Menlo Park council upholds neighbors'appeal, denies plan for 305 Haight after concerns over six variances

The Menlo Park City Council on July 14 voted unanimously to uphold an appeal and deny the Planning Commission's approval of a proposed two'story single'family residence at 305 Haight Street, a substandard corner lot, after neighbors and the appellants argued the project relied on an excessive number of variances and would harm adjacent properties.

The project, approved 5'to'2 by the Planning Commission in May, sought a use permit to establish a floor-area limit on a lot under 5,000 square feet and six variances including reduced interior, corner and rear setbacks, one required off'street parking space instead of two, increased building coverage and a higher daylight plane. Staff had recommended denying the appeal and upholding the commission.

Charlie Bernitzky, speaking for the applicant, told the council the proposal met the required findings and aligned with city housing goals. "This is a rare opportunity to deliver a modest single'family home in a neighborhood short on that housing type," Bernitzky said, asking the council to let the planning commission'approved design proceed.

Appellants and more than a dozen neighbors disputed that view. Navina Ganta, who lives immediately adjacent to the lot, said the proposed two'story structure would be an outsized, blocky wall at the property line and argued the buyer had known the lot''and its constraints''when they purchased it. "We are not opposed to housing," Ganta said. "We are asking for a reasonable plan that does not require six variances and does not take the neighbor's light, privacy and safety."

Other speakers raised several recurring concerns: the removal of a large heritage tree (staff said the previous owner received a tree removal permit and paid in-lieu fees), potential fire and sight-line safety issues created by the reduced setbacks, impacts to daylight and ventilation for adjacent homes, and the precedent of approving many variances for a tiny substandard lot.

Councilmembers questioned the accumulation of variances, how often staff recommends approval in similar circumstances, and whether the project unduly relied on exceptions rather than compatibility with neighborhood character. Councilmember Drew Combs said variance authority should not become the rule: "When you stack them on top of each other, you have a series of clearly negative consequences for neighbors."

Combs moved to uphold the appeal and deny the Planning Commission's approval; Councilmember Cecilia Taylor seconded. The motion passed unanimously. City staff said they would return with a formal resolution memorializing the council's decision.

The council did not rule out housing on the lot. Several councilmembers asked the applicant to return with a revised design that reduces variance requests and better responds to neighborhood impacts.

What happens next: staff will prepare the written resolution reflecting the council's decision. The applicant may choose to redesign and reapply, and any future proposal will be evaluated under the city's zoning and design rules.