Menlo Park: Opponents of home-building rules won't quit Menlo Park: Opponents of home-building rules won't quit (December 17, 2003)

** Legal action, a referendum, and a recall are possible, some residents say.

By Rebecca Wallace
Almanac Staff Writer

Most people say a contentious plan to streamline Menlo Park's home-building rules is likely to be approved by the City Council this week. But that doesn't mean the plan's opponents are going down without a fight.

Residents sharply critical of the plan have continued to try to influence the council with e-mails, guest opinions in newspapers, and a recent advertising insert in the Almanac.

Some are also looking ahead to what their options are if and when the new rules are adopted by the council.

Legal action, a referendum and a recall are all possibilities, said Chuck Bernstein, who paid for last week's Almanac insert slamming the plan, along with former council candidate David Speer. But he added that he wasn't pursuing any of the three at this point: "We're just taking it one step at a time."

Opponent Elias Blawie also mentioned those three options, saying, "I think I will see if the groundswell around Menlo Park builds (before pursuing them)."

A majority of the council -- Mickie Winkler, Lee Duboc, and Nicholas Jellins -- in October voted for an earlier incarnation of the plan, including a few concessions for opponents. City staff then incorporated the concessions into a final version of the plan, which the council is expected to vote on after a first reading on December 16.

By law, the council will have to subsequently give the plan a second reading and final vote, but that vote is typically a formality, passed on the council's consent calendar.

Like councilmen Chuck Kinney and Paul Collacchi, who voted against the plan, many residents have voiced concern that the proposal makes it possible to build more oversized houses that could harm the privacy and sunlight of neighbors.

The proposal is a rules-based approach to approving projects, relying less on human discretion than the current regulations. It includes different tiers of measurements: projects meeting the most restrictive standards could be built just with city staff approval, while falling into a looser tier requires approval by contiguous neighbors or the Planning Commission.

Supporters of the plan, which has been most notably championed by Ms. Winkler, say it introduces equity into the approval process and gives people certainty about what they can build. Many of them have also not been shy about making their voices heard.

At the December 9 council meeting, four residents spoke fervently against the anti-proposal advertising insert in the Almanac, including Frank Tucker, who called it "the same old rhetoric." Sue Kayton said such a paid flier "shouldn't be allowed" in the newspaper.

The insert's criticisms of the plan included a statement that it would replace the "standards of development" with "laissez-faire, anything-goes rules," which Ms. Winkler later disputed.

She said the proposal's tiers introduce strict rules on what can and cannot be built, and are equally applied to all kinds of lots. Currently, she said, projects on standard-sized lots -- about half of the city's parcels -- are subject to less regulation because they typically don't have to go through the Planning Commission.

Also at the December 9 meeting, resident Pat White decried an Almanac opinion piece written by Planning Commission chair Patti Fry that opposed the proposal. He said her opposition means she'd be less likely to fairly serve as chair, adding, "Ask for her resignation if you pass the new zoning ordinance."

Ms. Fry said later that she has every right to speak her mind, and added that if the plan passes, "I intend to conduct myself as I always have, which is looking at each individual project with my best judgment and the rules that we have."

Another issue surrounding the plan is whether it requires a full environmental impact report on its potential effects on the city. City staff have prepared only a negative declaration, which states that the effects would likely not be significant.

Some opponents, though, including Mr. Blawie, say the impacts could be severe because the plan could lead to larger homes being built. Without an EIR, the city could be vulnerable to a lawsuit, Mr. Blawie said.

The December 16 council meeting begins at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 801 Laurel St.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.