Housing on Downtown Parking Lots?

UPDATE: COUNCIL WILL BE REVIEWING DEVELOPER SUBMISSIONS

Save the Date:
April 15th, 6pm - City Council Meeting

Add to Calendar

What has happened?

1. Menlo Park’s Housing Element designated downtown parking lots as potential sites to meet the state-mandated housing allocation.

2. City staff, led by Principal Planner Tom Smith, proposed that Parking Plazas 1, 2, and 3 (the lots north of Santa Cruz Avenue comprising 556 spaces) be used for a minimum of 345 units for low income residents.

3. Typical restrictions relating to density, height, and parking would be waived because it’s affordable housing near the train station. Buildings as tall as 10 stories, with no residential parking spaces legally required.

4. There is no good answer for replacement parking. A multi-level parking structure has been suggested, but there are no plans for funding, location, or timeline. Parking lots are already near capacity, and many people who shop in downtown Menlo do so specifically because they don’t have to deal with parking garages.

5. No studies have been conducted to assess the potential impact on traffic, congestion, and infrastructure.

6. Most residents, businesses, and downtown property owners were unaware of these plans until recently.

7. Increased congestion, less accessible parking, and years of construction could devastate our businesses and the jobs they provide.

8. Alternative locations for affordable housing, such as the Civic Center, were not adequately considered, with the housing element stating that the parking lot housing would be good for “the vibrancy of downtown.”

9. On Nov. 19th, City Council planned to vote on declaring the parking lots as “exempt surplus land” (a required legal step to begin development). However, the overwhelming turnout of residents, businesses, and downtown property owners opposing the plan led Council to postpone the vote till Jan. 14th and direct staff to conduct more public outreach.

10. On Jan. 13th, a statement of opposition by 112 businesses located adjacent to the parking plazas was submitted to Council.

11. Competing petitions were done. Menlo Together, an advocacy group which has been working on this issue for many years, did a petition in favor of the plan. (345 signatures on Jan. 14). Save Downtown Menlo, a loose collection of residents and business owners which coalesced after the Nov. 19th meeting, did a petition against the plan. (2,900 signatures on Jan. 14)

12. At the Jan. 14 Council meeting, Council Chambers were overflowing with people, with many left standing out in the cold. The vast majority of the audience opposed the housing plan. Nonetheless, Council voted to continue the process by issuing an RFQ (Request for Qualifications) to solicit credentials and designs from prospective developers. Council stopped short of declaring the parking lots as “exempt surplus land”, a step which would need to be done before selecting a developer. Council stressed that issuing the RFQ does not commit them to development, but is needed in order to have something specific to decide upon.

13. At the Jan. 28 Council meeting, public comment was filled with speakers reiterating the desire for alternative sites to be considered. Mayor Combs suggested that he RFQ for the downtown be paused, but other councilmembers disagreed, saying that the RFQ is important for information gathering and should not be delayed. However, Council did approve a motion by Councilmember Schmidt for a staff report explaining why the downtown parking lots were our Housing Element’s only City-owned opporutity sites.

14. A special March 4, City Council meeting was held to go over the staff report reviewing the previous evaluations of City-owned sites for housing. According to the report, the Civic Center was eliminated from consideration due to “active civic facilities” and a desire to protect city parkland (even though the Civic Center parking lots are neither civic facilities nor parkland). Once again, residents expressed strong opposition to the use of the downtown parking lots and asked for other sites to be explored. Mayor Combs wanted to ask staff to further explore the feasibility of City-owned sites, but he received no support from the other councilmembers, who wanted to wait to see what the developers submit in response to the RFQ.

15. On March 22, the results of the annual City Priorities Survey were released by the City Manager’s Office. When asked “Do you have additional input on priorities for Menlo Park?” 126 of the 544 respondents (23%) expressed opposition to the use the downtown parking lots for housing. (while 13 responses, or 2%, expressed support for it.) You can read all the responses starting on page 12 of this staff report or see a summary on pages 14-25 of this presentation.

What’s next?

March 31 is the deadline for developers to send in submissions in response to the RFQ. The reluctance of our councilmembers (except Mayor Combs) to investigate other options indicates a desire to move forward with housing in the parking lots. We therefore need to keep telling Council how we feel about this, so it is top of their mind when they are deciding whether to go forward with any developer submissions. Our Council must not ignore its stakeholders simply because of State mandates.

So stay engaged. Our petition is still going, and still relevant. Talk to your councilmember. Contribute to our Legal Defense GoFundMe. Continue to spread the word.

We can do better.

We understand the pressure the State is placing on us with the Housing Element, and we recognize the importance of staying in compliance. However, the Housing Element should not dictate the long-term vision for our downtown.

We want to see our downtown develop and thrive. But let’s do so in a thoughtful and collaborative manner:

  1. REPRESENT ALL STAKEHOLDERS: Engage the entire community—residents, workers, and businesses alike—to ensure everyone’s needs and perspectives are considered.

  2. PRESERVE FUNCTIONALITY: Protect the parking, traffic flow, and accessibility that are vital to keeping our downtown vibrant and successful.

  3. EXPLORE BETTER OPTIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING: There are numerous viable sites for affordable housing, including the city-owned Civic Center land, which is also downtown.

Let’s build a future where everyone has easy access to the heart of our town. Filling the parking lots with high-density housing is not the answer

What you can do:

1 - Learn More

Visit menlopark.gov/downtowndevelopment

Visit gomenlo.com

2 - Contact City Council

You can send a public email to Council at city.council@menlopark.gov

Or contact your councilmember directly or attend their office hours. Here’s how to reach them. If you live in Menlo Park, they represent you, and they want to hear from you.

3 - Sign the petition

Let City Council know that you oppose the use of the downtown parking lots for high-density housing Sign the Petition!

4 - Donate

If Council does not stand up for the people of Menlo Park, we will need to take legal measures to defend our downtown. Please contribute to our Legal Defense GoFundMe.

5 - Spread the word

Tell friends and neighbors. Share this page on social media with the buttons below:

 

What is Menlo Park’s Housing Element?

The Housing Element is a state-mandated section of the City’s General Plan that identifies how the city will accommodate its regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) of nearly 3,000 units at different levels of affordability. The 2023–2031 Housing Element was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in March 2024. If the Housing Element is not compliant, the state may withhold funding and resources from the city.

How did the City originally fund the parking lots? 

Between 1945 and 1965, the City used assessments on surrounding properties to fund the acquisition of land to create parking lots for the adjacent businesses. The City attorney now claims these lots can be re-purposed because the properties have “received the long-term benefit of the financed improvements” - but ethical and legal objections have been raised in response to that opinion.

What might the apartment buildings look like?

Conceptual designs were initially provided by UC Berkeley students as part of a class project. Perhaps the final developments will resemble those concepts. Or perhaps they will be more like the recently completed Kiku Crossing in San Mateo, which has a mere 245 units (compared to the 345-483 units planned for downtown Menlo.)

Are there other city-owned lands that could be used instead?

Yes. One of them is the Civic Center. It’s next to the train station, a short walk to Santa Cruz Ave., and it’s adjacent to the library and all the Burgess Park amenities. It would be a nicer place to live than above parking lots. Learn more about the Civic Center alternative.

Can a state-approved Housing Element be amended?

Yes. To amend a Housing Element, the City must submit a draft amendment to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and approval.

What are people saying?

Check out this website, podcast, and slideshow created by residents from Districts 1 and 4 about this issue.

Consider this letter to Council, written by an attorney representing various downtown stakeholders.

Peruse 330+ Emails to City Council in opposition to the plan.

Read this excellent historical commentary on the issue.

What’s in the press?

Aug. 28, The Almanac: Menlo Park plans to construct low-income housing on city-owned parking lots downtown
Nov. 15, The Almanac: Menlo Park council to vote on converting downtown parking into affordable housing
Nov. 19, Palo Alto Daily Post: Opponents of housing plan ask city to hit the brakes
Nov. 21, Palo Alto Daily Post: Council gets an earful from residents and puts off a decision on public housing above Santa Cruz Ave. parking lots
Dec. 11, The Almanac: Menlo Park residents, business owners organize opposition to city’s plan to build housing on downtown parking lots
Dec. 13, Palo Alto Daily Post: City hears from opponents at meeting on plans to put public housing on downtown parking lots
Jan. 10, The Almanac: Menlo Park threatened with competing lawsuits over downtown parking plan
Jan. 11, The Almanac: Will The Menlo Park Downtown Affordable Housing Project Become A Train Wreck?
Jan. 13, Palo Alto Daily Post: Council votes tomorrow on putting housing downtown
Jan. 14, Palo Alto Daily Post: Opinion: Council should reject downtown housing plan
Jan. 15, Palo Alto Daily Post: Menlo Park moves forward with plan to put housing on parking lots
Jan. 15, The Almanac: Menlo Park council gives go-ahead to seek developer input on downtown parking lots
Jan. 23, The Daily Journal: Sacramento’s attack on our suburbs
Jan. 30, The Almanac: Menlo Park Dismisses A Promising Alternative To Downtown Affordable Housing
Feb. 3, The Almanac: Menlo Park could revisit Civic Center, parks for housing amid opposition to using downtown parking lots
Mar. 1, The Almanac: Can Menlo Park Afford The Downtown Affordable Housing Project?
Mar. 3, Palo Alto Daily Post: Feds slash price of USGS campus
Mar. 7, The Almanac: Progress report shows Menlo Park is on track with housing construction
Mar. 24, Palo Alto Daily Post: City Council adds downtown to its priority list
Mar. 26, The Almanac: Menlo Park businesses raise $130,000 to fight downtown development

Who is on the Menlo Park City Council?

Mayor Drew Combs, Vice Mayor Betsy Nash, and Council Members Cecilia Taylor, Jeff Schmidt, and Jennifer Wise. Here’s how to reach them.

Some questons & answers

Traffic is Already Bad

Most afternoons & evenings, traffic on Oak Grove Ave. backs up for blocks. Now imagine if this parking lot, and the two on each side of it, consisted of high-rise housing and parking structures.