|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
It was standing room only in the Menlo Park City Council Chambers on the evening of Tuesday, Jan. 14, as about 250 people turned out to listen to and comment on the council’s discussion of the city’s plans to place affordable housing on downtown parking lots, with another 200 or so attending on Zoom.
Following four hours of public comment from 104 commenters, and two hours of council discussion, the council opted for a compromise: its members voted unanimously to proceed with releasing a request for developer qualifications, but to hold off on declaring the three city-owned parking lots just off Santa Cruz Avenue as exempt surplus land. Council members said that by not declaring the parking lots as surplus land, the residents and business owners who have concerns about the project could feel heard by the council. However, moving forward with the RFQ would still advance the project on the city’s promised timeline.
“I think I can speak for all of us when I say we deeply care about our downtown businesses,” said Vice Mayor Betsy Nash. Nash said that she sees delaying declaring the lots as surplus land as a way to “ease anxiety” for business owners and “demonstrate to them that (the council is) taking this very seriously.”
The atmosphere in the room was tense, as attendees heckled and groaned at public commenters that they disagreed with. At one point, Mayor Drew Combs had to give a commenter extra time after he had been interrupted several times during his remarks. The topic that drew so much attention from residents was the city’s plan to convert three city-owned lots located between Santa Cruz and Oak Grove avenues into 345 to 483 units of affordable housing, along with other amenities.
Many commenters opposing the city’s plan said that they do not oppose affordable housing in principle, but that downtown is the wrong place for it.
“We’re all for affordable housing, but don’t destroy the fabric of downtown Menlo Park to satisfy a quota,” said a resident and downtown property owner named Loren Dakin, who suggested that the city consider Civic Center land as an alternative location for the affordable housing units. Many other commenters echoed Dakin’s sentiments, and asked council to place housing on other city-owned land.
Several housing advocates that commented said that delaying projects such as this while claiming to support affordable housing is one of the most common tactics to prevent such housing from being built.
“During the housing element update process we delayed — we listened to those people who wanted to slow things down, to explore more options, to add more studies and to build less housing in general,” said Willows neighborhood resident Ross Silverstein. “As a result, we ended up in non-compliance with our housing element, and we got (the) 80 Willow (Road ‘builder’s remedy’ project). If the City Council delays taking our housing requirements seriously, we will end up with more Willow tower proposals.”
Many commenters in favor of the plans also mentioned that Menlo Park is a deeply unaffordable place to live, and expressed excitement about the prospect of more affordable housing coming to the city. Representatives from local climate groups, such as Brian Schmidt from Menlo Spark and Cade Cannedy from Climate Resilient Communities, praised the project for its environmentalism, as it is situated close to transit and could reduce the number of car trips required for residents of the new developments.
The one thing that most commenters agreed on, whether in favor or against the downtown housing plan, was that downtown Menlo Park needs improvement. Commenters on both sides of the debate mentioned the high vacancy rate downtown, and how many businesses are struggling to survive with the current number of patrons in the area.
Those in favor of the plan see new housing and new residents downtown as a way to revitalize businesses that require foot traffic.
“It’s unfortunate how many empty storefronts there are on Santa Cruz Ave. when you walk downtown, but imagine how much more lively it could be with many new residents out and about, rather than parking lots that sadly sit empty much of the time,” said Central Menlo Park resident Peter Nance.
A banner encouraging people to petition the use of the three public parking lots for high density housing is seen above Coffeebar, which is next to parking lot #2 in downtown Menlo Park. Jan. 14, 2025. Photo by Anna Hoch-Kenney. 
Menlo Park property owner Kevin Cunningham speaks about frutrations with the plan to build housing on the public parking lots in downtown Menlo Park during a city council meeting on Jan. 14, 2025. Photo by Anna Hoch-Kenney. 
Menlo Park resident and business owner Keri Nicholas says she supports affordable housing, but urges the city council to find a better plan than to build housing on downtown Menlo Park’s public parking lots during a city council meeting on Jan. 14, 2025. Photo by Anna Hoch-Kenney.
Kevin Cunningham, who co-owns the building that houses Coffeebar, which sits directly in front of one of the lots slated for development sees it differently. He is especially worried about the impact that construction will have on businesses.
“When we talk about replacement parking, you need to understand that a two, two and a half year-long build is the oxygen for businesses,” he said. “When you take that away, thinking you’re going to then get it back, give it back, you’re going to be dealing with a skeleton. It’s dead.”
Community Development Director Deanna Chow said that the city can consider additional concurrent downtown revitalization steps as part of its capital improvement program.
The proposal to build housing on city-owned lots downtown had been adopted by the previous City Council as one of the programs in its most recent state-mandated housing element plans. The city is required by the state to plan to build 2,946 units of housing between 2023 and 2031, with at least 740 of those units designated for very low-income housing.
In November 2024, the council had been slated to vote on whether or not to take the next two procedural steps to move the project forward: releasing an RFQ to begin soliciting ideas from developers for the lots, and declaring the lots exempt surplus land — a legal step that must be taken before the lots can be used for any purpose other than parking. After hearing from dozens of residents and business owners who expressed concerns about the proposal and told the council that they had not been properly notified about the plans for the downtown lots, they opted to postpone the vote to Jan. 14.
Ahead of Tuesday night’s meeting, the city stepped up their outreach efforts by placing electronic signboards in the parking lots slated for development, holding virtual meetings with the business community, sending a postcard about the project citywide, posting A-frame signs with a link to a project information page and creating an FAQ about the project. Groups both in support of and opposing the project also stepped up their efforts to inform residents about the plans for the downtown lots.
“The first time I was alerted to this was three days before the November meeting,” said Keri Nicholas, a downtown property owner and business owner who opposes the project. “Once we did find out — we have spent our own money on ad space in the papers, signs, we started a petition and everything to show the residents of Menlo Park what this proposal means.”
Menlo Park resident Karen Grove, cofounder of the Menlo Park Together organization, displays a list of signatures of people who support building housing on the public parking lots in downtown Menlo Park during a city council meeting on Jan. 14, 2025. Photo by Anna Hoch-Kenney. 
Bow Wow Meow is one of several downtown Menlo Park businesses displaying posters to petition the use of the three public parking lots for high density housing. Jan. 14, 2025. Photo by Anna Hoch-Kenney.
Save Downtown Menlo, a group formed by several downtown business owners, posted signs and banners opposing the project on businesses downtown, placed flyers on car windshields, took out ads about the project and created a petition against the project that collected approximately 2,900 signatures. Menlo Together, a local community advocacy group, canvassed the downtown area, placed signs in support of the project downtown and created their own petition in favor of the project that collected approximately 350 signatures.
Both groups also held gathering events for supporters in advance of the Jan. 14 meeting.
What does the RFQ ask for?
The RFQ outlines Menlo Park’s requirements and vision for the lots, and asks developers to summarize their experience building similar projects, provide a concept for the development of the lots, lay out a timeline for how and when the company expects to be able to complete the project, describe a plan for community engagement and describe a financing strategy for the project.
Specifically, the RFQ states that the city’s priorities include maximizing the number of affordable units that can be built on the site, a large proportion of deeply affordable housing, sustainable building design such as 100% electric construction and EV charging stations and the ability to complete the project by the city’s 2027 goal.
The RFQ also outlines the city’s vision for public parking replacement. It asks developers to provide innovative parking management strategies that replace a minimum of 506 public spots, and to indicate how that replacement public parking would remain available for public use, and not be utilized by residents of the development. It specifically asks developers to consider how parking enforcement might occur.
Menlo Park Principal Planner Tom Smith clarified at the meeting that the council has the opportunity to work with a developer to refine or add to the city’s parking request throughout the RFQ process, and as the city finalizes data from its downtown parking management study.
After Combs asked whether the city could limit the RFQ to just one of the three city-owned parking plazas, Smith also clarified that the city had opted to present all three lots to potential developers in order to “provide a certain level of flexibility” to developers, and to solicit creative solutions that address all of the city’s needs.
Nash also asked city staff to add a request to the RFQ to phase project construction to minimize disruption to business operations.
Several council members also asked Smith if the city could study affordable housing on the Civic Center property concurrently with the downtown parking lots. Smith responded that to study such a project at this point in the process, when the city already has an adopted and certified housing element with specific programs like the downtown parking redevelopment that it has already agreed to, would require going back to state officials and reopening housing element conversations with them.
Smith said that such an action would also involve general plan amendments, zoning changes and a lengthy environmental review process, which are not feasible with the amount of time left in the current state housing element cycle. The city will likely be asked to produce additional affordable housing after 2031, and Smith said the city can explore other locations at that time.
Combs also clarified that locating housing on Civic Center property does not fulfill the city’s state requirement to “affirmatively further fair housing” as well as the lots downtown, because the downtown lots are on the west side of El Camino Real, where fewer affordable housing developments have been planned.
What comes next?
The next step for the city is to release the RFQ to solicit developer ideas for the three lots. According to Smith, city staff anticipate releasing the RFQ by the end of the month. Once the RFQ is released to the public, developers will have two months to submit their qualifications and ideas for the lots.
The council will review developer qualifications and experience at an upcoming meeting in the spring. At that time, the council could choose to include additional steps before a developer is selected for the lots, such as issuing a request for proposals from a shortlist of developers. A request for proposals would ask for more detailed plans
The council can opt to declare the lots as exempt surplus land at any point in this process, but the declaration must take place before the city enters into an agreement with any developer, or any other contract that formalizes the use of the parking lots for housing.
Read the RFQ and staff report on the project:
‘Near-miss’ sends firefighters searching for crashed paraglider at SLAC campusJanuary 17, 2026 12:48 pm
Great summary Eleanor – Amazing to see the volume of resident engagement and thoughtful discussion. Also impressive to see the tenor of the discussion move from whether we need more housing and BMR housing, to how best to allocate throughout the city. Even the opponents of moving forward on downtown, with the exception of a few outliers, collaboratively offered constructive options for siting the needed new housing.
Write this down. If the low income housing that goes in is essentially section 8 housing, which is my understanding, it will turn into a slum. That is based on my experience in law enforcement policing areas with that type of housing. It won’t start out that way, but it will end up that way. Look at what you wrote down five to ten years after this gets built and occupied and see if I was right.
@Menlo Voter, there are already 120 units of similar BMR housing near downtown, as Betsy Nash alluded to in the discussions – one 90 unit building and one 30 unit building. I bet you and your law enforcement skills can’t locate these two, because they are very unlike what you describe.
@Menlo Voter, there are already 120 units of similar BMR housing near downtown, as Betsy Nash alluded to in the discussions – one 90 unit building and one 30 unit building. I bet you and your law enforcement skills can’t locate these two, because they are very unlike what you describe and have been around for years..
Menlo Voter and other affluent retirees feel threatened that the downtown will be overrun by Stanford grad students. Suggesting that building affordable housing will somehow turn the city into a slum insults readers’ intelligence.
I am extremely disappointed that BOTH the lead City planner (Tom Smith) AND our mayor (Drew Combs) so quickly discarded the Civic Center Affordable Housing idea without conducting a public hearing with our community. These types of decisions once again fuel distrust in our city leadership. The Council should have asked Tom to come back with a well-supported explanation why the City cannot even consider this idea. And I do not understand why building on the other side of El Camino ( less than 1/2 mile from downtown) creates a fair housing problem. Building at the Civic Center has huge practical advantages over downtown housing including much easier access to nearby community services and facilities and would avoid the known high risks of building on the parking plazas. Why toss out a Plan B so cavalierly? Are you really so confident that you can build at 345 housing units PLUS 504 public parking spaces PLUS 345 private parking spaces all on land that now has 556 public spaces? This does not make sense and is never going to happen. Also, none of the three affordable housing “student studio studies” available on the city website indicate the downtown parking project can be completed by 2027 – and none include a parking structure. Our community deserves more respect and better represenation.
Thank you Eleanor. Overall an excellent summary.
It is important to note that the majority of residents who opposed the vote supported the concept but thought the idea of removing the parking lots was simply ill conceived and ill planned. Several of the speakers were real estate developers who advised the Council on the current cost of constructing a parking garage which far exceeds what the city nor developers can afford and that the new residents would require 1-2 cars per unit which almost doubles the replacement parking required. Also, every single downtown property and business owner who spoke was vehemently against the idea of removing parking lots, and virtually all said it would be the death of downtown.
As you state, a majority of the opponents voiced that the Civic Center is a more viable option as 1.) It is City Owned and thus can enable low-income housing development, 2.) It is downtown and thus walkable to all the businesses, 3.) It is a much larger site than the parking lots combined, 4.) it is in the business district and not surrounded by neighborhood homes and thus can be supersized and 5.) It has great access to green areas and town services (sport fields, gymnasiums, library).
Also, it was surprising to me that a high percentage of people who spoke in favor of the current plan and who were vocal were NOT actually residents of Menlo Park.
The City of course needs to move forward and issue the RFQ but the City should also immediately initiate discussions with the HCD regarding adding the Civic Center to the Housing Element. This was a significant miss by the former City Council. The sooner we recognize this the better chance we have of meeting our Housing Element, creating a much better solution and not destroying our downtown.
@Menlo Attendee,
There were plenty of non-Menlo-Park residents who spoke against the plan as well – one of the lawyers threatening to sue the city, many of the business owners / building owners. Should they also be excluded per your criteria for “legitimate comments” ?
I was also surprised by how many downtown plan opponents found fault in the high cost of building parking garages downtown, but somehow the let the cost objection magically melt away when moved to replacement of the Burgess lots. Burgess advocates don’t do themselves any favors with blatant misdirection like that.
@Kevin
The Civic Center area is bounded by Alma St, Ravenswood Ave, Laurel St, and Burgess Dr. It is ~7-8 times the size of the three identified downtown parking lots combined.
By more efficient use of space, there is plenty of room on the Civic Center side alone (approximately half the site) to build a comparable number of housing units and with a high percentage of ground parking.
It makes a lot more sense than shoehorning ten-story buildings between buildings downtown with zero parking, zero green spaces and a plethora of newly vacated storefronts.
I am also confident that you have further alienated Menlo Park’s downtown business and property owners. Why???
As a longtime MP resident (1970’s), I am saddened to see all of this happening to my once peaceful, quiet city. Our little city was not built for this. Navigating anywhere in town is a nightmare, I can’t imagine adding all these housing units. State and city officials have lost their minds. Downtown parking lots? Insanity. And BURGESS? Definitely not. I don’t want it in either location, but DEFINITELY not Burgess. I take my daily walk around Burgess – around the field, by the duck pond, it’s a beautiful slice of nature that still remains and holds a special place in my heart from my childhood. All the kids on the soccer field, all the kids going to their gym and dance classes, it’s a bustling hub that has a nice flow. Where exactly would housing go? and what space would we be giving up. Parking is already a challenge with all the activities happening – are we suggesting we take those parking lots away too? Some of the greenery? We need open spaces that aren’t jam packed with everything under the sun. The charming and familiar town I grew up in is slipping away and it breaks my heart.
Kevin: We’re not talking BMR housing here, we’re talking Section 8. They are two completely different things. And I’m sure you know it. Section 8 housing turns into a slum over time. BMR units don’t because the income requirements are higher.
David: I am neither retired, nor affluent. I’m 66 and still working my a** off, so spare me your faux outrage.
Grow up, housing opponents.
You don’t live in a village despite neighborhoods that have no sidewalks. You live in a metropolis.
You don’t live in a gated community, though you seem to have gates in your mind’s image of the city.
You don’t care about people who aren’t as well off as you are, though this is, on paper anyway, a society.
You can stand to lose value on your property in exchange for a more economically diverse community, especially if the people who pay such meticulous attention property to values are people like you … and they no doubt are.
Your resistance is odious.