[{"_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",6155281,"mediaKeyId","5480475-f7cf24e18cf8dd7f1456976dea49f102","parentId",5480475,"title","Commission urges clearer public notice for SB 9 and lot‑split applications after neighbor complaints","audioSeconds",74,"startMs",3767000,"endMs",3841000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5480475-f7cf24e18cf8dd7f1456976dea49f102&start=3767&end=3841","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5480475-f7cf24e18cf8dd7f1456976dea49f102/thumbnail_3767000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6155281/California/Commission-urges-clearer-public-notice-for-SB-9-and-lotsplit-applications-after-neighbor-complaints","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6155281-07180db6a293702db6bcd5524a43e129/orig.mp4?Expires=1770497062&Signature=XjEk3vu6DnuKy0RHOuMFKXbBTz20L5ybwNvS4tuti08m4MdRgNCDeayMOGWMPAHUuL04b5DAKNWwPPdcwDyeYc~61BclW35FFb3XRR5mYQPtxNbYIr23lZoWMgG8Cr0H~FRBwPfGKyJtufLkcTDzWCowxeRqHTxtN7rCSU0ITBCOsR6VUvAUNGv7eQqDzzag0TeJAKEXRmogUlZY2ChreGa--~rzzumwJoBCzEvo1oQ5NyL09c9kuNBZFhlTr-BSmrIotVDhMXyLtE5HKh6ULFHBrqMK1lA8n-m6xeIiKV3kjPoc-g05CgCE7Uc~auae~iJgGJ5irasZnThAmMP8~A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town Council of Atherton CA","date","2025-07-26T03:43:00.48Z","article","Commissioners and staff discussed neighborhood concerns about state SB 9 lot splits, ADUs and similar ministerial permits that often do not trigger the same public‑notice cycle as discretionary planning items.

Commissioners said multiple residents have called complaining they saw construction without prior notice and did not know whether a project was a ministerial ADU, an SB 9 lot split or something else. Commissioner remarks urged staff to identify a clear, public way for neighbors to track pending ministerial permits in addition to discretionary hearings.

The nut graf: Staff said it has updated the town’s SB 9 web page to show the status of SB 9 applications and will explore supplemental notices when applications are filed so neighbors have earlier awareness of proceedings even where the approvals are ministerial.

Town planner Britney Bendix said the updated page shows application status such as “under review” and “tentative parcel map issued,” and staff will consider additional explanatory text and an automated notice at filing to increase transparency. Separately, staff reported that an appeal has been filed for a variance and TPZ exemption at 94 Palmer and that appeal will go to the city council.

Commissioners instructed staff to continue exploring tools that improve early public awareness of ministerial and mapping applications.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Meeting June 25, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners discussed repeated complaints from neighbors who discover SB 9 lot splits or ADU projects only once construction starts; staff said the town has updated its SB 9 web page and will explore earlier notices to increase transparency.","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},6155286,"Hearing officer upholds fine for illegal redwood removal at 5 Collado",63,3625000,3688000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5480475-f7cf24e18cf8dd7f1456976dea49f102&start=3625&end=3688","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5480475-f7cf24e18cf8dd7f1456976dea49f102/thumbnail_3625000.jpg","/articles/6155286/California/Hearing-officer-upholds-fine-for-illegal-redwood-removal-at-5-Collado","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6155286-7965e8a9f9fddb23003474eab62278be/orig.mp4?Expires=1770497062&Signature=BRLu4-rDHJJMqXgJEaLu5CqHKe0TirUgdHf1EpzHdZvMXFilj5pEsTgI8UnSGFh2Uy~Aq6lazlXwssLWaLnqcCGnxtaQcRAZ4Z8vR0~nLih9XANshxpFOzRXY11zfPPPgAyOAtBuJ2DiTEmtyNjakEcVKH3hU8nX5CcNfo8bmuUPZnSBp7G6TnKboW0Ce7y7HyNJX9hM~OHnYRYhETxhR1tl5FKv0~9mjDmm6HvXuYJbR06kMI7hxB49zB3zgOaH-~BJMT1uUtjbp7EUARaP-84Iz1LUClRCD2jvvcCRKEa2M~lR~ab5SUVkkNlmOGBWWxAYvqcF5olOivW0mYhedA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Town staff reported that a recent enforcement appeal over the illegal removal of a large redwood at 5 Collado was denied by the hearing officer, and the previously imposed fine was upheld.

Town arborist Sally told the commission the property owner had paid a $41,000 fine and then appealed. Under the town code for illegal removals, staff said the enforcement penalty is calculated by appraising the tree value and doubling it; the removed redwood was appraised at roughly $85,000, and the hearing officer sustained the enforcement decision.

The commission received no further public comment on the item. Staff noted the fine outcome is subject to any further appeals to higher jurisdictional forums but said they did not expect additional appeals in this case.","Staff reported that an appeal of a $41,000 fine for illegal removal of a large redwood at 5 Collado was denied by the hearing officer; staff said the fine calculation follows code that doubles appraised tree value for illegal removal.",{"_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},6155291,"Commission approves removal of two heritage oaks, denies third at 285 Camino Del Lago",1704,1879000,3583000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5480475-f7cf24e18cf8dd7f1456976dea49f102&start=1879&end=3583","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5480475-f7cf24e18cf8dd7f1456976dea49f102/thumbnail_1879000.jpg","/articles/6155291/California/Commission-approves-removal-of-two-heritage-oaks-denies-third-at-285-Camino-Del-Lago","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6155291-1e911f46f9479a3ad79d5007898d0d9c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770497062&Signature=SR1kQ9oUayGC9IHclFcRrZU509fZq9q5zTRda12sUOihUeDDCVuCLmsUADJQtAuw0kUyiBEUsXpMhxEsmVnH0w2o2syQMUknXA8oTOjHOcgkzNKCgtoQjEjNuiGPPjoheBSXLhlRwbQOi4cnyBbJmV19ZbvWd8-25083VQSuYC42PMcMYAwkjqxDJjUYq0XGJqpl407XQYxRLAhKUwJYJ6FwkAk~tSoyJFZOnsV5fHNAlOH~WXlI0KkQt6bzyDgpNKnr2d5bOEsJG9EEojsOhnxeCFUuojZM59LqwL-hC3fS1745W0t7tpoxmv6Q~7p38WwgMNch2j~-WbqA4B-5fQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Atherton Planning Commission on Wednesday granted a heritage‑tree removal permit for two large trees at 285 Camino Del Lago and denied the removal of a third tree scheduled for protection.

Town staff recommended approval of the removals for trees identified as numbers 18 (valley oak) and 20 (coast live oak) because of structural concerns documented by the applicant’s project arborist and reviewed by the town arborist; staff recommended denial of tree number 11 after the town arborist concluded the canopy and structural issues could be mitigated through pruning.

The nut graf: The commission’s action cleared the way for the property owner to proceed toward demolition of the existing structure and to pursue construction of a new house, subject to remaining building‑permit and tree‑protection requirements; neighbors asked for a continuance so all trees potentially affected by the project could be considered together, but staff said two additional trees tied to a new driveway were not properly noticed and would be brought back in a later hearing.

During the hearing the applicant explained the project’s schedule and said the construction loan requires timely permits; the applicants asked the commission to approve the two removals so they could secure a demolition permit. Neighbor Evangeline Cook asked the commission to continue the item because she considered the replanting plan “woefully inadequate” and said screening requirements had not been addressed in sufficient detail.

Staff clarified that the submitted arborist reports show tree number 11’s diameter was smaller in more recent measurements (26 inches) than earlier plan sheets, and that under the building footprint as proposed tree 11 might have been eligible for a staff‑level TPZ exception rather than removal. Staff recommended replacement plantings if removals are approved and suggested four 24‑inch‑box oak trees and two 24‑inch‑box Chinese pistache trees as part of mitigation.

The commission voted to approve removals for tree numbers 18 and 20 and to deny removal of tree number 11 (roll call: all in favor, one absent). Staff said the applicant could receive a demolition permit if they install required temporary tree protection fencing and the town verifies protective measures; grading, driveway and new‑residence permits remain on hold and must reflect any changes that result from final tree and driveway decisions.

The commission instructed staff to remain involved in reviewing on‑site protection and replacement plantings, and commissioners raised the Atherton Channel and potential impacts where roots approach channel infrastructure as an item for the applicant to address with the public‑works review required for grading and drainage permits.","After public comment and staff analysis, the Planning Commission approved removal of two large trees (tree numbers 18 and 20) to accommodate a new single‑family home and denied removal of a third tree (number 11); staff and neighbors discussed replacement planting and driveway notice issues.",{"_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},6155296,"Commission approves tree protection exception for 98 Maple Avenue with arborist conditions",186,1205000,1391000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5480475-f7cf24e18cf8dd7f1456976dea49f102&start=1205&end=1391","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5480475-f7cf24e18cf8dd7f1456976dea49f102/thumbnail_1205000.jpg","/articles/6155296/California/Commission-approves-tree-protection-exception-for-98-Maple-Avenue-with-arborist-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6155296-265b0d226ecdff010800cdfb9b1cff1b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770497062&Signature=XsiqmptDw7rbfGc-S1GnMau5MZdf1lMTh8ucKqvSZXFpKU3LnoMyyHnrwTt-2-aJ5qYyoZwhOiEQ~sIMPfvQp7NcDa~3bFM4fN8y1S8lQc7s8fIWD4cwF4ExPj~albdlmYWNtvuXoJE7eh68lw~bKdQTMkqzGkJF1WGB1TwxyLqFuXX1Uk8eD4R7bYJbT6VuDwtxsFyjXX0Cl1WYGjYb4Ud~tjE2WZOsIfX3g58xhNSvAo67Fn6pflf92SAZelAwOutQXVuRUr8-wCjwdB-AgCRqtBRLhSefABcQ~46MBEEbiZjBCqvRej27oBFj5fyFoGEodrElZ8ARBW26QmyBAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Atherton Planning Commission approved a tree protection zone (TPZ) exception for 98 Maple Avenue on Wednesday, with conditions intended to protect a large street‑adjacent tree while allowing a vertical addition to the existing home.

Town planner Britney Bendix told commissioners the applicant withdrew a prior heritage‑tree removal request and resubmitted as a TPZ exception after neighbors expressed concern. Bendix described the property and said town arborist Sally recommended approval subject to conditions that include continuous project‑arborist involvement, certified arborists for pruning, application of four inches of mulch beneath the tree, root protection (plywood) where heavy equipment is used and quarterly arborist reports reviewed by town staff.

The nut graf: The applicant is proposing a vertical addition close to a protected tree; rather than remove the tree, staff and the applicant negotiated a protection plan the commission approved that limits canopy removal to about 7 percent, requires certified arborist oversight, and requires on‑site protection measures during construction.

During public comment, resident Paul Quinlan, who had objected to the earlier removal request, praised the applicant’s change of approach and asked that the contractor use plywood to prevent root compaction and that the tree‑protection conditions be enforced. Neighbor Karen Goodman asked for clarification on how the TPZ measurement changes would affect the foundation; Bendix explained the requested TPZ reduction brings the new second‑floor footprint about one or two feet closer to the trunk but that the arborist concluded preservation was feasible.

The commission approved the TPZ exception in a roll‑call vote (yes: Levison, Lugers, Lane, Polito; one member absent). By approving the exception rather than removal, the commission left a path for the applicant to pursue the second‑floor work while requiring the arborist protections and ongoing monitoring.","The commission approved a tree-protection-zone exception to allow a second-floor addition at 98 Maple Avenue while imposing conditions including certified-arborist oversight and limits on pruning and root protection.",{"_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},6155301,"Atherton planning commission accepts Sacred Heart annual report, approves campus putting green",206,242000,448000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5480475-f7cf24e18cf8dd7f1456976dea49f102&start=242&end=448","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5480475-f7cf24e18cf8dd7f1456976dea49f102/thumbnail_242000.jpg","/articles/6155301/California/Atherton-planning-commission-accepts-Sacred-Heart-annual-report-approves-campus-putting-green","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6155301-4f855b98427118b92cfebed2b2c9d820/orig.mp4?Expires=1770497062&Signature=KWbGnbmUe5EjMh0RsI~cwHmX1HsmU3iKSrQqk6FpIs5SMIkmBTImMObym~XeyxNZx5~TiG3UO1xG~LmCJC7lsDQEMBD2mjBqtjQ3EF6qozXJEoq~Vt4E--Tf0HLAnpgAz3cxqYhdcozgX4d19aG35C-BHdbrRZow28A2RAVB-QQbH98Dkyq8j4J0VB3-mB-ut6uPP94bdppCOcAW0bi3SOx-srPi7IRaNeejEBM6Q0H5YOhx4ciOWy2WAoHx4tEpkS4~lpZrlvHeNhGR5vbRSJMWMSS99lUP~2Rz7mMv0ddQm0JXsfdOMAkxktZLd2rXZ1zQUJZYhTciCkk4IuVBRA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Atherton Planning Commission on Wednesday accepted the 2025 annual update to Sacred Heart Schools’ master plan and approved a conditional use permit to build an approximately 3,700-square-foot putting green on the school’s campus.

The report and permit matter drew a brief staff presentation and no substantive public opposition. Town planner Britney Bendix told the commission the annual report is required by planning code section 17.36605 and that the campus’s most recent vehicle monitoring showed 4,447 trips per day, “and that is below the 6,000 trip maximum.”

The nut graf: The annual report is the periodic update the town requires for large private education campuses; the commission’s action accepts that status update and allows the school to add the practice putting green near other athletic facilities on the campus without a separate environmental review, staff said.

Bendix summarized the background and changes included in the annual filing. The master plan was first filed in 2001, substantially updated in 2010 and accompanied by an environmental impact report; in 2013 the school changed a mitigation measure that set a 6,000‑trip‑per‑day cap. For 2025, staff noted a small 560‑square‑foot addition to a nearby Oakwood Retirement Homes building would be handled as a building permit under recent housing‑flexibility rules, but the new putting green triggers the conditional use permit now before the commission.

Commissioners asked technical questions; there was no substantive public opposition during the hearing. Bendix recommended acceptance of the annual report and approval of the conditional use permit and said staff had determined the project is categorically exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Chair Lane moved to accept the report and approve the permit; the motion passed on roll call (yes: Lane, Levison, Lugers, Polito, Pulido; one member absent).

The commission did not change existing trip‑count mitigation language tied to the campus master plan. The permit conditions require the applicant to follow the project plans and any applicable town conditions for construction and campus operations.

Looking ahead, staff noted the campus’s master plan and traffic monitoring will remain subject to the town’s annual reporting requirements and to the 6,000‑trip cap adopted in 2013.","The Planning Commission accepted the 2025 annual master plan report from Sacred Heart Schools and approved a conditional-use permit for a roughly 3,700-square-foot putting green after staff said the school's vehicle trips remain below an established cap.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission urges clearer public notice for SB 9 and lot‑split applications after neighbor complaints

Hearing officer upholds fine for illegal redwood removal at 5 Collado

Commission approves removal of two heritage oaks, denies third at 285 Camino Del Lago

Commission approves tree protection exception for 98 Maple Avenue with arborist conditions

Atherton planning commission accepts Sacred Heart annual report, approves campus putting green