Sign up for Express
New from the Almanac, Express is an e-edition delivered via email each weekday.
Sign up to receive Express!
Login | Register
Sign up for eBulletins
Click for Menlo Park, California Forecast
Almanac News
Increase font Increase font
Decrease font Decrease font
Adjust text size

Menlo Park trees defeat duplex
Council reverses Planning Commission approval

Bookmark and Share
A request to build a duplex on a 112-foot by 54-foot lot in Menlo Park kicked off a round of approvals and appeals, with the City Council finally voting against the project 4-1.

Billy McNair, the owner of 1976 Menalto Ave., a lot in the Willows neighborhood, applied in May to build a duplex consisting of two single-family, two-story homes separated by a parking court. He asked for a use permit with variances because of the lot's size and layout, as well as permission to remove three heritage trees.

In November, after holding a study session earlier last fall, the Planning Commission approved the permit and city staff signed off on removing the trees. Those opposed to the project promptly appealed to the council to reverse the approvals. The applicant also appealed to the council after the Environmental Quality Commission, which handles appeals of heritage tree removals, upheld removing two trees, but declined to allow the third, a magnolia tree in good health, to be cut down.

Although at least one neighbor emailed the council to support the project, 22 others opposed it. As presented at the Feb. 13 council meeting, their concerns included where parking for the duplex would go, but focused on the fate of the heritage trees at 1976 Menalto Ave. as well as an oak tree next door whose roots stretch across property lines.

In his rebuttal, Mr. McNair said, "We've looked at countless alternatives, none of them are viable, and they also don't meet the direction we were given by the Planning Commission, on which we relied on when designing the project." He pointed out that the lot's substandard size and odd shape means building even a single-family home such as the one currently on the lot requires variances.

As for the trees on the property, Mr. McNair said "no reasonable and feasible alternatives" would allow preservation of all three, while efforts could be made to guard the roots of the oak tree next door during construction.

Kirsten Keith, who served as a planning commissioner before being elected to council, said she respected the Planning Commission's work, but felt uncomfortable with their decision.

"I think it's tough because you've got 22 neighbors" who dislike the plan, some of whom had lived there for 36 years with those trees, she said. Ms. Keith, using the Matteson development at 389 El Camino Real as an example of productive collaboration between residents and developers, suggested Mr. McNair return to the drawing board.

Before casting the dissenting vote, Mayor Peter Ohtaki said that given the Planning Commission's and city staff's input, he respected their expertise and thought that changing the decision now created doubt for other applicants of what to expect when they develop a project in Menlo Park.

Vice Mayor Ray Mueller commented that it went against the character of the neighborhood to pack two residences onto a tiny lot.

Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.


Comments

Posted by Cathy Moran, a resident of the Menlo Park: The Willows neighborhood, on Feb 20, 2013 at 1:09 pm

I was gratified by the thoughtful approach of the City Council to this appeal. They clearly listened, heard the neighbors, and honored their commitment to the community.


Posted by Adina Levin, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Feb 20, 2013 at 3:07 pm

The council exercised their role in balancing the rights of owners to develop and the interest of the community in maintaining the landscape that defines the character of the community.

But the process that the developer had to go through for tree removal, with separate processes to the Planning Commission and the Environmental Quality Commission, evaluating different trees affected by the development, is convoluted and unfair. It is also unfair to community members concerned about the canopy who need to attend multiple commissions.

The Environmental Quality Commission has recommended streamlining the process. There is a project to update the Heritage Tree Ordinance to streamline the process, which is in the Capital Improvement Plan for Council to review. I hope that Council moves this project forward, so the city can continue to maintain our heritage trees in a way that is less onerous for property-owners and community members.

Disclosure: I am a member of the Environmental Quality Commission, speaking here as an individual.


Posted by whatever, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Feb 21, 2013 at 12:17 am

This council seems to have more sense than the previous one which spent $7,500 of city money to design an alternative for Kim LeMieux's project a couple years ago.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.
Add a Comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration! Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff
 
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *
Select your Neighborhood or School Community: * Not sure?
Comment: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box. *
Verification Code:   
 

AlmanacNews.com   ©2013 Embarcadero Media.
All rights reserved.