|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The day after the Menlo Park Fire Protection District agreed to go back to the drawing board with plans for expanding its Chilco Street fire station, district Chief Harold Schapelhouman readily admitted mistakes had been made.
“We were process-driven instead of being people-driven,” he said of what led to more than 50 residents of the Belle Haven neighborhood showing up at a March 21 fire board meeting to protest the plans.
The residents were especially angry that the district had notified a neighborhood family that the Terminal Avenue home they had spent the last 10 years building was being considered for acquisition.
The fire chief said the district’s actions were done in “the legal way you have to do things,” but added that the district may have been remiss in “the people part.”
Chief Schapelhouman and other district officials said, however, that although they have abandoned the plan to acquire two Terminal Avenue properties, they are still considering acquiring a residential property on Chilco Street and the land they are currently leasing from the city of Menlo Park. The chief said the district’s board has not ruled out using eminent domain to acquire both properties.
On March 14 board President Peter Carpenter, in an email to the chief and the district’s legal counsel, suggested sending Menlo Park a “Notice of Decision to Appraise,” the first step in acquiring a property, whether by eminent domain or a mutual sales agreement.
Chief Schapelhouman admitted that no one from the district had visited the Terminal properties in person. They used Google Earth “to look at all the properties and how and where they intersected the station property,” he said. “Obviously, that only gives you one perspective and it doesn’t tell the human side of how this family is beloved in the neighborhood and has spent years remodeling their own home,” he said after the meeting.
“Those are people who live in those homes,” he said.
Mr. Carpenter said he had been asked who was responsible for the plan resulting in the public outcry “who’s the evil person here, who should be fired?”
“The letters regarding Eminent Domain were sent in error because the responsibility for doing so was unwisely delegated to an outside individual,” he said in a statement. “As Board President I accept full responsibility for that inappropriate delegation of authority and for the subsequent letters.”
The letters were signed by Chief Schapelhouman, but were sent by the firm hired to do the appraisals, J Kaeuper & Company, San Francisco commercial real estate appraisers.
Mr. Carpenter said the district was following laws governing public acquisition of property.
Fire district legal counsel Lauren Quint said the district had to comply with California’s Environmental Quality Act before attempting to acquire a property. The laws controlling property acquisition require an appraisal as the first step, Ms. Quint said, which is why the notices of intent to appraise were the first contacts with the property owner.
Chief Schapelhouman said the district has so far spent $97,000 on the Chilco fire station project: $29,000 for the architect, $58,000 on the environmental documents and $10,000 to the appraiser.
He estimated it would cost between $5,000 and $10,000 to change wording on the environmental document.
Some fire board members want to consider leaving the Chilco Street station, which is only 22 years old, as is and building another station in the industrial area of Menlo Park where most of the new development is taking place. If the district does rebuild the Chilco Street station, it will require extensive approvals from the city.
A memo prepared for the City Council’s March 28 meeting says that if the fire district acquires a residential property, it must then apply to amend the city’s general plan and rezone the lot from residential to public facility. “These are legislative acts that require a significant public process, including noticed public hearings and a recommendation by the Planning Commission prior to any decision by the City Council,” the memo from the city attorney said.
The original project would also require a conditional use permit, architectural review, a lot merger and heritage tree removal permit.
“There is no certainty that the project as conceived by the Fire District will be approved by the City,” the report says.
See the Almanac’s earlier story on the March 21 meeting.
-
The Menlo Park Fire Protection District says it still wants to acquire the residential property on the left to expand its Chilco Street fire station in Menlo Park. (Photo by Michelle Le/The Almanac) -
This aerial photo shows the two properties the district was considering acquiring on Terminal Avenue, and the routes its vehicles would use to access a newly expanded fire station. The district said it will no longer consider acquiring the Terminal Avenue properties. (Courtesy Menlo Park Fire Protection District.)
There is something wrong a law that requires an environmental review but doesn’t count the people who live in a place as part of the environment.
“On March 14 board President Peter Carpenter, in an email to the chief and the district’s legal counsel, suggested sending Menlo Park a “Notice of Decision to Appraise,” the first step in acquiring a property, whether by eminent domain or a mutual sales agreement.”
I applaud Peter for taking the “eminent domain” route to acquire property from the City of Menlo Park for an MPFD fire station.
A similar action was suggested by the late Dave Collins when he and I were proposing acquisition of some San Francisco Watershed land to create the golf courses promised in a 1969 “Grant of Scenic and Recreation Easement” entered into in exchange for the rerouting of I280. That re-routing added one mile to the daily commute of many peninsula residents. Peninsula residents have never been compensated for the added costs of the re-routing.
Who was responsible? Who signed the letter that went out to residents? Who was accountable? THE CHIEF.
I should have reviewed the letters before they were signed.
My responsibility, my failure – PERIOD.
Perhaps it’s time for some community minded leaders on the Fire District Board?
I applaud Peter’s willingness to take responsibility for this debacle. But the reality is that despite Peter’s lofty title, the “Board President” is a part-time, volunteer position.
The fault lies with the absurdly myopic Fire District brass: the Chief, Deputy Chief, or whoever else on the District’s staff works on capital planning and projects. If the District is even contemplating the use of eminent domain on residential property, the first step is to contact the property owner and explain the process in a transparent, non-confrontational way, i.e. “the Fire District is in the early stages of looking at options for expanding its fire station, and one of those options involves trying to buy your house from you.”
And no, CEQA does not require the District to send out a”Notice of Appraisal” before contacting the property owner in the manner I suggested above.
Government Code section 7267.1(b) provides in pertinent part: “Real property shall be appraised before the initiation of negotiations, and the owner, or the owner’s designated representative, shall be given an opportunity to accompany the appraiser during his or her inspection of the property.” A Notice of Decision to Appraise is the means by which the owner is afforded the opportunity to accompany the appraiser during the property inspection. So, the Notice is the first step in effort to acquire property where the public entity initiates negotiations, “
Seems to me that this Fire Board is making an effort, and succeeding so far, in pissing off every city within their district. They certainly have Atherton taken care of and Belle Haven(though not a city itself) now it looks like they are setting sights on Menlo Park. I wonder who is next…
This is about as good as it gets, Thank You Peter
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
I should have reviewed the letters before they were signed.
My responsibility, my failure – PERIOD.