Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

New Directions For Planning City-Wide Affordable Housing

=> Download a Copy of This Post

In January, I claimed the proposed City plan to build affordable housing in Downtown Menlo Park, i.e., the Downtown Affordable Housing Project (“Downtown AH Project”), would inevitably produce a “train wreck”, i.e., the economic vitality and overall appeal of our downtown would suffer tremendous, irreversible damage. I also pointed out the City’s on-going failure to provide our community meaningful opportunities to participate in the planning of this project. So, the City Council (“Council”) has adopted an unacceptable plan, alienated residents and downtown business owners, and created a community backlash that will last for years to come.

In this post, I describe why this project is only one of many train wrecks that lie ahead unless the Council adopts a dramatically different approach to planning new affordable housing. 

Conclusions

  • To build enough very low-income (“VLI”) affordable (“AH”) housing, the City of Menlo Park will need to acquire additional public land. Otherwise, it cannot meet its state-mandated, AH obligations.
    .
  • Residents will not fund the City’s share of the cost of the Downtown Affordable Housing Project ( $40+M estimate). This means the proposed large-scale, housing project is not viable.
    .
  • The City needs to maximize the amount of VLI housing built on public land around the Civic Center. 
    .
  • The City cannot successfully plan affordable housing without the assistance of a community-based, advisory group.

Observations

  1. Menlo Park will not achieve its current affordable housing (“AH”) allocation for very low-income (“VLI”) housing because the City does not have enough suitable public land it can use to subsidize developers. 
    .
    > The City allocation is 740 VLI housing units and only 118 units have been built.
       So another 622 units are needed.
    .
    > IF the Downtown Affordable Housing Project (“Downtown AH Project”) were to
        provide 345 units, the City would still have a 277-unit shortfall.
    .
    .>  There are no other large-scale, VLI housing developments in the project pipeline.
    .
    (Note: the state will count all housing units that have approved city building permits by 2031; actual construction is not a requirement.)
    .
  2. The Council cannot assume the Downtown AH Project will happen.
    .
    > Residents would likely reject the City issuance of general obligation bonds to fund  a 500 to 600 space, public parking structure (estimated cost: at least $40M).
    ‘
    > There is already strong community opposition to the project, e.g., a suit against the
      city, a notice of intent for a ballot measure, an online petition with 3600+ signatures.
    .
  3. Even If the Downtown AH Project were to proceed, it might provide fewer than 345 units. 
    .
  4. Currently, the only other City public land suitable for a large amount of housing is in the Civic Center area.  (Note: If some Civic Center functions could be relocated, the housing capacity of the Civic Center land would increase significantly.) 
    .
  5. If the City cannot build enough VLI housing in the Civic Center area, it will need to acquire new public land. This will be costly, but the City has no realistic alternative. Residents might support municipal funding IF they supported a specific housing project proposal.
    .
  6. The Menlo Park VLI housing allocation for the 2032-2040 planning cycle will likely be larger, so new land acquisitions will  become even more critical to the success of Menlo Park’s affordable housing efforts.

Recommendations

  1. Rather than spend valuable City resources on litigation, a ballot measure or advancing the Downtown AH Project, the Council should put the project “on hold”.  Instead, the Council should gauge whether residents would support the issuance of tens of millions of dollars of general obligation bonds to build an expensive public parking structure.  If not, the proposed project is not viable. (Note: while a much smaller downtown housing AH project might be possible, it would still face strong opposition and require a 200 to 250-space parking structure. It should be considered only after all other sites have been ruled out.)
    .
  2. The Council needs to study VLI housing on public land near the Civic Center, as this is the City’s most promising opportunity. It also needs to evaluate options for relocating some Civic Center functions, as this would increase the housing capacity of this land. 
    .
  3. The Council needs to evaluate potential housing sites on El Camino and on Oak Grove sites where new housing would NOT require displacement of public parking.   (Note: This planning will also help the City prepare its housing element for the state 2032-2040 housing allocations).
    .
  4. The Council should recognize it needs a great deal of assistance planning affordable housing and should welcome a community-sourced, advisory group that would help the City identify and evaluate housing sites – rather than rely solely on city planning staff. Energized by a new City planning direction, this group would greatly expand and enhance the City’s own capabilities and improve the odds the City can achieve its very challenging objectives. Several qualified and highly motivated residents have already expressed their interest and (a) will recruit others, (b) define the groups roles and working relationship with the City, and (c) organize the group’s activities. 

A Closing Message to the City Council

A lot of factors have contributed to the predicament you and our community find themselves in, struggling to meet state and county-mandated affordable housing allocations. And we have only just begun to feel the endless and painful effects these obligations will have on Menlo Park, e.g., anxiety, frustrations, anger, disappointment, disbelief, distrust. Plus, the potential destruction of Downtown Menlo Park.
.
But successful pain management is possible. I encourage you to recognize our community does not expect you and the City planning team to solve all the problems associated with this complex project on your own. In fact, the evidence is compelling; currently the City is ill-equipped to represent our community’s interests. Fortunately, you have a great option. Plenty of residents and business owners can and would help IF you let them. The choice is yours. We hope you make a wise one.

Learn More At Reimagine Menlo Park

Menlo Park residents deserve an inviting New Downtown – far superior to what exists now,  a place that better serves our interests, reflects our shared values, and becomes a source of community pride. A place where residents and visitors not only shop, eat and access personal services, but also relax, stroll, gather for social activities, unexpectedly encounter friends, and enjoy regular community events.
.
Learn how you can be a catalyst for a New Downtown Menlo Park

Also, join our mailing list to receive regular news about what is happening in Downtown Menlo Park.

Most Popular

‘Woman of the Year’ takes plea deal for embezzling $700K from nonprofit‘Woman of the Year’ takes plea deal for embezzling $700K from nonprofitJanuary 22, 2026 4:14 pm
Woodside man’s molestation trial resumes after suicide attemptWoodside man’s molestation trial resumes after suicide attemptJanuary 22, 2026 10:55 am
Menlo Park office building goes for 2025's highest sales priceMenlo Park office building goes for 2025's highest sales priceJanuary 21, 2026 1:09 pm

Menlo Park Community Advocate Creating A More Vibrant Menlo Park explores ways our city could make Downtown Menlo Park a more appealing place for residents, local businesses and visitors. My family...

Join the Conversation

9 Comments

  1. Dana: As usual, you have nailed it. When this happened before, the council would not listen until the voters made it clear that if they approved the project they would be voted out. They finally backed down. As now, the numbers didn’t work without significant public subsidy that no one is going to vote for. Instead of continuing to flog this boondoggle they need to accept the help that is available and find a more viable alternative.

  2. Dana, you’re right. Menlo Park can’t just keep saying no no no, else it will face more Builder’s Remedies. The Council could build a retirement community at Sharon Park, an underused park with a community that does not increase traffic much. Or for that matter, a retirement community above a parking lot downtown.

    Menlo Park needs a retirement community. And it certainly needs more shoppers!

    Also think about building an independent mini city on the Menlo Park property north of Marsh Road.
    Start being constructive and being realistic and give change a chance.

  3. A few points:
    * If the current Housing Element plan is “put on hold”, does that change its status and open the door to another “builders remedy” project? We have one nightmare monstrosity facing us. Let’s not invite another!
    * Menlo Park’s Civic Center campus is an absolute gem. That land should never be considered for housing development.
    * We have to face the necessity of some kind of parking structure. Ground level parking is a waste of space. We need to invest in our infrastructure if we want a viable future.
    * There are many empty store fronts.
    * You want more shoppers. Very few retail businesses on Santa Cruz purvey everyday goods at a reasonable price point. Walgreens, Trader Joe’s, Ace Hardware, and the thrift shops qualify, along with some hair/nail salons. The many design, furniture, and carpet shops do not qualify, and thus do not generate foot traffic. Menlo Park needs to decide what it wants to be. Design mecca or living community.
    * Consider the businesses on Alma between Ravenswood and Oak Grove. Besides the nice office buildings, there are surface parking lots and single story businesses. What incentive would encourage land owners to build 4-6 story buildings in place of the single story and surface parking? Close to CalTrain, that is a perfect spot for taller multi-use buildings.

  4. MPvoter – Thanks for providing your concerns. Let me try to clearly respond.

    1. Putting an individual housing project on hold does not trigger a “builders remedy” exposure. The City can simply notify the state that it is substituting a replacement project (s).
    2. The City has so little buildable land that the Civic Center area will likely become a housing site. Ultimately residents should decide via ballot measure.
    3. As I have noted, I doubt most residents would support our city issuing $40M of general obligation bonds. How would these be retired? (Note: This would require at least 65% of voters voters to approve a significant new tax.)
    4. We should expect more vacant storefronts before and during 2-3 years of downtown construction.
    5. The “market” determines what businesses are attracted to and succeed in downtown.
    6. Landowners are interested in building market rate housing, not very low income affordable housing.

  5. What about the “Willow Village” development on Meta/Facebook property near the Willow/84 intersection? That was supposed to have 1200 units of housing. Also supposed to have a shops and restaurants that would be nice for families like mine in East Palo Alto and Belle Haven. The offices and warehouses on the proposed development have been sitting empty for over 6 years now. Why doesn’t anybody push for this development to resolve the issues with the state mandated housing requirements?

  6. Resident – Yours is a great question as I doubt many residents understand this wonderful planned development. Here is what I found online this morning.

    “Through more than five years of extensive community discussions, we have listened to resident input on how Willow Village can provide the highest priority amenities Menlo Park’s Belle Haven neighborhood and the entire Menlo Park community. We’ve heard consistently that balancing jobs and housing, increasing affordable housing, minimizing traffic, and adding a new full-service grocery store and community services are some of the most important ways to deliver what the community wants and needs.” (Willow Village website)

    “Some large projects that received entitlements in previous years have not received building permits, such as Willow Village (1730 Units) and Menlo Flats (158 Units), and those projects would contribute to FUTURE Annual Progress Reports as they are issued building permits.” (Housing Commission Report 3/5/2025).

    “1,730 apartment homes in a mix of sizes, including approximately 18% affordable housing and up to 120 units of affordable senior housing.” (Willow Village website)

    When will the estimated 300 affordable housing units be built? What will be the household income application criteria?

  7. As someone who raised my kids in Menlo Park and spent more time than I can poss at Burgess Park, the library, and the playing fields, I find the idea of turning the Civic Center area into a low income housing development — or any kind of development — appalling. The loss of that communal green space would have a hugely detrimental impact on Menlo Park families, and I can’t believe the idea is being tossed around so cavalierly. It’s an insanely short-sighted way to approach meeting the housing mandate.

  8. Hi Kate: What large housing sites would you recommend the City study IF NOT the Civic Center? As I stated in my post, our community has no other alternatives besides downtown, And even then, it will not be enough. Big sacrifices are required and our entire community must understand this FACT^ and decide which ones are preferable.

Leave a comment