Logo


Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]


G2 on tonight's agenda (annexation application for W. Menlo Triangle)

From: domainremoved <Neil>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 13:05:26 -0800

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, DO NOT click links, open attachments or reply.

Dear Menlo Park City Council Members -

Thank you for putting the annexation application for W. Menlo Triangle on tonight's agenda. I own properties in both Menlo Park City and Unincorporated Menlo Park (within the triangle), but my voting address is in Unincorporated MP. Here are some of the more important reasons for moving forward with the annexation:

1) Traffic safety - Both Santa Cruz and Alameda (in the annexation area) have County on one side and Menlo Park City policing the other side, so there is no integrated strategy. We’ve been documenting traffic accidents, and there are a lot of them. The 3 areas that are of particular concern are (1) Oakdell / Santa Cruz / Sharon, (2) Sharon / Alameda, and (3) Alameda / Santa Cruz bifurcation. Several years back, I was nearly hit walking across Santa Cruz whilst wheeling a baby stroller. Without coordinated mitigation, it’s only a matter of time before something really serious happens at one of these intersections.

2) It Just Makes Sense - We’re surrounded on 3 sides by Menlo Park City. My address is in Menlo Park even though I’m in an unincorporated area. Menlo Park City makes decisions regarding our schools, our traffic, etc, yet being part of unincorporated Menlo Park, we are not allowed to vote for the decision makers. Just looking at the map you provided in your report makes the case (see attached). In fact, many Menlo Park residents need to pass through this triangle just to get from one side of Menlo Park to the other. If we are burdened by Menlo Park City residents transiting through our area, shouldn’t we be allowed to vote in MP?

Of course it would make a lot of sense to annex other areas too, and I’m very supportive of this. But since this triangle has extra impacts by being sandwiched between 2 parts of Menlo Park, doesn’t it make sense to avoid delay and annex us right away? In fact, this can be a test case for how you might choose to annex other unincorporated areas as well.

3) School Safe Routes - We should ensure that we provide students walking/riding to school (both Menlo Park City and Unincorporated MP) safe routes to/from school. Specifically, many students headed to La Entrada, need to transit the annexation triangle. Currently the roads are in ill repair and the coordination between city and county on traffic safety seems scant.

4) Police coordination - Neighbors have found the sheriff to be less than responsive to responding to calls. It’s silly that we have a great Menlo Park police force nearby but then must wait for the sheriff to respond. Putting us into Menlo Park City would allow the police that are local to actually do the policing in our area.

5) Preserving the Look-and-Feel of the Neighborhood - The country has been very apt to allow for changing the rules to allow subdivision of lots. We’ve lost a lot of trees in the process. We would like for our neighborhood to fit into the general Menlo Park parameters for look-and-feel.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best Regards,
Neil


_____________________________

Neil C. Barman, M.D.
neilbarman_at_(domainremoved)
mobile: +1.650.248.8387
_____________________________


[cid:1D297B48-F059-43ED-8540-E2EDAF4C17F6_at_(domainremoved)
Received on Tue Nov 05 2019 - 12:56:58 PST

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]


Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)