|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Several city-owned parking lots in downtown Menlo Park are slated to become affordable housing developments. At its Tuesday, Aug. 27, meeting, the Menlo Park City Council discussed a study looking at the feasibility of constructing housing on eight parking lots in downtown Menlo Park, and gave staff the go ahead to continue the process of converting them to housing developments.
The feasibility study highlighted three of the eight city-owned lots located between Santa Cruz and Oak Grove avenues as being the most suitable for housing development. The city could build 483 or more units using various density bonuses, and they are targeting the lowest income brackets for these future projects.
Residents and council members alike expressed their excitement for the opportunity to construct low-income housing in the city’s downtown, though they also conveyed concerns about loss of parking and impacts to downtown businesses.
One resident expressed concern regarding the presence of low-income housing in downtown.
“We should remove the low-income housing,” said one local resident, Ernesto Reyes, during public comment. “This is derogatory, and in the same way is discriminatory. … when they are in this housing, they are not allowed personal (growth) by earning the minimum salaries, otherwise (they) lose the right to live on the premises.”
Many public commenters also stated that they hope the city moves forward with building affordable housing as quickly as possible.
“This is an example of a project that intersects housing, transportation and climate, and so I think the level of urgency and speed with which we need to continue to move is really important,” said Environmental Quality Commission Chair Jeff Schmidt, who is currently running for the City Council’s District 3 seat. “I would encourage accelerating the process … and not turning it into a nine or 10 year project.”
Building housing on city-owned parking plazas is one of the strategies for meeting state housing goals that was laid out in the city’s 2023-31 housing element. This plan is a roadmap for how the city will meet state housing quotas. Menlo Park is required to build 2,946 units of housing, 740 of which have to be affordable to very low-income residents, by 2031.
Menlo Park projects that the city-owned parking lots will provide at least 345 units that are affordable to households at the very low-income level. The very low-income designation includes residents who make 30 to 50% of the area median income — individuals making less than $65,250 or families of four making less than $93,200.
The housing element also states that the city will prioritize “difficult-to-achieve housing priorities” for the development of downtown parking lots, such as very low-income housing and preferential units for people with special needs such as developmental disabilities.
Council members were supportive of heavily prioritizing very low- and extremely low-income housing for these projects.
“I am supportive of going as low as we can,” said Vice Mayor Drew Combs. “I know on the other end of that, the developers have to get financing. … But what you hear time and time again from developers, specifically affordable housing developers in this area, is that land acquisition … is a barrier to entry. But in this case you are getting the land for free.”
Council member Maria Doerr agreed. “Given that (some) city staff … they make $44,000 to $60,000, or our child care workers make even less,” she said. “Making sure that even our city staff can afford to live here is a big priority for me.”
Where could housing be constructed?
Parking plaza 1, located between Santa Cruz and Oak Grove Avenues, and bordered by Chestnut Street and Maloney Street. Photo by Eleanor Raab. 
Parking plaza 2, located between Santa Cruz and Oak Grove Avenues, and bordered by Chestnut Street and Crane Street. Photo by Eleanor Raab. 
Parking plaza 3, located between Santa Cruz and Oak Grove Avenues, and bordered by Crane Street and University Drive. Photo by Eleanor Raab.
The feasibility study highlights parking lots 1, 2 and 3, which all sit between Santa Cruz and Oak Grove avenues, as the most feasible sites to construct affordable housing. Lots 5 and 8, which sit between Santa Cruz and Menlo avenues, have been identified as spaces where even more homes could be built in future phases of housing development.
The lots were chosen based on their consistency with other city plans for the downtown area, large size and lack of other constraints like easements or leases. Lots 1, 2 and 3 are fully owned by the city, with minimal interference from utility easements. Additionally, lots 1 and 3 are the largest of the city-owned parking plazas, at about two acres each.
According to a presentation by Menlo Park Principal Planner Tom Smith, staff plan to present all three lots as a package so that a potential developer would be able to use all three lots in whatever way they see fit to accomplish both housing development goals and parking replacement goals.
These three highlighted parking plazas, which cover just under five acres of downtown land, currently provide 556 parking spaces between them.
If a developer uses the city’s current residential development standards in the downtown district, they would be able to construct up to 483 units on lots 1, 2 and 3, which would exceed the 345-unit goal laid out in the housing element.
However, all eight parking plazas fall within a half mile of a major transit stop (Menlo Park’s Caltrain station), which triggers the state’s density bonus law. This bonus could allow developers to construct even more than 483 units on these sites, and allows for unlimited density and additional height bonuses.
Parking impacts
City staff and council members stressed that they are considering the parking needs of downtown visitors, residents and businesses while planning for these new developments. The exact number of parking spaces to maintain or rebuild will depend on a parking management study that the city will complete over the next 18 months in conjunction with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
Though the city will leave the specifics of parking redevelopment planning to the developer, possibilities include the construction of a parking structure on one of the city-owned lots or the inclusion of parking as part of the housing developments.
A previous study of parking in the downtown area found that building a parking garage could cost as much as $30,000 to $50,000 per parking space.
“Any redevelopment should balance the city’s housing goals in the housing element with current downtown parking needs,” said Smith. “So the study recommends including some level of replacement parking as part of any new development to make up for lost public parking spaces on the plazas.”
Doerr said that she hopes the city remembers that there are additional lots on the other side of Santa Cruz Avenue that can provide parking. “I hope that we can be creative in how we think about it. Are you walking a block to get to different places?”
Mayor Cecilia Taylor said that she thinks that centralized parking in a single area of downtown will not meet parking needs, as people will not want to walk to the businesses that are farther from that parking structure. Stores will see their business decrease, she said.
“Each of those plazas will still have to retain some retail parking that will serve the businesses that front Santa Cruz (Avenue).”
Anna Chow, who owns Cheeky Monkey Toys in downtown Menlo Park, said that the city should make sure to involve the downtown business community in any decisions made. She also asked that staff consider the impacts to businesses beyond loss of parking.
“We also have operations that happen in parking plaza 1 — we have 40-foot trucks that come through making deliveries of toys,” she said. “So we need to make sure that we have a safe loading zone behind the stores, as well as trash receptacles.”
Next steps
In order to move forward with developing housing on the parking plazas, the city first has to dispose of the properties through a process governed by the state’s Surplus Land Act. The city has to declare the land “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land.”
For nonexempt surplus land, the city could be required to seriously consider developer proposals that provide as little as 25% affordable housing, which would not achieve the affordable housing goals set out in the city’s housing element. The city would also not be able to require specific components for the developments, such as replacement parking or community amenities.
City council directed staff to move forward with the surplus land exemption process to allow the city more control over the future housing developments. The city can find the land to be “exempt” if the land is to be used for affordable housing with specific affordability requirements. This would allow the city to ask potential developers for replacement parking and other amenities.
Doerr said she is interested in going above and beyond the requirements for exemption, and also asked that staff emphasize in a request for proposals that they want the development to focus on “as many affordable units as possible,” using the state density bonus law and the city’s affordable housing overlay.
Following council guidance, city staff will move forward with soliciting proposals and ideas for the sites from developers, and with the process to declare the three lots as exempt surplus land.
Smith said that if the city declares the properties to be exempt surplus land, they would need to receive exemption approval from the California Department of Housing and Community Development before the city could sell or lease the land for affordable housing.
The housing element outlines an ambitious timeline for conversion of the parking lots to affordable housing. The city aims to have a request for proposals sent out to developers by the end of this year, transfer rights to developers by the end of 2025 and build at least 345 units of affordable housing by the end of 2027.
Should anyone be surprised by Menlo Park City Councils actions and decision-making? No. This is just another example of how they conduct studies and make plans without (a) sufficient essential participation of and contributions from residents and local business owners, (b) totally inadequate public outreach and (3) a failure to understand residents do not believe the Council actually represent the interests of our entire community. We have allowed them to pursue their personal agendas for too long AND make decisions that they are clearly unqualified to make. Residents and business owners should mobilize and prepare to force the Council to act in OUR behalf. I would consider both ballot measures and recall votes IF the Council fails to create a competent and representative advisory council with the power to influence this city effort. Contact me IF you wish to organize an unofficial one ASAP. danahendrickson2009@gmail.com.
Edited Version:
No one should be surprised by this Menlo Park City Council’s actions and decisions. These are simply more examples of how it conducts studies and makes hugely impactful plans without (a) collecting important contributions from residents and local business owners, (b) conducting adequate public outreach, i.e, public hearings, and (3) understanding most residents do not believe this Council actually represents the best interests of our entire community. We have allowed it to pursue council member personal agendas AND make decisions they are clearly not qualified to make – for way too long. Residents and business owners should mobilize and prepare to force the Council to act in OUR behalf. I would consider both ballot measures and recall votes IF the Council fails to create a competent and representative advisory council with the power to influence this city effort. Contact me IF you wish to organize an unofficial one ASAP. danahendrickson2009@gmail.com.
There are many huge problems with this idea. Here’s a big one. Do the economics of building proposed housing and parking structures make any sense? How much would these items likely cost?
“Previous estimates have pegged the cost for garage parking at $30,000 to $50,000 per space, a figure that MAY be higher now, the report said. If a parking garage is built, an assessment district or parking fees are some of the potential funding sources.:
Let’s look at the Palo Alto experience building the Sherman Avenue parking structure. This two-year project was completed almost FIVE years ago (December 2020), cost $50.1 M, and provided 636 space in a six level structure (four levels above ground and two underground). That equals $79K per space. And IF the annual total cost since then has increased by ONLY 10% per year, the cost per space in late 2024 – 5 years later – would be 1.6 X $79K = $127K!!! . And the actual construction of even one structure in Menlo Park would likely not START for at least another three years, e.g., late 2027. So, the cost per space would be would continue to rise. Note: this cost does not include any housing.
And who would pay for the parking structures and housing?
“If a parking garage is built, an assessment district or parking fees are some of the potential funding sources.
This statement is totally inadequate, i.e., it attempts to deflect two MAJOR issues and reflects a LAZY and cavalier attitude towards Menlo Park residents and local businesses. Are parking structures needed? Who pays for them? We deserve a truly responsible and professional city government. WE do not have one!
Dana is on totally on point. This reminds me of the councils’ attempt in the late 90’s or early 2000’s to do the same thing on a smaller scale. They kept pushing it forward until those of us that owned businesses downtown and others that didn’t want low income housing downtown to be built to push back hard on the council. They finally figured out this wasn’t going to happen without a fight and dropped it. Then is was sold as a way to supposedly pay for a parking garage. I’m a builder and I can tell you the economics of this and they don’t pencil without serious government subsidies. I realize council is trying to satisfy the state’s absolutely stupid and overreaching demand that cities provide more housing but this is not the way to go about it. In my experience while low income housing starts out nice it eventually degrades into a slum. There always ends up being insufficient parking because more people that anticipated move into the housing and they all have cars that need to be parked somewhere. The “carless resident” is a myth that the promotors of these types of idea love. Construction costs for multi-story buildings that include garages is very high. They will not be affordable without government subsidies. I’m not interested in paying more taxes to fund this. The city can’t even take care of the parking lots as they are now. They are in terrible shape and our streets aren’t much better. Our downtown is half vacant and dead and I don’t see the city doing anything to improve that situation. This idea needs to die a quick death.
I see this as as a golden opportunity to improve downtown. New housing will bring more foot traffic to downtown. One of the challenges with downtown is that there isn’t enough foot traffic to justify the rent that private property owners are charging. We can solve that with this development.
The city should look at revenue streams for funding the development. One option is that the new housing are apartments and not homes for sale. Use rent revenue for funding. Another revenue option is create a robust market, similar to State St Market in Los Altos or Public Market in Emeryville. The city can be creative in charging rent or percentage of sales that is more competitive than private property rates. This will attract business entrepreneurs that absent private property owners benefiting from Prop 13 aren’t interested in helping to improve downtown. The sales tax generated from transactions is also a boon. In the preliminary plan the city has designated space for a “market”. They should make it more robust, such as on ground floor of new housing.
Instead of a no housing. How can we shape and influence the city to make it into an opportunity to also revitalize downtown. I’m keen to understand how city property will be utilized to generate revenue to help fund the development. If any city property will be sold off to fund this, then I’ll be against it.
Foot traffic only generates revenue if the people using their feet are also using their hands to pull out their wallet.
Filling the downtown streets with residents (regardless of their income) will crowd out actual shoppers. Our businesses will suffer, and then leave.
The opportunity we have is for the City to address decades of deferred maintenance to make our downtown an accessible and attractive place to shop and dine. Let’s make our historic Santa Cruz Avenue a destination for everyone, not the backyard for a few.
Alex, I think more residents using our downtown would be a positive outcome. However, I fear the loss of any significant convenient public parking that discourages residents from driving there to shop, dine or use salons. This would hurt downtown businesses and further weaken our already struggling retail district. It has long been NEGLECTED by our city councils. Look at the conditions of our downtown streets, parking lots, ill-kept sidewalks and the growing number of vacant storefronts. Over a decade ago, our city engaged hundreds of residents in the process of developing its Specific Plan, the set of regulations that govern commercial development in downtown. The residents contributed dozens of wonderful ideas for improving our central retail district which are professionally described and illustrated in the Specific Plan, the planning regulations that govern downtown commercial development. Unfortunately, subsequent city councils have ignored most of them and residents have given up hope that this behavior will change. There is no economic development manager, no local chamber of commerce, no designated city liaison to help new and existing business owners. Why do you think so few residents are interested in joining the Menlo Park City Council? They have become appointees rather than elected representatives. What a mess!
Dana, why don’t you run for City Council? You seem to have lots of good idea.
Menlo Park needs a benefactor like how Los Altos had Sergey Brin.
No easy solutions. I have been asked this question many times. Here are a few reasons I have no interest in such an unrewarding role.
First, the city planning process remains extremely dysfunctional because City Councils (CCs) have always displayed little to no interest in fully informing and engaging our community of residents and business owners. While unfortunate, this is the unacceptable realty.
Some Evidence?
(1) The CC makes only the absolute minimal legal effort to either inform our community of upcoming council meetings that potentially have big impacts or effectively report its decisions. Menlo Park CCs clearly does not favor transparency.
(2) Unlike other neighboring cities, e.g., Palo Alto, Redwood City, the Menlo Park CC does not conduct public hearings that would enable our community to ask questions, express their views, and fully understand council decisions and plans. This surely weakens CC decision-making and hurts our community.
(3) There is no official report of individual CC members positions and decisions. Instead, residents must discern these by either listening to comments made during long CC meetings or reading incomplete post meeting minutes and staff reports. This penalizes our community, as we do not clearly understand the reasoning of individual council members and makes “holding them accountable” extremely difficult.
Next, the city planning process will remain dysfunctional as long a MAJORITY of council members continue to believe they do not NEED or WANT much greater community involvement. This monumental change will not happen unless our community FORCES our CC to improve its attitudes, behavior and planning. Unfortunately, our community has not demonstrated any real interest in doing this. Perhaps, it has little faith in our city government and has passively accepted a sense of hopelessness about what changes could be made.
Next, the strategy of electing at least three CC representatives who would then make the necessary changes to its planning processes is unpromising and this perception discourages aligned and well-qualified candidates from running for the council. Why would they want to subject themselves to the frustrations, disappointments and helplessness associated with CC planning? Why would they believe they could affect major changes without HUGE community support?
Finally, I fall into that category of possible candidates. I would rather spend my time keeping our community better informed and advocating for what I believe are decisions that I feel better serve Menlo Park. My efforts are often frustrating and infrequently rewarding. But I genuinely appreciate Menlo Park and believe it could be even a much better place to live.
I raised my family in Menlo Park and lived there very happily until moving a few years ago. Since moving, I’ve seen an absolute boom in development, and some truly baffling proposals put forward, eg highrises on the Sunset campus, a dense buildout of the old Flood School site, and this bananas idea of putting low income housing in the middle of downtown. Has City Council lost its collective mind?! I’m no parking fanatic, and I always liked walking the length of Santa Cruz Avenue to do my errands, but have any decision makers thought about the fact that during the holiday season, for example, every single parking spot downtown is occupied, and people have to circle every lot in a vain search for somewhere to park? Anna Chow is right to be concerned about the hugely detrimental impact that tearing out these 2 key parking lots in favor of (presumably) dense mid-rise residential buildings would have on downtown businesses. If people think Santa Cruz is dying now, just wait until those lots are torn out and made into construction sites! And that’s just the parking element of the project; that aside, who would want to live in an apartment building that’s been plopped down into the middle of a commercial district? I know Menlo Park is under immense pressure to meet the state’s draconian housing element requirements, but there has to be a better solution than this.