[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6155267,"mediaKeyId","5480478-0a37550260d4acb34c778fd9dc5d00ff","parentId",5480478,"title","Commission approves special‑structures permit for large basement and sunken tennis court at 236 Camino Al Lago","audioSeconds",776,"startMs",4771000,"endMs",5547000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5480478-0a37550260d4acb34c778fd9dc5d00ff&start=4771&end=5547","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5480478-0a37550260d4acb34c778fd9dc5d00ff/thumbnail_4771000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6155267/California/Commission-approves-specialstructures-permit-for-large-basement-and-sunken-tennis-court-at-236-Camino-Al-Lago","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6155267-e0c72ff884823e13c7b61c735619a095/orig.mp4?Expires=1770525757&Signature=Bjv~0-xlKwKHH4OuQk88EtMvHe9p4839Nqcg6OSLPswp3OzH~bIV9m87B~9Ha-xuSCww9kuQe-P--sumIrikcxWgrw4PL-UnDxPqcm-zQE~t0kIlR-RNeH5aBxp93r2x~NRF6tT~j53Am8qh5UmTBUfTkjPzTetZuAJZju0OJ9RFFsv5YnnBjCIXxytwSeNeqvAnQuGscT4~bHG1IDrfG2vpqTW4uhhbDf-utJ~7lIweT3qwf16tRgJkvG9V~Cdf8o6KdbRzEgtYCw5bt46BM7QAj5WXgJwitSV5joFVGJ9lzsW9NWOt2oLi4m1yEL0xicX9XmxEK~jUYg2RfI0L4A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town Council of Atherton CA","date","2025-07-26T03:43:13.727Z","article","The Atherton Planning Commission on July 23 approved a special structures permit for 236 Camino Al Lago to allow a basement that extends beyond the first‑floor footprint and tightly spaced retaining walls needed for a sunken tennis court and court curbing.

Town planner Brittany Bennix told the commission the project’s basement would extend approximately 415 square feet beyond the first‑floor perimeter (within the allowable special‑structures review), and the proposed retaining walls would be closer than the separation standards in AMC section 17.46xx because the walls are low curbs under 3 feet to preserve tree protection zones. Staff concluded the elements are generally below grade and reduce above‑grade impacts and recommended approval.

Applicant representatives from Swatt | Architects and Surface Design explained the intent: locate the main building near the center of the nearly two‑acre parcel, retain perimeter heritage trees, locate most of the basement under the main floor (95% under the primary footprint), and place low retaining curbs around the sunken sports court to avoid encroaching on tree drip lines. The applicant said the small retaining curbs are generally under 30 inches and function more like curbing than tall retaining walls; structural review will occur during building permit review.

Staff and the applicant told commissioners the town arborist had already reviewed tree impacts and that locating the low curbs closer together avoids encroaching into key tree protection zones. Commissioners asked about structural safety; staff explained building‑permit structural review will address that stage.

The commission voted to approve the special structures permit, finding it met criteria for neighborhood privacy, reduced visible structure above grade, and compliance with general plan and zoning objectives.

Why it matters: The permit enables a large estate redevelopment while keeping most new built area below grade and attempting to retain existing perimeter trees by using low curbs and basement geometry rather than taller visible structures.

Details: The proposed residence is roughly 18,275 sq. ft. with ancillary structures including a pool house and a detached ADU. The applicant noted about 95% of the basement area is under the main floor, with the requested 415 sq. ft. of basement beyond the first‑floor footprint; the tennis‑court curbing proposed is generally under 30 inches. The commission approved staff findings and the motion to grant the special structures permit.

Next steps: Applicant to proceed to building permit review where structural calculations for the basement and retaining walls will be reviewed and where staff will continue to coordinate with the town arborist on tree protections.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Council Meeting July 23, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Planning Commission approved a special structures permit to allow a basement that extends beyond the first‑floor footprint and closely spaced retaining walls forming a sunken tennis court at 236 Camino Al Lago; applicant said the design minimizes above‑grade impacts and preserves perimeter trees.","taxTitle","Atherton Town, San Mateo County, California","taxId",72378,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6155272,"Commission allows detached garage nearer front wall than usual at 7 Betty Lane",448,4413000,4861000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5480478-0a37550260d4acb34c778fd9dc5d00ff&start=4413&end=4861","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5480478-0a37550260d4acb34c778fd9dc5d00ff/thumbnail_4413000.jpg","/articles/6155272/California/Commission-allows-detached-garage-nearer-front-wall-than-usual-at-7-Betty-Lane","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6155272-41d0b2399cb77d2bae4045225ef65669/orig.mp4?Expires=1770525757&Signature=HCn1JzW6MuDVBWwPR6Aolj9cThr2nvEGtxJD8FWdn33OJo5gZj7kDdgRZ84X25FBH9aq-7~YcdVyprIOUXLA8frLafZOyG6ItAZF-d4Q4RJyUdWcqGy7p16JEBl1AaObjm7fEo49bHsJJZKq~agFjyN8Gnmh1K~eV69FjFJ3qYrEksrqPTqgQOOtENsXwiGuXzl81X~6bNnz069qRo8r2ftfNSJpdq6zN0G4zX11GzszzaZaf3OSZ9Ruy5QC6T7OKjIKbi4dkGX0e1TdieK7ezXz8DxSiEyojxk2y-gaxWEeiHcPFec3WWPEQsWHv7pGcG-kv5ubqhtk-bZ0UcGxqA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Atherton Planning Commission voted July 23 to grant a special structures permit allowing a detached garage at 7 Betty Lane to sit approximately 6 feet behind the main residence’s front wall where the code’s setback for that configuration would otherwise require 30 feet.

Town planner Brittany Bennix recommended the permit, explaining that the proposal meets the ordinance findings related to privacy, compliance with other development standards, and consistency with the general plan. The site is a 1.24‑acre flag lot; the prior garage on the site had been legally nonconforming. The applicant said that keeping an existing stand of trees and locating the driveway as proposed would preserve screening and provide privacy for the adjacent property at 9 Betty Lane.

Chris Coomer of CKA Architects, representing the applicant, said the proposal keeps the driveway and existing tree stand to preserve privacy and creates a front yard by locating the house behind the driveway. Coomer said the detached garage would remain subordinated to the main residence in placement and design.

The commission adopted the staff‑recommended findings and approved the special structures permit, subject to the conditions listed on the certificate of approval. Staff noted there was enforcement activity at a different nearby property (9 Betty) but not at 7 Betty at the time of the hearing.

Why it matters: The permit lets a new residence and detached garage be located on a flag lot in a way staff found respectful of privacy and screening, and it clarifies that the special structures permit process is the correct procedural path for this type of request on flag lots.

Details: The lot is 1.24 acres; the permit was approved after staff concluded the proposed garage meets privacy and setback findings and is more conforming than the prior nonconforming garage it replaces. The project includes an attached ADU and a detached ADU in addition to the detached garage; permit conditions will be enforced during plan check and construction.","The Planning Commission approved a special structures permit for 7 Betty Lane to allow a detached garage located about 6 feet behind the front wall of the main residence (where 30 feet would normally be required), finding privacy and screening requirements were met.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6155277,"Planning commission backs special‑structure permit, tree exceptions and two heritage removals for large new home at 65 Linda Vista Ave.",1806,2567000,4373000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5480478-0a37550260d4acb34c778fd9dc5d00ff&start=2567&end=4373","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5480478-0a37550260d4acb34c778fd9dc5d00ff/thumbnail_2567000.jpg","/articles/6155277/California/Planning-commission-backs-specialstructure-permit-tree-exceptions-and-two-heritage-removals-for-large-new-home-at-65-Linda-Vista-Ave","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6155277-767becb51fb07bd07fc021ecca0a1e0d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770525757&Signature=gW3btafeqD4RMaOWMgovCyzRB96a0HsP2RB546mGTvy8vu8EqUZDm49LgKCJAUzsoCCkXKCEMbYfvOQozGGr3s0-HZk75A9xp7nU-CdC~8XPl91IrxwRTyQi4WgX7HeDi5LOIwl0c5Q~LHO0GMTZuAZxLg-HS9vw0Be6atZ9RRHmmy2h5Buasz-aCNXwHi6wBC6Dv~cYfU1cViQ0Oi7qvRjrV3nKuzfdsLXgCtBqX3wlh-BK8CTdc6LZlFYgRmxPXzP9i2QcMFYuiI1JoK0~upvI52V1MymEHg94Plp425Hvju8DhllikIVDf0JfQzkds4v-AqtoaF1-LLRIeEZSTA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Atherton Planning Commission on July 23 approved a package of permits for a proposed 14,000‑plus square‑foot residence at 65 Linda Vista Avenue, including a special structures permit for increased building and sidewall heights, tree protection zone (TPZ) exceptions for two coast live oaks, and heritage tree removals for one multi‑trunk redwood and one cedar tree.

Town planner Brittany Bennix presented the staff recommendation supporting full approval. The town arborist reviewed the project and recommended approval of the cedar removal and recommended denial of the redwood removal; planning staff’s analysis recommended approving both removals by tying site design to the building’s formal symmetry and the site’s existing tree abundance. After hearing the applicant team and discussing alternatives and replacement planting levels, the commission approved the staff motion to grant the special structures permit, approve the TPZ exceptions, and approve the two heritage tree removals.

Project representatives, including architect Jude Kerrick (JPKA) and project architect Laura May Cerusi, described the plan to replace an existing residence with a traditional Georgian‑style house, preserve extensive perimeter heritage trees, and reconfigure motor‑court and pedestrian access to minimize impacts. The applicant said the lot had been merged and is more than 2.5 acres; the design locates the principal building well inside required setbacks, and the requested extended heights are intended to accommodate the architectural concept while maintaining significant side setbacks and screening.

The town arborist and planning staff detailed conditions for the TPZ exceptions and removals: the TPZ exceptions require alternate pervious driveway materials, hand excavation in critical root zones, and specific distances/driveway treatments identified in the permit and grading plan. For each approved heritage tree removal the commission required specified replacement plantings: for the cedar removal staff recommended three 36‑inch‑box oaks; if the redwood removal had been denied, staff proposed alternate replacement directions.

Commissioners discussed whether design symmetry should weigh in the permit decision; several commissioners said the site’s large number of existing heritage trees and proposed re‑planting scheme weighed in favor of approval. The commission approved the motion to allow the extended heights, TPZ exceptions, and the two heritage removals, with the replacement planting and arborist conditions contained in the permit documents.

Why it matters: The approvals permit substantial redevelopment of a large Atherton estate lot while relying on arborist conditions, replacement plantings, and design mitigation to preserve screening and neighborhood privacy.

Details: The combined lot is roughly 2.5 acres; staff reported approximately 65–67 heritage trees on the combined site. The proposal includes a roughly 14,000‑sq. ft. residence (with basement) and accompanying ADUs, as shown in the staff slides. The commission attached conditions requiring hand excavation around sensitive roots, landscape screening plans, and replacement plantings (3×36‑inch box oak trees for one approved removal). The applicant and landscape architect committed to working with staff on a final screening plan.

What’s next: Staff will finalize permit conditions and replacement planting requirements in the certificate of approval; replacement plantings and arborist monitoring are conditions of the approvals.","Commissioners approved a special structures permit allowing increased building heights, granted tree protection zone exceptions, and approved removal of two heritage trees (a cedar and a multi‑trunk redwood) as part of a 2.5‑acre redevelopment at 65 Linda Vista Avenue, with replacement planting requirements.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6155282,"Atherton commission approves removal of one valley oak, denies two other heritage‑tree removal requests at 285 Camino Al Lago",1068,1428000,2496000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5480478-0a37550260d4acb34c778fd9dc5d00ff&start=1428&end=2496","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5480478-0a37550260d4acb34c778fd9dc5d00ff/thumbnail_1428000.jpg","/articles/6155282/California/Atherton-commission-approves-removal-of-one-valley-oak-denies-two-other-heritagetree-removal-requests-at-285-Camino-Al-Lago","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6155282-0432704ed04ae7e49017a6a63dc6238e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770525757&Signature=k3KiMTUQWvkTzNvR97ulsGEnnz0U8efhHKaJX5s2Jv6Hwf~4pU0WJ6Fp~Rn9LLGcMlUNGn3SvYJ-8TCaVMWkOL1dyB1ZyYubaRLB4j~8km-3fFaUsVDy1d8Ym-USG7MILUzi8G3CF4NCbeCO~ViTar-gvEmoZSpL7ktzEBz~wdvkyb3dg4CSlniNNtndBAPHejjBzAP9iOmuUhMhv5u1ZDliBPlfZbTHoAtK9clk6IKylHK68Ht5NVi9L-kVvgcjYe4FT8MNAaMuoP~Q8uILZFGCko7hgsmra6qN1SZVGmrQg5zM2FKVdpC7VfJC~17KZ6~~IXlxF96SqD4gjZv84w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Atherton Planning Commission on July 23 approved removal of one valley oak (tree #10) at 285 Camino Al Lago, denied removal requests for a Deodar cedar (tree #6) and a second valley oak (tree #1), and asked staff to verify the dimensions of trees near a proposed fountain along the shared property line.

Town planner Brittany Bennix presented the item and said staff recommends approving removal of trees #1 and #10 and denying removal of the cedar (#6). After public comment and further discussion, the commission split from the staff recommendation and approved removal of tree #10 while denying removal of tree #1 and tree #6. Commissioners also directed staff to confirm the diameter measurement of a nearby borderline tree (about 15 inches) that neighbors had raised as potentially qualifying as a heritage tree.

Brittany Bennix summarized earlier actions: commissioners had approved removal of a coast live oak (tree #20) and a valley oak (tree #18) in a prior hearing. The current staff report noted that the town arborist supported removal of trees #1 and #10 due to structural concerns identified in the project arborist report and site visits, but she recommended denying removal of tree #6 because it was in good health and could be retained with canopy pruning and driveway realignment.

Neighbor Evangeline Cook, who lives at 289 Camino Al Lago, urged the commission to deny removal of tree #1 and suggested feasible driveway alternatives and pruning to reduce hazard. The neighbor also requested staff verify the measurement of a nearby tree that fell just below the heritage threshold in town rules (15.2 inches) and asked that the commission consider that borderline tree’s status.

Commission action: A commissioner moved to approve removal of valley oak tree #10 with replacement plantings and to deny removal of the Deodar cedar tree #6 and valley oak tree #1; the motion also included a direction that staff verify the diameters of trees near the proposed fountain along the shared property line. The motion carried.

Why it matters: The decision preserves two trees the town arborist had identified as retainable and allows removal of one tree the arborist and staff identified as structurally compromised. The verification requested by the commission addresses a neighbor’s concern that a tree just under the heritage threshold might be mismeasured.

Details: The town arborist recommended replacement plantings if removals were approved (36‑inch box oak trees for certain removals; if tree #6 were approved, she recommended four 24‑inch box Chinese pistache as replacement). The commission directed staff to verify tree dimensions near the proposed fountain along the common property line and to attach replacement planting conditions in the permit if removal were confirmed.

Next steps: Staff will verify the measurements of the trees along the shared property line and proceed with plan review consistent with the commission’s decision and replacement‑planting conditions.","Planning commissioners approved removal of one valley oak (tree #10) at 285 Camino Al Lago, denied removal of a Deodar cedar (tree #6) and valley oak (tree #1), and asked staff to verify nearby tree dimensions by the property line near a proposed fountain.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6155287,"Atherton panel approves tree-protection exception to allow house and ADU at 92 Caballo Lane",891,311000,1202000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5480478-0a37550260d4acb34c778fd9dc5d00ff&start=311&end=1202","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5480478-0a37550260d4acb34c778fd9dc5d00ff/thumbnail_311000.jpg","/articles/6155287/California/Atherton-panel-approves-tree-protection-exception-to-allow-house-and-ADU-at-92-Caballo-Lane","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6155287-9c518e20c33d4a640696c651d19d1427/orig.mp4?Expires=1770525757&Signature=F-4oQYI0koaXIgbfhMtK4-Ry9rK8Ic8kiBQVEoagXqUuO9K40eBJZ6QdzZTgYkhwQ7fZ9ZPU7CaEs7EKaq51RQyY1jpEsacqYzQg8-WUz5JWhsLwmV5-Fe4yZ5qgfrUhc-u8nuY6Zoeq6gTvC98etah~tCpiv1Ni3K8J2jU5Xsp414ahvzm1508EwrYKMmx1RTNMQ8uZMv04GXEsmBgu8NbRay0She2ZYqvUzHg5nLKrkNI3Mx9mzoKDqggsKR7gyRTb9WuAMR4z5lVECrj0IDNVDfn6cYEHduUcrEGrTJqCa7OvEmQqj8ne1KP-TCBdQI-YlLwX79W-bwU7~1v4wA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Atherton Planning Commission on July 23 approved a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) exception for two coastal redwoods at 92 Caballo Lane, allowing portions of a proposed residence and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to encroach on the trees' protection zones under conditions recommended by the town arborist.

Commissioners granted the permit after Planning Department staff and the town arborist said the trees are in good condition and can tolerate the proposed construction if the project arborist supervises work and follows prescribed root‑protection procedures.

Assistant Planner Jerry Martin told the commission the permit, PTPZ-25-00006, requests exceptions for a 33.2-inch coastal redwood (3.5× DBH exception) and a 35.5-inch coastal redwood (5.8× DBH exception). He said planning staff and the town arborist recommend approval with conditions requiring hand excavation near roots, on‑site presence of the project arborist during excavation, root‑cutting limits, and a three‑year irrigation and fertilization plan with quarterly arborist reports.

Neighbors who spoke during public comment opposed the exception. Rosa, a nearby resident, said, “We feel by allowing them to build closer to the coastal redwoods that they will harm the roots of those trees and potentially lose them,” and told commissioners she and other neighbors lacked confidence that the property owner will protect the trees.

The property owner, Anat Solkol, told the commission she revised the design after consultations with staff to preserve trees and that the lot was created by an SB 9 split and is unusually narrow (71 feet wide). Solkol said the driveway was kept in its existing footprint to minimize tree impacts and added: “I will appreciate your approval for this because this is the only way to develop this area.”

Chair Elaine then called for a motion; the commission approved the TPZ exception with the town arborist's recommended conditions and the staff report's CEQA exemption language as cited in the draft permit. The motion record indicates the item was approved by the commission; staff will enforce the arborist reporting requirements and excavation protocols spelled out in the permit.

Why it matters: The decision allows development of a small, SB 9‑created lot while relying on arborist protocols to try to protect mature coastal redwoods that neighbors said are central to neighborhood character. The commission imposed monitoring and mitigation conditions rather than denying the request.

Details: The lot is roughly 0.37 acre (16,186 sq. ft.). The proposed main residence is shown as 3,363 sq. ft. with an attached 799‑sq. ft. ADU; the ADU is under 800 sq. ft. and therefore exempt from certain heritage‑tree provisions referenced in the staff presentation. The TPZ exceptions were described in the staff slides as touching the proposed garage and ADU footprints; the town arborist and project arborist both recommended hand excavation, root‑cutting limits (no roots over 2 inches cut), and three years of irrigation/fertilization with quarterly reports.

What’s next: Staff will attach the arborist conditions to the permit and monitor compliance through the quarterly reports required by the permit. No further commission action was recorded on this permit at the meeting.","The Planning Commission on July 23 approved a tree protection zone exception for two coastal redwoods at 92 Caballo Lane after staff and the town arborist recommended conditions intended to protect the trees during construction. Neighbors urged denial, citing long roots and previous removals.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission approves special‑structures permit for large basement and sunken tennis court at 236 Camino Al Lago

Commission allows detached garage nearer front wall than usual at 7 Betty Lane

Planning commission backs special‑structure permit, tree exceptions and two heritage removals for large new home at 65 Linda Vista Ave.

Atherton commission approves removal of one valley oak, denies two other heritage‑tree removal requests at 285 Camino Al Lago

Atherton panel approves tree-protection exception to allow house and ADU at 92 Caballo Lane