Contention, not consensus, at candidates' forum Contention, not consensus, at candidates' forum (October 06, 2004)

** Candidates take shots at council, each other.

By Richard Hine
Almanac Staff Writer

A Menlo Park City Council candidate -- who said his judicial experience prepared him to help people "reach a consensus and, when appropriate, compromise" -- fired off some of the sharpest shots at a candidates' forum last week in the council chambers.

Political newcomer Andrew Cohen, a Stanford-educated lawyer and retired workers' compensation law judge, said the current majority on the City Council is "responsible for all the cuts taking place" -- in the budget and on city commissions. "They are responsible for all the cuts on the Arts Commission and the Planning Commission."

Actually, members of the Arts Commission recently resigned in protest of the council's decision to rewrite an ordinance requiring developers to provide public art. And the council named new members to the Planning Commission after the terms of some current members expired.

Mr. Cohen's shots were aimed at two of his opponents who share views with the council majority: Planning Commissioner Lorie Sinnott and architect Michael Lambert. "We don't need five people out of the same mold on the City Council," he said.

The fourth candidate for the two open seats in the November election -- Planning Commissioner Kelly Fergusson -- is backed by the two "minority" members of the council whose terms expire this year and who are not seeking re-election: Chuck Kinney and Paul Collacchi.

Ms. Sinnott noted that she has a master's degree in clinical psychology, which, she said, "will be put to good use on the City Council."

Monster houses

Mr. Lambert fired shots of his own at the September 29 forum, attended by about 85 people and sponsored by the League of Women Voters and the Menlo Park Chamber of Commerce. He said a recent referendum campaign against a residential zoning ordinance was driven by fears of monster homes "based on misinformation disseminated by a small group, led by Kelly Fergusson."

Ms. Fergusson said she led the referendum fight because the ordinance would "open up Menlo Park to development by unscrupulous outsiders."

The ordinance would have created a "rules-based" system for reviewing home-building plans, reducing the discretion of the city's Planning Commission. "A rules-based system certainly limits our options," said Ms. Fergusson. "Menlo Park is certainly not a one-size-fits-all city."

Traffic, child care

In other issues, Ms. Sinnott says she supports a plan being considered by the city to require a majority of affected neighbors to sign off on a proposal to put devices designed to discourage traffic on city streets. "A barrier pushes traffic onto another street," she said.

One of the most divisive issues raised at the forum -- with questions from the audience read by Margaret Marshall of the League of Women Voters -- dealt with the Measure T recreation bond measure, passed by voters in 2001. Was the city obliged to build a new child-care center because of promises made to voters?

"Democracy calls for keeping promises, and this council broke the promise," said Mr. Cohen.

Ms. Fergusson agreed, saying a new children's center was a "centerpiece" of the Measure T campaign. Instead of building a new center, the city is remodeling the former police headquarters, which, she said, "is infested with lead and asbestos. It serves fewer children at a higher cost per square foot."

Mr. Lambert challenged her statement, saying that the promise was to renovate -- not build a new center -- and the city has fulfilled the promise with respect to the amount of money devoted to the project.

"There is a $3 million to $4 million difference between renovating and building a new center," said Ms. Sinnott. "It's a financial decision. It will serve the same number of kids." As for lead and asbestos, she said she was sure that would be taken care of.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.