May 26, 2004

Back to the Table of Contents Page

Back to The Almanac Home Page

Classifieds

Publication Date: Wednesday, May 26, 2004

Unlikely trio seeks compromise on Menlo home-building rules

By Rebecca Wallace
Almanac Staff Writer

Three major players in Menlo Park -- prominent developer David Bohannon, former mayor Steve Schmidt, and longtime architect Sam Sinnott -- have formed an unlikely alliance to lobby the City Council to scrap controversial new home-building rules.

In the increasingly polarized and sometimes nasty world of Menlo Park politics, the three say they hope to tone down the rhetoric on this issue. They're planning to come before the council on May 25 to ask its members not to put the rules on the ballot this November.

Such a contest could set a negative tone for the fall council race, they say. So they're urging the council to convene a new task force to come up with a compromise plan for home-building rules.

Because a referendum petition against the rules was successful, the council must either rescind the rules or have the voters choose whether to repeal them. The council is scheduled to make that decision on May 25.

Two council members say they plan to vote to rescind, and two say they want the matter on the ballot. The fifth council member, Nicholas Jellins, says he's still undecided.

On this issue, heels are dug in so firmly on both sides that a compromise seems improbable. But having Mr. Bohannon, Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Sinnott join forces is also unusual.

Mr. Sinnott, who served on a citizen task force a few years ago to recommend changes to the zoning ordinance, has supported the new rules and in February joined Mayor Lee Duboc and Mr. Jellins at a press conference defending them.

On the other hand, Mr. Schmidt has been a vocal critic of the rules and of the council members who voted for them, Ms. Duboc, Mr. Jellins and Mickie Winkler.

Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Bohannon also ended up on opposite sides when Mr. Schmidt was on the council, during a controversy over proposed changes to zoning laws in the industrial area on the east side of town.

But the three agreed that it was worth setting aside past disagreements to dispel the tempest howling around the zoning ordinance, Mr. Sinnott said.

"I don't think we're that far apart on the actual nuts and bolts of it, but for some reason it's getting blown out of proportion. We could hit a new high -- or low -- in mud-slinging, hit pieces," he said. "We want to appeal to the council to take the high ground and include everybody."

Though he had wavered between supporting rescinding the rules and putting them on the ballot, Mr. Schmidt said he finally concluded that repealing the rules could be more effective at turning down "the political noise level" in Menlo Park.

The three don't plan to make specific recommendations about changing the rules; they say that's best done through a task force of residents. But Mr. Sinnott and Mr. Schmidt do agree on a few possible changes.

The council-approved amendments to the zoning ordinance would create a rules-based framework for approving new homes and major remodels that would remove much of the human discretion and Planning Commission time. Supporters say the changes would make the process more fair and easier to navigate, while detractors worry the changes could lead to more outsized housing.

Both Mr. Sinnott and Mr. Schmidt agree that the rules should include protections for neighbors who want to use solar panels on their homes and could have the sunlight blocked by a new home or remodel. Solar panels are more commonly used today in buildings, partly because the cost of electricity has gone up, Mr. Sinnott said.

In addition, both also want to make it easier for neighborhoods to craft their own zoning regulations. The current plan includes provisions for a "zoning overlay," in which neighborhoods could have tailored development rules, such as setbacks. It does not, however, allow the neighborhoods to individually change the approval process.

Mr. Sinnott and Mr. Schmidt say such a provision would make sense. Perhaps, for example, a neighborhood might want a stricter process requiring home-builders to notify other residents of their plans, Mr. Schmidt said.

Mr. Bohannon said he preferred not to comment on the specifics of the rules, saying that the major concern right now is whether to rescind them.

"The ballot would deepen what already seems to be a lot of divisiveness," he said.

Such a lobbying effort could certainly heighten the profiles of the three men in an election year, but Mr. Sinnott and Mr. Bohannon say they have no intention of running for the City Council.

Mr. Schmidt said he might consider running again, depending on who else is in the race. Councilman Paul Collacchi has said he will not run again and Councilman Chuck Kinney says he's undecided.

Planning Commissioner Kelly Fergusson, who led the petition drive against the new rules, declared her candidacy last week. She also supports rescinding the rules and creating a compromise.

While Ms. Fergusson is not working with the three men on their lobbying effort, she said, "There may be good to come out of it."

What's next?

The fate of the home-building rules has been before the council several times without resolution.

When the referendum petition was certified earlier this year, the divided council voted to put off the decision of repeal or ballot until June. Ms. Duboc then said that she had talked to enough residents to conclude that most want to be able to vote on the matter, and brought the issue back to the council May 11.

But that night Mr. Jellins left the meeting early, pleading illness, and Ms. Duboc said it seemed likely that the council would therefore have a split vote. Mr. Collacchi and Mr. Kinney have supported rescinding the rules, while Ms. Duboc and Ms. Winkler have supprted putting them on the ballot. So the matter was rescheduled for May 25.

Despite this new lobbying effort, Ms. Duboc and Ms. Winkler both told the Almanac that they're still set on voting to put the rules on the ballot.

Ms. Duboc said she'd talked to many residents and thinks that most people want a chance to vote on the rules. She also voiced concern that creating a new task force would cost staff time and money, neither of which is bountiful in the current budget slump.

"I really think this is a good ordinance. If I could see that spending a lot more time and city money could get us to a better place I'd be for it, but I don't see it," she said.

Both Ms. Duboc and Ms. Winkler also pointed out that the city has created a watchdog committee that would keep an eye on the rules for the first six months if they took effect. The group, which would include a planning commissioner, a city council member and an architect, would immediately alert the council of any problems.

For example, if residents think that it's too difficult to set up a neighborhood overlay, with too high a percentage of votes being required, the committee could take up that issue, Ms. Duboc said.

As for whether putting the matter on the ballot could create more negativity in town, Ms. Winkler said she didn't think it would make a difference.

"I think the issue will be discussed during the (council) election, whether it's rescinded or not," she said.

Mr. Jellins said he hadn't yet decided how he'd vote on the rules because he wanted to first hear all the residents who will speak before the council.

"Like a juror, we're asked not to make up our minds before we have all the evidence," he said.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.