LETTERS LETTERS (August 17, 2005)

Sand Hill has all the traffic it can handle

Editor:

Stanford has qualms about putting all kinds of traffic-generating uses on its lands.

Sand Hill Road is carrying all of the traffic it can handle, as is El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. Stanford must be held accountable for the traffic they generate.

There is only one logical remedy short of stopping them from doing any more development and that is to find a direct access for their traffic to the Interstate 280 freeway. Campus Drive West could be opened up to a direct connection to Interstate 280 via the Alpine Road interchange.

Yes, it would require that the route be submerged below the golf course in a couple of places, but that is a minor hindrance compared with what their development is doing to the surrounding cities. And it would be better to do that now instead of waiting until Stanford "conveniently" builds a building or two in the way of this route.

Jerral (Jerry) Schwartzman

Mansion Court, Menlo Park

Counter to opinion on zoning changes

Editor:

With all due respect to last week's guest opinion, I would like to express a different one about the recent change to the zoning ordinance.

First, I salute a fact presented clearly and accurately: about one-half of the lots in Menlo Park are standard.

The real inequity has been with the standard, not the sub-standard, lots. Neighbors of standard lots have been, and continue to be, unable to give input about development close to them impacting factors like their privacy, sunlight and the neighborhood's character. At the recent City Council meetings, residents have spoken clearly about the adverse impacts even one-story houses have had.

The winners, if there are any, with the new zoning ordinance are the owners of sub-standard lots. Because of the use permit process, the neighbors of those with sub-standard lots will retain their ability to have early neighborhood input and work amicably together for win-win outcomes. I've seen that process work well in my neighborhood of standard lots.

I've also seen the other side in my neighborhood of standard lots: when concerned neighbors are not able to meaningfully voice their concerns, the entire neighborhood suffers. Ours has not recovered.

Anne Perlman

Cathy Place, Menlo Park

Laughing at no-growth whiners

Editor:

I continue to laugh at the small, vocal cadre of no-growth, anti individual and property rights letter-writers who whine about the change in the single-story housing ordinance in Menlo Park.

Invariably these people live in the "worst house on the block." One vocal opponent even has weeds growing in her rain gutters. It seems to me that these people are promoting a type of censorship as they believe their design concepts are better than the individual homeowners.

I strongly suggest that Kelly Fergusson and Andrew Cohen distance themselves from this constituency. Their resignation from the Menlo Park City Council would certainly accomplish this end.

Pat White

Santa Cruz Avenue, Menlo Park

Cheers for the Jackling house from Connecticut

Editor:

I was encouraged by a recent article in the Almanac quoting a Woodside resident who said he wants to save the 1926 Jackling House, which points to a win/win solution to the Jackling House dilemma.

Richard Pivnicka's offer to relocate the house in Woodside appears to be very positive -- providential even.

I am an active preservationist in my town of West Hartford, CT and have followed the Jackling House case since I first read about it in the New York Times. I was so disturbed over its fate, that I wrote a letter to both the Almanac and a Woodside town council member.

I applaud Mr. Pivnicka for taking on this challenge to save a piece of California's and America's history, with a solution that is good for the community and for the owner who has been looking for the right person to move it and restore it. To Mr. Pivnicka I say you are indeed a righteous and noble man. Thank you from southern New England.

Leann Sherman

West Hartford, CT

>
Letter-passing at the Planning Commission

Editor:

On April 25, the Menlo Park Planning Commission held a public hearing for one-story development on residential lots. During the hearing City Council member Kelly Fergusson argued for discretionary review and handed the commission a letter supporting her position.

The commission then voted that one-story development projects be subject to public hearing appeals. Ms. Fergusson remarked, "You listened to each other; you bounced it back and forth; you thought it through thoroughly."

At the May 9 meeting, the commission noted that the rescinded residential ordinances 915 and 926 allowed for one-story projects without discretionary review. The commission then placed discretionary review on the agenda for the next meeting.

On May 19 Mayor Mickie Winkler's letter supporting removal of discretionary review was placed in the commissioners' packets for the May 23 meeting. Unlike Ms. Fergusson's, Ms. Winkler's letter was part of the public record and allowed commissioners review time prior to the meeting.

At the May 23 meeting, Ms. Fergusson again advocated discretionary review. The commission then unanimously voted to remove the discretionary review requirement. This time Ms. Fergusson said "This kind of interference in the commission's independent decision-making process is unacceptable. These commissioners ignored the public and rubber stamped [Mayor] Winkler's request."

One might infer from Ms. Fergusson's remarks that when commissioners agree with her they are assiduous public servants and when they don't they are stooges. Why can Ms. Fergusson promote her views but when another council member does so to a much lesser extent it constitutes interference? Ms. Fergusson should understand that other council members have the same rights as she.

Hank Lawrence Sharon Oaks Drive, Menlo Park

E-mail a friend a link to this story.