|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Former Menlo Park Mayor Kelly Fergusson is suing the city of Menlo Park and her neighbor over an accessory dwelling unit her neighbor received approval to build without a public hearing.
Fergusson alleges that the city failed to hold a hearing on its decision to allow her neighbor’s ADU to be within four feet of the front property line, instead of the 20 feet setback mandated by the city ordinance.
Fergusson’s property is a “flag lot,” meaning her property is situated behind her neighbor’s, but is connected to the main road via her driveway.
Fergusson was recently appointed to the East Palo Alto Sewer District board. That district faces dissolution due to the city’s claim that the district has become a de facto land-use agency by refusing to do maintenance, effectively preventing new developments.
Fergusson’s lawsuit claims she is not against ADUs or new housing but “objects to city short-circuiting and ignoring its own Municipal Code requirements and the previously required process.”
“It’s a shame the city is deferring local decision-making to faceless Sacramento bureaucrats,” said Fergusson.
Ordinarily, the city can allow buildings within the setback if it holds a public hearing. In this case, the city scheduled a hearing and received input from the public but canceled the hearing after City Attorney Nira Doherty determined that Senate Bill 9, which prioritized housing in communities across the state, overrides the city’s setback.
“I am told that the city attorney reached out to the state agency about front yard setbacks rather than following what the zoning ordinance and law said,” said Fergusson’s lawyer Harry Price.
Fergusson’s lawsuit cites Menlo Park municipal code §16.79.050 (b)(2) which states, “Interior and attached ADUs shall comply with the front yard setback applicable to the primary dwelling.”
She also alleges that SB 9 does not prevent the city from maintaining already created front setbacks and only limits side and rear setbacks. SB 9 states, “in all other circumstances … a local agency may require a setback of up to four feet from the side and rear lot lines.”
The lawsuit states, “by purposefully omitting preexisting front yard setbacks, local control remained intact as to that one component of development approval by local government entities — preserving existing front yard setbacks.”
Price said, “The state law shrunk the back and side setbacks. It is all well and good to respect the state law but the legislaton was silent with regards to the front yard setback, with good reason.”
Fergusson alleges that if the city allows the ADU, she would suffer significant damage. “If allowed to be constructed, the ADU … would have a negative impact on the value, use and enjoyment of Fergusson’s residential home.”
Her lawsuit included an assessment by Jackie Copple, a senior marketing strategist at Coldwell Banker Realty, that the ADU would lower the value of Fergusson’s property by $340,000 to $360,000.
It also said that if the ADU is constructed, “[Fergusson] will be hurt and injured in her health, strength and activity, sustaining injury to her nervous systems and person, all of which injuries will continue to cause plaintiff great menial, physical and nervous pain and suffering.”
“Whenever someone builds close to an adjacent property, there is increased noise; there could be increased use of the property which could have negative impact, whether it is noise or children,” Price said. It just increases the likelihood of problems, especially given the unusual shape her property is.”
“My client is most concerned with the increase in noise and lack of privacy,” he added.
Redwood City float celebrates Italian American heritage in Fourth of July paradeJuly 1, 2026 11:02 am