|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
(Note: This post can be downloaded as a pdf file here.)
Project Status Update – October 13, 2025
The Menlo Park City Council (Council) remains steadfastly committed to its controversial plan to concentrate at least 345 housing units and households – 80% very low-income and 20% extremely low-income – on three Downtown parking lots along with (a) hundreds of private parking spaces, (b) 556 replacement public parking spaces, and (c) a tiny amount of public open space. It believes even more housing could be provided if 7-9 story buildings were allowed.
This downtown housing project is unprecedented in the Bay Area in terms of scale, complexity, location, and likely negative impacts; and it will present Menlo Park challenges and risks far beyond any civic project the city has undertaken previously.
- On September 15, the City sent the project request for proposal (RFP) to seven developers, and their responses are required by December 15. So, in January, our community will have its first opportunity to review preliminary designs for the project, assess potential impacts, and offer its feedback to the Council.
. - On October 10, a community advocacy group (Save Downtown Menlo) submitted enough signatures for a ballot initiative measure that would enable a simple majority of voters to decide whether they wanted responsibility – rather than just three council members – for determining any future different uses of downtown parking lots. On October 21, the County certified the ballot initiative and the Council must now decide how to respond. The Downtown Parking Plazas Ordinance will be discussed at the November 4, Council meeting.
. - The City is required to notify the state Housing and Community Department (HCD) of the successful ballot measure petition as it jeopardizes the commitment the City has made to develop this project. While HCD likely would allow the City to produce a credible replacement plan, the City does not have a contingency plan because the Council felt it unnecessary.
Key Strategic Project Planning Problems
Faced with the difficult state mandate it build (Note 1) 740 very low-income housing units, a county requirement that 20% are available to extremely low-income households, and motivated by a fear of losing its 2023-2030 Housing Element certification, the current and prior City Councils have assumed our community would accept the maximum amount of housing in Downtown parking lots. But the actual response clearly shows the Councils were wrong. A large and growing number of residents, business owners and property owners, already strongly oppose this plan because they believe it would inevitably damage the economic health and character of the City’s central retail district, weaken the quality of life in our community, and subject everyone here to at least 4 years of physical disruptions and political discord. This opposition will intensify in early 2026 because the Council has created a complex, multi-dimensional urban design problem that neither the Council nor planning staff are qualified to solve on their own.
The current Council could have avoided this predicament IF it had recognized the need to (a) hire an excellent urban design firm; (b) establish an effective community-based, advisory group; (c) add contract planning staff; (d) recruit an exceptional program manager who would work with the Council, developers, an urban design consulting firm, planning staff and the advisory group; AND (e) creatively pursued additional affordable housing sites. It’s NOT too late. Will the Council adopt these critical measures?
Note 1 – the city only needs to issue building permits before the end of 2030 and pass a progress audit in 2026.
Urban Design Issues For Residents and Businesses
- Architectural compatibility (height, mass, exterior design, materials)
- Business impacts (lost sales, closings, fewer new businesses)
- Traffic circulation (hundreds of new household drivers)
- Traffic disruptions (multi-year construction)
- Public parking (convenience, space availability, cost)
Urban Design Issues For New Households
- Private Parking (amount, convenience, space availability)
- Availability of convenient affordable retail businesses
- Accessibility of community parks and open space (distances, safe routes, facilities)
Urban Design Issues for Community Services
- Fire safety services (tall multi-story building access)
- Environmental impact (construction, ongoing general downtown upkeep)
- School district impact (number of new students, education level, staffing)
Widespread Distrust in City Council and Planning Staff
Only Mayor Drew Combs has raised concerns about the potential negative impacts of this project, e.g., eliminating convenient public parking, concentrating affordable housing on more than one parking lot. The other four council members have not shown any genuine interest in either these or other potential impacts.
.
My beliefs….
- Decisions that would dramatically change and potentially severely damage Downtown, should be made ONLY with broad community support.
. - Neither the Council nor city planning staff has the knowledge and experience that is essential for leading and implementing this ambitious city development project.
. - The Council has relied exclusively on planning staff rather than fully engaging our community in the project planning process. While planning staff has knowledge of technical planning, city regulations, state building codes and the city Housing Element, it lacks both expertise in urban design and an in-depth understanding of community needs, preferences, and concerns.
. - The Council believes the City cannot meet its Housing Element obligations without building the maximum amount of low-income housing in three downtown parking lots. However, the City has neither aggressively nor creatively considered other sites for low-income housing. It has (a) ruled out many without providing clear and persuasive justifications, e.g., Civic Center sites, Bohannon Park, and (b) completely ignored other ones. e.g., potential land acquisitions both inside and outside Downtown. For example, a combination of sites including Parking Plaza 3 likely could satisfy City obligations for low-income housing – without risking the future of Downtown.
Example: Affordable Housing On Parking Lot 3
I, like most residents and businesses, would support a small amount, e.g., 120 – 140 units, of affordable housing in Downtown IF the following conditions were met.
- The housing were limited to one parking lot, e.g., Plaza 3.
- The existing surface public parking would remain and be limited to non-household parking during regular retail business hours.
- Adequate private parking for housing residents, their visitors and staff would be provided underground.
- No structures would exceed either five or six stories.
- All above ground buildings would be architecturally compatible with Downtown
Wrap-up
I expect a very different and stressful project planning environment starting in January 2026.
- The Council will need to decide how the City will respond to the ballot measure that will be qualified by the county in mid-November.
. - Developer proposals will make most residents and business owners aware of how this project could harm our Downtown and community, and their opposition will intensify.
. - HCD will likely require the City to provide a credible plan for replacing the current project. The plan would require study of additional housing sites and the potential acquisition of new public land.
. - The City will need to study…
(a) the future demand for convenient public parking,
(c) potential traffic circulation impacts on Downtown and other affected areas,
(d) potential negative project impacts on the Downtown business environment during and after construction,
(e) Potential impacts on the “look and feel” (character) of Downtown.
. - The City should initiate changes to the project planning process and add critical resources, e.g., additional project planning resources, an advisory group, a project program manager.
My next posts will address several strategic planning topics, e.g., how the City planning process has failed our community including the Council, how past Council and planning staff decisions have produced the predicament we are all now facing.
My Prior Posts On This Subject
- Sign the Petition For The Downtown Parking Plaza Initiative Today
(July 20, 2025)
. - How To Avoid Multiple Menlo Park Train Wrecks
(May 21, 2025)
. - Does Menlo Park Have $40M+ To Build The Public Parking Required For The Downtown Affordable Housing Project?
(February 27, 2025)
. - Menlo Park Dismisses A Promising Alternative To Downtown Affordable Housing
(January 30, 2025)
. - Will The Menlo Park Downtown Affordable Housing Project Become A Train Wreck? (January 11, 2025)
.
Menlo Park Might Need More Downtown Parking In The Future – Not Less! (November 15, 2024)
. - Will Menlo Park use 3 downtown parking plazas for affordable housing?(September 24, 2024)
Comments
I welcome readers to contribute their views and ideas to my blog and simply expect comments to be civil and constructive To keep the discussion productive, please adhere to the following guidelines. Otherwise, submitted comments might be edited or removed. Thank you.
.
–Stay on topic.
– Support your views with facts, especially those from credible sources.
– Avoid disrespectful, disparaging, snide, angry, or ad hominem comments.
In general, please help maintain this a welcoming space for everyone.
West Menlo Park schools end lockdown, authorities say suspect died of self-inflicted gunshot woundDecember 16, 2025 1:31 pm
Great points Dana. I think it would be helpful for the community to understand a more detailed list of the pros and cons of the various alternative sites that the city has refused to look into, especially the Bohannon site which was offered by Bohannon and would be a terrific location with minimal negative impacts. It was rejected for no apparent reason other than it is too close to District 1.
“The Council has relied exclusively on planning staff rather than fully engaging our community in the project planning process”
Is there really any other narrative that describes our current situation? We see over and over again homeowners speak out at city council meetings only to be ignored for their own agenda. As a tax paying homeowner, I’m tired of outside influences setting the policy in Menlo Park. I can only hope my fellow homeowners will pay attention and raise their voices.
@Dana,
You know my perspective since I shared with you earlier:
* Anybody who wants to “protect” downtown needs to pay as much attention to SB79 and what business owners plan to do with their newfound freedom to build to 65 feet with potentially expedited approvals, as they do to protecting the parking lots. Pretty sure that a couple of downtown owners already have thoughts about building up.
* Drew Combs, in his most recent newsletter did a better job of identifying possible next steps. Given recent history in the state and the face that the ballot measure potentially conflicts with the HCD-certified Housing Element, plus that the state has been steering towards parking lot re-development for new housing, I think the last bullet is the most likely, possibly with the state getting involved.
Potential Next Steps
Assuming the petition receives verification and official certification, there are several possible next steps:
* Place the Ordinance on the Ballot: The city council could put the ordinance to a vote during the November 2026 election or a special election held before November 2026.
* Adopt the Ordinance Outright: The city council could directly adopt the ordinance without a public vote.
* Decline to Adopt or Place on the Ballot: The city council could choose not to adopt the ordinance or put it to a vote, likely leading to legal action from proponents of the measure.
* Council Initiates Legal Action: The council could seek a judicial ruling to keep the initiative off the ballot.
* Third-Party Intervention: A pro-housing organization or another third-party could sue the city seeking a judicial ruling to prohibit either the adoption of the ordinance or its placement on the ballot.
@KK
I think bullet 2 is most likely, as the City could propose a “replacement” citywide affordable housing strategy/plan for this cycle of the Housing Element (2023-2030) that combines housing on (a) just one parking lot (the example described above) AND (b) other sites.
There will be NEW tremendous pressure on the Council to actually study several other sites starting in January 2026.
Bullets 3, 4 and 5 involve legal actions that introduce huge uncertainties and the risk HCD decides the proposed project is not feasible.
@Dana,
I’m not sure HCD will look kindly on the city turning its head away from using the parking lots for housing and new parking structures. That’s a key feature of state law and the 2024 updates to the Surplus Land Act. We’re probably better served legally by continued to move forward with the existing plan unless the city finds better city-owned land that would serve the job better, though we already went through that process in 2022.
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/final-updated-surplus-land-act-guidelines-2024.pdf
@KK,
The City can acquire additional public land and develop housing at the Civic Center. The 2022 HE affordable site evaluation process was overly optimistic, timid and lacked creativity.