|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
It’s official. Save Downtown Menlo can start collecting signatures for its initiative to protect the downtown parking lots and block Menlo Park’s planned affordable housing project. City attorney Nira Doherty finalized the ballot measure title and summary on May 29.
The ballot measure would require voter approval before the city council could repurpose downtown parking lots for affordable housing. Residents and business owners launched the initiative to block the council’s plan for 100% affordable housing developments on three parking plazas.
The city council sent out a request for qualifications from potential developers on Jan. 14 and reviewed the responses on June 3. Despite the pending ballot measure, a majority of the city council decided to move forward with sending a request for proposals, the next step after a request for qualifications, to some developers.
For the initiative to go on the ballot, supporters will need 2,104 signatures — 10% of registered voters in the city — within 180 days.
Van Kouzoujian, one of the registered proponents, told this news organization that Save Downtown Menlo planned to begin collecting signatures outside of Draeger’s in Menlo Park this week.
Save Downtown Menlo has also formed a campaign committee. The effort to raise funds is separate from its legal fund that is supporting Save Downtown Menlo’s lawsuit against the city, alleging it does not have the right to repurpose the parking lots.
Over the next several months, Menlo Park residents will likely be asked to sign the petition through door-to-door campaigning and at various businesses.
To help voters make an informed decision, The Almanac asked both Save Downtown Menlo, and Menlo Together, which opposes the ballot initiative, to submit pro and con answers to five questions.
The proponents: Save Downtown Menlo is a coalition of residents and business owners that was formed to oppose the city’s plan to develop the downtown parking lots. It has also filed a lawsuit against the city. To learn more about the organization, visit savedowntownmenlo.org.
The opponents: Menlo Together advocates for affordable housing at all income levels. It envisions a pedestrian and bike-friendly downtown with safe and affordable homes for everyone. It has firmly opposed several attempts by residents to block various affordable housing developments. It works closely with the San Mateo County Housing Leadership Council. Learn more about Menlo Together at menlotogether.org.
The Almanac lightly edited the responses. Each side was limited to 200-word responses.
What position should voters take on the ballot measure to require voter approval for repurposing the downtown parking lots?
Proponents: Voters should support the measure. Downtown is the heart of our city, and the people of Menlo Park care deeply about its future. This ballot measure recognizes that the eight public parking plazas are essential to the downtown’s vitality. Repurposing them would be an irreversible decision with far-reaching, potentially devastating, consequences. A change of this magnitude, which would alter our city forever, deserves direct community approval.
Opponents: No matter what you think about the proposal to build new affordable homes on city-owned parking lots, this measure is a bad idea. It would replace a democratic and transparent decision-making process informed by input from the public and professional expertise of city staff. In its place would be an endless series of expensive and divisive yes/no political campaigns.
This ballot measure is an attempt to block desperately needed new affordable homes downtown. Menlo Park is one of the most expensive places to live, and teachers, plumbers, small business owners and young families can’t afford to live here. Businesses can’t recruit and retain talent.
The measure would impose a political veto mechanism for any future change, even projects that would revitalize downtown.
This measure doesn’t “save downtown.” It protects the status quo and stalls solutions for our community’s most pressing needs today and into the future.
Should voters or the city council decide the future of the parking lots?
Proponents: Voters should decide. We respect and appreciate the service of our City Council – but councilmembers come and go. Our community is here to stay. The parking lots are public lands that have been serving the Menlo Park for decades and are still heavily used today. A decision to change their use, or to declare them “surplus land,” is too significant, and too permanent, to be decided by a three-person majority of whichever City Council happens to be in office. The people should decide.
Opponents: Voters elect city council members to lead their communities. Menlo Park’s city council consists of our neighbors who dedicated their time to study complex issues with inherent tradeoffs and make decisions with the city’s best long-term interests at heart. City council deliberations are public and transparent, informed by expert city staff including legal counsel, and by law, include multiple opportunities for public input.
Ballot box decisions eliminate transparency and empower those with the loudest voices and deepest pockets, and they waste taxpayer money that could otherwise go to parks, libraries and roads.
Menlo Park’s housing plan is the result of a years-long, transparent process that involves staff, city council and public input. Furthermore, the city and all of the potential developers have plans for extensive community engagement that will incorporate feedback from multiple perspectives into the project.
Our city council members should make decisions about land use, just as they make decisions about budgets, parks and roads.
Should someone who supports, opposes or is undecided on affordable housing on downtown parking lots support your position on the ballot measure?
Proponents: Anyone who respects the democratic process should support this measure. It doesn’t block housing, it simply requires that if someone wants to use our public parking lots for housing or anything else, they must first convince the voters. It’s about accountability, not ideology. No matter your view on housing, we can agree that public land should not be repurposed without public consent. Importantly, the measure imposes no restrictions on downtown housing in general — it only ensures that changing the use of these parking lots requires a vote of the people.
Opponents: The ballot measure is a bad idea regardless of one’s opinion on the plans for new affordable homes downtown. Menlo Park’s City Council was elected to make hard decisions about how best to meet community needs. Members understand the community best, having dedicated countless hours to it, and they have access to experts, data, legal counsel and public input.
Even if you’re unsure about housing on these particular lots, we should let our public process work. There will be multiple hearings, impact studies and opportunities for input on any proposal. This measure shuts down those conversations before they even begin.
Ballot measures are blunt instruments. Once passed, they’re hard to change, even if better ideas come along or conditions shift. This isn’t about one project, it’s about whether we want a city that can evolve, adapt, and plan for the future.
If we care about good government, fiscal responsibility and community input, we should oppose this unnecessary measure.
What are the motivations behind your position on the ballot measure?
Proponents: We love downtown Menlo Park and want to protect its future. Our downtown can only thrive if it is easily accessible — and convenient parking is essential to that. Without it, we risk losing the businesses, jobs and community activity that give downtown its vibrancy. We do not oppose downtown housing, but we do oppose sacrificing the parking infrastructure that makes downtown viable. There are other housing alternatives that don’t pose an existential threat to our businesses, and we believe those should be pursued instead.
Opponents: We want a vibrant downtown that is accessible to people of all backgrounds. Building housing along with necessary replacement parking, as the city plans to do, will bring new customers and employees to the heart of Menlo Park’s downtown, creating new opportunities.
The ballot measure would hobble economic development in our downtown. The measure gives a small, well-organized group the power to delay or kill any future plans to enhance our downtown, whether for housing or something else.
The strategy could also backfire massively. State law requires all cities to do their fair share to provide homes for those who need them. If the ballot measure passes, it will increase the risk that Menlo Park yet again loses local control over land use, resulting in unplanned megatowers in residential neighborhoods.
How will the measure succeeding or failing to get on the ballot affect Menlo Park?
Proponents: If the measure qualifies for the ballot, voters will have the opportunity to enact an ordinance requiring that any change to the use of downtown parking plazas must first be approved by a public vote. The ordinance would apply retroactively to May 15, 2025, protecting the plazas in the meantime. But if the measure fails to qualify, the city may move forward with plans to declare the lots “exempt surplus land” and make them available to developers — despite widespread public opposition. Menlo Park residents could be left watching helplessly as the land that anchors their downtown is given away.
Opponents: If the measure qualifies, Menlo Park will spend taxpayer dollars defending it, studying it and holding an election, even if it’s ultimately rejected by voters. That’s money we could spend on schools, parks, or infrastructure — and affordable homes.
As of now, the measure has had no impact on the city’s progress towards developing hundreds of desperately needed new affordable homes on three of the city’s downtown parking lots, near transit, shops and services. If it does cause delay it’s important to remember that our state housing obligations won’t go away. Failing to plan for housing puts us at legal and financial risk. It also opens the door to state intervention and loss of local control, such as more mega-projects like the 39-story 80 Willow Road development proposal.
On the other hand, if the measure fails to qualify, Menlo Park can move forward with open, transparent planning and finally make progress on smart, equitable downtown development.
Read The Almanac’s previous coverage of the ballot initiative and the housing proposals.
Editor’s Note: This story was updated to correct a typo and to clarify Menlo Together opposes the ballot initiative.
Pilot’s report of ‘erratically’ flying paraglider triggers search at SLAC campusJanuary 19, 2026 11:20 am
Ownership change brings new flavors to this 70-year-old Palo Alto ice cream institutionJanuary 19, 2026 2:24 pm
Referendums are the WORST possible way to make public decisions that involve hard tradeoffs because of:
* Oversimplification of Complex Issues – Reducing multifaceted policy decisions to a binary choice often fails to capture necessary nuances. A great example of failure – Brexit’s disentanglement from the EU involved intricate economic and legal trade-offs, yet voters faced a simplistic “Leave” or “Remain” question. This binary framing obscured critical details, such as how a “yes” vote would and did eventually cause substantial harm to the voters. The polled share of “Leave” supporters has dropped from about 50% to about 30% since Brexit was implemented.
* Susceptibility to Special Interests – California’s ballot initiative system highlights how wealthy groups exploit referendums. Paid signature-gathering and misleading ads allow wealthy self-serving parties to push niche agendas, creating policies that are difficult to repeal. This dynamic prioritizes well-funded campaigns over broad public interest.
* Unrealistic Expectations of Voter Expertise – Referendums assume voters have the time and resources to deeply understand complex issues, things they rarely have. Most people lack the deep knowledge of the city Housing Element plan and state-driven requirements plus the associated tradeoffs.
I understand the concerns of downtown business owners about potential lost revenue, and it’s essential that the city and the selected developer have a solid plan in place to support those businesses during construction. That said, requiring a public vote every time the city needs to make a decision isn’t a sustainable or effective way to govern. Change can be hard, but it’s often the first step toward something better—creating space for growth, new opportunities, and a stronger community.
I agree, but what is ironic in the debate is that it appears misunderstood. We are talking about more people within walking distance to shops and restaurants, how can that be negative to downtown business owners? People will skip Menlo Park and instead go to Redwood City or Palo Alto just to find a parking spot? No, the only stores that will suffer are stores like Ace Hardware where people go in and out because they need something and then leave. Don’t get me wrong I love Ace and find it very convenient, but it is really not the kind of store that belongs on a Main street.
MP Resident: A correction is in order: This Initiative most assuredly does not call for a vote every time the city needs to make a decision–it only calls for a vote if and when the city seeks to repurpose our downtown parking lots so that people can no longer park in them.
KK: This issue is far simpler than Brexit. Housing squeezed into our downtown parking lots would kill our local businesses that residents rely on. And as for “wealthy self-serving parties to push niche agendas”–that description would seem to be a better fit for billionaire Karen Grove’s Menlo Together organization than the grassroots coalition of residents and local business owners seeking a vote of the people to decide this very contentious issue.
@cherzz,
I get tired of these fake claims of simplicity. Every downtown plan supporter I have talked to has been flummoxed about how to meet our Housing Element responsibilities without resorting to the impossible and infeasible, though they claim otherwise. All they offer is delays and penalties similar to the one that brought us the Russian skyscraper on the Sunset site.
On the flip side, virtually every other downtown on the peninsula has parking garages, some with housing on top and some with housing attached. It’s what you do when land is scarce. It’s not a downtown killer.
That would be “downtown plan opponent”, not “downtown plan support”
Cherzz, I understand this measure is specific to the parking lots. But let’s be honest—the proponents have made it clear their true interest lies in keeping things exactly as they are. It’s not about thoughtful planning; it’s about resisting progress. If this passes, every step forward will be met with another costly vote, driven by homeowners and landlords determined to say no to change. That’s no way to build a vibrant, inclusive city.
There are better areas in town for this type of housing. But, the city doesn’t own land there so the fantasy of “affordable housing” gets killed by the reality of the costs of land acquisition and construction are too high to produce very low income housing.
You’re right – there are a bunch of great locations around town for housing. They are called Opportunity Sites in the 2023-2031Housing Element, all chosen very carefully based on a a variety of state-mandated and city-driven criteria with public input through a two year process. The downtown lots are one of those Opportunity Sites. It’s worthwhile for anybody who wants to help with our housing challenges and pick the best location to study the Housing Element to understand the complex criteria.
https://menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/3/community-development/documents/projects/housing-element-update/2023-2031-city-of-menlo-park-housing-element-clean_010324.pdf
Much of our Housing Element relies on overlaying housing in commercial/retail zones because we have a higher percentage of that than typical cities. But with 5 jobs in Menlo Park for every housing unit, it’s incumbent on us to balance things out.
My husband and I have been business owners in downtown Menlo Park for 17 years. Our Menlo Park shop is one of 4 locations in the Bay Area. I believe that our shop, Alys Grace, is one of the bright spots in Menlo Park along with other locally owned boutiques in the neighborhood. Parking and ease of access is critical to our business as well as our fellow local businesses. As Covid has taught us, our local in person clientele is the lifeblood of our success even though our online business continues to grow. We survived Covid, but we did it because of our clientele. We already have a problem with empty store fronts on Santa Cruz Avenue. If we build on top of our parking lots and make it harder for our clientele to shop, it will be DEVASTATING to our businesses.
@tb,
Why make the fear-based claims ? Parking garages aren’t COVID19. Seems to me that our downtown vacancies are mostly due to overpriced rents by nameless, faceless LLCs who pay next to nothing in property taxes.
I understand the construction disturbance issues, but there are solutions. Maybe our downtown owners could help the merchants downtown by enabling temporary transitions to the empty storefronts while construction is underway ?
And what are the solutions to the construction disruptions? 2 years with significantly reduced parking could kill shops like Alys Grace.
And you are right about the most of the vacant shops belonging to nameless faceless LLC’s. They are asking ridiculous rents, and because as you noted, they pay ridiculously low property taxes, they don’t care if the building sits vacant until someone is willing to meet their ridiculous rent demands. The city can do something about that if they have the courage. So far no one has shown the fortitude to take the necessary steps.
@Menlo Voter,
I agree that constructions disruptions are a risk factor. I was going to suggest the “other side of Santa Cruz” empty storefront trade solution for Alys Grace, but then I realized that they are already on the opposite side of Santa Cruz, and back/front on the untouched parking lot (#4) that is the farthest from the planned construction. I’ll also point out that several of the RFQs, which none of the downtown owners have seemingly paid attention to, call for a phased approach that quickly builds a parking garage first so as to minimize construction challenges.
As for the LLCs, I have heard that 70% of them trace back to the same 5 parties that have owned the properties for many years, hence the minimal property taxes while demanding high rents, with willingness to leave space vacant for long periods.
Isn’t the point of democracy to let the people decide? Yet how many Menlo Park residents even know who their councilmembers are—or what is driving their motivates? (Hint: several ran unopposed meaning they had no competition and were backed by special interest groups.) That’s exactly why this initiative matters. Our elected officials are doing their own thing.
They’re ignoring the 90% of residents who signed petitions opposing the destruction of our downtown several months ago. They’re ignoring the local merchants who bring us restaurants, shops, and tax revenues that benefit the entire community. They’re ignoring common sense from a highly-educated community who have provided several more feasible, more cost-effective, more lifestyle-friendly options than downtown parking lots.
Elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents. When they don’t, it’s up to voters to take the lead. That’s what this initiative is about: giving the power back to the voters.
Power to the People!
@cc, civics class should have taught you that we live in a representative democracy, and that that’s for a reason. I very much laugh at your specious claims:
* “90% of the residents who signed petitions” is a crock, no matter how you construe your meaning.
* The “highly-educated community who have provided several more feasible, more cost-effective, more lifestyle-friendly options than downtown parking lots” can’t address the simple challenges raised by the city, that are outlines in the Housing Element – must be ready-to-develop city land in the right location. Plus the “highly-educated community” ignores the other petition “where 100% of the signers” opposed the most commonly claimed “alternate” solution.
Back to my original point why we use representative government and why referendums are the worst way to make complex multi-choice decisions…
* Oversimplification of Complex Issues – Reducing multifaceted policy decisions to a binary choice often fails to capture necessary nuances. A great example of failure – Brexit’s disentanglement from the EU involved intricate economic and legal trade-offs, yet voters faced a simplistic “Leave” or “Remain” question. This binary framing obscured critical details, such as how a “yes” vote would and did eventually cause substantial harm to the voters. The polled share of “Leave” supporters has dropped from about 50% to about 30% since Brexit was implemented.
* Unrealistic Expectations of Voter Expertise – Referendums assume voters have the time and resources to deeply understand complex issues, things they rarely have. Most people lack the deep knowledge of the city Housing Element plan and state-driven requirements plus the associated tradeoffs.
Highly educated residents realize that there are more than one side to this. Menlo Park, like all other cities in the state, are under mandate to produce more dwellings or face heavy fines, and in the worst case a free for all for developers if we can’t meet these demands. Kicking and screaming won’t help.
Once people realize this fact, and that dwellings has to go somewhere, it is a matter of where and most highly educated individuals also realize that down town areas are most suitable for higher density as they have access to shops and public transportation. If people really want power they need to educate themselves.
I hope the existing homeowners of Menlo park will see how destructive this project is to their community and property values. Our progressive city council wants to fundamentally change Menlo Park, and relying on the YIMBY coalition for their primary input. These are groups that don’t even live or invest in Menlo Park. If the city council listened to the people that pay their salaries then we wouldn’t need this measure.
Let me offer an alternate scenario grounded in real facts, instead of specious claims.
* Menlo Park has vastly changed in the past 20 years, with the number of primary jobs in town more than doubling from 24K to 66K from 2003 to 2022 (the last year currently available from the Census). During that same period the number of residents, housing units, employed residents and households barely budged, leaving us with huge 5 jobs for every 1 housing unit imbalance, and ridiculous housing prices due to demand far outstripping supply.
* Meanwhile, the downtown, mostly owned by a small group of rent-seeking out-of-town LLCs (as documented by Dana Hendrickson) has stagnated and in fact sports a nearly 20% storefront vacancy rate. Longtime owners milk these cash cows, instead of improving them, leveraging their long-time ownership and Prop 13 diminished tax. And in the few cases where a non-faceless family-owned space is eventually sold to an LLC, the existing long term business are booted out for still higher rents, as was the case with Shiok.
https://mpcdforum.com/downtown-retail-location-vacancies/
* The city and council, with a fair amount of prodding by the state, via a required Housing Element, developed an 8 year plan, with significant community input, to address a portion of this imbalance. One key component of the plan was the downtown housing / parking upgrade. The locale was selected based a number of key criteria highlighted in the Housing Element.
* Rational community members, who actually internalize the motivations, details and requirements behind the Housing Element, support the downtown plan and are actively involved in understanding and selecting the best proposals for our greatly changed town and stagnant downtown, instead of being NIMBYs. FYI – I live here just like you claim to, patronize our downtown to the degree we have products I want there and am in favor of the plan.
ps: I’m also dubious of the whole design district and rug store strategy. That’s a strategy that benefits a few, by giving them the cheapest storefront nexus within a 25 mile commercial zone, that can service high-priced neighborhoods on the peninsulas and into the South Bay (think Atherton, Woodside, Portola Valley and Los Altos Hills). Anybody who want to know more needs to understand the 25 mile commercial zone exemption from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations.
Hi MP Homeowner, to clear up a few misconceptions… city council members aren’t paid a salary. We get a modest monthly stipend to cover things like gas and incidentals, but I spend more than 40 hours a week on city business. Our time and energy is volunteered and devoted to serving the community.
And, we do listen to residents. I’m at Cafe Borrone every Saturday morning from 9-10am for open office hours and listen to residents every weekend (and also during the week.) Anyone who would like to have an in-depth discussion about downtown or any other topic is always welcome to join. Even if we won’t always agree, I promise to listen. -Jeff / D3
KK is an AI bot.
@Hey That’s Just Super,
Try again ! Seemingly more human than you and I like doing my research and explaining why the referendum is foolish idea, to others. Throw in there’s a good chance the courts would throw it out for running counter to state law, just like what would have happened to similar-minded Measure V, had it passed.
It is very troublesome to see a excessively rhetorical campaign in opposition to a development project that doesn’t bother to have much critical claims regarding the status quo in Menlo Park downtown to begin with. Both sides are really appear disingenuous with regards to what would be good and what is the best way to accomplish this ‘good’. There is a huge hidden subsidy to FREE PARKING that should not be ignored. When I see the ‘let the community decide’ I know that the community never decided to build mandated parking requirements that drive up costs for business. I can say some things that I will propose as ballot measures that go beyond simply this opposition, here is a list: use occupancy sensors for fairly priced smart parking to optimize on-street parking and develop a revenue return system that puts this money into street level improvement (nothing else). Use market pricing for parking leave this pricing for all hours necessary. Create Menlo Park downtown wifi for everyone eventually from the revenue return model. Open land development so that market forces control what gets built and how successful it is. There is much more to be said and I suggest everyone read Donald Shoup’s research on parking science. He has deceased and here is his website: https://www.shoupdogg.com/