|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
I consider myself a typical Menlo Park resident. My husband and I both work full-time, and we have two children at Laurel Elementary School. Like many parents in town, our days are full with school, work and community activities. We’re fortunate to live in a neighborhood where people still know and rely on each other. When older neighbors are raking leaves in the fall, my son inevitably runs across the street to help and talk about their garden. Kids play together on the street and in each other’s houses. It’s the kind of community that many families hope to find — and one we feel grateful to have.
I also love our downtown. When we go out to dinner as a family, or on the rare date night, Menlo Park is where I want to be. I like supporting local businesses and the chance encounters with neighbors that make our town feel like a community.
But this past year, every visit downtown has brought a new wave of signs urging support for the Parking Preservation ballot measure. I admit the campaign has weighed on me. I don’t doubt the sincerity of the measure’s supporters; they believe they are acting in the community’s best interest. What troubles me is how drastically their perspective diverges from mine.
I know I am extremely privileged to be able to live here. But almost daily, I see cracks in what looks like a picture-perfect community. School administrators struggle to recruit because fewer teachers can afford to live near Menlo Park. Restaurants shorten hours because they cannot hire enough staff. Young families search for housing but end up moving to less expensive areas. Long-time renters are priced out, disrupting families and communities. I see a town full of wonderful people and institutions but held together by a fragile thread. It does not feel sustainable. And it won’t last unless we act.
That is why building more housing, including deeply affordable housing, is essential, especially in places best suited for higher-density development: those close to transit, walkable amenities and existing infrastructure. Downtown is precisely that kind of place. While there are other parts of the city where housing should be built, none offer the combination of convenience, access and daily activity of downtown. Replacing some surface parking lots with housing (and structured parking) is one of the most responsible and forward-thinking choices we can make.
The arguments against this plan seem rooted in fear: fear of change, fear of new residents, fear that people who shop and dine here will stop coming if parking looks different. But I have faith that the residents of Menlo Park will support businesses during construction and that a wave of new residents will bring vitality to the downtown.
This weekend I visited downtown San Carlos. Instead of circling to find street parking, I pulled into a clean, modern parking garage a couple blocks from my destination. Only on my walk back did I notice the homes built above the parking garage. Later I learned the entire structure was once a surface parking lot. If this model works in neighboring cities, why not in Menlo Park? Why would we turn away the chance to revitalize our downtown, support our businesses, provide needed housing, and make far better use of land that currently holds only parked cars?
Menlo Park is a community full of compassion, intelligence and neighborliness. We can achieve great things! Building housing downtown is not a threat to our identity, it’s an investment in our future and an affirmation of the values that make this community worth fighting for.
Lesley Feldman
Menlo Park
I think what a lot of people fail to realize, and I believe this includes a lot of the individuals opposed to building housing in the downtown parking areas, is that Menlo Park has very limited choices. The state has mandated additional housing and is forcing all of the cities to add that housing. Every attempt by cities to push back on this mandate has failed in court. The question isn’t whether to add housing it’s where to add it and the options for us are extremely limited. No one wanted housing in the park at Sharon or Burgess so that leaves us little choice. I’m not aware of any large areas that are owned by the city that can be developed aside from the parks and the parking areas. Personally I don’t really want to have housing in the parking areas either but I am much happier having it there than having our open spaces like Sharon Park or Burgess Park developed into housing.
Can you please provide more information on “the park at Sharon or Burgess?” Because I was under the impression that these sites were never considered; it wasn’t put up for a vote so that “no one wanted it”.
These sites were considered, but faced strong opposition.
See this discussion (public comment starting on pg 56 and presentation starting on pg 115), when residents threatened a “Parks Preservation” ballot measure to prevent housing at Sharon Park:
https://www.menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/agendas-and-minutes/city-council/2021-meetings/minutes/20210921-city-council-minutes.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
As part of that discussion around parks preservation, Burgess Park was also taken off the table at that time for housing development.
You understand the reality better than most, Brian. It’s not like the city didn’t examine all the other options carefully. But it’s hard to find other options that would result in 345 affordable units while meeting state guidelines. Here’s a bit where the council advised for sidelining Bohannon Park (a location marked by the state as not acceptable due to lack of resources, plus too close to massive development in D1) and Burgess (hard to add housing until the library is reconfigured).
June 6, 2022 – City Council
https://youtu.be/mUZvcoa1dtw?t=6223
It would be fine if you could just drop the new developments into place, housing and parking. But it will take years to complete and will wipe out access to most of the existing businesses. Few will be able to weather that. Wedging these monsters into downtown will cause it’s downfall. No one will want to come here with Santa Cruz boarded up.
Great op-ed, well said!
Then let’s build it in the Willows next door to you. How’s that sound?
They’re already building affordable housing in the Willows. The Veterans Administration just added a very large three-story building that will be used to house veterans and low income individuals. Maybe it’s time to add some of this housing over in West Menlo Park as East Menlo Park has taken the brunt of housing in the past several years
Lesley – as an aside, those homes above the parking lot in San Carlos are market rate condos. It’s not an “affordable housing “ rental building.
KK (Kevin Kranen) – I have repeatedly asked you to produce either a SINGLE city documents that shows residents the City and Council have thoroughly and persuasively evaluated potential alternative affordable housing sites during this planning cycle. Residents deserve this information in an easily accessible form. Your assurances that this analysis has already been performed is insufficient. Since you claim you know this critical information, you provide a clear summary of WHY you believe the City rejected each considered site.
Also, why didn’t the City even consider acquiring new sites by (a) leasing private properties and (b) financing them with general obligation bonds? Surely, voters deserve the opportunity to decide whether they would support such a strategy. The total cost would clearly be MUCH LESS than the bonds recently issued by the Menlo Park School District.
Again, I feel your recurring claim (protest) that residents simply have either (a) not paid enough attention to how individual site were evaluated or (b) not been willing to spend a great deal of time researching what happened remains extremely disingenuous.
Hi Dana,
A few short points.
* I have produced plenty of documents and videos that show how and why the city made their tough decisions the way they did. There’s documentation of the whole process.
* The burden of proof is on YOU and your downtown cronies to show that the assumptions made in those decisions were false or that the decision process was in some way flawed. But that is going to take hard homework and constraint-solving. I would love to help you if you really want to go down that path. You claim that you don’t need to study, but the video I linked to highlights some of the decision points you claim to want to understand, but you clearly didn’t watch.
* If you had watched (or read the minuted from the meeting) you would have seen the council: 1) Reaffirm that Burgess should not be in the opportunity list until it is reconfigured (library moved); 2) Remove Bohannon Park from the opportunity site list for a variety of reasons (too close to District 1 massive developments, low resource level, unreasonable Bohannon density and other development demands).
https://www.menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/2/agendas-and-minutes/city-council/2022-meetings/minutes/20220606-city-council-minutes.pdf
It’s all there in the video, too (the video starts in the decision making session)
https://youtu.be/mUZvcoa1dtw?t=6223
* Just to be clear, I’m pointing you to these specifics in council minutes, presentations, videos and the housing element itself, because I don’t want to try to summarize and interpret for you – I want you understanding the primary sources, because they exist due to city transparency, and are irrefutable. They are hard to digest because the housing element was a 2+ year long process.
* I have heard people who want to protect the parking lots suggest that the city buy USGS for low cost housing. That would have been a $140M purchase given the recent auction results, well more than the measure U bond issue. Also realize that that purchase would be followed by the city providing a low $$ ground lease to the developer who would build the affordable housing and secure most of the benefits from that. Yet I hear the same people have heartburn over a potential $30-50M parking garage.
I would love to discuss any of the specifics of why Burgess / Civic Center or Bohannon were excluded starting from the specifics I have done you the service of excerpting.
Well said. I for one do not want housing in the Parks. And while I don’t want in the Downtown parking lots either I have come to the realization that that may be unavoidable because we’re being forced into it by the state. I see no reason for the city to go out and spend tens of millions of dollars to acquire other property if that were even available in an acceptable area when the parking lots are just sitting there. I understand that there will be impacts to the downtown while they’re building these structures and those impacts will have to be mitigate it in one way or another. I’m sure there are lots of ideas including making Santa Cruz one way street and using the other side for additional parking on a very temporary basis, building sequentially so that only one area is affected at a time and other ideas.
The bottom line is that as much as it pains me to say it I have not seen a single alternative that is better than developing the downtown parking lots. And by better I mean an alternative that meets the state requirements and won’t cost the city of Menlo Park taxpayers huge amounts of money.
My objection to the projects in the parking lots is primarily the giving away of city property. We citizens own it and deserve to be compensated appropriately if we are going to turn the property over to a developer to make a profit from. But, they can’t because affordable housing in this area is a fantasy. It’s a fantasy due to the land values and the cost of construction. It only becomes feasible when you give away the land and subsidize the construction. Those subsidies require raising taxes. I’m taxed enough already thank you. We live in a state with if not the highest, one of the highest tax burdens of any other state in the country. We pay enough taxes thank you.
The other reason I object to very low income housing going in our downtown area is what it will become. I know from my experience as a police officer that policed very low income housing. They become problems with high levels of calls for service for the police. Don’t believe me? Ask MPPD what there calls for service in Bell Haven are compared to the rest of the city. The mother that moves in supposedly by herself ends up letting her adult child or children live there and sometimes even more. This creates a situation where there is a much higher demand for parking than accounted for in the planning for this housing. It creates a huge parking problem.
Downtown is not the location for very low income housing. We already have a part of town where it already exists. It can go there.
As someone else already pointed out, the housing over garage in San Carlos is market rate housing. I have no objection to the city selling the parking lots for garages with market rate housing above.
A starting salary for a teacher in MPCSD is $79,286 (https://district.mpcsd.org/departments/human-resources/mpcsd-salary-schedules-2024-25), so depending on family size and income of their partner, they could qualify for affordable housing (https://www.menlopark.gov/Government/Departments/Community-Development/Housing/Below-Market-Rate-BMR-housing-program/BMR-Rental-Properties/Realm).
I want more teachers in our district to be able to afford to live here. When teachers are part of our community, we all benefit.
@Menlo Voter. Menlo Park is at the mercy of the housing element, which is at the state government level. May I suggest following up with our state representatives Berman and Becker on how Menlo Park is disproportionally burdened with the state mandated housing element.
I already have. The progressives in Sacto don’t care. And if our council had the guts and the will they could have joined with many cities throughout the state and sued to stop this nonsense. What no one seems to see is the state housing mandate is bought and paid for by developers. Weiner will tell you otherwise, but he always does. One only need listen to him justify and tell us how it will work to understand he has no interest in, nor does he have any understanding of the issues surrounding the cost of housing. You live where you can afford. If you want to live in Atherton or Menlo Park you do something to make the kind of money it takes to live there. Otherwise you live where you can afford. Its always been that way. When I was a young man I had room mates because I couldn’t afford to rent an apartment by myself. The only thing that has changed is the feeling that someone is entitled to live where they can’t afford.
How did those lawsuits go? Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe every one of them failed and the state mandate still exists. So in my view Menlo Park was smart not to join lawsuits they were likely to fail because it would have cost us (Menlo Park taxpayers) money. And as you said we pay enough taxes already so I’m happy our city didn’t waste money on a useless endeavor.
@Menlo Voter – you’re oblivious to the real world. The big thing that has changed between 1990 and 2020 is that the number of employment/jobs in Menlo Park has gone up by 200+% while the number of housing units has only increased by 8%.
And you are equally oblivious on the litigation side – not a single city has triumphed in their battles against state housing laws, so your recommendation is a losing proposition full of false bravado. Most recent example is Huntington Beach, that just lost another case in Nov 2025 in the Court of Appeals. And each time, things get worse for them.
https://perkinscoie.com/insights/blog/court-appeal-confirms-charter-cities-are-subject-housing-element-cure
I love this! Lesley clearly loves Menlo Park! I’m inspired by this line: “But I have faith that the residents of Menlo Park will support businesses during construction and that a wave of new residents will bring vitality to the downtown.” Sign me up to support downtown businesses during construction!
I agree with Lesley! We can all come together to support downtown businesses during construction.
For those of you thinking all you have to do is “support local businesses during construction”, think again. This construction will take YEARS. Downtown parking, streets, access, traffic, etc will be disrupted for YEARS. People will have the best intentions to support local businesses, but as construction disruption drags on for YEARS, people will tire of it and start going elsewhere. Local businesses are going to be negatively impacted regardless of peoples good intentions.
The Veterans Administration is building a very large three-story structure on their property along Willow Road. It is nearing completion and has taken less than 6 months. And while the entire project downtown Menlo Park will be significantly larger than what’s going on at the Veterans Administration if it is staged correctly then the area affected at any given time should be kept to one parking area. Will it be disruptive, of course it will but it also will not shut down the entire downtown Menlo Park which is kind of what seems to be implied in some of the above comments.
@Menlo Voter, you’re running out of false objections ? Are you one of those rent-seeking, minimal property tax paying building owners downtown, that hasn’t improved things in years and doesn’t want to be forced to re-invest due to change ?
As @Brian suggests, housing projects can be go faster than you want people to believe. We’re not the first city to transform our downtown with parking garages and denser housing – just about every city on the Peninsula (Burlingame, San Mateo, San Carlos, Redwood City, Palo Alto, Los Altos, Mountain View) has built or is planning to build housing and garage parking on what used to be surface parking lots in their downtowns. Most of these cities’ retail districts are (comparatively) thriving. If they can figure it out, so can we.
The owners of the Town and Country shopping center are also planning to dedicate a bunch of their surface parking lots to housing + parking in their planned re-development. I doubt they would do this if they thought it would destroy their retailers.
I won’t deny that there wont be some disruption, but we have to minimize it and be supportive of our downtown merchants. The saddest thing I hear is the folks fighting the housing, who say they won’t patronize our merchants if things change.
KK and Brian: I have been building for over 33 years. I have built in both the commercial and residential sectors. I know exactly what is involved in construction of a project of this size and scope as I have built projects this large. Yes, you can phase the work. That just spreads the disruption out over an even longer period of time. It may be contained in smaller areas, but the disruption is still there. For longer.
The construction at the VA and what is being considered here are two completely different things. The VA construction isn’t in the middle of a downtown business district. Nor is the construction method the same.
We are not just talking about “residential” construction here. The residential construction is going on top of parking garages. Those garages are at least partly underground. Subterranean construction takes longer than surface construction due to numerous reasons. Even the portions of the garages that are surface or above take quite awhile depending on what they are constructed of. If they are to be concrete, that takes a long time.
Sorry, but my objections are not “false”, they are factual and based on many years of experience. How much experience do you have in building? Based on your comments, I suspect it is ZERO. Go get some experience or talk to those that have actual experience building and see if what you think is actually real. I think you’ll find its not.
@Menlo Voter – apparently you didn’t read the proposals in the RFQ. Only one of the 6/7 of them calls for a partially below-grade lot (let’s see if you can tell me how deep). Come back when you do real homework, instead of shooting from the hip based on your thoughts of what you think might happen. You’re clearly full of false objections, based on the info right now.
Menlo Voter,
First you reference experience as a police officer then you say that you have 33 years of experience in commercial and private Construction. Is there anything you haven’t done?
Sure there are plenty of things I haven’t done, but construction and law enforcement are two that I have. I’m 67 it’s not hard to understand. Do the math.
And one other thing regarding other cities that have put this type of housing into their downtown areas and the downtowns are thriving. Those downtowns were already thriving when the garages/housing was built. Downtown Menlo Park business is not thriving. One only need look at the number of vacant storefronts do know that. The disruption brought by this amount of construction disruption downtown could be the straw that breaks the camels back for many of the businesses downtown. Downtown is on life support and you’re talking about potentially pulling the plug.
Plenty of new restaurants downtown. Maybe many of the vacant storefronts are caused by rents that are too high, and legacy landlords that don’t have to take new tenants at a cent under what they think market is since they have near zero carrying costs and extremely low property taxes in relation to newer entrants. Once again, I’ll question whether you have a fiduciary interest in one or more of the LLCs and Trusts that own most of downtown. I’ve been surprised twice by people fighting the downtown plan, that have been later revealed to be property owners there. Hint – they didn’t willingly disclose.
KK,
That’s a good point. Menlo Park has lost some great businesses not because they weren’t doing well but because the landlords decided to terminate their leases or not renew their leases because they felt they could get more. Shiok and Gerry’s cakes are just two examples. But then if you take a look at the La Boulangerie and Ann’s coffee shop that closed and were reopened as higher-end establishments I think it’s safe to say that the problem isn’t businesses wanting to be in Menlo Park.
Menlo voter keeps arguing against developing the parking lots but fails to offer viable alternative solutions. Menlo Park does not have a choice, they have to add additional housing as mandated by Sacramento. So at this point either come up with viable alternatives or deal with what we’ve got. As I said before I’d rather have housing in our parking lots than in our parks.
No. I have zero interest in any of the properties or LLC’s downtown. I have made the same point about the downtown landlords and their greed. https://www.almanacnews.com/guest-opinion/2025/12/06/guest-opinion-leadership-is-real-problem-downtown/
From what I posted at the above link:
Sloane is absolutely correct. I have lived in MP for over 31 years and watched as the downtown has slowly decayed. In large part due to absentee landlords that have no interest in what happens to the downtown. They have a ridiculously low tax base, so they can sit on the vacant properties asking insane rents for a long time. They don’t care. There’s virtually no down side for them. They pay low taxes and the land and buildings continue to appreciate in value. What needs to happen is the owners need to be made to care. I’m not sure how that happens. Maybe start fining the owners for the appearance of their properties or create some kind of tax for leaving a property vacant for too long.
If the property owners had some actual skin in the game they might start caring that their buildings look like crap.
Care to make up some other fantasy garbage about who or what I am and what I do or don’t know?
The fact only one RFQ involves partially subterranean structure doesn’t discount the rest of the facts I have put forward. The argument that it somehow does is a logical fallacy. Your bias is obvious. Are you a developer?
Not a developer – just someone who cares about housing and pays attention to the details of what is actually happening. Hard to trust your “experience” if you’re off on one or more of the key construction features – shows a lack of attention to detail.
Appreciate your pointer to, and reposting of your comment about the challenges downtown. And sorry to have to ask about your fiduciary interests – as I mentioned, I have been surprised twice when outspoken advocates of the parking lots turned out to be hidden owners of downtown buildings.
Update: the new RFPs are in and you were wrong on so many counts:
* All three proposals include replacement parking – surprise !
* Only one, just like the last go round involves below grade parking, but only 5 feet.
* I would trust you more as a contractor if you didn’t make so many fallacious assumptions up front.
Read the proposals and let’s discuss based on reality rather than your feelings.
https://www.menlopark.gov/Government/Departments/Community-Development/Planning/Comprehensive-planning/Development-on-downtown-parking-lots
Brian: the alternative is to put it in Belle Haven where low and very low income housing belongs.
I’m sorry but that comes across as a very racist point of view. I don’t think a response is even necessary.
It may come across that way, but that’s your interpretation. My comment had nothing to do with race. It has to do with the fact that the land values are lower in Belle Haven which might actually make it possible to build low and very low income housing feasibly. And it is already a location with low income housing. Why not put low income housing in a part of town where it already exists?
Easy answers. The city has to find a way to create 345 affordable units. Land there isn’t that cheap and the city doesn’t have much land over there. And to top it off, we’ve already built most of our new housing and new affordable housing in District 1, and actually gotten in trouble for that from the previous cycle. So your suggestion would never fly financially or with the state AFFH guidelines.
MV – where to start?
Even if this were the most pragmatic or cost-effective solution (and I don’t believe it is – for starters, we don’t have the land), it is not a fair or wise solution.
First, no single neighborhood should bear all the brunt of change, nor should any neighborhood be entirely insulated from change. (https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/3/4/two-simple-rules-for-healthy-neighborhood-change)
And concentrating poverty in one region of a city is the best way to perpetuate poverty, while developing mixed income neighborhoods where people have access to opportunity is the fastest way to move people out of poverty. https://opportunityinsights.org/neighborhoods/
Finally – back to the pragmatic reason – if we put all of our BMR housing in the neighborhood with fewer resources and less access to opportunity and amenities, we will be in violation of state law and will be subject to more penalties such as Builder’s Remedy (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing)
Catherine:
Putting the housing downtown still leaves the same problem that no one wants to discuss. It is a give away of public property that belongs to all of us. Property that developers will make money off of with no financial benefit to any of us. While I normally don’t like governance by measure, but in this case, I think it is appropriate that voters decide if they are willing to give away out property.
As to the state law, if the our council and other councils had some stones they would have banded together and file a law suit against the state as it is effectively a “taking” by the state.
If no single neighborhood should take the brunt I have to wonder why no one is discussing putting it anywhere else in town. Should they build it in your neighborhood?
Mega thanks MV for providing some light on the subject. None of the LF poster, be it KK, nor CB, have any development experience, nor made any effort to get feedback to Downtown Merchants. As if they care?
The downtown lots for high density, high rise Low Income tenant apartments pushed by new Mayor Nash on Dec. 22, 2022 with actual voters focused on Xmas weekend and big storm hitting us, just demonstrates the lack of outreach to the Downtown Merchants and Property Owners in this severe threat to the Downtown Business Operational Existence.
Nash, the District 4 rep which includes downtown, never bothered to reach out to the Downtown Merchants on discuss her bizarre plan to plunk 8-10 story low income apartment buildings behind their businesses.
Many issues of even building any king of housing on those downtown lots are among the following:]
The Downtown Parking Assessment District Property Owners majority must vote to approve any substantial change to the original Surface Parking Lots. It was that then Mayor Burgess led Council bullied reluctant property owners to assess themselves in his vision of a Downtown Business District in 1947-51, even under threat of condemnation and strongarm legal tactics against the many Irish American and Italian American family properties, as well as Menlo Presbyterian Church.
Re: Opportunity sites, the State HCD agency has repeatedly instructed Menlo Park, beginning with its Housing Element Review letters Oct. 2022, then
Apr. and Aug. 2023 to do more analysis of City and Federal sites that could provide more affordable housing opportunity sites.
Civic Center buildings and excess parking areas repurposing for staff and senior housing.
USGS which was not privately owned until recently. Great opportunity for affordable housing in its redevelopment.
VA, Bohannon, and even 1283 Willow Rd, city owned bought from Mid Pen Housing at a sweet $1mm profit to Mid Pen, and rented rent free for 3 years to Mid Pen for a construction staging area for their adj. project.
Re: Downtown lots feasibility.
HCD stated repeatedly that if there are infrastructure, environmental and Jurisidictional constraints to building affordable housing then City needs to find deliverable opportunity sites in this HE cycle.
Fire Marshall and Fire District will never approve a high rise, high density apartment proposal for 345 housing units as emergency vehicle access, evacuation routes with downtown offset intersecting streets and Santa
Cruz closure to El Camino are just some of the constraining issues to meet the Fire Code mandates.
There are also some unknown subsurface contamination issues under the parking lots with well documented potential source toxic contaminant dischargers like the many auto repair, auto body repair, dry cleaning, camera shop photo processing using the nasty silver compounds, and 75 years of dishcharges from vehicles. This all requires years of subsurface drilling core samples in wet and dry seasons to satisfy the state Regional Water Quality Control Board that there are no risks from long contaminated subsurface soil vapor that would preclude any Housing on those sites.
There are a number of sites in the Palo Alto and Mt. View area that have “NO HOUSING deed restrictions” imposed by the RWQCB due to unhealthy subsurface soil vapor risks.., And that could take years to determine on the
Menlo Park Downtown lots.
RE: assumed by M Group and others, Replacement parking garages for the 565 existing surface parking spaces, recent estimates from experts
Watry Design on a request from Palo Alto for its Hamilton Waverly garage.
$122K per space, and that amounts to $120mm in Menlo Park replacement parking.
Don’t even think the low income non profit developers are willing to absorb that expense, and certainly not the taxpayers….
WE haven’t even discussed the huge water, sewer and other infrastructure upgrades needed to service the proposed 345 affordable housing units.
We could go on, but neither the poster LF, KK, and CB have the adequate knowledge nor background to professionally discuss these “due diligence” issues of the feasibility of the HE adopted statement ,
as then Mayor Nash put it in her Dec. 22, 2022 H 4
G Housing Element Policy Statement “Prioritize Affordable Housing in the Downtown Parking Lots”
@youknowhugh1, you might want to look into the the Kiku Crossing conversion of city-owned parking lots (225 slots) into affordable housing plus a new parking garage in San Mateo for a better comparison on cost and parking.
– $26M for parking garage – $40K per parking spot (replacement and resident)
– $170M for entire project – $760K / unit including resident parking.
– 668 spot modern parking garage with traffic direction / management features
– Broken into 3 separate zones for public parking, public parking that converts to overnight slots for residents, plus residents-only parking.
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4094/City-Owned-Downtown-Affordable-Housing-a
And, lately SRI Parkline developer has indicated they are likely to request reduction of the planned 1 million sf of office space approval, and build more housing, as the office market vacancy rate is still quite high, and the likelihood of finding tenants for that huge new office space is slim at best. And their financial backers are cautious
Kevin Kranen (KK) : I do not understand why you continue to simply ignore my request the City provide residents and business owners a concise summary that documents that – at a minimum – the following info about every potential affordable housing site the City considered, evaluated and rejected so our community can EASILY understand the basis for the City claim that there are no realistic alternatives to using the three downtown parking lots. Our community deserves a lot more than your long mind-numbing, diversionary rants. I expect the heat on the Council, you and Menlo Together will intensify greatly once our community reviews the developer RFP responses this month. I predict the backlash will be huge, and that residents will demand the Council more aggressively evaluates alternative options by leveraging the plentiful expertise in our community. I also predict the current project will fail. And HCD will require the City to propose a totally different strategy and plan.
1. Name and location of site
2. Potential affordable housing site capacity
3. The specific reasons the site was rejected, including facts and key assumptions
4. Why each reason could not be overcome.
Dana,
Give me more sites and I’ll give you more answers. But 2 alternate sites have already been covered in my previous postings – Burgess/City Center and Bohannon Park. I’ve already included the links to where the council made the calls and why they made the calls.
* Bohannon Park – Drew highlighted that it was in a poorly resourced location per the state’s AFFH map and also too close to the new high-density housing development in District 1. There is also written documentation in the Housing Element that Bohannon and the city could not come to terms on housing redevelopment density on the sites Bohannon was requisition.
* Burgess – the last word from Drew in the video is that the Civic Center should be considered for housing, but not until the civic center was reconfigured (which means moving the library). So put on hold until the next cycle.
I get a little tired of you not engaging on the facts already raised in the documentation I have surfaced for you.
Kevin: Dana has repeatedly asked you for this information. If, as you say, other sites were considered and studied, there should be some documentation. If there is documentation why not provide it or a link to it. Continuing to spout that it exists with no evidence just makes me think you’re full of it. I’m sure I’m not the only one.
Sorry MV – I give real answers (see above). You and Menlo Voter spout without engaging on the facts. BTW – you were wrong on several of your previous claims about what is planned downtown. Read the proposals and let’s discuss based on reality rather than your feelings.
https://www.menlopark.gov/Government/Departments/Community-Development/Planning/Comprehensive-planning/Development-on-downtown-parking-lots
What reality would that be? That they are to be low and very low income housing? I think that is a reality. And downtown is a bad place for it. I’ve seen what that type of housing turns into and it isn’t pretty.
The reality that it is a give away of land owned by ALL of the citizens of MP?
The reality that it will cause massive disruption to downtown during the construction even if phased? Phasing only lengthens the disruption by the way, it doesn’t mitigate it.
So, yes, let’s talk about reality. The above is real and folks like you want to just sweep it under the rug and ignore it so you can pat yourselves on the back for being good people. All while possibly destroying downtown businesses and giving away city property and accomplishing what? Putting low and very low income housing in a place it doesn’t belong. Don’t hurt yourself patting yourself on the back. The day you offer to give up your property in the Seminary neighborhood for construction of low and very low income housing I’ll believe you actually are interested in helping people as opposed to pretending to. Go ahead, I’m sure your neighbors will be thrilled.
@Menlo Voter, ahh, now we now get to the root of all your ugly biases and falsities.
* You claimed, without any basis, that there wouldn’t need to be any replacement parking and that the project would take forever because it would require multiple levels of below grade parking. You were wrong on both, and seem quite forgetful of that.
* What kind of biased monster are you ? – “Putting low and very low income housing in a place it doesn’t belong.” I’m sure you’re going to tell use that they only belong where land is cheap and where we in Menlo Park used to redline people of color to. Very disgusting statement.
https://www.menlotogether.org/resources/#Color-Law
* Got news for you – Vintage Oaks, where I live, already included 10% BMR / affordable units when it was built in the late 1990s. And the affordable housing is the complete antitheses of everything you claim about affordable housing. So I guess you’ll need to start believing me based on your last statement ?
Do your homework before you blather on and on about what you think you know.
Kevin:
“* You claimed, without any basis, that there wouldn’t need to be any replacement parking and that the project would take forever because it would require multiple levels of below grade parking. You were wrong on both, and seem quite forgetful of that.”
I claimed no such thing. You’re confusing me with someone else. I stated that if some of the parking to be built was subterranean it would take longer and cost more. I never said there wouldn’t need to be any replacement parking, in fact, I have said the opposite. The parking they plan on will be insufficient.
“* Got news for you – Vintage Oaks, where I live, already included 10% BMR / affordable units when it was built in the late 1990s. And the affordable housing is the complete antitheses of everything you claim about affordable housing. So I guess you’ll need to start believing me based on your last statement ?”
Nice try. We’re not talking BMR housing here, we’re talking low and very low income housing. They are two completely different things. BMR in Vintage Oaks was not and never would be affordable to the people this project is designed for. Again, I’m talking about what low and especially very low income housing becomes, NOT BMR. BMR, while being less expensive than market rate is not even close to low and very low income housing. So, let’s try again. When you give your property away for LOW and VERY LOW income housing, I’ll believe you’re really interested in helping those folks. And again, do you think your neighbors will find it ok to have multi story low and very low income housing in their neighborhood? I think we both know the answer because we’re NOT talking about BMR.
@Menlo Voter,
* Bravo for you – you correctly didn’t raise one of the most common false objections – I stand corrected. You did mention “huge parking problems” but not in that context.
* But you did major claim about underground excavation and disruption, and then walked back that same claim when the facts didn’t support it.
* You still haven’t explained your inflammatory remark about “Putting low and very low income housing in a place it doesn’t belong.”, but that seems to be an endless thread for you. Since you’re such a an expert – where should it go, and how can the city get it done ? There’s no “don’t” option. If you can’t answer specifically, you’re not helpful – just an endless naysayer.
* Also clear you haven’t read the actual proposals. One of them focuses on this:
“These income levels align closely with the salaries of Menlo Park police officers, firefighters, teachers, nurses, and other essential workers, many of whom currently commute long distances due to the lack of attainable housing in Menlo Park.”
Let’s see if you can find that and the associated context. Sounds like having police officers and teachers next door cause neighborhood deterioration.
Quite honestly, all your suppositions and biases about hard-working people with lower incomes is serious nonsense. Or maybe you’re right – you’re a bad influence on your own neighborhood given your own financial situation ?
““These income levels align closely with the salaries of Menlo Park police officers, firefighters, teachers, nurses, and other essential workers, many of whom currently commute long distances due to the lack of attainable housing in Menlo Park.”
FALSE Menlo Park’s low-income housing proposals target various income levels, generally aiming for residents earning 30% to 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI), with specific projects focusing on “very low” (30-50% AMI) and “extremely low” (under 30% AMI) earners, like one plan aiming for ~30-50% AMI ($58k-$97k for 2025) for some units, while another developer proposed units for those making $41k-$110k annually, balancing different needs for essential workers and lower earners.
STARTING salary for our police officers is $107,510 to $125,749 with salaries rising to $150,000.So aside from starting police officers barely qualifying for the “low” income housing the rest of the officers DON’T. Council and those in favor of this always trot out the “our police officers will live there”. Clearly they won’t as they don’t qualify. Some teachers will qualify, but as they move up in their careers they no longer qualify. Our firefighters won’t live their either as their base salary starts at $117,000, so they don’t qualify. Starting salaries for RN’s at Stanford are $89.20/hour. That’s $185,536 annually. So, they don’t qualify either.
If you had been paying attention I suggested where this belongs. Go back and reread my comments. You’ll find it.
So, when will you be giving up your property in Vintage Oaks so they can build multiple stories of low income housing? You let your neighbors know yet?
@Menlo Voter, a few thoughts.
* Try reading the Presidio Bay Ventures RFP proposal again – that’s where the quote about affordable housing for police officers came from.
* I did read your original comment that all low income housing should be sited in “Belle Haven” but decided to give you a chance to suggest more specific sites outlined in the housing element, especially ones that do not further Menlo Park’s history of illegal redlining.
* You weren’t entirely honest with me – you do have a fiduciary interest in downtown. A reader noted that you work for a company that has their office directly across Oak Grove from one of the parking plazas in question and has an ownership stake in the building. Hmmm.
Because I get a salary from a company downtown hardly qualifies as a fiduciary interest. I have no ownership stake in either the business nor the building. I wish I did.
“A fiduciary interest means having a legal and ethical duty to act in someone else’s best interest, prioritizing their needs above your own, especially when managing assets or making decisions on their behalf. A person or entity in this role (a fiduciary) holds a position of trust, like a trustee, lawyer, or financial advisor, and must demonstrate loyalty, care, and good faith, avoiding conflicts of interest like self-dealing to benefit themselves.
Key aspects of fiduciary interest:
Duty of Loyalty: Putting the client’s interests first, even if it means less profit for the fiduciary.
Duty of Care: Acting with the skill, prudence, and diligence of a reasonably knowledgeable person.
No Self-Dealing: Cannot personally profit from their position by recommending products that pay them high commissions, for example, if a lower-cost, suitable option exists for the client.
Examples: Trustees managing estates, guardians overseeing incapacitated individuals, and Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs) handling client investments. “
@Menlo Voter – even if you do it at the behest of your employer ?? You’re the third case where folks making vehement, yet shaky cases against the downtown plans, turn out to either be a undisclosed downtown building owners (twice) or have strong links downtown building owners (you).
I assure you, my comments are my own and are not at the “behest of my employer”. My strongest link to Menlo Park and this issue is that I have lived here for 31 years. That over rides any other fantasy interest you think I may have. They tried this same garbage back around 2000 I think and I was opposed to it then as well. Just like now, the council kept on pushing it even after getting push back from the community. It wasn’t until enough of us showed up at council meetings and spoke in opposition to it that they finally dropped it.
So, your fantasy that I have some hidden agenda is flat wrong. I have always been opposed to this type of project in this location.
I also don’t appreciate you trying to impugn my integrity. You don’t know me. Obviously you know someone that does, but that doesn’t mean you know me. I speak for myself and no one else.
When are you giving up your property in Vintage Oaks for a multi-story low and very low income housing project? Oh that’s right, that isn’t an “acceptable location”, but shoving it down other neighborhood’s throats is OK. Got it.
@Menlo,
Your lack of transparency and game of anonymity speaks volumes about your integrity – you only disclosed your connection to the project after someone raised an obvious conflict of interest. Hint: that’s NOT a sign of integrity. And it’s typical of what I see from some monied downtown stakeholders.
You also keep harping on my neighborhood which has already accepted 10% affordable housing as part of the package of a mixed neighborhood. When is Pine Forest (Buckthorn Way) going to do their share like my neighborhood or your even neighboring 133 Encinal development ?? Hmmm.
https://www.menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/community-development/documents/bmr-units-in-menlo-park.pdf
Hope you had a happy New Year.
I have no conflict of interest. Zero. I have no financial stake in my employer. Where’s the conflict? Also, you conveniently ignored the fact I opposed this exact same type of housing in the same location back in 2000. I wasn’t working for my current employer then and had (and still have) NO financial interest in the downtown properties. So, I’ve been consistent in my opposition.
Your neighborhood accepted 10% BMR which you well know this is not the type of housing we are talking about here. None of those that qualify for this housing would have ever been able to afford BMR in your neighborhood. Not even close. So, again, when are you going to turn over your property for multistory LOW and VERY LOW income housing. You seem to be ok with it and you know it is not the same as BMR, so instead of patting yourself on the back for having housing which isn’t even close to LOW and VERY LOW income housing in your neighborhood actually try walking the walk. It’s real easy for you to try and shove this down some other neighborhood’s throats. Somehow I think if they were trying to put LOW and VERY LOW income housing into YOUR neighborhood, you wouldn’t be singing the same tune. And I would put money on your neighbors not being any too happy about it either. And please don’t say you already have, as we both know you haven’t, BMR isn’t even close.
My neighborhood is already higher density housing than yours. So, when are you going to do YOUR share. Again, we both know BMR is NOT the same. So your neighborhood hasn’t “done its share”. Stop trying to conflate the two. It’s disingenuous at best, and a flat out lie at its worst.