff review: Finding met.
The variance request allows a centralized siting of the development. Alternatives to the proposal that are supported through state law and circumvent local standards would allow two independent residences, up to 800 square-feet with setbacks of four-feet and ancillary structures, such as detached garages of ten-feet. Therefore, although the project requires a variance from the R-1A standards for front and rear yard setbacks, it is more compliant with local regulations than the state-mandated alternatives. Additionally, beyond the request for front and rear yard variances, the proposal complies with all other R-1A standards.
D. The granting of the Variance is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan and the Zoning Code.
Staff review: Finding met.
The stated purpose of the AMC Title 17: Zoning is to implement the General Plan. The regulations within Title 17 provide directions on the location, size, and height of residential structures within the Town’s private properties. As described within this report the proposed development on this property complies with all R-1A standards, with the exception of the front and rear yard setbacks. Additionally, the development is more compliant with local setback standards than are otherwise required by state law.
Therefore, the project is consistent with the following goals and objectives of the General Plan:
• Land Use Goal LU-1: To preserve the Town’s character as a scenic, semi-rural, thickly-wooded residential area with abundant open space. • Land Use Objective LU-1.3: To retain the quality of life, character and existing ATTACHMENT 1
May 28, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report
94 Palmer Lane – Variance and PTPZ
8 | P a g e
in the Town.
Tree Protection Zone Exception Request
To consider a PTPZ, the Planning Commission may approve or reject such applications based on the following criteria:
1. The relation of the project to criteria listed in Section 2.2.B.2 of the Heritage Tree Ordinance and Tree Preservation Standards:
a. The utility location is required by a utility company and it cannot be moved. A confirmation in writing from the utility is required.
b. If the species is tolerant of construction based on species, health, size, and age from the Matheny and Clark tolerance chart.
c. There are no roots over 2-inches diameter that need to be cut. d. Other criteria as may be required by the Town Arborist.
2. The probability of failure which is a function of heritage tree and site conditions such as, but not limited to, structural defects, presence of disease, species history, age or remaining life span, and varying weather conditions.
3. The probability of a public safety hazard, personal injury or significant property damage as a function of proximity to existing structures and objects of value and interference with utility services.
4. The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect of the requested exception upon shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, historic value, scenic beauty, health, safety and general welfare of the area and town as a whole
5. The necessity to allow reasonable use or other enjoyment of the property when there is no demonstrated feasible alternative to the exception while meeting other adopted goals and policies of the general plan to the greatest extent possible.
A memo by the Town Arborist analyzing the proposed project is provided in Attachment 5. In this memo, the Town Arborist acknowledges the need for access to the site and indicates concerns that five of the subject trees are shared or neighbor trees and asserts the needs for conditions of approval to ensure care is applied during related construction activities. The Town Arborist further appreciates the decreased width of the driveway to allow more room for existing trees, as well as the implementation of materials that will require less grading and base rock. These materials will be better for the roots of the trees and will cause less compaction. In conclusion the Town Arborist recommends approval of the requests with the following conditions of approval:
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
May 28, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report
94 Palmer Lane – Variance and PTPZ
9 | P a g e
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 area is required to be documented in the quarterly arborist reports.
7. Install Easypave grid to as shown in submitted detail.
The General Plan goal that can be found to be consistent with the recommendation to approve the Tree Protection Zone Exception Permit is below:
Town of Atherton General Plan, Land Use Policy LU-1.8:
Maximize preservation of heritage trees and existing trees within a development site to the greatest degree feasible, consistent with the Heritage Tree Ordinance and Tree Preservation standards and specifications. Require new development to comply with the Town’s requirements for tree protection, removal, and replacement.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
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. Legal advertisement of this hearing was published in The Almanac newspaper. Additionally, a mailed notice to owners and occupants within 500 feet of the subject lot was mailed 12 days prior to the hearing date. To date, the Town has not received any public comment on the proposal.
CONCLUSION
As indicated above, Planning Staff finds that the proposed project meets all four findings required pursuant to AMC Chapter 17.16 and recommends the Planning Commission approve the variance request. Additionally, Planning Staff supports the recommendations of the Town Arborist to conditionally approve the Tree Protection Zone Exception request as proposed.
A draft Certificate for approval is provided as Page 1 in Attachment 6.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Planning Commission could deny or modify any item related to these requests. Should the Planning Commission decide to deny the request the Commission would need to make the required findings in the negative and make the application subject to the draft Certificate for denial provided as page 2 in Attachment 6.
ATTACHMENT 1
May 28, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report
94 Palmer Lane – Variance and PTPZ
10 | P a g e
RECOMMENDED FORMAL MOTION (APPROVAL):
I move 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 singlefamily 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).
RECOMMENDED FORMAL MOTION (DENY):
I move that the Planning Commission deny the requests for Front and Rear Setback Variances (VAR24-003) and Tree Protection Zone Exceptions (PTPZ25-00002) to construct a new singlefamily dwelling with detached garage and attached ADU at 94 Palmer Lane (APN 060-163-290). /s/ Brittany Bendix
Brittany Bendix, Consulting Town Planner
Attachments:
1. Signed Applications
2. Variance Project Description Letter
3. Tree Protection Zone Exception Request Letter
4. Plan Set
5. Town Arborist Memo/Letter
6. Draft Variance Certificates
ATTACHMENT 1
Docusign Envelope ID: D983E377-34A0-4B7A-9025-2D3DA9F4C07F 9/4/2024
Attachment 1
ATTACHMENT 1
Updated 6/13/2024
TOWN OF ATHERTON
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION
TYPE OF APPLICATION FEE*
Appeal $6,015
Special Structures Permit $8,265
Heritage Tree Removal Permit (HTR) $6,945
Tree Protection Zone Exception (PTPZ) $2,775
Variance $10,680
Conditional Use Permit $8,560
General Plan Amendment $32,400
Initial Review/Negative Declaration $9,600
Lot Line Redesignation $6,005
School Master Plan $6,765
Tentative Parcel Map $11,445
Final Parcel Map $5,375
Zoning Ordinance Amendment $13,695
Environmental Impact Report Actual cost
Fees reflect the Town of Atherton Master Fee Schedule, effective July 1, 2024 SITE ADDRESS: ____________________________ APN: __________________________ Provide a brief description of the proposed project: _________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY OWNER:
Name:
Mailing Address:
Phone:
Email:
Signature:
APPLICANT:
Name:
Mailing Address:
Phone:
Email:
Signature:
FOR COMPLETION BY TOWN OF ATHERTON:
Amount Paid: _______________ Received by: ___________________________Date Submitted: ______________________ Project #: __________________
*All Fees are also subject to a 3.7% Technology Surcharge 94 Palmer Lane, Atherton CA 94027 060-163-290
Applying for Tree Protection Zone Exception for
various trees located on the site related to driveway location and Fire Department access requirements 94 Palmer Lane, LLC
1929 Bryant St., Palo Alto, CA 94301
650-422-9142
[email protected]
Kelly Johnson, Zak Johnson Architects
1635 Columbia Dr., Mountain View CA 94040
650-329-9767 office 650-793-0129 mobile
[email protected]
✔
ATTACHMENT 1
Project Description
94 Palmer Lane, Atherton, CA 94027
September 25, 2024 - revised
Town of Atherton Planning Commissioners:
We are submitting this application to obtain a variance to decrease the front and rear setback for the property located at 94 Palmer Lane, which was created as part of an urban lot split (SB 9) subdivision in May 2023.
Attached to this application you will find the following architectural drawings that are referenced in this narrative:
Sheet A-1 – Project Data, Site Context Photos, Vicinity Map & Surrounding Area Plan - Neighborhood Context.
Sheet A-2 – Proposed Site Plan & Proposed Section through Site.
17.16.010 – Purpose and Applicability:
94 Palmer Lane is a flag lot and is part of the R-1A zoning district. See Sheet A-1 for a Vicinity Map, Site Context Photos, and Surrounding Area Plan to see location and neighborhood context.
According to the municipal code section 17.32.040.D.1, the front and rear setbacks shall be a minimum of 60’. The property dimension at 94 Palmer Lane (excluding the driveway flag), is 124.78’ from front to rear. Therefore, when we apply the minimum front and rear setbacks, we are left with only 4.78’ between setbacks in which to build a single-family residence. This has been illustrated on Sheet A-2 on the Proposed Site Plan.
Under this strict application of the zoning setbacks for R-1A, the owner is not afforded the same privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity within the same zoning district. The owner cannot develop a 2 story, single-family residence on this property without a variance for the front and rear setbacks. As you will see on Sheet A-1 Surrounding Area Plan, all of the surrounding properties have single family homes and many of them are indeed 2-story and include various accessory structures on their property.
17.53.050 – Objective Standards and Requirements for Dwelling Units Developed Pursuant to Chapter 17.53
As mentioned above, 94 Palmer Lane was created as part of an SB9 lot subdivision.
The following development is permitted on each SB9 parcel:
1. An Existing Primary Dwelling Unit and an SB9 unit
2. Two SB9 units
3. A Primary Dwelling Unit and an ADU or JADU (Additional ADU’s may be allowed per Atherton’s ADU ordinance.)
ATTACHMENT 1
To match the relative size and three-dimensional volume of the neighboring homes and the market value of the surrounding properties, the Owner has hired Zak Johnson Architects and is underway with the development of a design for option #3, a primary dwelling unit and an ADU.
As part of this design work, it became clear that the Owner would need to request a variance for the front and rear setbacks to enjoy the same privileges as their neighbors and to develop their SB9 lot in a permitted use of the newly created parcel.
When reviewing the zoning ordinance regarding R-1A setbacks, a second provision of
17.32.040.D.1 states, “however, on 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;” Although 94 Palmer Lane was created in 2023, there is precedence in the municipal code to allow us to calculate our front and rear setbacks to be 30% of the lot depth because it is less than two hundred feet deep.
When we calculate using this provision, 124.78’ x 30% = 37.4' or the equivalent of 37'-4 3/4".
Although our property was created after 1946, we are asking for a variance to use a front and rear setback equal to 37.4' or the equivalent of 37'-4 3/4" to design and build a 2 story, singlefamily home and an attached ADU at 94 Palmer Lane. If you refer to the Proposed Site plan on Sheet A-2 you will see the graphic depiction of the front and rear setback variance that we are asking to be granted.
Because this site is a flag lot, the new front setback would be approximately 180’ from the edge of the road.
If we are granted this front and rear variance, we will be able to develop a 2-story house with an attached ADU that would meet all other R-1A zoning requirements and would not need any other exceptions for allowable floor area, side setbacks, or maximum heights.
17.16.030 – Variance Findings:
(A.) We believe that the strict application of the R-1A setbacks do not allow the property owner the same privileges enjoyed by surrounding properties. By applying the 60’ front and rear setbacks, and leaving only a 4.78’ buildable center strip, this would not allow the owner the ability to develop a 2-story house with an attached ADU that shares the same relative size, threedimensional volume, and market value that the surrounding neighbors are afforded. If you refer to the Surrounding Area Plan – Neighborhood Context Drawing on Sheet A-1, you will see that there are several properties just North of 94 Palmer Lane that have been developed in a very similar fashion. There are multiple properties that have a single-family 2 story house facing Palmer Lane in conjunction with a flag lot behind them. Each of these flag lots has a singlefamily home that is approximately the same scale, three-dimensional volume, and market value that granting this variance would allow the owner to design for their property. It is true that there is a border between two municipalities along one of the 94 Palmer Lane property lines, but the overall fabric and the context of this neighborhood supports this variance request. (B.) If we are granted this variance, we do not believe that it constitutes a special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity. In fact, we believe that this variance would allow 94 Palmer Lane to be developed in a manner similar to the surrounding ATTACHMENT 1
neighbors’ houses and would fit in well with the relative size of current homes, the threedimensional volume of the buildings, and the market value of the surrounding properties & the overall neighborhood fabric.
(C.) By granting this variance, we do not believe there would be any adverse effects to the public or the residents and property owners in the vicinity. The size of the setbacks we are requesting would position a new single-family house clearly in the middle of the property giving generous distances from the surrounding neighbors. And the new front setback would be approximately 180’ from the edge of the road. In addition, you will see that there are many large, heritage trees along the perimeter of the site that provide a natural barrier between neighboring properties. These tree locations can be seen in the Site Context Photos on Sheet A-1 and on the Proposed Site Plan on Sheet A-2.
(D.) The granting of our variance application is consistent with the objectives of the general plan and would allow the development of an additional single-family home and an ADU in the Town of Atherton on a property that currently contains only a dilapidated pool house. The two new housing units would be beneficial in adding housing to the area.
In addition, we are reaching out to (4) neighbors, listed below, whose properties share a lot line with 94 Palmer Lane to share our plans and to answer any questions they might have for us:
98 Palmer Lane, Atherton
506 Palmer Lane, Menlo Park
80 Palmer Lane, Atherton
37 Holbrook Lane, Atherton
Thank you for your consideration of this application.
Kelly Johnson, Zak Johnson Architects
Andre Mogozo, Owner
ATTACHMENT 1
Project Narrative
94 Palmer Lane, Atherton CA
April 25, 2025
Town of Atherton Planning Commissioners:
In addition to the Variance Application regarding the front and rear setbacks for 94 Palmer Lane, we are submitting an application to decrease the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for various trees on the property that are impacted by the proposed development.
With this application, we have submitted an arborist report prepared by Daniel Soto from Dsoto Tree & Arborist Services dated 9/15/22. In this narrative we will also refer to the Proposed Site Plan w/TPZ information & Fire Department Requirements on Sheet A-3. This sheet has also been included as part of the Variance Application for setbacks.
As part of our due diligence, we reached out to the Menlo Park Fire Department to engage in a discussion about fire protection requirements for the site. Due to the flag lot geometry and the long access corridor associated with the property, there are limited solutions to gain vehicular access for both fire trucks and passenger cars.
Menlo Park Fire Department will require a 16’ wide driveway from the street to the rear lot line of the neighboring property that sits in front of 94 Palmer Lane. There is currently an asphalt driveway in this location that averages 13’-4” wide. Trees T9, T10, T12 & T13 are impacted by this driveway location. In general, 3 of these trees are exempt from the required TPZ because of the existing driveway on the property. We were advised by Sally Bentz that if we put in a new driveway in the exact location as the existing driveway, we would be exempt from the TPZ’s in this location only. The Fire Department requires us to widen the existing driveway. However, they have agreed to let us narrow the driveway for a limited portion around trees T9, T10 & T12.
See Sheet A-3 for this agreed upon configuration and for the minimal impact to Tree T13.
As part of our design process, we located a small, 1-car detached garage at the rear of the property. Although it would logically make more sense for this to be located at the front of the property where the long driveway enters the main portion of the site, the rear location was chosen to adhere to the zoning ordinance called out in 17.40 for accessory buildings and structures that dictates a detached garage shall be more than 30’ behind the front face of the main house. If the planning commission would allow us to have the detached garage in the front yard, because it sits more than 130’ behind the street front, we would choose this preferred location instead of having a long driveway all the way to the back of the property which impacts several heritage trees.
To access the detached garage with a vehicle, we propose building a 12’ driveway along the Southwest border of the property. This impacts the required TPZ of trees T14, T15, T16, T17, T18, T19, & T20. In general, you will see that these trees are located right on the property line.
See Sheet A-3, for a graphic depiction and a numerical chart that shows the individual impact to
ATTACHMENT
Attachment 3
1 each tree and the reduced TPZ’s. To help mitigate this overall impact, we are proposing to use a pervious & 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). We have attached a product brochure to the end of this narrative to show typical characteristics of a porous paver system. In addition to allowing 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. It should be noted that in a 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 would replace a portion of theses concrete structure. Only in this pool deck location, we would be considered 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.
On Sheet A-3 you will see 4 additional heritage trees at the Northeastern property line. The TPZ’s of Tree T21 & T22 are affected by the location of the new ADU. However, we are exempt from the required TPZ’s for these two trees because the building is an ADU in this location. We will note that if you look on Sheet A-3, you will see that in this location there is currently a Pool House & Shed that will be demolished. Our proposed design for the ADU will be further away from the tree trunks than what is currently existing on site at the Pool House.
Along this same property line, near the ADU, the front porch of the main house will also slightly impact the TPZ’s of Tree T23 & T24. See Sheet A-3. The patio would be a raised wood deck.
When detailed, the structural support and any foundation posts will be located completely outside of the TPZ’s of the trees. Any part of the decking that is shown inside the TPZ would be cantilevered and would not touch the ground. Even when cantilevered, at no time would the deck extend closer than 8X diameter of these two trees.
In Summary:
T9, T10, T12 exempt from TPZ requirements at Existing Driveway Location only.
T13 = 24" diameter which is 18'-10" from driveway = 9.4 X the diameter of tree.
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.
T21 & T22 exempt from TPZ requirements at ADU location only.
T23 = 22" diameter which is 14'-8" from wood deck = 8.0X the diameter of tree.
T24 = 22" diameter which is 16'-3" from wood deck = 8.8X the diameter of tree.
Thank you for your consideration of this application for TPZ exemptions.
Kelly Johnson, Zak Johnson Architects
Andre Mogozo, Owner
ATTACHMENT 1
www.terram.com
BODPAVE 85 Porous Pavers
ATTACHMENT 1
Permanent grassed or gravel car and coach parking bays, fire access routes, helipads,taxiways, cycle paths, driveways, access roads and other trafficked areas where a structurally-sound, well drained base is present or will be installed.
TERRAM BODPAVE 85 is an interlocking cellular porous plastic paving grid system for ground reinforcement which can be installed with either a grass or gravel filled surface. BODPAVE 85 units are manufactured in the UK from UV stabilised 100% recycled waste plastic and are strong, chemically inert & non-toxic. The unique design of the BODPAVE 85 units resist lateral movement, improves traction and allows expansion & contraction whilst promoting optimum grass growth, root protection and surface stabilisation. BODPAVE 85 porous paving provides a durable, safe and environmentally friendly surface for trafficked areas with a very low carbon footprint compared to traditional paving solutions.
• Car Parking / Coach Parking bays
• Overspill / overflow grass car parks
• Emergency Service (Fire access routes)
• Grass aircraft taxiways & helipads
• Walkways and disabled access routes
• Golf buggy paths
• Driveways and residential lawn parking
• SUDS source control
Applications (Grass or Gravel)
Grid Structure
BODPAVE 85 is
suitable for grassed
surfaces, gravel
retention and SUDS source
control applications.
BODPAVE 85 installation
for a gravel car park.
Bodpave™85
TERRAM Data Sheets, Installation & Design Guidances
and Case Studies can be downloaded from www.terram.com
Occasional consecutive vehicular use
Regular vehicular use
FREQUENCY
OF USE
GRASS
GRAVEL
SUGGESTED
APPLICATIONS
UK MANUFACTURED
ATTACHMENT 1
Features and Benefits:
• Load bearing capacity up to 400t/m² - will cope with static axle loads up to 60kN
• Supplied as 4 pre-connected pavers (1m x 1m)
- allows rapid installation
• 24 interlocking connections per paver – excellent lateral transfer of traffic loads
• 18 ground spikes per paver – excellent shear connection with the ground allows slopes up to 1:8 / 12% / 7° and generally no pinning required
• Expansion/contraction tolerant – suitable for hot and cold climates • Manufactured from 100% recycled and recyclable polymers – highly sustainable, non-toxic and chemically inert to chemically naturally found in soils
• British manufactured - lower transport carbon footprint for UK deliveries • 92% open surface structure- SUDS source control compliant • Grass or gravel finish - free draining and naturally pleasing appearance • Paving grids can be offset by 1 cell increments – east to fit around obstacles
Sustainable Drainage System (SUDS) - Source Control
The open cell structure of TERRAM BODPAVE 85 provides high surface water infiltration and is ideally suited to provide source control within a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS). BODPAVE 85 permeable paving grids should be installed onto a well prepared, free draining, firm and relatively level existing or newly constructed sub-base. By careful specification of suitable materials the sub-base can be designed to hold rain water (source control SUDS) allowing it to slowly drain away into either the underlying ground or surface water drainage system depending upon site conditions. Construction profiles for each application will be determined by specific site conditions & loading criteria. Detailed specification, design and installation guidance literature and technical information are available to download from www.terram.com. Please note that for all BODPAVE 85 grass paver/ gravel paver installations, we strongly recommend that all areas should have sufficient drainage prior to the installation. Failure to ensure this may result in the product not performing as intended.
Please note that regular tight turning of vehicles and “dry” steering may cause damage to the units and/or displace gravel infill; vehicle manoeuvring should be carefully considered at specification/design stage. Gravel filled units may require some maintenance when subjected to regular channelised and turning traffic loadings. For confirmation of the correct construction profile required and guidance on suitable loadings please contact our office on 01621 874200 to speak with a member of our technical team.
Bodpave™85
TERRAM Data Sheets, Installation & Design Guidances
and Case Studies can be downloaded from www.terram.com
ATTACHMENT 1
Subgrade soil
TERRAM T1000
Geotextile
TERRAM
TX160 geogrid
option
60:40, Sand:Soil
Rootzone or
Gravel Bedding
DoT reduced fines
‘Type 3’ Sub-base
TERRAM T1000 Geotextile
with Grass or Gravel
Typical profile
Not all layers will apply to every application and drainage may be required. Please refer to design guidance documents.
BODPAVE 85
Car Park Bay Markers
TERRAM also manufacture car park bay markers that have
been designed to snap-fit into the square-shaped cells of the BODPAVE 85 units. Each marker is 215mm x 70mm and can
used to create dashed or solid lines and L or T shapes. They can be fixed permanently in place by used a suitable exterior grade high-strength adhesive.
Bodpave™85
TERRAM Data Sheets, Installation & Design Guidances
and Case Studies can be downloaded from www.terram.com
Bodpave 85 product details
QUANTITY (per m2 NOMINAL CELL SIZE (mm) ) COLOUR WEIGHT (Nominal) MATERIAL Ground Spikes: Each paver includes a 35mm integral ground spike Assembled Size on Pallet: 1000mm x 1000mm (2 x 2 units) Weight: 6.24kg per m² / 1.56kg per tile
Pallet Dimensions: 1000mm x 1000mm x 2340mm / Contains 18 units / 45 layers (45m²) / Total pallet weight 300kg 4 Grids
67 Plaque & 46 Round 4 Grids
67 Plaque & 46 Round
Black 6.24kg/m2
Green 6.24kg/m2
Recycled Polyethylene
Recycled Polyethylene
400tonnes/m2
400tonnes/m2
PAVER SIZE (mm) LOAD BEARING CAPACITY
500 x 500 x 50
500 x 500 x 50
Line marker details
MATERIAL
215 x 70 HDPE
COLOUR SIZE
White/Yellow
UK MANUFACTURED
ATTACHMENT 1
Application specific literature, product data sheets, case studies and installation guides are available on request or can be freely downloaded from www.terram.com • Railways
• Road and Highways
• Landfill
• Coastal & Waterways
• Pipelines / Utilities
• Forestry & Landscaping
• Fruit & Viticulture
www.tubex.com
Further market specific literature available:
Information contained herein is, to the best of our knowledge, accurate in all material respects. However, since the circumstances and conditions in which such information and the products mentioned herein can be used may vary and are beyond our control, no representation or warranty, express or implied, of any nature whatsoever is or will be made and no responsibility or liability is or will be accepted by us, any of our affiliates or our or their respective directors, officers, employees or agents in relation to the accuracy or completeness or use of the information contained herein or of any such products and any such liability is hereby expressly excluded to the maximum extent permitted by law.
TERRAM excels in the innovative application of technology to create versatile, high-performance materials which are unique, cost-efficient and deliver significant added value.
GRS_BP85 06/17-Iss 1
Contact details:
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1621 874200
Fax: +44 (0)1621 874299
Email: [email protected]
www.terram.com
A Berry Plastics Company
Fiberweb Geosynthetics Ltd
Blackwater Trading Estate
The Causeway, Maldon, CM9 4GG
United Kingdom
ATTACHMENT 1
Existing 1-story
House
Palmer Lane
60' wide
506 Palmer Lane
Menlo Park
Approx. 15,300 sf
510 Palmer Lane
Menlo Park
Approx. 11,500 sf
Unincorporated
San Mateo County
Border
94 Palmer Lane
Atherton
Approx. 13,990 sf
Zoned R-1A
98 Palmer Lane
Atherton
Approx. 10,150 sf
Zoned R-1A
Town of Atherton
Border
Surrounding Area Plan - Neighborhood Context
Vicinity Map
No Scale
94 Palmer Lane
Existing 2-story
House
Existing 2-story
House
Existing 1-story
House
80 Palmer Lane
Atherton
Approx. 21,800 sf
Zoned R-1A
37 Holbrook Lane
Atherton
Approx. 20.300 sf
Zoned R-1A
45 Holbrook Lane
Atherton
Approx. 22,150 sf
Zoned R-1A
29 Holbrook Lane
Atherton
Approx. 20,400 sf
Zoned R-1A
Existing 2-story
House
Existing 2-story
House
Existing 2-story
House
Acc.
Struct.
Acc.
Struct.
Acc.
Struct.
514 Palmer Lane
Menlo Park
Approx. 12,200 sf
Town of Atherton
Border
1" = 30'-0"
Holbrook Lane
0 15' 30' 60'
514 Palmer Lane
Menlo Park
Approx. 15,500 sf
Existing 2-story
House Existing 2-story
House
A-1
62 Palmer Lane
Atherton
Approx. 19,000 sf
Zoned R-1A
Existing 1-story
House
Acc.
Structs.
124.78'
90.65'
255.92'
20.96'
137.35'
70.65'
Site Context Photos
No Scale
Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo 4 Photo 5 Photo 6 Photo 7 Photo 1
Photo 2
Photo 3
Photo 4
Photo 5
Photo 6
Photo 7
Photo 8
Photo 8 Photo 9 Photo 10
Photo 11 Photo 12 Photo 13
Photo 9
Photo 10 Photo 12
Photo 13
Photo 11
Zoning Designation:
APN:
Lot Area:
Allowable Total Floor Area:
(13,993 x 0.163) + 726
Allowable Floor Area above 1st Floor:
(.075 x 13,993)
Max. Accessory Bldg.
(1,200sf/acre x .321 acre)
Add. Covered Roof square footage-Open on two sides
(.05 x 3007) + 500sf
State mandated ADU
(if within Accessory Building setbacks)
(if outside of Accessory Bldg. setbacks)
Max. height of Main Building
Max. height of Vertical Sidewalls
Max. height of Accessory Structure
R-1A
060-163-290
13,993 sf (approx.= 0.321 acre)
3,007 sf
1,049 sf
385.2 sf
650 sf
1,200 sf
800 sf
30'
22'
15'
Front & Rear Setback
Variance Application
94 Plamer Lane
Atherton, CA 94027
Date
Sheet Title
Scale
Job No.Zak Johnson Architects
900 College AvenueMenlo Park, CA 94025650.329.9767
Front & Rear Setback Variance Application
94 Palmer Lane
Atherton, CA 94027
As Noted
March 5, 2025
C-28919
Ren.: 8/31/25
Kelly W. Johnson
Licensed
Architect
State of
California
Kelly W. Johnson
Attachment 4
ATTACHMENT 1
Proposed Site Plan
1/16" = 1'-0"
124.78'
Front & Rear Setback calculation using 17.32.040.D.1
(124.78' x 30% = 37.4' = 37'-4 3/4")
37'-4 3/4" 37'-4 3/4"
2 6'-0" 2
6'-0"
124'-9 3/8"
9 0.6
5'
255.92'
137.35'
7 0.6
5'
2 0.9
6'
Existing 1-Story
House
60'-0"
Property Line Dimension
Rear Setback per Zoning Code
Proposed Front Setback
Variance Request
Proposed Rear Setback
Variance Request
Proposed Main Building Area
Sid
e
S
e
t
b
a
ck
p
er Z
oning
C
o
d
e
Sid
e
S
e
t
b
a
ck
p
er Z
oning
C
o
d
e
Pro
p
ert
y Line
Pro
p
ert
y Line
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
Front
S
e
t
b
a
ck
V
arianc
R
e
que
s
t
37'-4 3/4"
Maximum Building Height
Maximum Side Wall Height
R
e
ar S
e
t
b
a
ck p
er Z
oning
C
o
d
e
Front
S
e
t
b
a
ck p
er Z
oning
C
o
d
e
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
R
e
ar S
e
t
b
a
ck
V
arianc
e
R
e
que
s
t
2 2'-0"
3 0'-0"
60'-0" 60'-0"
Proposed Section A-A through 94 Palmer Lane
1/16" = 1'-0"
37'-4 3/4"
Front Setback per Zoning Code
124'-9 3/8" Front Setback per Zoning Code Rear Setback per Zoning Code Property Line Dimension
A-2
Section A Section A
Ground Plane
60'-0"
Residential District R-1A
17.32.040.D.1 Development Standards
D. Front and Rear Yards. Minimum front and rear yard requirements are:
1. Main building, interior, and corner lots: sixty feet minimum; provided, however, on 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; provided further, where main building heights are between thirty feet and thirty-four feet, the front and rear yards shall be increased by a ratio of five feet for each one-foot increase in height.
Although the Urban Lot Split (SB 9) Subdivision of 98 & 94 Palmer Lanes was completed in May 2023, there is precedence in the Town of Atherton Municpal Code to use the following development standard to determine the Front and Rear Setback on the property.
Zoning Designation:
APN:
Lot Area:
Allowable Total Floor Area:
(13,993 x 0.163) + 726
Allowable Floor Area above 1st Floor:
(.075 x 13,993)
Max. Accessory Bldg.
(1,200sf/acre x .321 acre)
Add. Covered Roof square footage-Open on two sides
(.05 x 3007) + 500sf
State mandated ADU
(if within Accessory Building setbacks)
(if outside of Accessory Bldg. setbacks)
Max. height of Main Building
Max. height of Vertical Sidewalls
Max. height of Accessory Structure
R-1A
060-163-290
13,993 sf (approx.= 0.321 acre)
3,007 sf
1,049 sf
385.2 sf
650 sf
1,200 sf
800 sf
30'
22'
15'
Front & Rear Setback
Variance Application
94 Plamer Lane
Atherton, CA 94027
Approx. 180' from street edge
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 F
r
o
n
t
&
R
e
a
r
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
Va
r
i
a
n
c
e
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
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
April 28, 2025
C-28919
Ren.: 8/31/25
Kelly W. Johnson
Licensed
Architect
State of
California
Kelly W. Johnson
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
All weather surface driveway
(rated for 75,000 lbs. per Menlo Park Fire)
13'-4"
16'-0"
37'-4 3/4" 37'-4 3/4"
2 6'-0" 2
6'-0"
30'-0"
If detached, Garage has to be behind this line
Proposed Site Plan w/ TPZ information & Fire Dept. Requirements 1/8" = 1'-0"
North
0 5' 10' 20' 40'
Proposed 2,961.4 sf Two-Story House
& Detached Garage
Proposed 800sf
Attached ADU
All tree diameters taken from Survey dated 4/10/2024 by Lee & Braze Engineering, Inc. and documented in Desoto Aroborist Report dated 9/15/2022. All Tree Numbers correspond to notation in Arborist Report. 24" Oak
24 " Oak
6'-0"
Front patio to be elevated wood deck
Rear Patio
1-car Garage
New gravel driveway
Existing 1 Story House
98 Palmer Ave.
N
e
w ro
w
of Land
s
c
a
p
e
s
cre
ening
tre
e
s
Side Setback
Side Setback
Proposed Front Setback Proposed Rear Setback
Front Entry Porch
18" Magnolia 16" Oak
18" Oak 20" Oak 16" Oak
(32") 24" Oak
14", 10", 8"
multi-trunk
Oak
14" Redwood
22" Oak 22" Oak
9 0.6
5'
255.92'
137.35'
7 0.6
5'
A-3
19'-0 1/2"
18'-5"
T12
T13
T14
T15 T16 T17 T18 T19
T20
(10")
6", 4"
multi-trunk
Oak
T24
T23
T9 T10
15" Ash
T11
Previously removed Black
Walnut with Town Approval.
See Arborist Report
documenting structural
issues.
10X the Diameter of Tree DBH
22" Oak
17" Oak
124.78'
T22
T21
Tree not listed as
Heritage Tree
in Arborist Report
7'-8"
8'-10"
9'-10"
10'-7"
9-'5"
9'-11"
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. 5'-0"
T21 & T22 exempt from TPZ requirements
at ADU location only.
T9, T10, T12 exempt from
TPZ requirements at
Existing Driveway
Location only.
Proposed TPZ requested by Applicant
Key to TPZ Circles
Existing pool house to be demolished
(E) concrete patio around Swimming Pool,
Pool & Patio to be demolished.
Existing Asphalt driveway
with Concrete curb.
2 0'-0"
16'-0"
8' x 30' Fire Truck
18'-10"
Menlo Park Fire District REQUIRES a 16' wide all
wheather driveway for Fire Truck Access. Plan
Examiner has reviewed site plan and will allow for a
pinched in driveway at the two Heritage Trees shown.
T13 = 24" diameter which is 18'-10" from driveway = 9.4 X the diameter of tree.
Existing Asphalt driveway
with Concrete curb.
Existing shed to be demolished
16'-3"
14'-8"
T23 = 22" diameter which is 14'-8" from wood deck = 8.0X the diameter of tree.
T24 = 22" diameter which is 16'-3" from wood deck = 8.8X the diameter of tree. 8100-M
EasyPave Gravel fill
Medium Loads (over 1,000Lbs)
Plastic
Application
Permeable Parking lots & Driveways, Paddocks,
Shed Bases, Outdoor warehousing
NOTES:
1. The base height shown in the cross-section depends on specific site and loading conditions.
2. Layers shown in cross-section need to be compacted.
3. Geo-textile is to be used for stability and to prevent mixing between layers.
4. Anchors are recommended for slope installations of more than 10%.
5. This drawing is for conceptual design and information use only.
EasyPave Gravel fill (Medium Loads)
2378"
16"
3 4"
3 4"
2"
2" 1"-2" min Compacted Subgrade
EasyPave (art.8100-M)
The top of the Easypave grid should be flush
or just below the surrounding surface EasyPave Grid Gravel Size 1" or smaller Gravel Size Fine crushed to 1" Max
Geotextile (Separation layer)
(optional)
Gravel Base
1"-2" Min
Gravel Driveway Detail
level surface &
lightlycompact sub-grade
No Scale
Vodaland EasyPAVE grass &
gravel driveway grid
(or Approved Equal)
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
April 30, 2025
C-28919
Ren.: 8/31/25
Kelly W. Johnson
Licensed
Architect
State of
California
Kelly W. Johnson
ATTACHMENT 1
Proposed First Floor Plan
1/4" = 1'-0"
Kitchen
ADU Gathering Space ADU Bedroom #1
A
D
U
B
a
thro
o
m
#
2 A
D
U
B
a
thro
o
m
#1
ADU Closet #3 ADU Closet #2 ADU Closet #1
Family Room
Laundry & Mud Room
1-car Garage
Entry Foyer
Entry Closet
Pantry
Powder
Room
Living Room
Dining Area
Kitchen
Entertainment Unit
washer dryer
R
efrid
g.
Entry Porch
Rear Patio
Front Patio
Up
19R, 18T
sink D
W
ADU
0 5' 10' 20'
21'-1 1/4"
For Contractor Layout:
All EXTERIOR dimensions are from (Foundation to Foundation) which is also Face of Plywood to Face of Plywood
All INTERIOR dimensions are from (Stud to Stud)
All Exterior Walls to be constructed with 2 x 6 wd. studs.
All Interior Walls to be constructed with 2 x 6 wd. studs. Unless Noted Otherwise. 8'-1 3/4" 11'-1 1/4"
face of plywd.
to face of plywd.
20'-0 3/8" 28'-3 1/2"
13'-1 1/2" 11'-11 1/4" 13'-1 1/2"
27'-9 3/8" 38'-11 1/4"
2 0'-7
3/4"
18'-4 7/8"
Face of plywd. to Face of plywd.,
Typ. unless noted otherwise
Built-in Cabinetry
3 8'-2 1/4"
A-11
A
A-11
A
A-11
B
A-11
B
A-4
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
down
Office Niche
Primary
Bedroom
Primary Closet #1
Primary Closet #2
Primary Bathroom
Bathroom #2
Bedroom #2
S
e
c
ond
Flo
or H
allw
a
y
Proposed Second Floor Plan & First Floor Roof Plan
1/4" = 1'-0" 0 5' 10' 20'
12'-8 7/8" 16'-1 1/8"
3 8'-2 1/4"
28'-10"
3 6'-2 1/4"
28'-10"
A-5
A-11
A
A-11
A
A-11
B
A-11
B
5:12 sloped roof 5:12 sloped roof
5:12 sloped roof 5:12 sloped roof
5:12
slo
p
e
d ro
of 5:12
slo
p
e
d ro
of
5:12
slo
p
e
d ro
of 5:12
slo
p
e
d ro
of
3 1/2:12 sloped roof 3 1/2:12 sloped roof
3 1/2:12
slo
p
e
d ro
of 3 1/2:12
slo
p
e
d ro
of
5:12
slo
p
e
d ro
of 5:12
slo
p
e
d ro
of
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
Proposed Second Floor Roof Plan
1/4" = 1'-0"
Fixed Skylight (FS) deck mounted -
size C06, R.O. of 21" x 45 3/4"
Composition shingle roofing, Typ. on 2nd floor roof only. 5:12 sloped roof 5:12 sloped roof
5:12 sloped roof
0 5' 10' 20'
A-6
A-11
A
A-11
A
A-11
B
A-11
B
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
Refridg.
Up
19R, 18T
sink DW
20'-2 1/8" 28'-3 1/2"
27'-9 3/8" 39'-1"
2 0'-9 1/2"
3 8'-4"
11'-3"
21'-3"
48'-5 1/2"
5'-6
3/4"
12'-1"
18'-4 7/8"
3 2'-9 1/4"
1'-0"
A-7
down
16'-2 7/8"
3 6'-4"
28'-11 3/4"
2'-0"
First Floor Plan
1/8" = 1'-0"
Area Dimensions Area
PROPOSED Main House First Floor TOTAL = 1,712.7 sf
B
C
D
(48'-5 1/2" x 32'-9 1/4")
(1'-0" x 12'-1")
(20'-2 1/8" x 5'-6 3/4")
1,588.2 sf
12.3 sf
112.2 sf
Attached ADU:
Area Dimensions Area
PROPOSED Acc. Dwelling Unit TOTAL = 799.7 sf
G
H
(20'-8 1/8" x 20'-2")
(18'-4 7/8" x 20'-9 1/2")
417.0 sf
382.7 sf
Does NOT count towards
Allowable Floor Area
Second Floor Main House:
Area Dimensions Area
PROPOSED Main House Second Floor TOTAL = 1,009.6 sf
E
F
stair
(28'-11 3/4" x 36'-4")
(16'-2 7/8" x 2'-0")
(10'-10" x 7'-0")
1,052.9 sf
32.5 sf
-(75.8)sf
PROPOSED Area above 16' TOTAL = None
Second Floor Plan
1/8" = 1'-0"
A
B
C
D
E
F
G H
J
First Floor Main House:
Area Dimensions Area
PROPOSED Detached Garage Area TOTAL = 239.1 sf
A (11'-3" x 21'-3") 239.1 sf
Detached Garage:
PROPOSED Main House TOTAL = 2961.4 sf
20'-8 1/8"
2 0'-2"
Covered Roof:
Area Dimensions Area
PROPOSED Covered Roof TOTAL = 157.4 sf
J (28'-3 1/2" x 5'-6 3/4") 157.4 sf
Does NOT count towards
Allowable Floor Area
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
Inspiration Photo of Proposed House
Looking @ West Corner of Proposed House
Looking @ North Corner of Proposed House
Looking @ East Corner of Proposed House
A-8
View from across the street looking down driveway
Looking @ South Corner of Proposed House
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
Southwest Elevation
1/4" = 1'-0"
0 5' 10' 20'
Northwest Elevation
1/4" = 1'-0" A-9
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
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"
8'-0" 18'-5"
12 5
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
Proposed Front Setback
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
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
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
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'
12 5
12 5
Average Grade
Elev. =495.37' (Calculated per City Requirements)
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
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