LETTERS LETTERS (March 09, 2005)

Commissioner shares thoughts on zoning case

Editor:

I wanted to share some of my reflections on the 30 La Loma variance case that has been swirling around Menlo Park recently.

This was one of the more contentious but at the same time very clear-cut variances that I've looked at in my 10 years on the planning commission. This was a case where, because of the triangular lot, building options were limited to a second floor, and almost any solution would create an impact on a neighbor.

Many solutions were explored, and the project was delayed months as the application was continued to a second meeting before the planning commission took its final vote to deny the project. On appeal, the city council did grant the variance, while requiring landscape screening, adjusted window placement and permanent window louvers to mitigate privacy concerns.

What distresses me is that so many neighbors hopped on the negative bandwagon. The Morrills, the neighbors most impacted, have a concern that they will be able to see this new addition, and it was important to make the screening mitigations required by the council. The Jaynes, who have joined the Morrills in a lawsuit against the city for this decision and who already have their own second story, are far less impacted.

Many others who signed a petition against the Carlsens live down the street or blocks away. That's when my red flag goes up, that rationality has given way to the spirit of a battle. Projects such as the Carlsen's, with similar or even more significant neighbor impacts, have gone up all over town as standard building projects, or with use permits and variances.

What's different in each project is the amount of neighbor fear and complaint. Whether or not a property owner has a right to development cannot and should not be dependent on the level of neighbor sensitivity. A project should not be approved or denied based on the presence or absence of neighbor complaints. It must stand on its own merits.

Lorie Sinnott, Planning Commissioner, Menlo Park

No Child takes passion out of teaching, learning Editor:

The manifestations of President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act in the Sequoia High School District provide superb learning opportunities.

The new policies teach how federal attempts to control high school education put distance between passionate teachers and their students and water down classroom content. No Child Left Behind also creates opportunities for applied education: How can we, as students and teachers who are more inclined to read good books and have meaningful class discussions if we must go through exercises in a government sanctioned textbook? How can we follow our own course while avoiding consequences from the government and community members who have forgotten what it's like to be in high school?

David Boyce's February 23 article already raised most of the salient reasons why No Child Left Behind policies strain public school teachers and students. As a former Woodside High student, I can speak to the passion and talent of many of my teachers there.

Some of the best classroom moments of my entire career as a student -- including college -- were engaging dialogues that English teacher David Reilly and others stirred up during class. Class felt relevant because Mr. Reilly and his colleagues gave students ample freedoms to read the books they wanted to read as well as draw on their personal experiences to make discussions lively.

These freedoms are threatened with policies such as No Child Left Behind that impose overarching federal standards on what can be taught and how.

I am confident that Woodside teachers will refuse to drop their own teaching styles to conform wholesale to No Child Left Behind. Support them.

Andrew Prober, Oberlin College 2007

Council members

Editor:

When we read (Letters, Feb. 23) that council members Mickie Winkler and Lee Duboc went into the Morrills' backyard prior to voting on a zoning variance without knocking or asking permission (we called the Morrills and they said they were home and were stunned that no one rang the doorbell or received permission to enter), we think of council members out of control; they are either lying about going into the backyard or they were trespassing.

Either way, it's outrageous and completely unacceptable. How many other backyards have they been into? Did they go into the involved adjacent backyard without permission? Are we safe from unannounced government intrusion into our own private spaces if we go before the council with a problem?

Sounds like the KGB fell apart in the Soviet Union and reformed here in Menlo Park with a council that apparently does not respect American values of privacy.

At least Councilman Nicholas Jellins didn't even make a pretext of visiting the property to evaluate the situation (we were at the council meeting) and familiarize himself with the issues involved. He voted with Ms. Winkler and Ms. Duboc to overturn (3-2) the Planning Commission decision to deny the variance and allow a second story addition that encroaches almost half way into the legal setback.

When we can't trust City Council members to adhere to common decency and the law and knock first or seek permission before entering our backyards, it is time for a change.

The next election for City Council cannot come soon enough.

Dr. Tom and Stephanie Buch, Deanna Drive, Menlo Park

Time to voluntarily observe Kyoto treaty

Editor:

Three weeks ago, the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming went into effect, marking the first time the world (with the notable exception of the U.S.) united to address the greatest natural disaster since the last glacial period.

The treaty reduces global emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases that trap the sun's heat, melting the glaciers and flooding coastal cities throughout the world. A recent report from government scientists confirmed a definite rise in the temperature of ocean waters, the driving force behind global climate changes.

Despite our administration's boycott of the treaty, each of us should do our share to minimize emissions of these gases by limiting the use of fossil fuels in our cars, our homes, and our diets.

Yes, our diets. According to Cornell University Professor David Pimentel, production of animal-based foods accounts for eight percent of the national consumption of fossil fuels -- nearly as much as driving our cars. It requires nearly ten times as much fuel as production of plant-based foods.

The additional fuel is used to grow animal feed, to operate factory farms and slaughterhouses, and to process and refrigerate meat/dairy products. We can show our support for the Kyoto Treaty and planetary survival each time we visit our supermarket.

Malcolm Davidson, Encinal Avenue, Menlo Park

E-mail a friend a link to this story.