A proposal for an 18-hole golf course and three playing fields at Menlo Park’s Bayfront Park has been withdrawn, so what’s next for the 160-acre park off Marsh Road?
Councilwoman Lee Duboc, with the support of Mayor Nicholas Jellins and Councilwoman Mickie Winkler, said discussion should shift to building only playing fields on park grounds — a feat deemed “impossible” by the developer who proposed the Bayfront Park project, and an act open space advocates are ready to fight.
Craig Price, owner and president of Buena Park-based Highlands Golf LLC, had been negotiating to develop 82 acres of the park with the golf course and playing fields. But with a sizeable portion of the community opposed to the project, and the city unable to determine a site for the playing fields other than the park’s tidal marsh, Mr. Price withdrew his proposal on March 20.
City Manager David Boesch said he didn’t hear the decision directly from Mr. Price, but to his understanding, “the likelihood of there being some level of opposition to the project that would translate into time delays or costs” proved to be too great a risk to continue negotiations.
Mr. Price was expected to cover all costs associated with environmental review and litigation. Current permits issued to the city call for the park to remain open space, and a portion of the area to be accessible to tidal waters.
Mr. Price said he wanted public support for the proposal, and although many local sports participants backed the proposal, citing the need for the playing fields associated with the deal, open space advocates said all of the park should remain open space.
“I’m not going to pursue this proposal if the community is split. I’d like 80 percent of everyone to be on board,” Mr. Price said in a recent interview with the Almanac. “The city should be united, and theoretically, the council should be too.”
The council was split on the proposal: Mr. Jellins, Ms. Winkler and Ms. Duboc voted on November 1 to enter negotiations with Mr. Price, citing the city’s playing field shortage and the need to fund park maintenance. Council members Kelly Fergusson and Andy Cohen opposed negotiations.
Mr. Price did not return repeated phone calls after it was announced he withdrew the proposal.
Fields still an option?
At the request of Ms. Duboc, the council will discuss the possibility of building playing fields at the park at a future meeting. She has repeatedly stated that since the park isn’t adjacent to homes, fields would not impact neighbors.“I’d like to consider any place staff feels fields can be built and the city can finance them,” said Ms. Duboc in an interview after the meeting. “I hope we can all come together and get playing fields out there [at the park],” she said. “We can keep the gross majority of the park open space, and there could be a happy ending for all of us.”
Ms. Fergusson said the council should be looking at alternative sites, not Bayfront Park, to build fields. “The permit conditions that hinder developing the park are clear,” she said.
Under the Highlands proposal, the fields — a key incentive for sports participants who supported the proposal — would have been built at no cost to the city.
But Mr. Price recently told the Almanac that his proposed site for the playing fields — a tidal marsh in the southern-most portion of the park — was an “unlikely” location due to permit restrictions of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Agency that call for preservation of the marsh.
The city was looking for another site for Mr. Price to build the playing fields, but initial studies were unsuccessful in finding a better option, said Kent Steffens, the city’s public works director.
Mr. Steffens said staff will research the likelihood and cost of building city-funded fields at the park — an option Mr. Price said is impossible because, except for the tidal marsh, the park is built atop a closed landfill and can’t be regraded.
When the Bayfront proposal surfaced in October, Mr. Steffens said it would cost the city $4 million to $5 million dollars to build playing fields similar to those promised by Mr. Price.
Ms. Duboc, Mr. Jellins and Ms. Winkler have cited the need to cover the park ranger and maintenance costs associated with the park, but now the council will look at putting money into the park in the form of new fields.
“Now there’s nothing we can do to accommodate the costs,” said Ms. Winkler.
Several residents have suggested that Menlo Park developer David Bohannon could build playing fields adjacent to his proposed hotel and office complex off Independence and Constitution drives, but Mr. Bohannon said no one from the city has contacted him about the idea. He also said working fields into his proposal is unlikely, because the site for his proposed development is not large enough to accommodate fields.
Fighting development
Developing a portion of the park for playing fields isn’t the happy ending open space advocates are looking for.“We’re excited and ecstatic that Mr. Price has ceased negotiations, but until we get some resolution, we’re going to be busy,” said Elizabeth Lasensky, president of Friends of Bayfront Park, a resident group that formed after the council approved entering an agreement with Mr. Price.
The group has gathered 2,000 petition signatures that support keeping the entire park as open space, she said.
She added that the city should have looked at the environmental and permitting hurdles associated with filling the tidal marsh and developing the park before starting negotiations with Mr. Price.
“We’ve wasted city time and Mr. Price’s time, now let’s look at the field issue and the park separately,” she said.
Ms. Lasensky said city staff should work with parks and recreation commissioners who have already compiled a report identifying potential sites for playing fields, and contact representatives from the San Francisco Bay Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge to help cover expenses of maintaining the park. The wildlife refuge is adjacent to the park.
Redwood City attorney sues ‘First Amendment auditors’ after Menlo Park disputeApril 2, 2026 11:31 am
