|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A Menlo Park citizens’ initiative to require a vote before the downtown parking lots can be developed into housing will be held on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot. The Menlo Park City Council settled on the date at their Dec. 2 meeting.
The final decision came after the City Council initially delayed ordering a $165,000 study of the ballot initiative. The study is allowed under California Elections Code §9212 and may address any topic the City Council chooses. Since the City Council only ordered the report after the city clerk certified the citizen’s initiative, the report had to be completed in under 30 days. State law would have allowed the city to order the report as soon as the citizen’s initiative started circulating.
Mayor Drew Combs was the sole City Council member to vote against the report, saying it was “kicking the can down the road.” He felt people would use parts of the report they agree with to validate their opinions and discredit other parts of the report.
“I’ve not had someone come to me and say because of the report, they’re looking at this differently. Either people have comments that the report validates what they see or they point to aspects of the report that they think are questionable,” Combs said in an interview after the report was released.
However, some councilmembers disagree.
“I would just say that I found it a very useful report to have all the information in one place and to outline the way it is. I do think that there were pros and cons of each of the various sections, which I don’t think was highlighted as much in this presentation, but there, certainly to me, was a very balanced approach,” Vice Mayor Betsy Nash said during the meeting.
The city hired M-Group, a well-known Bay Area municipal consulting firm, to complete the report. M-Group made the housing element which proposed affordable housing on the city’s parking lots.
“A quick timeline is not a justification for a biased report. The City could have requested a shorter report from an impartial expert,” said Alex Beltramo, one of the proponents of the initiative. “For $165,000, residents deserved an analysis that explored alternatives and brought an independent perspective—not a report that reads like a consultant defending its earlier work.”
At the meeting where the City Council decided to hire M-Group, city staff did not present any other consultant to the council and said due to the quick timeline, they recommended the City Council pick a group familiar with Menlo Park.
Nash and Councilmember Jeff Schmidt said they were appreciative of the engagement the citizen’s initiative represented.
“It’s clear that residents on both sides of the topic want to have a vote, so it’s important to me that residents continue to have that voice. I think that in all of our decisions and that we hear what they’re saying as part of a democratic dialog. I fundamentally agree that that is really important,” Schmidt said.
“I do think it’s important we talk about like, well, this is the democratic process. But to a degree, I think the fact that we have ended here also speaks to something being broken,” Combs said. “I hear you vice mayor when you say this engagement could have happened some time ago during this process. But I also pause with the thought that to some degree: was the council blinded by a sense of its own righteousness?”
“I do think that there were projects or proposals connected to the downtown parks that could have been received better than what we ended up with here,” Combs added. He was a member of the city council at the time the housing element was approved.
Nash, who was also on the city council, disagreed.
“First of all, it’s very easy to poke holes in any process, and it’s hard to come up with solutions. And I do think everything can always be improved,” she said. “But I think given the circumstances, we did the best we could and came up with a viable — well I guess I don’t know if I should call it viable — but came up with a viable housing element that eventually worked.”
The city is expected to get proposals for the downtown parking lot developments later this month. While the city awaits the results of the November election, it may still be able to at least start the process of developing the parking lots in case the measure fails.
Nash is hopeful that once the city receives the proposals, it may have a better idea of how to proceed in the meantime.
Guest Opinion: Has the Sequoia Union High School District Board of Trustees lost its way?February 1, 2026 1:50 pm
I find it very notable that the Save Downtown Menlo advocates like to tout the “democratic process” and reflecting the voters will, as if that’s not exactly what we elect City Council members for.
If anything, this ballot measure is circumventing the democratic will of thousands of Menlo Park residents that cast their ballots for our city council members in 2022 and 2024. Next thing you know, we’re going to have ballot measures about which potholes get fixed or what books get read during the Menlo Park Library’s children’s storytime.
If the council would do its job, then there wouldn’t be a need for any of this. Including “measures about potholes”. It is because they are so busy “saving the world” and ignoring the nuts and bolts of this city that any of this has become necessary. Yes, they were elected. Part of what they were elected to do is to listen to what people want. When they don’t the voters get upset and start creating measures. Measures and propositions are a poor way to govern and I don’t like them, but I understand where they come from. Voters, at least an amount large enough to get a measure on the ballot, don’t feel heard.
The real problem with the Menlo Park city council is twofold. First, they spend more time listening to groups that represent outside interests and not their own homeowners. Second, they bring zero innovation and creativity to the housing issue. All they do is cram dense developments into available spaces, with absolutely no regard to how that will mesh with, support, or even fit into the existing locale.
“a sense of its own righteousness?” Finally, Combs got something right. Menlo Park can do better, and if we do there won’t be so many ballot initiatives.
“was the council blinded by a sense of its own righteousness?”
BINGO! The council is so busy with their progressive agendas they are just steamrolling ahead, the voters be damned.