Friday, January 04, 2008

To: Menlo Park City Council (via E-mail)

Re: El Camino visioning

             The El Camino visioning process should lead to the passage of a Specific Plan and is no doubt the most important goal the Council will address in terms of land use and planning in 2008. I agree that a consensus must be reached among the various factions of our community so that a Specific Plan can be approved following the visioning process. Otherwise, this whole effort will produce the same result as previous efforts, such as “Smart Growth” and “City Center Design” – nothing more than some text and pictures lying in the archives of the City.

             The focus of this letter is to advise you that I feel the approval process for forming the oversight committee is deeply flawed and will eventually result in failure for the whole visioning process.

             As presently approved by Council, following the consultant’s advice, the committee is presented as nothing more than a “sounding board,” whose influence on the overall process will be minimal. I do not accept that
premise. The committee will have profound influence on the outcome of the process. The constitution of the committee is of paramount importance.

             As presently approved, only 9 members (one more than a bare majority) of the 16 member committee would necessarily be Menlo Park residents. RIDICULOUS! This is our City -- at least 12 members of the committee, by mandate, should be Menlo Park residents.

             As presently approved, the Chamber of Commerce will appoint 2 members. The Chamber hardly represents the merchants of our
community. Rather, it is controlled by an executive board, of which active members are no more than a hand full, and these board members do not have to be even doing business or be land owners in the City.

             As presently approved, each City commission will appoint one member to represent them on the committee. Why is the Council not choosing who should be on this committee instead of letting Stanford University, the Chamber of Commerce, and each commission decide who shall be a member. The Council should not abrogate its authority, as our elected body, to choose the members of the committee.

             I urge you to re-consider how business and commission representatives on the committee are selected. I strongly recommend that the Chamber and each City commission nominate 2 or 3 members who are willing to serve and our Council select committee members from this pool.

             I hope you will re-consider your previous action and use these suggestions to get the visioning process off to an excellent start.

Sincerely,

Morris Brown
Stone Pine Lane