Planning commission continues decision on 21-foot netting at Wunderlich Field to May 27 after strong neighbor push for landscaping

The Atherton Planning Commission continued a decision on a request by Menlo School and Menlo College for a conditional use permit (CUP) and variance to install approximately 330 feet of 21-foot-high sports netting along the Alejandra Avenue frontage of Wunderlich Field.

Assistant planner Lauren French (speaker 5) told commissioners the proposal requires a conditional use permit because school facilities must be evaluated against a campus master plan and that structures for schools are treated with the same development standards that apply to main buildings (including setbacks). The proposal would require a front-yard setback variance and a side-yard variance; staff concluded the findings for both a CUP and a variance could be made based on the field's operational needs and the limited intensity change the netting would cause.

Several nearby residents urged denying the 21-foot netting and proposed planting a 20-foot English laurel hedge as a more attractive alternative. Stephanie Disher (speaker 10) read a written letter and said the netting "fits the definition of a fence" and would be "an aesthetically repulsive 21-foot fence" that would reduce property values; she asked the commission to require a hedgerow instead. David Disher (speaker 14) and other neighbors described the net as visually harmful and argued the school's field redesign and expanded use caused the problem.

Menlo School's operations director, Amrit Shima (speaker 11), said the school's priority is safety: to protect cars, pedestrians, spectators and students from balls leaving the field. She said the school submitted an arborist report and that posts and netting dimensions were chosen to match an existing 21-foot net along the field's service drive; the proposed poles are 4 inches in diameter and the netting would be black to reduce visual impact.

Town planner Britney Bennix (speaker 9) and planning staff described past process gaps: turf work in the past had proceeded under permits that were not routed to planning, and planning has since altered procedures to catch similar work. Commissioners expressed a desire to balance safety and neighborhood aesthetics: several suggested combining netting with outside screening (laurels or other plantings) or asking the school to propose a green-wall option before the commission acts.

After discussion, the commission agreed to continue the item to a date certain (May 27) to allow the school time to work with the town arborist and return with a landscaping/mitigation proposal. A motion to continue to May 27 was moved, seconded, and approved by voice vote (mover and seconder not specified in the record).