Menlo Park building rules: Delayed yet again Menlo Park building rules: Delayed yet again (May 19, 2004)

** Menlo Park council set to decide May 25 whether to rescind home-building rules or put them on the November ballot.

By Rebecca Wallace
Almanac Staff Writer

Like an errant playground ball, a controversial new set of home-building rules in Menlo Park has been bounced to yet another council meeting.

The City Council was set to vote on the future of the rules May 11, deciding whether to rescind them or have the voters make that choice in November. But Councilman Nicholas Jellins left the meeting early, pleading illness, which probably would have left the divided five-member council stuck with a tie vote.

"I'd like Nicholas to be a part of this," said Mayor Lee Duboc, proposing that the matter be put off again, until May 25. The three remaining council members agreed.

Because a referendum petition against the rules was certified at the end of February, the rules were put on hold and the council had to choose between repeal or ballot. But Ms. Duboc, Mr. Jellins and Councilwoman Mickie Winkler voted to delay that decision until June and take more time to tap the views of residents on the hot issue.

Last month, Ms. Duboc changed her mind and said she was ready to vote May 11 to put the matter on the ballot. She said she decided she had talked to enough residents to conclude that most want to be able to vote on the matter.

The 3-2 council split on the rules has been constant in recent months, with Councilmen Paul Collacchi and Chuck Kinney opposing them and the other three voting in favor. Therefore, it seemed likely that Mr. Collacchi and Mr. Kinney would vote to rescind and Ms. Duboc and Ms. Winkler would vote for the ballot.

Even though Ms. Duboc said early in the May 11 meeting that there was a good chance of a "split vote" that night, the council agreed to hear public comment.

Twelve residents spoke on the home-building rules, with 10 urging the council to immediately rescind them and craft a compromise plan. Several wore buttons opposing the rules, city ordinance No. 926, that stated, "926 is not the fix."

Some said the new rule-based approach would harm the privacy and sunlight of neighbors without human discretion to protect against outsized homes. Others voiced concern about election and campaign costs. City officials say an election could cost about $22,000, with additional staff costs including those of the city attorney, who would prepare an impartial analysis and ballot wording.

Resident Lou Deziel, though, dismissed concerns about costs, saying the voters should be allowed to weigh in. "The cost of voting has been part of democracy for 4,000 years," he said.

Supporters of the rules say it makes the approval process for new homes and major remodels clearer and more fair.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.