The Atherton City Council on July 16 denied an appeal and upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of front- and rear-yard setback variances and tree-protection-zone exceptions that permit construction of a new single-family home with a detached garage and an 800-square-foot accessory dwelling unit at 94 Palmer Lane.

The decision came after a public hearing in which town planner Britney Bendix told the council the staff recommendation was to deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s action. “Our recommendation tonight is that city council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the planning commission to approve requests for a front and rear yard setback variance, as well as tree protection zone exceptions that would enable construction of a new single family home with detached garage and attached ADU at 94 Palmer,” Bendix said during her presentation.

Why it matters: the property was created through an urban lot split under State law commonly referred to as SB 9 and now sits at 0.32 acre inside Atherton’s R‑1A zoning district. The owner’s proposal, as approved by the Planning Commission, would allow a roughly 2,961-square-foot primary residence with an 800-square-foot ADU sited in a way that requires variances to the town’s front- and rear-yard setback standards and exceptions to tree protection rules.

What the council heard: appellant Michael Templeton presented the appeal, arguing procedural defects in neighbor notice and contending the variances amount to a self-created hardship because the lot resulted from a recent split. Templeton said he received the mailed notice on or about May 19 and, citing the Bagley Act and the government code’s public‑notice requirements, argued that a May 16 mailing left him only nine days to respond to a May 28 Planning Commission hearing. He also raised privacy, noise, and tree-protection concerns and said proposed mitigation offers from the owner were insufficient.

The owner and project team — owner Andre (last name not provided), architect Kelly Johnson and land-use attorney Camus Steinmetz — told the council they had worked with the planning department, the town arborist and the fire department and had modified the design to reduce impacts. Andre said he had met with the neighbor and offered concessions including obscure glazing at second-story windows. “I was open to change the direction, for example. I was open to put, like, obscure glass on the second story,” Andre said.

Technical details from the staff presentation: the lot is a 0.32-acre flag lot; neighboring lot sizes range from about 0.12 to 0.77 acres; the prior larger parcel was created as part of the Barney Park subdivision in 1922 (a slide typo initially said 2022). Bendix reported the proposal complies with R‑1A side setbacks and floor-area-ratio standards, and that the variance request was limited to front and rear setbacks. The project team reported it would preserve heritage trees on site; the town arborist supported tree-protection‑zone exceptions for six coast live oaks ranging roughly 16–32 inches diameter at breast height with proposed reductions in the measured tree-protection radii.

Staff position on notice: City attorney Mona (last name not provided) and staff told the council an affidavit shows the notice was delivered to the mailing vendor on May 12 and mailed May 16, exceeding the 10‑day notice required by the government code; staff said they had in fact provided 12 days of mailed notice and posted usual online and physical notices. Mona said the government-code mail presumption supports the town’s notice compliance.

Council action and outcome: After questions and discussion, Mayor Lewis moved and Vice Mayor Holland seconded a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval. The council voted by roll call to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission findings; the motion passed unanimously (Council members Widmer, Degolia, Holland and Mayor Lewis recorded “yes”; Council member Hawkins was absent). The council also found the project categorically exempt from CEQA under the town’s cited minor‑alteration provisions as stated in the motion.

Discussion vs. direction: Council members discussed options for additional neighbor concessions such as landscaping, screening and potential relocation of entrances, but the council made no further formal directions to staff to require additional plan changes before the project proceeds. Several council members urged continued good‑faith attempts at neighbor coordination, and staff noted that landscape screening and precise planting plans are typically reviewed and enforced at building-permit and landscape‑permit stages.

Next steps: The council’s decision affirms the Planning Commission findings; staff will prepare draft findings consistent with the council’s decision for final adoption and the project will proceed to permit review according to the town’s usual building and tree-protection permit processes.

Attributions: quotes and technical attributions in this report are taken from the July 16 council meeting transcript and staff presentation, primarily statements by Town Planner Britney Bendix, City Attorney Mona, appellant Michael Templeton and owner Andre. No information beyond the meeting record is asserted.