EDITORIAL: A final shot at the zoning ordinance EDITORIAL: A final shot at the zoning ordinance (February 04, 2004)

The prevailing majority of the Menlo Park City Council will know in a few weeks whether its election victory just over a year ago is strong enough to freeze out the effort by opponents of recently approved changes to the zoning ordinance to force its repeal or put it on the November ballot.

Council members Lee Duboc, Mickie Winkler and Nicholas Jellins, who ran as a slate in 2002, made the zoning issue a key part of their campaign. After the election, the three quickly overturned the zoning ordinance changes passed in the waning days of the prior council's term, setting the stage for last year's revamping of the measure, which was passed 3-2 a few weeks ago.

The majority's original plan was to pass a new measure in a few months, leaving few opportunities for consideration by the Planning Commission. After strong objections, the council eased off and gave commission members more time to consider the ordinance. They couldn't agree on a single version, so sent a split opinion to the council.

In the end, it was council member Mickie Winkler who put together the new changes to the ordinance, with some help from Councilman Chuck Kinney. But Mr. Kinney voted against the final version, and strongly recommended that the city adopt a design review package along with the new rules. That request lost on a 3-2 vote, and although some cosmetic changes were adopted based on opponents' ideas, the majority of Ms. Winkler's work remains in the ordinance.

One concession made by Ms. Winkler and her colleagues -- to appoint a committee to review performance of the new ordinance after six months -- earned the support of the Almanac in late December. But that promise was not enough to change the minds of the opponents.

Now, the petitioners, led by Planning Commissioner Kelly Fergusson, have just eight days, until February 12, to gather 1,700 valid signatures from residents who want to see the changes to the ordinance repealed. If enough signatures are submitted, the council must rescind the changes or have the voters choose whether they should be repealed.

Neither side spares rhetoric in the debate, with Ms. Fergusson's flier claiming "developers [are] poised to move in, build big as unrestricted development looms," while Ms. Duboc said in an Almanac guest opinion that without the new ordinance "... neighbors who live on 'standard' lots will continue to build the so-called 'monster' homes that so many of us complain about."

Without a CBS or Gallup poll, it is difficult to determine whether more than a few of the city's residents have an interest in the arcane world of planning and zoning ordinances. Another challenge for the petitioners is making sure the signatures they gather are from registered Menlo Park voters. To be safe, petitioners should aim for collecting 2,500 rather than 1,700, city officials advise.

Petitioners may be encouraged by the history of referendum efforts in Menlo Park. In 1998, the City Council passed an ordinance banning gas-powered leaf blowers. The ensuing uproar from gardeners and their supporters sparked a referendum that easily overturned the ban. And in December 1987, a council plan to zone a portion of St. Patrick's Seminary on Middlefield Road to permit senior housing was overturned in another hotly contested referendum.

The current case arose after the City Council majority appeared to have little interest in meeting the other side halfway in the zoning ordinance battle. Once the adopted changes to the ordinance take effect, the only way they can be rescinded is through the initiative process, a much more difficult path than the referendum. For anyone who believes that the zoning law changes need a more thorough airing, the referendum may be the last chance to ensure such a process.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.