Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the June 22nd, 2026 meeting of the Menlo Park Planning Commission. I am Vice Chair Katie Beruzzi, subbing for Chair Ross Silverstein, and thank you for joining us this evening. Established by state law, our city's planning commission is composed of seven volunteer residents of Menlo Park appointed to four-year terms by the city council. According to California state law, the planning commission shall do all of the following. Prepare, periodically review, and revise as necessary the general plan. Implement the general plan through actions including but not limited to administration of specific plans and zoning and subdivision ordinances. Annually review the capital improvement program of the city or county and the local public works projects of other local agencies for their consistency with the general plan pursuant to Article 7. Endeavor to promote public interest and comment on an understanding of the general plan and regulations relating to it. Consult and advise with public officials and agencies, public utility companies, civic, educational, professional, and other organizations and citizens generally concerning implementation of the general plan. promote the coordination of local plans and programs with the plans and programs of other public agencies, perform other functions as the legislative body provides, including conducting studies and preparing plans other than those required or authorized by this title. In addition, the commission reviews development proposals requiring a use permit, architectural control, a variance, minor subdivision, as well as the environmental reviews associated with those projects. When applicable, the Planning Commission reviews below-market rate housing agreements associated with these applications. The Commission is the final decision-making body for these applications unless appealed to City Council. The Commission also serves as the recommending body to the City Council for major subdivisions, rezoning, conditional development permits, zoning ordinance amendments, general plan amendments, and environmental reviews associated with those projects. If applicable, the Planning Commission also reviews and makes recommendations on BMR agreements associated with these projects. Staff in our city's planning division are responsible for processing development applications, as well as for both implementing and amending the general plan, zoning ordinances, and related policies in order to further the goals of the city. We encourage your active participation, whether you're an applicant or interested member of the public, and there will be an opportunity to speak publicly for each specific agenda item, as well as for general public comment. With that, I will call the roll. Commissioner, let's see. Commissioner Farrick? Here. Commissioner Headley? Here. Commissioner Schindler? Here. Commissioner Cillian?

Present.

And I am Vice Chair Beruzzi, and I am present. We're missing tonight Commissioners Erick and Chair Silverstein. So we have five commissioners in chambers, which is a quorum.

um next item on our agenda is reports and announcements miss sandmeyer are there any staff reports or announcements this evening yeah good evening uh vice chair beruzzi and commissioners so tomorrow um at the city council hearing there will be the um the specific plan updates will be heard that uh the planning commission made a recommendation on

that concludes my updates but i'm happy to answer any questions do commissioners have any questions about these announcements or have any reports and announcements of their own thank you At this point, the next item on our agenda is general public comment. Under public comment, the public may address the commission on any subject not listed on the agenda. So if you're here to talk about something that we're going to be discussing later, this wouldn't be the right time for that. We'll get to you. Each speaker may address the Commission once under public comment for a limit of three minutes. You're not required to provide your name, district, or city of residence, but it is helpful. The Commission cannot act on items not listed on the agenda, and therefore the Commission cannot respond to non-agenda issues brought up under public comment other than to provide general information. Please know that if you're here tonight to comment on one of our agenda items, you will have a chance to speak when we get to that item on the agenda, as I said. To learn how to participate, I'm going to turn to our clerk this evening, Ms. Roy, and then begin public comment period.

Thank you, Vice Chair Baruzi. At this time, if any of the member of public in the council chambers wishes to provide a public comment on item D, please provide me with a comment card from the back table. If you are joining by Zoom, please click on the raised hand icon or if calling in, please press star nine on your keypad and we will be notified of your desire to speak. And this will be the final call for the public comment on item D. I'm not seeing any hand raised or any comment cards with me. So vice chair, you can continue.

In that case, I'll now close the general public comment portion of our agenda. The next item on our agenda is the consent calendar item E1 approval of minutes from the June 8th, 2026 planning commission meeting. First we'll take public comment on this item. Ms. Roy, could you please call for public comment on item E1?

Thank you, Vice Chair, again. Once again, at this time, we are opening public comment period for the item E. And if you are in the council chamber and you wish to speak, please provide me a comment card from the back table. And if you are joining via Zoom, please click on the raised hand button. Or if you are calling in, place star nine on your keypad and we'll be notified of your desire to speak. I'm not seeing any hand raised or comment cards. So vice chair, Rosie, you may continue.

Okay. Uh, can I get, does any commissioner want to pull this item from the consent calendar? Are we ready to vote on it? Okay. Could I get a motion to approve the consent calendar? So moved second second. Okay. All in favor, raise your hands. So that's unanimous. Okay, we're moving on to our public hearing portion of our agenda. The first item is item F1 regarding a use permit at 503 O'Keeffe Street. At this public hearing, the commission may consider and adopt a resolution to approve a use permit for first floor additions and interior and exterior renovations to an existing non-conforming single story, single family residence in the R1U zoning district at 503 O'Keeffe Street. The proposed work would exceed 75% of the replacement value of the existing structure in a 12 months period. We'll be asked to determine this action is categorically exempt under CEQA guidelines section 150301's class 1 exemption for existing facilities. The staff owner for this item is staff member Matthew Ball and the applicant is Heather Young. Mr. Ball, are there any updates to the staff report?

Good evening, Vice Chair Beruzzi and members of the Planning Commission. I don't have any updates for this item, but I'm available for questions, and the applicant is as well.

OK, thank you. So first, welcome applicant. Commissioners, before we go to public comment, does anybody have any clarifying questions for staff or for the applicant on this item? Okay. In that case, I'll go ahead and open it. I'll turn it over to the city clerk to open public comment on this item.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Once again, at this time, if any member of the public in the Council Chamber wishes to provide a public comment on item F1, please provide me a comment card from the back of the table. If you are joining via Zoom, please click on the raised hand icon, or if you are calling in, press star 9 on your keypad, and we will be notified of your desire to speak. Please note that this is the final call for the public comment on item F1.

This is the next item. This is the next item. Yes. Oh, I sent a direct to the commission as well. You will be called. There's a picture in it that I'd like to have presented. So could you open it up at that time and show the picture? It's at the bottom of the email.

At the bottom of the time.

I'll try. Maybe you want to talk with Mattie? It needs to be shown. Okay, I'll try. I'll try. If you want to see it, you can find the communication. We'll see. Once the item comes, I'll see that.

Let me give it.

For folks watching online, there's just a conversation going on with city clerk right now and somebody who might be making public comment.

I'm sorry. I think, yeah, for item F1, I haven't seen any hand raised or comment card for now. So I think we can close the public comment period and Vice Chair, you may continue.

Okay. We're closing public comment. Let's move into commission discussion and ultimately a motion regarding the use permit. Who would like to go first? Does anybody have any thoughts on this item? Commissioner Farrick.

Oh, excuse me. The plan seems imminently reasonable to me. So I don't have a lot of comments. I think it's a very simple approval. And the reason that it's here is that differential on the setback that was a condition since 1948. So I'm prepared to make a motion if the commission is ready.

Commissioner Selyan.

Thanks. I just quickly want to chime in and say that I appreciate the photo of the neighbors included in the report. That's the first I've seen that. I appreciate the collaboration, and I support Commissioner Farrick's plan for a motion.

So Commissioner Farrick, would you like to make a motion?

Yes, I'd like to recommend that we approve the use permit for the project on O'Keeffe Street before us for the staff report. Second.

OK, so we have a motion to approve the use permit for the project on O'Keeffe Street from Commissioner Farrick with a second from Commissioner Cillian. I will now, if nobody has any further comments, anybody? Yes, Commissioner Schindler.

Thank you, Vice Chair. I would just like to say that I think it's really cool that the applicant has served as their own architect in this context. I agree.

All right. I think we're ready to call for a vote. So I will call, let's see, Commissioner Farrick? Yes. Commissioner Headley? Yes. Commissioner Schindler? Yes. Commissioner Cillian?

Yes.

And I am also a yes. So the motion passes with five yeses and zero noes, abstentions, and two absent. All right, great. I'm going to go ahead and close this item, and we will now move on to item F2 regarding a use permit at 351 McKendree Drive. At this public hearing, the Commission may consider and adopt a resolution to approve a use permit to demolish an existing single-story single-family residence and construct a new two-story single-family residence on a substandard lot with regard to lot width, depth, and area in the R1U zoning district at 351 McKendree Drive. We'll be asked to determine this action is categorically exempt under CEQA guidelines section 15303's class three exemption for new construction or conversion of small structures. The staff member for this is also Mr. Ball, and the applicant presenter, I believe, is in chambers as well. Okay. Mr. Ball, do you have any updates to the staff report?

Yes, we did receive three public comments. One came over the weekend, and then a couple came today, and you should all have a copy of those at your desk. I'm also available for questions.

Okay, thank you. I think the applicant might have some introductory remarks. Okay, should we go ahead and invite the applicant to the stand?

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Russell Russoli.

Let's make sure you're pretty close to the microphone. Can you hear me?

My name is Russell Russoli with RE Development Group and CBS Finance Inc., Our proposal is to tear down the existing home and build a second story based on the strict guidelines of Menlo Park's daylight plan requirements, setbacks, height limitations, and so forth, which takes into consideration privacy for neighbors and so forth. From time to time, I do understand, even with those parameters sit in place, neighbors might have some concerns, which we do understand, and we do take into consideration on what we can do to not come in and ruffle any feathers and be a good neighbor in the process of the construction and adhering. MAYBE POSSIBLY MAKE SOME PROPOSALS TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE IS HAPPY. BASED ON THE COMMENTS THAT MR. BALL HAD EMAILED TO ME, WHAT I'M PROPOSING IS WHAT IS ALREADY WITHIN YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION'S MEETING AGENDA WHERE YOU'RE REQUESTING THAT WE RAISE OUR WINDOW SILL in the left and right side predominantly where the primary bedroom in the back has two windows on the right side and the front bedroom on the left side has two windows. We're currently at a two foot. I would like to propose moving that up to a three feet. The two bathrooms that are already on that side have a three foot obviously for privacy for not only the individual that's gonna use the bathroom. Um, and then the primary where we have two corner windows, one facing the back and one facing the left side that will be frosted. And the reason being is because there's a bathtub right in front of it. So it's not only shares it as a bathtub, but also a shower combo. And, um, that will be frosted. The other things that I would like to propose for privacy, on the right side, I'm already planting a very large tree to provide substantial privacy foliage for the stairway. In addition, I will plant additional trees on the right side where the four windows are basically providing additional foliage and privacy. I will raise the fence on all three sides up to six feet with the fence boards and another foot with a lattice to provide an additional height. Currently right now, we have that live oak that we're sharing directly with our neighbor. It's basically on both property lines. Our approved arborist feels that during construction and excavation, there's a possibility that tree might not be able to be saved. And if that is the case, then I will plant additional trees on the left side to cover any two story windows for additional privacy. This is all at our cost. I feel with your. planning approval as far as the report and the proposal that I'm proposing, I sure hope that it shows good faith that I'm trying to do whatever I can to mitigate any future issues and so forth. And I'll leave the rest up to you. And thank you so much for allowing me to speak.

Thank you so much. Before we move to public comment on this item, do any commissioners have clarifying questions for either staff or the applicant? No, okay. In that case, Ms. Roy, can we move to public comment on this item?

Thank you, Vice Chair. At this time, we are opening public comment period for item F2. If any member of the public in the council chamber wishes to speak, please provide me with a comment card from the back table. If you are joining via Zoom, please click on the raised hand icon, or if you are calling in, please press star 9 on your keypad, and we will be notified of your desire to speak. Please note that this will be final call for the public comment on this item. At this moment, I have three comment cards with me and I will move forward with our first speaker, William Barron. You can move forward to the podium and please allow me to set up your three minute timer and then you should be able to speak.

So I asked my wife to join me. If we could just have six minutes together, that would be really helpful.

Um, Mr. Baron, you're, you're gonna need to speak much more closely into the mic.

I asked my wife to join me. I was hoping that we'd be able to share six minutes together. She has a card.

Okay. Yeah, of course. So our second speaker who will be speaking with Mr. Barron is Sandra Barron. And you can speak together. Yeah.

Okay, so I'd like to say that I'm very pleased to hear the words from Mr. Rizzoli, that he's open to modification of the plans. We live in the property directly behind the project site at 330 Willow Road. Our back fence is shared with the project property. And the way the current set of plans is grossly inadequate as far as privacy is concerned for our yard and perhaps for the new home going in. And in a nutshell, first I would like to say we sent a letter into the commission just about an hour and a half ago. And the primary thing is the privacy issue. We would like to have substantial vegetation planted along the back fence that will provide privacy both to the first floor and the second floor, so it'll have to grow kind of tall. And we have neighbors who planted, what's it, POTO something or other, where is it?

I think it's called POTO Campus.

protocampus. It's in the letter. And it grows rapidly. It grows thick. And when placed, in our experience with our neighbors planting three feet apart, forms a very nice vegetative wall, both for sound and for sight. And it grows tall enough to obscure the view from our house into the second floor windows and vice versa. So I would urge the committee to please make that a requirement for any approval that might be given to these plans. Of course, having three-foot sills on the back windows, which I think Mr. Rizzoli said he was going to do anyway, would, of course, be very helpful. And the... There is a significant error in the site plot for the existing property as well as for what they propose putting in. There's a very large redwood tree. That's what this picture is about. It shows the corner of our lot where there's supposed to be a heritage redwood tree, but it doesn't exist on our property. It actually exists on the property next to ours and provides next to no protection, sound, or sight between the two properties. A new issue, which is not in the letter, is the AstroTurf. I'm concerned that if it's not a permeable surface, and I don't know if this AstroTurf underlayment is going to be permeable, it could cause significant excess water drainage off of the property. And I would highly recommend... First, my personal choice is not to have AstroTurf, but to have a natural covering for the yard. It's more ecologically compatible and friendly. The AstroTurf is not ecologically friendly. It gets very hot during the summer. Direct when direct sunlight is on it and. I think it would be a major improvement not to have the AstroTurf, but certainly if there's going to be AstroTurf, make sure it's it's permeable to the water.

And you want to hear that I I do want to add something. First of all, I'm glad to see in this building because we weren't included in your neighborhood meeting. And even though we

Excuse me. I'm so sorry, but we have people watching online and they can't hear you at all.

I'm sorry. I was introducing myself to Mr. Rizzulli because I've never met him before. And even though there was a neighborly meeting, a good neighborly meeting, and Mr. Rizzulli and Mr.

Thank you, Bill.

And Mr. Rizzulli and Bill and I share a good neighbor fence. We were not invited to that meeting. Our voices have not yet been heard. All of this came as a surprise to me, and on Thursday, I went down to the building department, I spoke with Christopher, who told me that Matthew Bell had been in charge of the plants, and that a packet was going to come out Thursday evening. Thursday evening was the first time I had been aware of what's going on. And we've had some medical issues, and I had not been aware of what was happening until Thursday evening. I read a letter by Melody, one of our neighbors, and was surprised and contacted her. And Melody introduced us to other neighbors who have also submitted comments to you. And we were able to get our letter in at the very, very last minute after meeting with Matthew this afternoon. Our concern is twofold, threefold, really. Why weren't we heard? Why have we not yet met with Mr. Rizzulli, given that we have a very important stake in this development? Second concern is privacy. The windows from the back look directly into our oasis, which we've created with a lot of hard work, and is our sanctuary. They not only look directly into our sanctuary, they look directly into our home. And we've been very fortunate over the years since we've lived in our home to just have a place of peace. I would request, as does Bill, that those windows be raised not only for the neighbors on either side, but also for us. And that is one way to alleviate some of these issues. The other is landscaping. There were 11 trees on that property. I came home one day and I didn't understand what happened. All of a sudden I could see large gaps through the fence. Eight of those trees, I think so far seven or eight have been cut down. That's not providing the greenery that is so very, very important to people in Menlo Park. It's really important to me. And every day I go about my business in Menlo Park, I am grateful to live here because our trees and shrubs are so beautiful. So our request is that Mr. Rizzoli and his group plant podocampus, which our neighbors have planted and which grows very fast to have mature plants planted correctly so that they will grow fast and provide us with greenery as they grow and more privacy. We are also concerned about environmental issues Our neighbor Carolyn Chang has written to you as well about environmental concerns that could be due to both the demolition and the construction. And we have a vegetable garden from which we eat the food, which is really, really important to us. And I know it's been encouraged in Menlo Park to grow your own food. And we'd sure hate to have hazardous waste or construction dust mixed in there. So our request to you is to please ensure that Mr. Rizzoli and his group follow good practices in protecting the neighbors surrounding this construction project. So I think that's about all I have to say. I'm glad, I appreciate, I'm glad to be here and I very much appreciate what you're doing as stewards of Menlo Park, as stewards for development, good development and stewards to protect all of our beautiful landscape. So I think we've covered, I think we've covered just about everything and we very much appreciate your hearing our request. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Our next commenter is Melody Peggy, followed by Dara Hazegi. Please move ahead and I'll set up your two minute timer.

Thank you. I became aware of this project in February when I received a postcard. Subsequently, because I'm in my yard all the time, neighbors approached me and said, did you talk to the developer? Did you talk to the developer? I'm home every day now, newly retired, and I did not hear a developer. We have three people in our home. Someone's always there. So I... I feel better if I'm able to contact people directly and talk and not have to write a hurried letter of what I saw in the plans. Good or bad, I was a commissioner for 10 years, so Katie was on there when I was there. So I know what neighborhood input, how important it is for you to do your job and to look at each project. So I appreciate the fact that the developer has made the offer of increasing the sill height up to three feet on the sides. Obscuring the glass in the master bath, that's great because children do not need a view into the master tub on any of the sides. Replacing the fence to seven feet on all three sides. I think the neighbor at 330 directly behind might already have that fence, so that might be worth a discussion. But I know the neighbors on either the left or right would appreciate having an opportunity to have solid fences between their homes and the new project. Most importantly, the condition for the Live Oak. Initially, when Pam Simmons, the owner of 343, and Carolyn Chang had a conversation, this project was presented that the Coast Live Oak would be removed. We've done major work on our property this last week, having an arborist on our site removing and trimming trees, and I asked him to visit the oak to see with the likelihood of it surviving through the construction. It will be compromised. It is meant to be 50 to 70 feet tall and has a spread of about 120 feet. And it will be located 5 and 1 half feet to 6 feet. away from structures on each side, which is not good for its future good growth. A tree directly across from that on the cul-de-sac lost a large limb. It's an oak tree as well, and it has a much larger space to grow, but it still can fail. So I would like to encourage the applicant to remove the tree before starting construction, which would give him a chance to not manually, but using machines, excavate for the foundation, increasing the speed with which he can construction his project. I do have comments on the AstroTurf. My son has put AstroTurf in his yard, but he did it because nothing else would grow under their copper beech tree. There is no chance for the sun rarely hits it, but the outgassing on the athletic fields throughout Menlo Park will give you an indication what it's like to play or be in the surface. It smells, it's hot, and it is not clean. Nothing permeates it. And so our arborist had told us on our yard not to use the astroturf within six feet of a tree because the water doesn't permeate the soil. Lastly, this project is a duplicate of a project built at 167 McKendree Drive. And I have photos of the elevation of that taken at night. You can even see now that the difference between the light and the dark around it. I can hand these out to you. The lighting used on the front of this project was the same lighting used on the back. There was no no landscaping put in the back of this property. So you can see this project in the evening when they turn on the lights at night. It's brighter than Christmas lights. And this picture was taken on December 12th in 25. So I would encourage that we not allow, not just for this project, but future projects, second floor lighting or these bright lights around residences. In summary, I appreciate the fact that this client has stepped in the sides, that they have been able to make changes to their plans as promised here, and I would suggest that the condition to A that is added be modified to incorporate those items or present another plan and also to encourage the removal of tree number seven. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Melody, for your comment. Our next commenter is online. So Dara Hazegi, I will be allowing you to speak now. And I'll set up your timer.

Good evening. Could you hear me?

Yes.

Thank you. I'm Dara Hazeghi. Me and my partner are neighbors to the project at 357 McHenry. We moved in back in March, and I guess like one of the earlier commenters mentioned, somehow the notifications did not make it to us, so we learned about this through a helpful neighbor on Twitter. Friday afternoon, we were able to talk both with the neighbors and also with Mr. Rizzoli and to appreciate his clarifications and I guess generally being quite helpful. I think that our concerns are largely similar to those raised before us, predominantly privacy, given the two story nature of the construction. And so the raising of the sill heights, the maintenance of the fence at seven feet, and the planting of landscaping to provide adequate privacy, particularly for our yard and that side of our house would be much appreciated as part of the official plan. I think the other main concern we had mentioned previously was with lighting, particularly at night. And there too, we would like assurances that the landscaping or other lighting elements will be such that the light does not extend beyond, the outdoor lights do not extend beyond the property. I think beyond that, we are on board with all of the previous comments made here. But thank you for taking our consideration. We also submitted a letter over the weekend. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hazegi. At this moment, I am not seeing any more hand raised or any comment cards. So Vice Chair Barusi, please, if you want, you may continue.

Okay, at this time, we'll close public comment and move into commission discussion and ultimately a motion. Who would like to begin? Commissioner Schindler.

Thank you, Vice Chair Peruzzi. I wanted to ask a couple of starting procedural process type questions of staff just to help us understand some of the steps that have been taken and just to recap a couple of things that, as I understand it, tend to be standard process in the the city's building process and permitting process and oversight. So my first question addresses something mentioned by a couple of members of the community. Could you confirm whether this project followed the standard notifications process? A postcard was mentioned from the city back in February, but I'm looking for confirmation about what the steps would have been and when they would have happened.

Thank you for your question. Yes. So there is a seven day notice that has a 300 foot radius and it goes to both Renters the occupants and owners.

And you're confirming that that did happen?

That's correct.

Okay. So that's the notification process that went through for this project, in addition to what has been enumerated by the applicant. But that was the city's process.

Yeah. So that's the initial notification. There's also a notification when the agenda has been posted.

And I got those Wednesday, so I'm assuming everybody else did too. So then I think there are a couple of valid questions that have been asked with regard to the building processes that the city uses to govern air quality or things like hazardous material or dust suppression just general construction site cleanliness could you walk us through sort of what those processes are what they look like before construction starts and then during the construction process in terms of the city's involvement and and the applicant's adherence to guidelines

Yes, so specifically for demolition, there are requirements that the demolition needs to meet in order to get an approval. There are processes for asbestos remediation if there is asbestos located at the property. There are processes to remediate any dust that comes about as part of the demolition. And I can't. Yeah, I mean, those are kind of the main ones, dust, asbestos, and then we do have building inspectors who go out and monitor the site to ensure that all of these are being followed correctly.

Thank you. And just... I believe it to be true that this applies to all building projects, residential building projects, including this one, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay. Thank you. I do have a couple more questions, but I will pass it back to other commissioners to get the ball rolling with their sets of questions.

Who would like to go next? Commissioner Cillian.

Thank you. Just a follow-up for staff about the notification. So the seven-day notice that you mentioned, is that seven days prior to this meeting?

Is that correct? Well, it's seven days after the project has been assigned to a planner. So it's also posted on our website as well.

Got it. Can you confirm roughly what date that was?

I can follow up with you. I don't know off the top of my head.

Okay, thanks. So for the folks that are saying they weren't notified, is it fair to say that perhaps, you know... they missed the notice in their mailbox. And, or I did hear some commenters mentioning that they weren't approached by the developer. That's not a requirement, correct? We're just talking about the mailed notice from the city. That's a required part of the process.

Yes, perhaps they missed it, but that is a required part of the process. The neighborhood outreach is strongly encouraged by us in the planning department. And most developers, I mean, just about every developer does it. Everyone has their own style of doing it, but we do encourage it.

OK, thank you. Yeah, just my general comment about this project is it seems looking at There was included on page 12 of the packet for this item, which is A-1.3. There's photos of all the neighboring properties. And you can see that all the neighboring properties are single-story, including what sounds like the home behind it on Willow. And this is a second-story property. project going up on the street. I think many other neighborhoods in Menlo Park we're seeing more and more second story homes on certain streets and this just seems to be a case where there hasn't been that development here. I would strongly assume yet just because that's what we're seeing. around the whole city. Um, but in the moment it does look like, you know, you have this taller structure going up amongst shorter structures and the lots are relatively small. So then To me, that kind of explains why we're seeing a lot of concern from neighbors about privacy, which I think is reasonable. It is something that when folks bought their homes, didn't expect to happen, even though, you know, if you check the city code or whatever, second story buildings are allowed. And so, yeah, I think. Our job tonight is to try to see if we could find common ground. And I appreciate that Mr. Rizzoli has already proposed a number of things to address the concerns. And I don't have any super strong concerns at the moment. based on what I've heard so far, but I do want to just ask a few questions, maybe to spur some further discussion. So regarding the fence, I think this is a question for staff. I know that the seven foot height limit is our city code, does that ever change with these properties where the foundation has to be raised due to the floodplain? Because it does seem like if you have a residence with a seven-foot fence where there's no floodplain versus where there is, it might warrant a hair fence. At least that could be an assumption that could be made, but I'm wondering if that's true or not.

No, the seven foot high maximum is the same, even if you are in the floodplain.

Okay, thanks. I guess to that, I would say, I don't know if we need to make this a condition, but all these things are kind of... um, can be discussed between neighbors, I would say. And, um, you know, after the project is done, maybe other privacy things could be put in place. Um, as long as all the neighbors agree would be my suggestion. Um, and then I was wondering about the sill heights for the windows. Again, that's a question for staff. So for me is like a, six foot tall person when I think about a three foot sill height that's from the floor, presumably that still feels like that's kind of like waist high. And if I'm standing pretty close to the window, it doesn't really block very much of my viewing angle. Am I thinking about that correctly? Um, Or is it true that going from two foot to three feet is a meaningful difference in sight lines and privacy from like if you're viewing from a second story into a neighboring property?

Yeah, it does make, it makes a difference. And it's what we commonly recommend to applicants. The three feet seems to make everyone happy for the most part.

Okay, thank you. And then I was wondering about lighting. A couple of the public comments expressed concern about lighting being intrusive and whatnot. Can you talk about our requirements and what the building inspectors will be looking for with regards to lighting, specifically like brightness or lighting angles? Do we have existing regulations around that that need to be followed?

Yeah, we don't, in single-family zones, we don't have any specific lighting requirements. So, yeah, we can't apply it for this home.

Okay. We don't have any at all? Like, you could have, like, a giant spotlight pointing at a neighbor's window, technically? I'm only asking because... I thought I recalled something for when I had an ADU built at my house, something requiring like downcast lighting or something along those lines, but I might be imagining that, or maybe that's ADU specific.

Yeah, through the chair. Yeah, we don't have it for the single family zones. The commission could make a motion that includes a condition regarding lighting as part of an approval.

Thanks. What, um, what sort of conditions in the past have you seen? I wouldn't know where to start.

Yeah, we haven't seen, I don't remember a specific case because usually it is, um, just kind of at the discretion of the homeowner. I think, um, if there's a specific desire not to have, um, maybe lighting, you know, to have a cut off shields or something like that on outdoor lighting that could be possible.

Okay, thank you. Um, I don't have any more questions right now. I will yield to other commissioners. I think before we vote, I would love to hear from the applicant regarding some of these things, but I'll leave it to other commissioners first.

Sorry, we've closed public comment now, so I'm going to keep going with the discussion. Thanks. Yes, Commissioner Headlee.

Yeah, I have a couple of questions. The first one is going back to the outreach for this project. We received a public, like an email, I believe from Melody Pagey in February of this year. So it sounds like, like I'm assuming the initial notice that was mailed to everyone probably went out in early February or maybe late January. And so for the, the neighbors that moved in in March would not have received it. And I have a, a follow up question for staff and I'll wait until Matthew is available. Um, so this is a question for staff regarding the additional notification when the agenda has been posted. I know that like, so if the agenda is posted Thursday and then the meeting is on Monday, that's not going to be sufficient to get a notice in the mail. And I was wondering how does that notification happen? Is it mostly through the planning commission website? And then people need to be dialed into that to know when to, um, to look, or is there like an email that's sent to neighbors?

Yeah. So, okay. It's the notification. It's posted before I misspoke. It's posted two weeks prior. So everyone was notified on the 5th of June. That's when it was mailed.

okay so for the planning commission meeting got it okay so there was a two-week notification that's super helpful thank you um i also had questions regarding i mean i have questions about all of the things that we're discussing like the windowsills the height level the um and i'm glad to see the applicant um come forward and share that they've heard the concerns and are willing to make some adjustments we haven't yet spoken much about the landscaping and So it sounds like landscaping as an answer to a lot of the privacy concerns. I'm curious about what's happened on the past in this commission, like how much we've mandated that. And I also would like to discuss the artificial turf because there are significant health and safety concerns for both humans as well as the planet with the use of artificial turf. So I'm I guess I'm curious, maybe more for the applicant, and I don't know procedurally how to do this, if the applicant has any response to both Astroturf as well as the landscaping recommendations that are coming from neighbors. I don't, yeah, I'm going to turn it back to the vice chair for how to proceed there.

Yeah, can I go ahead and call the chair up to answer those questions? The applicant, sorry. Yes. I heard the word chair. That was in my head. Thank you, applicant. And just make sure you're speaking into the microphone. Thank you.

My apologies. not only to the commissioners, but also to homeowners that are concerned. One thing that I did not touch on is the lighting. I've built in Palo Alto, Cupertino, San Mateo, up and down Peninsula. And as far as light admittance into neighboring properties, I completely agree. If I was a neighbor and I had... Basically, a neighbor who has stadium lights basically what we call it, I would not be happy as well. So the lights that we will install will be predominantly all on the first story level, and it'll be down lights to where it's more of an accent light. The house on 167, yeah, they have recessed lights up on top. I mean, it's almost like a Christmas tree with lights up at night. And then also the light fixtures that they have installed basically are outfacing. So when the light turns on, it basically just shines all the way around. What I propose are going to be light fixtures that are downwards. And originally... to go and touch base on the live oak tree. Our initial application, and I had gone through substantial amount of money trying to get the city to approve the removal. And if you ask Matthew, my original plan, I had 11 protected trees that I was proposing on my property. And that would create a foliage all the way from the left to the, I'm sorry, from left to right to the rear, basically creating a full privacy. I was denied on the Live Oak, so we had to go and basically try to shuffle and figure out what would make the city arborists happy. with really no sense of direction. So we try to minimize it to at least get the plans approved. However, that is not my intention to follow those guidelines as far as the minimal plants. One, I do not like building my own signature homes where landscaping is minimal. It's not a good reflection of our company and it's definitely not a good reflection of what we're building in Willow. neighborhood, which is predominantly a tree neighborhood between the tree line streets, the trees in the backyards and so forth. So I do understand the importance of that. Secondly, my wife and I, when we had first purchased this property, And we were in the midst of knowing that we were going to develop it. We went around as a neighboring outreach, knocking on doors to doors. We had neighbors basically shutting the door out of face, thinking we're either solicitors or something, which is understandable. But we made proper outreach to each and every individual that opened the door. Unfortunately, my neighbor next door, who recently moved in, I had spoken with that neighbor and she basically, and I have proof, I have screenshots of texts and I also have provided it to my neighbor that I told her exactly, hey, we're developing, we're building And my understanding is, is that basically she probably not didn't want to disclose it and maybe lose a buyer. So he probably has a case of nondisclosure that he can pursue in other matters and so forth. As far as I believe I touched on lighting and artificial turf. Palo Alto is huge on willow, and I believe Menlo Park is as well as far as water usage, which is why we opted for artificial turf. However, if I'm able to plant real grass, I prefer real grass. It looks way better than artificial grass. But once again, we're just catering to the Willow Act that is implemented in predominantly a lot of the peninsula cities. who is for the Water Conservation Act. So that was another tactic on our end to basically get our plans approved and not have this back and forth, back and forth. So trying to make the city happy and at the same time trying to make neighbors happy, you know, I'm caught in the middle here. So any other questions that I could answer or?

Does anybody else have questions for the applicant while he's standing here? A lot of people do. Okay, I'm going to let Commissioner Ferrett go first since she hasn't spoken yet.

Well, it's a simple one I think we all have. Would you be willing to raise the sill height to three feet all the way around, which is actually just one more window than I think you'd already proposed the rear window from two feet to three in that back bedroom in the second floor?

The rear red bedroom, I would like to keep it at where it's at because I think I'm giving so many concessions. And I do understand the neighbors behind me. I am willing to plant multiple trees. to where they grow real fast, starting at 10 to 12 feet trees, and the trees that will create a massive foliage to where it basically creates a blanket. But if you notice, my whole tone this whole time has been, hey, let me give, let me give. But it has to be fair at the same time. You know what I mean? As far as the rear goes, I believe the setback is far enough to where with the trees that I proposed to plant even in the rear of my property, I think it should take care of everyone's privacy issues.

And are you familiar with the plant that was suggested, the podospora? I am not.

I am not. But one of the trees that I actually like that I would like to plant around is one that the city of Menlo Park uses, up and down willow. it has a nice green and then when the leaf turns it's got kind of like a lighter tint and the foliage is just amazing it looks beautiful so you guys are using it for your own city trees i would like to mimic that in my own landscaping as well thank you that's what i have uh commissioner schindler

Thank you. I will pick up the thread that Commissioner Farrick has put out there. I believe the plan is podocarpus. But I think in general, I am certainly reluctant and historically other members of the commission have been reluctant to design from the dais. I think if there is a commitment to putting some kind of quick growing, fairly tall screening along the back fence. The exact choice of vegetation should be something that should be left to you because there's, there are variables that we, we can't possibly know. And I would simply say that the city arborist may be a great source of information, whether it's things that we're using or not. Yeah. I also just wanted to weigh in on just some of the other themes and bear with me for just a second. This commission knows because, so apologies to my commissioners, because we've mentioned it many times, but it's worth restating. The reason that we're looking at this particular development is because it's a substandard lot. And one of the things that this commission thinks about on a regular basis is, are we telling people who have substandard lots, i.e. smaller lots, that they are subject to different requirements than people who have larger lots? Does that seem right? way is that the way we would want the city to be um so that's something that we take into consideration and i think that's why in many cases this commission says what are this what are the guidelines what are the official objective structural guidelines set by the city but then there's plenty of room for discussion and dialogue which i think has happened to some extent here. And I really appreciate the acknowledgement in your comments and in your counter proposals here tonight. You've acknowledged a lot of the feedback of what's happened here. So you've moved the sill heights to three feet on either side. I would be uncomfortable making it a development requirement to raise the sill heights in the back of the house because this particular development is even beyond the rear setback requirement. And that's not something that we have sort of said meets the threshold of privacy concern in previous houses in similar types of situations. I want to express my... acknowledgement of the frustration around the Oak tree question, right? Trying to keep trying to retain, um, I, I guess a question to staff, um, Do you have any further commentary or color about the recommendation from the city arborist in terms of retaining this oak tree and why that was the recommendation and why the application to remove the oak was originally denied?

Yes, so our city arborist, I think the main reason she denied it is because she wants, you know, obviously she wants to keep as many trees as possible. And she felt that reasonable efforts could be made to preserve the tree. And that it would be done through a careful exploratory excavation, root pruning, things of that nature. And I think Razul covered it pretty well besides those points.

Thank you. I mean, I think that simply represents the healthy tension that we have here in our decision-making as the city. A number of community members, members of this commission have spoken about how important it is to have, you know, the greenery in the city. We're a tree city. It's something we have city rules about because it's of value. So there's, this is an example of the tension and the decision-making that happens here and sort of, procedures that play out accordingly. I thank you for specifically acknowledging the lighting that they would be on the lighting would be on the first story and that it would be downward facing. Commissioners, I do think that lighting is something that belongs. And staff, when we do eventually get to talking about residential design standards, this is one of the topics that I will remember to bring up and put out there, along with window glazing and screening as privacy features, because it comes up a lot. Thank you. I'll hand it back to the Vice Chair. Sorry, Commissioner Headlee has some follow-ups, I believe, for the developer.

Thank you. It's connected to the lighting that Commissioner Schindler was just speaking to. I believe when I asked about the lighting, you said it was primarily on the first floor, and I had a question about the use of the word primarily. Can you speak to that?

It will be all on the first floor. So basically where if you want to go above the first floor window a little bit downwards, we won't have lights like 167 has all across the upper area on their second story. We will not have that. I've dealt like, you know, like I was saying, I've dealt with that in Palo Alto and so forth. So I know the importance.

Yes, carry on. I'd also like to talk a little bit more about AstroTurf with the applicant or just more broadly with us.

Okay. Does anybody else have any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Cillian, I'll come back to you. Thank you.

Thank you. I just want to Double check my understanding of that live oak. So tree number seven is a live oak. And as it stands today, you don't have permission to remove it. Correct. But you and the next door neighbor would like to remove it. Is that correct?

That is correct. So the way it's currently positioned, it's literally between the fence. Half sits on their side, half on ours. And a substantial amount of the branches are over their property. So they've brought... an issue with, God forbid, somewhere to happen, a safety element. And right now, where we plan on building the home, not only are we going to have to be very careful when we dig, my arborist, who's approved by, on your approved list, said, you know, this is a procedure that Mellow Park takes. It's basically, hey, let's see what we can do to try to mitigate and keep it, knowing, you know, pretty well that once excavation starts, that's not going to be the case. In addition to that, if it were to survive, I would have to cut a substantial amount of branches to where it would eventually hit the second story. So it'd be a really odd looking live oak. And in my original plans with the arborist, when we were going back and forth, I had proposed removing this protected tree and then planting 11 protected trees throughout my lot in the backyard, all scattered through, as I was saying, the right, left, and the rear. Unfortunately, that didn't go anywhere. It was denied. I had to pay extra to have a comparative analysis done. created to show why we think the tree has to be removed based on where our home is being built, the floor plan and so forth. Once again, even though I spent a couple of thousand on that, that was denied. And then finally, we came to an agreement after Jillian was able to kind of let us know that, hey, I really want to keep this tree. We have to find a way to keep it. And then further discussion with my arborist who I hired basically kind of told me, hey, this is what Menlo Park wants to do is to go through the process of saying, hey, we're going to keep it. And then during excavation, exploration, if it's just not capable of being kept, then an approval can be approved or approached at that time. So that's where we're going with it right now.

Okay, thank you. And I do want to talk about the tree amongst us. But in the meantime, I'll just ask you one more question while you're here, which is dust and debris. What is your typical... Like, what do you typically do to try to protect neighbors from debris during construction?

During construction, we'll put up certain barriers, plastic barriers at a certain height above the fence line, in addition to using water. And in this case, being that we have a tree next to us, so... excavation, I'm sorry, demolition is going to have to be more in a care manner to where we make sure we're not disturbing the tree and, you know, obtaining funds and that so forth. And then basically following the Bay Area air management guidelines and as far as the city guidelines that you guys impose as well.

Okay, thank you. Appreciate it.

Of course, I don't have any other questions for the applicant.

Anyone else have other questions for the applicant? Okay, Commissioner Farrick.

Thank you. I didn't quite remember. I did have a couple more earlier, so thanks for that. I don't know that we've had your perspective on the stairway window glazing. I know there was a comment earlier. I didn't remember whether you'd already offered to make some of that more opaque, or what was the plan? Well, my plan was to plant multiple trees along that.

Okay.

Privacy screening.

Privacy screening, you know, starting at 10 to 12 foot trees. I did some research and I will contact my arborist to find out if there is a way to plant higher trees. During my research, I found that when you go with higher trees, there's a bigger chance of shock. because they've already matured. So usually with trees that are right around 10 to 12, they seem to take better, and they grow a lot faster as well. So if I plant them every five feet on both sides, and now I'll do the rear as well, I mean, we're literally creating almost like an Atherton estate-style property at this point in time with the privacy.

Great, thank you. And then I did have one more also. Thank you for your explaining the... the reasons for why AstroTurf was proposed. It sounds like you're open to grass. Are there other permeable environmentally friendly options that you've put in other projects that I don't know that astroturf or grass are the only options. Is there any other kind of thought you had on?

So for the rear, I mean, for the front, we're doing a lot of dry landscaping to mitigate any excess water usage. But I feel in the backyard, you have to provide some type of greenery. I'm sure a family is going to move in there with kids. I don't see them wanting to play in mulch or sand or any type. You got to bring some type of greenery. And if the commissioners, if you're all open for actual sod, I would love that because I prefer sod over artificial turf myself. As a matter of fact, artificial turf costs us developers even more. to install.

That's helpful information for us just to know. But yeah, I appreciate that you gave the context around trying to conserve water use, etc. It's just, it's one of those controversial materials that has a lot of pros and cons. Of course. I think right now it's not thought of as desirable here, but I understand in other communities it sounds like it is. So thank you. Of course. Thank you.

Okay, unless anybody else has any more questions for the applicant, I'm going to go ahead and bring it back to the dais. And I'd like to move us in the direction of emotion. It sounds like we have some things we want to talk about, though. Yes. Commissioner Headley, you had thoughts on landscaping? Are you ready to offer those? Or do you want to let somebody else go first?

Let's see. I had the opportunity to go deep on plastic grass and the harms that it causes humans as well as the planet in my time on the Environmental Quality Commission. I can... outline those for you all if you're interested. But if the applicant is open to grass, I think that's better. There's also options, you know, but if we want a play space for children, probably grass is better than astroturf for a number of reasons. And I can save my points for maybe a future discussion about design standards. if we want to save time tonight. Yeah. And if we need an argument, I'm happy to make it against AstroTurf. And I would like to actually that included in a condition of approval that it's not allowed. Commissioner Cillian.

Thanks. I'm just confused. And maybe it's a question for staff, but is it the case that we do not allow grass for new development and we require turf? Is that?

That is not a requirement in Menlo Park that I'm aware of. Okay.

I've had issues with the Willow Act in Palo Alto, Cupertino. So my assumption was automatically, dealing in the peninsula, most of the cities are very, very strict. I'll give you a perfect example. I built a custom home in Cupertino We had real grass in the backyard. During the final permit sign off, I was failed. I had to rip out almost 2,500 square feet of sod, put artificial grass. I was already in contract, had it signed off, had to tear that again because the buyer wanted sod. So I had to replant the sod after final inspection.

mr ball could you comment on whether menlo park has any restrictions on grass yeah uh through the chair so grass is permitted um there is a water efficient landscape ordinance that needs to be adhered to um so i think but i think both is possible and it's I believe there are also options of greenery that requires less water than grass so that that could be something to look into.

Okay, and just so just to confirm with our water efficient requirements, would the applicants still be able to plant regular sod grass?

Well, I mean, we'd have to look at the overall water use and that that's something that goes through the Public Works Department.

OK, got it. Yeah, I mean, I guess I'll just say I have kids and we like having grass in our backyard, so I sympathize with your desire to have that. And yeah, I have looked into other ground cover and it's hard to find natural ground cover that behaves like grass that can be like just trampled on all day and will be fine. I've had trouble finding it, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But I would personally be okay with grass in the backyard for this project.

Actually, can I follow up with staff and I am so I know it looks like we have a water efficient landscaping ordinance there's a worksheet a flowchart. Have staff and the applicant already hashed through this and the applicant somehow determined that the space that they wanted to landscape was exceeded our city. allowance.

Yes, so the wheel oh the ordinance is it's something that is reviewed by public works. I don't know the exact specifics of it, but public works did sign off on on their review for the project, but they are required to submit a worksheet the applicant is

I see. So to the applicant then, did you have a dialogue with Public Works about your desire to use sod instead of astroturf?

I did not. I had my architects handling the cemental and so forth. Okay. And based on the forums, I believe Francis, who's one of the architects, looking at the ratios and numbers, it felt within the parameters of being able to get this project approved and not having to go back and forth back and forth like we did with the tree. So once again, you know, I'm in a pickle situation here, unfortunately.

I see. All right. Would you like to follow up?

Mr. Hadley? Yeah, I found the the ordinance. It's three pages. It's not that complicated. It sounds like they're encouraging water-wise approaches, which I think makes sense. I guess maybe my recommendation would be Could the applicant have a conversation with Public Works and maybe staff from the planning team can facilitate this? How can we support them in having natural grass in the backyard as opposed to artificial turf? That would be my recommendation. I think it's going to be way better for future families. It's going to be way better for the planet. There are lower water usage types of grass that could be implemented. you know, that just require less water. So I guess that's my request.

It sounds like you're asking that we make that a condition of approval. Staff, is that something that we could do? That feels a little, I'm just checking in.

Yeah, I think there could be a condition. It could be, it would just have to be kind of worded specifically if it's something where, if it has a specific prohibition against AstroTurf or if it's something where the applicant shall work with the planning division and public works. to maximize greenery.

Can I check in with the other people on the dais to see whether there's appetite for something like a prohibition? I'm just going to do a quick straw poll. Commissioner Schindler.

I can wait for the straw poll, but I would be opposed to a prohibition. I think that's overstepping. But I do think that this is a most fortuitous situation. The applicant would like to have grass. And I think... I hope that the only thing we would have to do is note in our approval of the use permit that we would approve the use permit subject to and in addition to what's already in the the packet whatever changes are noted so I've tried to start a list here The changes noted from what's been submitted in the record here would be the three-foot windows on the sills on the side, which is a change. The change from grass, allowing the change to grass from turf. Adding screening, additional screening on the right and rear, vegetation screening. So those are things that are either changes to what's already in the plans or explicit additions.

Can I say something about the rear, unfortunately? So in the rear, there is a huge red oak that's not on our property, and it's not on my neighbor's directly behind me, but it's on to the right. City arborists will not allow us to plant any trees within a certain parameter. So I'm going to have to start within the allowance with your guys' guidelines and then follow suit with the privacy situation. That makes sense.

Okay. Thank you. Helpful clarification to my notes and I suspect to the most concerned members of the public.

Can I follow up on that really quickly, Commissioner Schindler? Yeah. Any trees within a perimeter or within a given radius or any vegetation?

Any trees that could affect the branches of the red? Understood, understood.

Because I believe that one of the public commenters had actually asked for screening vegetation, not necessarily trees. And I'm wondering if that's something that we might consider recommending instead, given what we've just learned about the tree.

I think my notes here say screening, not necessarily prescribing trees as opposed to shrubbery. I don't know what the city arborist would say about a tree that's 12 feet tall versus a shrub that's 12 feet tall. But I think. Screening within the guidelines approved by the city arborist feels like a meaningful way of, like a constructive way of framing it, but still leaving it in the hands of the experts, meaning the experts on the property and the experts on vegetation. Thank you. I appreciate the discussion about lighting and the acknowledgement that it would only be on the first floor, but because there isn't lighting, like external lighting mentioned in the plans, I don't know that it requires a change or an explicit mention. And again, I would be reluctant to make it a requirement of approving this project as that would be inconsistent with other approaches that we've taken. I feel reasonably confident in the intention and of the applicant and what's been expressed here. So I think with that, as I said, an approval with the acknowledgement of changing sill heights to three feet on the right and left side the change of turf to grass and then the addition of screening on the right and rear within whatever is approved by the city arborist were the three the three things that i had noted um what else yes yeah thank you through the chair if i think the applicant also offered to do to increase the fence height to seven feet with the top foot being lattice Was that in the plans? Was there a fence mentioned in the plans? Isn't it? Okay. Great. So that represents a change. Okay. Seven foot fence. All right. So that means there's four things that are changed or modifications to what was submitted.

Commissioner Cillian.

Thanks. I did want to talk about the tree, tree number seven, the oak tree. Before I proceed, I just want to double check. You would like to remove that tree, is that correct?

Yes, sir.

I would love to remove it. So yeah, I literally a week ago removed a tree in kind of a similar position next to my house. And what happened was I don't know exactly how this came to be. My guess is my house and the one next to it were developed at the same time in the early 90s. And there was an oak between the two houses, roughly, let's say. So our houses are both like four feet from the fence line. mine and my neighbor's, eight feet between the two houses, and then there's a giant oak basically splitting the fence. And as of last week, it was, let's say, 33 inches in diameter. This one's 30. And so what happened was, perhaps at the time when these were built, it wasn't a huge issue, but... As it gets older, it grows bigger and bigger, and it got to the point where it started hitting our roof, our gutter, on windy days in the wintertime. We also had to switch home insurance because a lot of home insurances now won't take houses with tree branches over the roof. When we got dropped by an insurance carrier, I tried calling a bunch. This was right after the Palisades fire, so there's other things. But pretty much every insurance broker I spoke to, except the one we ended up going with, said, if there's branches of the roof, we can't do it. And then also the... what ultimately caused us to remove it. Cause I, I still kind of wanted to keep it. I like the shade. I like the trees, you know, I moved to Menlo park because I like big trees, but then the tree started having health issues because, and what we found and we had Narbis come and investigate it is basically between the two homes, there's very little sunlight getting through tall tree trees. two-story homes. So the roots of the trees started to rot because of moisture. So long story short, I think we try our best in Menlo Park to have a nice canopy and we try to protect our trees. But my experience has been that having trees really close to homes while with good intentions can really backfire in the long run and cause a lot of problems. um so even if right now i i would trust that mr rosuli would do his best to like work around the tree and do the excavation we could maybe even keep it i think in the long run you can't have a tree that big that close to a property and have it survive for for decades i think we would just end up removing that tree five years from now, 10 years from now, whatever, it sounds like both the neighbors that submitted a comment and the developer would like to remove the tree and replace it with screening so there would still be greenery there. It wouldn't just be kind of bare nothingness. So I would definitely be in favor of approving the removal of the tree. Okay.

Through the chair, so the approval would need to come from the city arborist, and the city arborist has denied the removal.

So there's nothing we can do about it is what you're saying?

Yeah, it's not in the planning commission's discretion. So the arborist report with all the protection measures would need to be followed to retain the tree property.

So we could not make it a condition of approval to remove the tree because it goes against the arborist. Yeah. I wish I'd known that before I went on a long speech. Thank you.

It was a good story, though. Like bedtime story.

I like what you had to say.

Yeah.

Commissioner Schindler. Sorry. I do acknowledge the tension in sort of the decision making that. that staff does, that the commission does, and that is part of the entire process. I do want to just say that the reason we have professional arborists to make these decisions is that they make them over dozens, if not hundreds, of data points and research. And I appreciate that each of us has had our own unique and powerful experiences, whether it's with trees or development or um our neighbors but um my starting point for these is that my opinion while interesting is irrelevant um so i i i'm gonna have to even if we had the ability to over to to remove approve removal of the tree i wouldn't because i would want to depend on the expertise of of city staff that's hired to do so um i'm going to let commissioner headley follow up on that

I think there was one additional condition we might consider, and that is regarding the frosted windows in the master bathroom. I guess it wasn't listed when you listed your list.

I cannot recall whether it is explicitly included in the plans.

It's not in the plans, but I was going to do it regardless because nobody's going to walk in and look at a bathtub with a combo shower and be open to the elements. So that's something that I was already planning on doing. But if you would like to include it as part of the condition, I'm perfectly fine with that.

Great. Thank you.

Okay, so it looks like we're coming close to a motion. I'm still a little confused about the latitude that we really have around the GRAS and the WELA ordinance. Can you re-specify what you had suggested that we include? I think you had some wording.

I can try, but let me just bounce it against staff here first. What I am thinking about is how to acknowledge changes to what are the submitted plans and the details in the staff report, things that have been discussed here. Do we need to do that explicitly as part of our approval of the use permit? Do we need to? And then the second part is, may we? And how do you suggest we do that if it's permissible?

Yeah, so changes should be part of the any conditions of approval. For the grass, the condition could just be the applicant may submit plans showing grass instead of turf, artificial turf. Or it could be more explicit to say the applicant shall work with planning and public work staff to minimize artificial turf or or something similar.

I want to check the temperature of other people on the dais who haven't spoken yet on the turf issue. Yeah, go for it.

I would be in favor of ensuring it's not astroturf. And it sounds like the applicant was very much open to that. And I'm fine supporting Menlo Park's waterwise landscaping guidance and or sod slash grass. It's a 5,000 square foot lot. We're not talking about acres and acres of grass.

Is everybody else on the same page there? Okay. All right. Commissioner Schindler, are you prepared to make a motion?

I'm going to try. Okay. So I would like to move to approve the use permit as recommended by staff with the following modifications, conditional on the following modifications to what's already in there. The first is that the window sills on the right and left side would be three feet and The second would be that the applicant would work with public works to find a natural yard solution that conforms with water. What's the name of the work? Waterwise policy. Three would be that the applicant would collaborates with the city arborist to find screening solutions for the right and rear sides of the property. Fourth was acknowledgement that the fence heights would be seven feet. And fifth would be that the windows over the bathtub in the primary bathroom would be frosted. Does that reflect what commissioners recollect.

OK. All right, we have a motion on the table. Do I have a second? Commissioner Headley? Second Commissioner Headley? Okay. So let me just make sure that we have this motion correct. So we are recommending approval of the motion in the staff report with the following additions. Three foot windows on the sides of the property. The applicant will work with Public Works to find a natural yard solution that conforms with Menlo Park's waterwise policy. The applicant will collaborate with the city arborist to find screening solutions for the right and rear sides. The applicant will build seven-foot fences around the property, and the primary bathroom windows will be frosted. All right. If staff have no issues with that, I'll go ahead and call for a vote. Commissioner Farrick? Yes. Commissioner Headley? Yes. Commissioner Schindler? Yes. Commissioner Cillian? No.

Yes.

And I, Commissioner Beruzzi, am also a yes. So the motion passes with five yeses, no nos, no abstentions, and two absent. I will go ahead and close the item.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Thank you. And thank you to all who came in and provided public comment. Okay, next on the agenda we'll move to item F3, which is regarding a use permit architectural control major subdivision and below market rate housing agreement for 624 University Drive. The applicant has requested that we actually continue this item, but I want to go ahead and check to see if anybody from the public wanted to make public comment on it before we vote on that. So I was going to ask the clerk, Ms. Roy, if we have anybody who's interested in making public comment on 624 University Drive, which is item F3.

Thank you, Vice Chair. At this time, if any member of the public in the council chamber wishes to speak on this item F3, you can provide me the comment card. Or if you're joining via Zoom, please click on the raised hand icon. Or if you are calling in, you can press star 9 on your keypad, and we will be notified of your desire to speak. This will be the final call for the public comment for item F3. At this moment, I do have one raised hand, and I can allow him to talk. So our first speaker is JobSec. Job, allow me a moment to set up your timer and I'll give you permission to talk.

Hi there. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Great. Thank you for taking comments on this. I was actually going to ask for a continuation based on the public notice. I'm not sure how you can fit the number of units onto just 624. I believe 624 and 632 were sold concurrently in 2024. And at that time there were at least eight residents in the eight units that are there. And if this project is to go forward, I'm not sure how six units translates into improving housing. or as the commission stated their intent in 2023, to mitigate or reduce displacement. So I would certainly welcome comments on this, but yes, I'd be very happy if this was continued on to another day. Is it correct that this is listed as an office building now? That's a general question to anybody on the panel.

I'm sorry, because of the nature of public comment, we can't actually respond to that until we've closed public comment, and then we can ask the staff.

Fair enough. So that is my question, is if this is converted to office buildings in the last two years, I'm a neighbor, and then at least eight residents have been displaced as a result. And I'd be curious to know whether or not that was done and if the buildings were rezoned. And if this applies to only 624 and if it also applies to 632. Yeah, that's about it. Thank you very much. My name is actually Peter Lenhardt. What you're seeing here is my nickname in my job for Burning Man. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Peter.

All right. At this time, we'll go ahead and close public comment. And staff, would it be appropriate to answer that quick question from the public commenter about the nature of the proposal before we ask for a motion to continue the item?

Yeah, that would be fine. So the proposal is... The site hasn't been rezoned. It would be to demolish four existing dwelling units and construct six dwelling units. And I believe it's all in 624 University.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification, staff. At this time, I'm going to ask for a motion from the commission to continue this item to wait. Hold on. Where are we continuing it to?

Through the chair, we'll re-notice the project. There's no specific date right now.

Okay. All right. So I will ask for a motion to continue this item.

I'll move to continue this item.

Do we have a second? All right. A second from Commissioner Headley. So we have a motion to continue the item from Commissioner Farrick, a second from Commissioner Headley. All in favor? Actually, I'll take a roll call. Commissioner Farrick? Yes. Commissioner Headley? Yes. Commissioner Schindler? Yes. Commissioner Cillian? Yes. And I, Commissioner Bruzee, am also a yes. So that's five yeses, zero noes, zero abstentions, and two absent in favor of continuing this item. Okay. With that, I will go ahead and close this item. And we will move on to G1, informational items. Ms. Sandmeier, does staff have any informational items they'd like to share?

Yes. So the next meeting will be July 13th in three weeks. And so we don't have the agenda finalized. One item we're looking at is the annual review of the development agreement for 1300 El Camino Real, the spring line project. And then for other projects, we will finalize the agenda later this week.

Thank you any questions on those items from Commissioners know to any Commissioners want to bring up any informational items. In that case, I will adjourn the meeting at 843pm. Thank you so much.