Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Zoning Officer Approves Two‑Lot Split at 32 Bishop Lane in Unincorporated Menlo Park; Arborist Review Noted

July 30, 2025 | San Mateo County, California


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Zoning Officer Approves Two‑Lot Split at 32 Bishop Lane in Unincorporated Menlo Park; Arborist Review Noted
Zoning Hearing Officer Joe LeClaire approved a minor subdivision for 32 Bishop Lane in unincorporated Menlo Park (County file PLN2024‑00275) on July 17, adopting the staff report’s findings and conditions of approval.

Luis Topete, planner with the San Mateo County Planning and Building Division, told the hearing the project would divide a 22,752‑square‑foot parcel into Lot 1 (9,000 square feet) and Lot 2 (13,752 square feet). The parcel is in an urbanized area served by California Water Service Company and West Bay Sanitary District. Topete said the project includes an existing single‑family residence and a shed that will be demolished as part of future development; the site contains 23 trees identified as “significant,” and the county arborist reviewed and found the arborist report sufficient for the subdivision approval.

Topete said no on‑site improvements are required prior to recording the final map and that any future tree removals to accommodate development would require separate tree‑removal permits. He also said staff found the project consistent with the general plan’s Medium Density Residential designation and compliant with the R‑1 zoning and Residential Density District 75 standards. Staff concluded the project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15315 (minor land divisions).

One owner, Kishore Mukada, appeared by Zoom and stated he had reviewed the conditions and would follow up with staff if he had additional questions. County staff summarized one written public comment that raised concerns about ownership of a small adjacent parcel near San Francisco Creek, a prior tree‑removal violation that closed in February 2024, and past approvals the commenter believed affected the creek. Topete said county records show the adjacent triangular creek parcel is owned by the current owners but is not part of this action, that the prior tree removal case was closed after county staff measured the tree at 36 inches circumference (below the threshold asserted by the commenter), and that a biological report for the subdivision found no expected impacts to the creek but included precautionary conditions and survey requirements to protect any listed species if present.

LeClaire approved the subdivision subject to the findings and conditions in Attachment A. He noted that an appeal may be filed in writing to the Planning and Building Department by July 31, 2025, at 5 p.m., accompanied by a $1,962 appeal fee.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep California articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI
Family Portal
Family Portal