Commissioners debate ADU rules and neighborhood privacy but approve two‑story home at 1015 Henderson

Menlo Park Planning Commission on Dec. 1 approved a use permit for a two‑story replacement residence with an attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 1015 Henderson Avenue after extended discussion about privacy, height and how ADUs are treated under state law.

Associate Planner Matt Pruder told commissioners the project replaces an uninhabited single‑story house and includes a revised easement, parking for four off‑street vehicles and tree‑protection measures described in an arborist report. Architect Ali Fahmy presented plans showing a two‑story main house with an attached second‑story ADU, stepped second‑floor massing and screening proposals for nearby neighbors. Pruder said staff received three public comment letters after publication; two were from nearby residents expressing concerns and one expressed support.

Russell Denber, a nearby resident, told the commission he was generally supportive of the design but asked that the lower halves of rear second‑floor windows be treated to protect privacy, suggesting obscuring film or similar measures. Denber said, “One simple solution is some kind of obscuring film on the lower half of the windows… it would make a major difference.”

Commissioners debated whether the Commission could require changes to the ADU portion of the building. Vice Chair Silverstein and other commissioners and staff clarified that state ADU law limits local conditioning of ADU size and certain features; the commission’s authority, they said, applies to the portions of the main residence that are discretionary. Pruder stated that “the ADU component cannot be modified” by a use‑permit condition where state law guarantees the ADU right, though the Commission may suggest voluntary mitigations or impose requirements on the main‑house elements.

Several commissioners raised concerns about the project’s scale and design. Commissioner Farrick said the structure’s diagonal roof elements and overall height made it appear “out of scale to the street,” while Commissioner Doe asked for clarity about tree removals and encouraged thoughtful species selection for replacement plantings to preserve Menlo Park’s tree canopy. Commissioners noted that the applicant had agreed to plant fast‑growing screening at the property line in response to neighbor concerns and submitted an arborist report describing protections for a nearby heritage tree.

Commissioner Schindler moved to grant the use permit as recommended by staff; the motion was seconded and passed 6–1, with Commissioner Farrick voting no. Chair Andrew Ehrick announced the result: six votes in favor, one opposed. The resolution adopts the staff findings, including CEQA Class 3 (Section 15303) categorical exemption for new construction of small structures. The staff report and plans record the applicant’s commitment to landscape screening and an arborist‑prepared tree protection plan.

The commission’s discussion also flagged broader policy questions the body intends to revisit, including how substandard lots are treated in the zoning code and the upcoming study session on ADU ordinance updates scheduled for Dec. 15. Several commissioners asked staff to track whether R3 separation requirements and other code provisions warrant future review by City Council.

Next step: the approved resolution and any conditions adopted in the staff report will be memorialized in the final action packet available from the City’s Planning Division.