LETTERS LETTERS (February 23, 2005)

Council erred in approving La Loma remodel

Editor:

The Menlo Park Council granted an appeal that allows a variance for a second story at 30 La Loma that encroaches far into the rear setback -- and looms over our backyard.

The council majority of Nicholas Jellins, Mickie Winkler, and Lee Duboc has been pushing for a rule-based system that severely reduces the need for use permits. This severely reduces neighbor input, and says that the council majority favors neighborhood development over neighborhood concerns.

Their decision to grant a variance with strong neighborhood objection sends the chilling message that neighbor objections do not matter even if zoning ordinances are not followed.

One cannot appreciate how looming and invasive the proposed structure would be unless you stand in our yard. No one from the planning staff would come. However, five of the seven planning commissioners came, as have most of the 45 neighbors who signed letters opposing the variance.

We sent letters to the council asking them to come to our yard. Members Andy Cohen and Kelly Fergusson came, and spoke extensively to the applicants and to the adjacent neighbors (us and the Jaynes).

We sent an e-mail to the three others, followed by phone calls. On the afternoon before the council meeting, Mickie Winkler and Lee Duboc said they had come into our yard that day. I was home when they came, and was stunned that they hadn't rung the doorbell.

What could explain this and Mr. Jellins not coming is that they were already committed to their decision. To see the situation from our yard might cause them to waver in their commitment, and it's harder to vote against us when they've looked us in the eye.

In one last attempt for fairness, we asked about the city ordinance that clearly states that if the council does not take action on the appeal within 75 days after the filing, the planning commission's action shall be deemed affirmed. We were at 78 days. The reply was that the ordinance was there to protect the applicant from delays.

Ms. Duboc inadvertedly suggested that the decision was a foregone conclusion when she said, "this is a good decision" after she made the motion to approve the variance, but before the vote was taken.

Larry and Judi Morrill

Bellair Way, Menlo Park

Hard to explain why variance approved

Editor:

Our rear neighbor at 30 La Loma filed for a variance for a two-story structure that encroaches far into the rear setback. We didn't know until after the variance was filed because the applicant didn't know he needed one, so was going to build without telling us.

In June, the planning commission voted 5-2 to direct the applicants to work with the neighbors on developing changes to the plans. Before the vote, Commissioner Lorie Sinnott asked the applicant, off to the side, if he'd like a denial so that it could be appealed to the council. She had spoken strongly in favor of granting the variance.

We were anxious to discuss compromises and alternatives at the first neighbor meeting in August. It was soon obvious that the applicant would not put the addition anywhere else than over the garage. We've never been able to discuss other alternatives, such as in the middle of the house where a variance is not needed. The only changes were to the nine windows looking into our and/or the Morrills' yard. The applicant said he was confident he would prevail in his variance.

Why was he so confident? Historically, variances are not granted -- by the Planning Commission or by appeals to the City Council -- when neighbors object. "Do no harm" has been the underlying principle.

The council majority believes in adhering to zoning ordinances, and there are options for this addition that do not require a variance. If the applicant had been assured that his variance would be granted, it might help explain why he would not compromise.

In November, the planning commission voted 4-2 (Fergusson absent) to deny the variance. Ms. Sinnott was one of only two commissioners who had not come to our yards, and spoke strongly for the variance.

Councilman Cohen spoke at length with the applicant (who is eloquent, forceful, and persuasive), and was convinced that his appeal should be granted. He then came to talk with us and the Morrills and changed his mind. He felt that, from day one, the applicant was not willing to consider alternatives. We know this to be true.

George and Jane Jaynes

Bellair Way, Menlo Park

Altitude chart was misleading

Editor:

I found the graphic in your article on commercial jets violating altitude guidelines over Portola Valley and Woodside to be alarming.

The graphic at first glance indicates the jets are flying 50 percent lower than the guidelines. That would be alarming. However, with some study the graph shows the average for the period shown is 5 percent lower than the guidelines. I suggest the Almanac use graphics that properly represent the case.

Jerry Secrest Willowbrook Drive, Portola Valley

Happy to see tutoring at the library

Editor:

I was delighted to see the Portola Valley School District and the Town of Portola Valley working together to support the new town center, especially our new community library.

As noted in your article last week, Councilman Steve Toben said, "when the lights go out at Portola Valley schools in the afternoon, the lights go on at the Portola Valley library." As local public school students venture into our library in the afternoon, many go to the library to receive tutoring assistance from Woodside Priory students.

Over the years on a weekly basis, many Priory students have helped these students with their homework, writing assignments and math problems. Again, let's not forget the quiet, unassuming contributions of the Woodside Priory to Portola Valley families. Claudia Mazzetti

Ramona Road, Portola Valley

E-mail a friend a link to this story.