|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Menlo Park City Council on Nov. 4 voted to order a study on the potential impacts of a citizen-sponsored initiative that would prohibit the city from repurposing its downtown parking lots for housing without voter approval.
The move delays any immediate decision on whether to adopt the measure outright or send it to the ballot.
Under California Elections Code §9215, the council had three options: adopt the initiative as written, place it before voters or request a report evaluating its implications. Councilmembers opted for the third.
The proposed “Downtown Parking Plazas Ordinance” would amend the city’s municipal code to bar Menlo Park from changing the use of its eight downtown parking plazas unless voters approve it in an election.
City officials, however, have been planning to use several parking lots as potential housing sites. Menlo Park’s state-certified 2022–2031 Housing Element includes a program to build at least 345 affordable housing units on a combination of downtown parking lots to meet the city’s state-mandated housing targets. Some business owners and property owners rallied against the plan over concerns over parking access and how it will shape downtown.
While councilmembers initially wanted a wide-ranging report, City Manager Justin Murphy requested they scale down the focus of the report and consider requesting a further report later on as state law requires the report be completed within 30 days of the petition being certified.
The report will assess the measure’s fiscal impact, its consistency with Menlo Park’s General Plan and Housing Element, and its implications for land use, housing availability and the city’s ability to meet state-mandated housing goals. It will also examine possible impacts on infrastructure funding, business activity, and the community’s ability to attract and retain employers, as well as traffic and transportation effects. At least some aspects of the report will assume voters do not approve the city’s housing plan for the parking lots.
The report is estimated to cost up to $164,951. The consultant M-Group, which prepared a similar analysis for 2022’s Measure V, will conduct the study. The study must be completed by Dec. 4.
The city council plans to meet on Dec. 2 to choose whether to adopt the initiative or place it on the ballot. If the city places it on the general election ballot in November 2026, it will not have an additional cost beyond the cost of the city council election. However, if the city council calls a special election, it could cost between $315,000 and $378,000.
The city council voted 4-1 to request the report, with Mayor Drew Combs dissenting.
Councilmember Jeff Schmidt saw the report as a way to disseminate information to the public.
“I think that residents are only hearing part of the story, because this really isn’t a discussion about downtown, this is also not really a discussion about affordable housing. We’ve made a commitment to the state. The previous council made that commitment, as has every city across the state. We have to honor that, otherwise the implications are a penalty like builders’ remedy,” Schmidt said.
“I just don’t see how the report is going to provide any real value, or how it’s going to change minds. I think we saw this with Measure V: people will see it as biased and discredit those aspects of the report that they don’t like, and if it says something they do like they’ll say ‘look this is validation from my position,’” Combs said. “For $160,000 that’s a lot to bring us right back to the position that we would be in. And so for me, asking for the report is just kicking the can down the road, and it’s a really expensive can. It’s $160,000 can.”
Combs favored calling the special election and letting voters get information through the typical ballot measure process.
“It’s not completely contrary to what you’re saying, but I think we have multiple opportunities to bring people on this journey with us, and I wouldn’t want to limit that,” Schmidt responded to Combs.
“I think we also have to accept that some people don’t want to go on any journey with us,” Combs responded.
Update: This article was updated to say the city plans to meet on Dec. 2 to discuss the report.
I try not to be cynical, but this does seem like a can-kicking exercise. It’s half the cost of the special election for a pointless report. In 30 days, the council will undoubtedly say that it’s too expensive to hold the special election, even though they barely batted an eye before approving the cost of the report.
The will of Menlo Park’s citizens is entirely irrelevant to the process and is in fact treated as a nuisance to be routed around.
(OK, I lied about not being cynical.)
I’m hoping the report will also assess whether the referendum result is actually legal under California state law. Does anyone know if it will ? The referendum result would seemingly violate elements of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) as well as some of the key intentions of the Surplus Land Act. It would be a travesty to go through the whole process and expense of one or more referendums, only to have the state sue and and win, as they have numerous times when individuals and cities have gotten in the way of new affordable housing, like in Flintridge / La Canada or Cupertino. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) approved the affordable housing in the downtown parking lots as a key component of the Housing Element for a reason.
We only need to look at past precedents to see why the referendum appears perilous.
• Measure V was criticized for potentially violating state and federal housing laws requiring cities to allow for affordable housing development, as highlighted in numerous legal opinions.
• California law increasingly mandates that cities accommodate housing at various income levels through zoning and planning, including by-right approval for multi-family housing with affordability requirements. Courts have consistently upheld state authority over local land use in ensuring compliance with housing element law mandates.
• Prior court rulings have affirmed that state housing laws override local zoning and land usage controls, and that efforts to block or affordable housing can lead to costly lawsuits and are unlikely to be upheld by courts.
KK: You continue to make fear-based arguments about how the state would treat our City IF it were to change its current plans for building affordable housing Downtown. I believe (a) the state would give Menlo Park the opportunity to replace this project with different more feasible and credible plans AND (b) that alternative ones likely exist. Unfortunately, the City has not felt the need to creatively and aggressively develop them – that failure is both irresponsible and unacceptable. Now it needs to do it ASAP.
And we will likely know soon whether the state would threaten to sue Menlo Park.
2. He and the rest of the Council has neither acknowledged nor addressed the issues and concerns voiced by voters and local businesses, including (a) the potential huge negative impacts this project could have on Downtown, local businesses and our entire community and (b) the Council’s failure to creatively and aggressively evaluated additional building sites for affordable housing.
Please ignore my prior comment. The last paragraph was inadvertently included.
KK: You continue to make fear-based arguments about how the state would treat our City IF it were to change its current plans for building affordable housing Downtown. I believe (a) the state would give Menlo Park the opportunity to replace this project with different more feasible and credible plans AND (b) that alternative ones likely exist. Unfortunately, the City has not felt the need to creatively and aggressively develop them – that failure is both irresponsible and unacceptable. Now it needs to do it ASAP.
And we will likely know soon whether the state would threaten to sue Menlo Park.
Hi Dana,
I’m not making a fear-based argument. I’m asking a real question based on reality. Here are the facts for people who seemingly didn’t show up for the 3 year Housing Element (HE) process and now want to change the state-certified results via a referendum that might violate state law and will certainly roil the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
* Menlo Park got put in the penalty box (Builders Remedy) for missing the deadline for a final HCD-approved HE. Menlo Park missed due to HCD requiring several revisions to ensure compliance with state Housing Element law. We are now facing the 39 story 80 Willow monstrosity thanks to that lapse.
* One of the reasons for the delay and one resubmission cycle was the failed attempt at Measure V. HCD specifically asked Menlo Park how it would mitigate the unlawful restrictions of Measure V and any future similar ordinances. Measure V would have restricted or delayed rezoning efforts necessary for implementing the housing plan. So HCD actively discourages referendums that restrict cities from implementing additional housing.
* It’s unlikely the state would sue, unless the measure was approved and began to encumber the Housing Element plan. The state didn’t jump in on Eureka’s Measure F, yet one of the reasons it failed was because it impacted production of much-needed housing.
https://www.ijpr.org/elections/2024-11-05/humboldts-most-expensive-measure-campaign-ever-didnt-pan-out-for-supporters
I wish smart civic-minded folks like yourself would pay more attention to past history and what’s going on in the state, instead of getting wrapped around the axel with your micro-narrative solely about downtown. Appreciate you looking out for the city, but your narrow perspective isn’t always helpful.
If you read the article I linked to, you’ll see that voters in Eureka decisively quashed a “save the parking lot” referendum in favor of much needed housing. One of the key points against the referendum was its highly questionable legality and risk with respect to falling out of compliance.
“Opponents of Measure F said it would make the city’s affordable housing plan impossible with the requirement for added parking. Not building more affordable housing, mandated by the state, could also lead to a loophole called the “builder’s remedy” which allows developers to construct low-income housing while ignoring zoning laws
City staff claimed that even if Measure F passed, some of the planned affordable housing developments on public parking lots would be required by law to move forward due to already receiving permit approval. They also pointed to the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 which bans local governments from passing laws to stymie new residential development.”
ps: Pro parking lot folks keep making claims of mythical “different more feasible and credible plans (sites)”, but none of the sites proposed stand up to scrutiny – “save the parking lot” folks keep on rotating through their supposed alternatives, when confronted with the facts and reasons those sites were removed during the 3 year process. Seems like none of those supporters paid attention to this stuff (Burgess and Bohanan removals)
https://youtu.be/mUZvcoa1dtw?si=qPkM4AaK8Z2MhvTu&t=6210
What a waste of $165K! Good of Combs to not vote for it but the rest of those clowns need to go. Let me know who is signing the check for the consultant and I’ll tell you what it is going to say 🙂
I am kind of surprised that there isn’t more state-wide anger towards Sacramento for forcing towns to comply. Newsome is a lame duck regardless, but it would seem this should be a campaign point for the next wave of candidates.
KK: I believe HCD knows what is happening in Menlo Park. Why doesn’t the City simply ask HCD for its opinion? And why was this not done when the ballot petition was originally submitted? If it was done, the our community deserves access to all relevant communications.
Also, the City has not published any credible evaluations of alternative sites. If these exist, please share them. And did the City ever genuinely consider acquiring new sites? Evidence?
KK: The City never studied either the Civic Center or Bohannon Park sites. Both were rejected without either rigorous Council discussions or site evaluations. I believe readers need to know you are a member of both the City Housing Commission and the Steering Committee for Menlo Together. a group that actively supports the current Downtown AH Project and opposes the Parking Plaza Ordinance ballot measure.
Hi Dana,
Please don’t write so much fiction.
* The Civic Center was discussed numerous times and rejected. One of the discussions was in the clip I posted (apparently you didn’t watch). The takeaway is that the Civic Center should be considered, but only AFTER reconfiguration and subdivision (which meant movement of the library). Couldn’t be any clearer and you still get it wrong. There were other factors including the a massive petition against when it and Sharon Park were considered.
* Bohanan was also considered in this video and others. In this one Drew highlights that the Bohannon site is too close to the newly densified part of District 1. But the straw that broke the camel’s back on the Bohannon site was the May 2022 letter and subsequent discussion with Bohannon. Let’s see if you can dig that trail up (the issue is referenced several times in the Housing Element). We can discuss further if you actually do the homework.
* I’m also not on the Steering Committee of Menlo Together. I was referenced in an earlier opinion piece as “a leader with Menlo Forward and Menlo Together”. But no official titles in either.
As for approaching HCD in advance, what would the city say/do ? Ask “Is this referendum illegal ?”
This project to wedge housing between existing old buildings angers residents because it lacks any vision or creativity. It’s like spending money on a new paint job for a rusted out 74 Chevy. Why not do it right by razing the entire area and do it right? As soon as that construction starts all of those small businesses are done anyway.
KK: What you do not acknowledge is that the City and Council have failed to clearly and credible address the two central concerns voters understandably have about the proposed project.
1. How might it severely HARM Downtown, local businesses and our community?
2. Are there much better strategies and plans for providing very and extremely low-income housing during this planning cycle?
As our city representatives, the Council is responsible for providing clear and credible answers to both questions in easily accessible documents. Expecting voters to spend the time and effort to discover, piece together and evaluate information spread across dozens of staff reports, meeting minutes, videos, and planning documents AND multiple years is unrealistic, irresponsible and unacceptable. Please explain why you do not agree with this position?
Also, why shouldn’t the City ask HCD for advice and guidance? Don’t you feel HCD wants Menlo Park to succeed?
Finally, I was mistaken about your role in Menlo Together and apologize. However, it is obvious you are a primary representative for this group on local media.
After watching the meeting:
The claim that residents are “only hearing part of the story” minimizes the deliberate democratic action already undertaken by constituents, suggesting that their engagement is based solely on a “60-second burst” of information, rather than a genuine, articulated political desire.
The successful petition drive itself is a massive demonstration of community voice, and is a concrete exercise of agency that forces the City Council to take action as required by Elections Code Section 9215. This action indicates that the community has already formed a viewpoint significant enough to trigger formal governmental response.
As an elected representative, Council member Schmidt and the rest of council’s primary obligation is to listen to and act upon the expressed interests of his constituents, even when those interests conflict with the Council’s preferred solution or understanding of the state mandate. We are now at the point where the entire council must respect the democratic intent.
At least Schmidt is willing to engage. Sadly my district’s council member chose to read a virtue signal statement. I wish they would hear the wisdom in our Mayor’s approach to democracy.
When 2028 rolls around, are you still going to support Josh Becker, our State Senator? Becker has voted in favor of SB 35, SB 9, SB 423, and other RHNA-enforcing legislation. It is time we elect state representatives who don’t force Menlo Park into these bad situations! Same question for Marc Berman who is our Assembymember up for re-election in 2026. I want representatives in Sacramento who protect our community and some ability to self-rule what we want Menlo Park to look like.