|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
On the Nov. 3 ballot, Menlo Park voters will weigh in on Measure P, a citizen initiative that would bar the city from selling or making significant changes to its downtown parking lots without first holding an election to get voter approval. The measure would apply to all eight city-owned lots downtown, including three for which the city has solicited proposals for housing development and replacement parking.
Voter Guide 2026
Get to know the candidates and measures on your ballot with The Almanac’s 2026 Voter Guide, including in-depth profiles, issue comparison grids and campaign finance coverage.
View the Voter Guide ➔The measure is the result of a signature-gathering campaign from Save Downtown Menlo, a group largely organized by downtown business and property owners, who argued that developing the parking lots would impair customers’ ability to access businesses and reduce foot traffic downtown.
Opponents say the measure would imperil Menlo Park’s ability to live up to its state-mandated goals for adding much-needed housing and represents bad governance by taking complex land-use decisions out of the hands of elected officials.
In the most recent filing period, the No on P campaign reported raising over $272,000 and the Yes on P campaign reported raising more than $202,000.
Top donors to the No on P campaign include John Matthew Sobrato, director of impact and learning at the Sobrato Organization; former OpenAI executive Robert McGrew; and local housing advocate Karen Grove.
Top donors to the Yes on P campaign include property manager Alex Beltramo and his family members; Richard Draeger, co-owner of Draeger’s Markets; and Mickles Enterprises, a business representing a downtown property owner.
Yes on P is endorsed by the Daily Post; former Menlo Park mayors John Boyle and Robert McNamara; former Planning Commission members Henry Riggs and Michael Doran; and real estate agent Mary Gilles, among others.
No on P is endorsed by the ACLU of Northern California, the South San Mateo County League of Women Voters, Habitat for Humanity of Greater San Francisco, Menlo Together and the Greenbelt Alliance, among others.
Information in favor of Measure P can be found at savedowntownmenlo.org and against Measure P at noonpmenlopark.com.
Visit The Almanac’s 2026 Election Center to learn more about the local races on your ballot.
You can see the full list of “No on Measure P” supporters here: https://www.noonpmenlopark.com/endorsements. They include a wide range of city, county, state, and federal officials. Other risks and costs to consider if Measure P passes:
1. Our housing element gets decertified and more builder’s remedy projects like 80 Willow Road get built without city oversight. https://www.menlopark.gov/Government/Departments/Community-Development/Projects/Under-review/80-Willow-Road
2. The state sues the city under SB330 and the city has to foot the legal bill because Measure P absolves their sponsors of any financial liability and puts it all on the taxpayers.
3. The state imposes fines of up to $600,000/month for non compliance with SB330 and guess who has to pay those bills – taxpayers. https://www.lozanosmith.com/news-clientnewsbriefdetail.php?news_id=2949
Sure it would be nice to keep 3 of our 8 decaying flat parking lots, but are taxpayers willing to bear the risks and the costs? And to be clear, the city council committed to 100% replacement parking contrary to the false narrative by Measure P advocates.
Vote No on Measure P.
“And to be clear, the city council committed to 100% replacement parking contrary to the false narrative by Measure P advocates.”
Yes, BUT, it won’t get built without taxpayer subsidies. The developers won’t make enough money off this project if they have to pay all of the costs associated with building the garages. Sorry, not interested in lining developers pockets.
From day one, the opposition to the City’s plan to develop at least 345 units of affordable housing units on three downtown parking lots has centered on the belief it was impossible to accomplish this objective and preserve enough public parking to protect the economic health and overall appeal of Downtown without substantial City (voter) funding. Since mid-2024, the City has ignored this critical issue and countless warnings, and a recent independent financial report confirmed the three objectives cannot be simultaneously achieved.
And the City has known this to be true for a long time. This is the primary reason the Council has kept our community completely in the dark about the City evaluations of developer proposals received more than nine months ago (December 2025).
For more than two years, the City has assured residents and business owners that effective parking management solutions would both enable 345 new households to share public parking spaces with downtown visitors and eliminate the need to replace all 556 existing parking spaces. But the City still has not produced a plan that shows this is possible.
The City also continues to ignore the fact that according to one developer’s proposal (Alliant Communities), hundreds of existing public parking spaces would be lost during more than three years of construction. Imagine how that would irreparably harm downtown and local businesses.
The Council’s extraordinary lack of transparency is irresponsible and poorly represents our community.
How can voters trust the City to represent their interests?
“How can voters trust the City to represent their interests?”
Simple. They can’t.