LETTERS LETTERS (May 12, 2004)

Menlo Park has a chance to create new design ordinance

Editor:

The recent referendum suspending the residential design zoning ordinance 926 gives every Menlo Park resident and our City Council a priceless opportunity to create a new law that truly serves the best interests of our community as decided by a majority of its residents.

I encourage our elected leaders to create a trustworthy process for achieving this goal. Much is at stake here. To this end, I offer four specific recommendations:

* Our community should commit itself to developing a new, broadly acceptable ordinance and start this process immediately. No legitimate poll has ever shown that a majority of residents supports either the existing or suspended ordinances. Opposition to both is clearly strong and growing, and unacceptable homes will continue to be approved until we have adopted a much better ordinance. It follows that holding a community election in November 2004 to decide the ultimate fate of Ordinance 926 is poor use of Menlo Park's time and money.

* Going forward, our City Council should bear responsibility for ensuring that a majority of residents support all major changes to our regulations and review processes. This can be accomplished only if the process is fair, transparent, and seeks resident participation. Because the stakes are so high, a three-member council majority should not decide what is best for Menlo Park.

* Our City Council should earnestly accept its responsibility to educate itself and our citizens on the facts and possible consequences surrounding all proposed changes to either regulations or review processes. It should create forums where the "facts and consequences" are clearly illustrated and openly debated, and where residents will receive accurate answers to their questions.

* Finally, Menlo Park deserves a residential design ordinance that reasonably balances the property rights of all its citizens and preserves privacy. This ordinance would clearly define what homes are too "massive" for our neighborhoods and ensure that there is a fair and efficient process for reviewing designs that might cross the line of acceptability. The ordinance would also include guidelines that clearly define expectations, and a measurement system that ensures we really know how well it is working. We can then make improvements based on established facts and clear logic.

I believe such an ordinance is "doable" and hope the City Council will rise to the challenge. I also encourage fellow residents to get involved and accept nothing less.

Dana Hendrickson
Ambar Way, Menlo Park

Look at other options for Town Center

Editor:

I am writing in response to a questionnaire recently mailed to all residents of Portola Valley.

The questionnaire is a condensed summary of recommendations "made by citizen ad hoc and advisory committees" regarding the new Town Center project at 765 Portola Road. We are requested to put a check mark next to those facilities and policy matters we feel are most important.

I was surprised to see that the first two items (the town hall and corporation yard) were already checked, thus assuming that I was in agreement with building these new facilities at the current Town Center location.

Most people I know in Portola Valley, including myself, don't want a new commercial Town Center project. We are at a point where we have an opportunity to preserve and improve our open space and recreational facilities that we are so fortunate to have. The Town Center should be a place where residents can gather for the town picnic, play sports, and have facilities for indoor functions.

If we're talking about office space for 10 to 12 employees, Portola Valley has ample vacant office space with parking available now; and we will have considerably more when the projects at Jan's Valley Inn and the Nathhorst Triangle are completed. The town also owns other parcels of land that can be built upon which would have less of an impact on our open space and scenic corridor. Who wants a corporation yard in our scenic corridor?

I suggest that a new questionnaire be mailed to residents without any items checked so that members of the entire community have a chance to express their wishes on all facilities. Rather than using a check-mark system, residents should rate the degree of importance of each item on a scale of 0 to 5. I appreciate all the time people have contributed to the seismic issue at the Town Center. Going forward, let us proceed in a way that accurately reflects the residents' desires.

Clair Jernick
Grove Drive, Portola Valley

Horse riders should accept offer of trail change

Editor: Due to changing times, horses, especially trail horses, are an endangered species in Woodside. And homeowners are increasingly loathe to accept the various types of risk and intrusion that go along with permitting trail-riders on their property, let alone right under their windows.

The Bass project has distinguished itself among large Woodside projects in its consideration for trail-riders. Throughout the restoration of the house and associated construction and landscaping, it has been very clear that the crews had firm instructions to be careful when horses were approaching.

In my experience, without exception, noisy machines were turned off, trucks large and small were stopped, and work was halted if there seemed to be any likelihood of frightening a horse. Safe passage was cheerfully given, and we didn't even have to call out or wave our arms.

I feel that by far the better strategy for horse people who want to win and keep allies among non-horse people is to work with, rather than against those who have shown us respect and courtesy. The Basses' desire for more privacy right next to their home is not unreasonable. The new trail is attractive, shady and safe, and it gets us to very nearly the same place as the old one does. The Basses can be counted on to maintain it to a high standard year-round.

We horse people need to choose our battles, now more than ever. For some of us to dig in our heels over this trail will, I fear, only serve to alienate other homeowners over whose property we do or hope someday to ride. Let's stick together as trail-riders and support the relocation of this trail.

Sue Toumanoff
Woodside trailrider since 1976

Editor's Note: The Town Council is scheduled to discuss relocation of the Bass trail May 11 at 7:30 p.m. at Independence Hall.

Diebold voting machines not to be trusted

Editor:

It seems that the Bush method of winning an election is coming soon to California (maybe nationwide) -- that of stealing yet another four years from American lives and jobs.

It is my opinion that Sec. of State Kevin Shelley should be impeached for supporting Diebold's attempt to hijack the election again. Diebold and other paperless voting machines must be banned, and civil and criminal prosecution be instituted against Diebold. I urge people to write letters to editors nationwide, complaining about Diebold's attempt to bushwack us again in 2004.

And if you want to write to Sec. Shelley, good luck in finding an email for him on his Web site -- there is none. Is this another official that just wants to tell us "trust me, I'll let you know what to worry about." Sounds like a Bushism to me.

Donnasue Jacobi
Haight Street, Menlo Park

E-mail a friend a link to this story.