Residents asked to join Menlo Park 10 years ago — why doesn’t the city want them?

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Ten years ago, residents in an unincorporated exclave of Menlo Park petitioned to become part of the city. They paid fees, submitted an application and canvassed their neighbors. Today they’re no closer to annexation than when they started.

“It feels like Groundhog Day,” said Greg Faris, a resident of unincorporated Menlo Park since 1995. 

In early 2015, residents of the 14-acre west Menlo Park triangle began meeting regularly with city officials to pursue joining Menlo Park. According to a survey conducted by residents then, only one neighbor opposed annexation; the rest either supported it, were indifferent or unavailable. 

Residents are eager to join Menlo Park due to ongoing safety concerns in the so-called “pocket of neglect,” an area along Santa Cruz Avenue that residents feel is unsafe. 

As a group of triangle residents walked along Santa Cruz recently, they all could remember an accident or near miss. “I was walking on the crosswalk with a stroller and even though this car stopped for me, the car behind them rear ended them,” said west Menlo Park resident Neil Barman. 

Shortly after telling that story, the group witnessed a similar near-collision. 

“The problem is this jurisdictional dysfunction. The county doesn’t really take care of us and neither does the city,” said Faris. 

In fact, the boundaries are so confusing, even city officials have mistaken them. When the city lowered the speed limit on Santa Cruz Avenue to 25 mph, city workers mistakenly changed two of the county’s signs, eventually needing to re-install the county’s sign. 

“You are not safe walking on Santa Cruz,” said Regine Schmidt, who has lived in the triangle for 17 years. “When you walk that block, you have to be prepared to jump out of the way and pray for the best.”

Another issue for the triangle is public safety. All unincorporated areas are served by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office instead of the Menlo Park Police Department. “We’ve had a lot of bad experiences with the Sheriff’s Office,” Faris said. “I believe the closest Sheriff’s office is two towns away, in Redwood City. We’d be a lot better off with local law enforcement.”  

“The Sheriff’s Office has deputies assigned to patrol the West Menlo Park area 24/7, 365 days a year. West Menlo Park receives regular patrols, timely responses to calls for service and proactive engagement from our patrol units,” Sheriff’s Office Director of Communications Gretchen Spiker said in a statement when asked about residents’ concerns. 

When asked if that sounded correct, Faris chuckled and responded, “Absolutely not.” He added that, although he did not have many interactions with deputies, he had heard of instances when the Sheriff’s Office either did not respond or took over 90 minutes to respond. 

Accidents are common in the triangle, but reporting them is not. The county used the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System to collect and study accident data, but residents think it records only a fraction of accidents. Upon review of the records from 2014-2018, this news organization identified at least one pedestrian death the system failed to record. 

Unincorporated residents cannot vote in Menlo Park elections, serve on city commissions, or enjoy resident rates at city facilities.

“We are effectively disenfranchised,” said triangle resident Lynne McClure. 

Joining Menlo Park would also mean the city’s Heritage Tree Ordinance and building regulations would apply. 

The city’s concerns

The city has two main concerns with annexation: the amount of staff time to process the annexation and the cost of bringing infrastructure up to code. 

So far, residents have had to pay for most of the staff time spent on the annexation request, but continuing the process would require significantly more work, according to city staff. Various City Council members over the years have said they would not feel comfortable delaying other priorities for annexation. 

There is not a clear reason on why annexation would require so much staff time. Even Menlo Park Mayor Drew Combs has his doubts. 

“I don’t know if it’s an argument that has held much weight with me,” Combs said. “Let’s be clear, we’re not talking about an enormous amount of time and money. I think we pay more to light the Christmas tree than what it would cost to process this application,” he added, clarifying that he supports lighting the Christmas tree. 

Combs is the only current council member to publicly support prioritizing annexation.

Every time annexation has come before council, members have declined to pursue it and cited a major project. In 2015, they cited the housing element. In 2017, they cited a pending lawsuit over the Voting Rights Act. In 2024, they cited the housing element again. 

“The city is never going to have unlimited resources,” Combs said. “We’re not being honest brokers with the residents. We’re stringing them along by saying, ‘it’s just not a priority.’ If we’re saying no, we’re saying no.” 

“It feels like dealing with insurance companies or customer service. They tell you. ‘We’re sorry for the inconvenience,’ but really, they couldn’t care less,” said Schmidt.

The city’s other concern is the cost to make road improvements. 

Cities get 16% of a 1% general property tax in incorporated areas. Residents estimate that the city would have received over $1 million in property tax if it processed annexation when they applied. This news organization was unable to independently verify that figure, however a rough estimate suggests that the true number is more than that. 

City staff reports suggest infrastructure upgrades could cost anywhere from $1.2 million to more than $3.5 million — expenses the city worries it might not recover. 

Since that estimate was made, the county has made improvements to infrastructure on Alameda de las Pulgas and Santa Cruz Avenue including extending sidewalks and raising curbs. In total, the county is estimated to spend between $5.7 million and $6.2 million. Residents have issues with the county’s plans but construction is already underway. Some of those improvements would reduce the amount Menlo Park would need to spend. 

“As a county and as a city, we shouldn’t be looking at our residents as revenue providers. We should be looking at what is the best result for service delivery and quality of life,” said county supervisor and former City Council member Ray Mueller. Mueller has been an ardent supporter of annexation since the beginning.  

If the city continues to look at annexation, residents would need to be prepared to foot a hefty bill unless the City Council grants a fee waiver. Residents have paid over $10,000 in fees to cover the cost of city and county staff reviewing their application. 

“I’m supportive of a fee waiver. It’s just sort of good municipal planning to be supportive of projects like this,” Combs said. 

Uphill battle

Over the years, the residents of the triangle have continued to request the city act on annexation. 

“Ten years ago, a neighbor and I met with the city planner and we were told it should be no problem and in his opinion, a reasonable and doable action,” said triangle resident Sara Shaw Hucko, who signed the initial annexation application.

In 2014 and 2015, after discussing it with city officials, residents submitted an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission, which deals with boundary changes in San Mateo County. But before LAFCo could approve it, the city would need to make a property tax agreement with the county and prezone the area. The application said the city was in the process of prezoning the triangle.  

Combs has been told that this may be the longest LAFCo application process in county history, and suspects it may be one of the longest in the state. 

Throughout 2015 and 2016, city officials and residents met with county staff multiple times to work on annexation. The results of those discussions were never included in staff reports. 

Residents’ first major win was in 2016 when the city added implementing an annexation process to its priorities. In October 2017, the City Council held a study session on annexation of the triangle, saying it would consider annexation when developing the work plan. 

In 2018, the City Council decided to add annexation to the work plan. The discussions during that decision are not available on the city’s archive. The City Council also created a subcommittee to negotiate annexation with the county. The subcommittee never reported back to the full council, citing staff vacancies.

In 2019, the city restarted discussions with the county. City staff was making progress and residents thought that annexation would finally happen. The last mention of annexation in city agendas from that time was: “Staff will report out to City Council early in 2020 regarding next steps.” COVID seemed to derail the momentum. 

In 2024, the council brought it up again and decided not to prioritize it. 

‘Double standard’

Other annexations have been processed much quicker. When Stanford wanted to annex a portion of land for a development, it was completed in a few months. The week after the council approved Stanford’s annexation, in October 2017, the City Council decided that staff did not have resources to work on annexation and encouraged residents to bring it up at the goal-setting meeting, where they declined to prioritize it.  

“It is a double standard that we can have a discussion about annexing Stanford land without it being in the council goal-setting, without it being in the work plan but when residents want to join the city over quality of life issues, we have all sorts of discussions on whether it fits in the work plan, whether there’s money to pay for it,” then City Council member Mueller said in 2017. He was the sole vote against the Stanford annexation. 

At the time, Mueller’s fellow council members pointed out that the Stanford annexation was easier because there were no residents. He maintained that the city still treated triangle residents differently. 

Moving forward 

Mueller and Combs said they will continue to support annexation as long as the residents want it. LAFCo staff are ready to process the application when the city agrees to prezone the area. 

In 2017, Mueller brought up looking at more unincorporated areas to see if residents support annexation. Combs, who wrote his undergraduate thesis on municipal annexation, said he supports a broader review of annexing unincorporated areas, as long as residents support it.

For the triangle, it looks like residents will need to wait for a new City Council, or convince two other members to support it. Since they can not vote in council elections, it may be hard to get the support, Mueller said. Getting Menlo Park residents on board may help move the needle, he added. 

“I have a lot of respect for the triangle residents; they have been persistent and stayed active a lot longer than I would have ever imagined,” Combs said. 

Editor’s Note:  If you live in unincorporated Menlo Park, including Menlo Oaks, email reporter Arden Margulis at amargulis@almanacnews.com with your thoughts on annexation. 

Most Popular

YouTube 'auditor' provoked, pepper-sprayed shopper at Mountain View Costco, police sayApril 8, 2026 12:23 pm

California’s largest and most polluted lake gets a new conservancyApril 10, 2026 4:55 pm

Police make arrest after man seen with gun at Menlo Park public poolApril 9, 2026 10:57 am