Council puts off vote on home-building rules Council puts off vote on home-building rules (March 10, 2004)

By Rebecca Wallace
Almanac Staff Writer

Menlo Park residents itching to know whether a new set of home-building rules will be overturned by the City Council or sent to the voters for approval will have to wait a little longer.

The council opted last week to hold off until June on making the decision that is required because of a successful referendum petition. Several council members said they were seeking more time to meet with residents and have city staff prepare clearer information on the dense residential zoning regulations to help educate people.

Councilwoman Mickie Winkler, who made the motion to table the matter, said the move would allow her to make a more informed decision about what residents want.

"I get lots of calls and have been meeting with people forever on this," she said after the March 2 meeting, in which 27 members of the public spoke for or against the plan. "I want to make sure their opposition to the ordinance is based on fact."

The proposal's supporters and critics have repeatedly accused the other side of spreading misinformation.

The new rules, to which the council gave final approval earlier this year with a 3-2 vote, have been put on hold by a referendum petition that included the signatures of more than 2,500 Menlo Park voters. With the petition certified, state law requires the council to either rescind the plan or have the voters decide whether to do so, in a special election or in the next scheduled contest in November.

By tabling the matter until June, the council removed the possibility for a special election, which would have had to take place within 88 days of March 2. Ms. Winkler voiced concern about the cost of a special election, which could reach $52,000.

Officials estimate putting the matter on the November ballot could cost the city $22,000.

Councilman Paul Collacchi abstained from the March 2 vote, saying his colleagues on the council had never allowed him to fully participate in the talks on the new rules, which he opposes.

"I'm glad that each of you was given three minutes to speak, but I was not," he said, addressing the public.

Mr. Collacchi has spoken against the council's current practice of centering its discussion on a specific motion. He says it keeps council members from being allowed to talk about dissenting views.

Kelly Fergusson, a planning commissioner who led the petition drive, said after the meeting that she was frustrated by the council's inaction. She would like the council to rescind the proposal and create a compromise plan.

She said she was concerned that the delay would give "special interests" time to spend money on the campaign in favor of the proposal on such things as telephone surveys. With the matter not yet officially placed on the ballot, she said she feared money could be spent without having to be reported to elections officials.

While a literal reading of the state's Elections Code indicates that a city council must act at the first scheduled council meeting after a referendum petition is certified, many cities do not, City Attorney Bill McClure said. City officials generally deem that a brief delay is all right, so long as the council makes a decision before the cut-off date to place the matter on the next regular ballot, he said.

In this case, the cut-off date would be 88 days before the November 2 election.

The proposal at hand would create a rules-based framework for the approval process for new homes and major remodels. It has been both praised as a means of adding fairness and clarity to the process, and pilloried for opening the door to more oversized homes.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.