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