Menlo Park Can Do Better.

Using the parking lots for high-density housing would make our downtown extremely difficult to access. We would lose our local businesses, which would be a terrible loss for the entire region.

There are better places available for housing - places which provide a nicer place to live without undermining our businesses. And yet our City leaders still want to declare 3 downtown lots as “surplus land” and lease them to affordable housing developers for $1/year - despite overwhelming opposition from residents, neighbors, and businesses.

That’s why we’ve launched a Citizens’ Initiative. If passed, it would require any repurposing of the downtown parking lots to first be approved by Menlo Park voters. We’ve been out gathering signatures—and the response has been one of great support and deep gratitude.

And no—this isn’t a NIMBY issue. Downtown Menlo Park serves more than 370,000 people who live within a 20-minute drive. The effort to protect the downtown is not coming just from nearby residents—it’s coming from across the entire region.

Safeguarding a vital, shared resource is not the same as saying “not in my backyard.” NIMBYism has certainly posed challenges in California. But that doesn’t mean every parcel of land is fair game. Some places just don’t make sense. Menlo Park can do better.

THE BALLOT INITIATIVE

DONATE TO THE CAMPAIGN

A PLEA FROM 115+ BUSINESSES

380 PUBLIC EMAILS TO CITY COUNCIL

THE LAWSUIT

CONTRIBUTE TO THE LEGAL DEFENSE GOFUNDME

Drone footage of parking Lots 1, 2 and 3, going from El Camino to University Dr. on June 5, 2025 (2x speed)

What has happened?

1. In December 2023, Menlo Park’s Housing Element was adopted. The 1,400 page document included a few pages designating the downtown parking lots as potential sites to meet the state-mandated housing allocation (RHNA). Very few residents were aware of this designation.

2. In August 2024, City staff, led by Principal Planner Tom Smith, recommended that the City prioritize the redevelopment of Parking Plazas 1, 2, & 3 for affordable housing. In this plan, the three lots north of Santa Cruz Avenue (comprising 556 spaces) would be used for a minimum of 345 units for low income residents.

Typical restrictions relating to density, height, and parking would be waived because it’s affordable housing near the train station. Buildings as tall as 10 stories, with no residential parking spaces legally required.
No studies had been conducted to assess the potential impact on traffic, congestion, and infrastructure.
No good suggestions were made for replacement parking. A multi-level parking structure was mentioned, but with no plans for funding, location, or timeline. Parking lots are already near capacity, and many people who shop in downtown Menlo do so specifically because they don’t have to deal with parking garages.
Little thought was given to the congestion, decrease in parking accessibility, and years of construction that could devastate our businesses and the jobs they provide.
Alternative locations for affordable housing, such as the Civic Center, were not adequately considered, with staff believing that housing in the parking lots would be good for “the vibrancy of downtown.”

3. On Nov. 19th, City Council planned to vote on declaring the parking lots as “exempt surplus land” (a required legal step to begin development). However, the overwhelming turnout of residents, businesses, and downtown property owners opposing the plan led Council to postpone the vote till Jan. 14th and direct staff to conduct more public outreach.

4. On Jan. 13th, a statement of opposition by 112 businesses located adjacent to the parking plazas was submitted to Council.

5. Competing petitions were done. Menlo Together, an advocacy group which has been working on this issue for many years, did a petition in favor of the plan. (345 signatures on Jan. 14). Save Downtown Menlo, a loose collection of residents and business owners which coalesced after the Nov. 19th meeting, did a petition against the plan. (2,900 signatures on Jan. 14.)

6. At the Jan. 14 Council meeting, Council Chambers were overflowing with people, with many left standing out in the cold. The vast majority of the audience opposed the housing plan. Nonetheless, Council voted to continue the process by issuing an RFQ (Request for Qualifications) to solicit credentials and designs from prospective developers. Council stopped short of declaring the parking lots as “exempt surplus land”, a step which would need to be done before selecting a developer. Council stressed that issuing the RFQ does not commit them to development, but is needed in order to have something specific to decide upon.

7. At the Jan. 28 Council meeting, public comment was filled with speakers reiterating the desire for alternative sites to be considered. Mayor Combs suggested that the RFQ for the downtown be paused, but other councilmembers disagreed, saying that the RFQ is important for information gathering and should not be delayed. However, Council did approve a motion by Councilmember Schmidt for a staff report explaining why the downtown parking lots were our Housing Element’s only City-owned opporutity sites.

8. A special March 4, City Council meeting was held to go over the staff report reviewing the previous evaluations of City-owned sites for housing. According to the report, the Civic Center was eliminated from consideration due to “active civic facilities” and a desire to protect city parkland (even though the Civic Center parking lots are neither civic facilities nor parkland). Once again, residents expressed strong opposition to the use of the downtown parking lots and asked for other sites to be explored. Mayor Combs wanted to ask staff to further explore the feasibility of City-owned sites, but he received no support from the other councilmembers, who wanted to wait to see what the developers submit in response to the RFQ.

9. On March 22, the results of the annual City Priorities Survey were released by the City Manager’s Office. When asked “Do you have additional input on priorities for Menlo Park?” 126 of the 544 respondents (23%) expressed opposition to the use the downtown parking lots for housing. (while 13 responses, or 2%, expressed support for it.) You can read all the responses starting on page 12 of this staff report or see a summary on pages 14-25 of this presentation.

10. On April 2, the City announced that it received seven submittals from development teams in response to the RFQ. They are here.

11. On April 14th, the attorneys for Save Downtown Menlo filed this lawsuit in the San Mateo County Superior Court.

12. On May 15th, residents filed a Notice of Intent to Circulate a Petition for our Citizens’ Initiative - a ballot measure that would require a public vote before repurposing the parking plazas.

13. On June 3rd, Council decided to go forward with issuing an RFP (Request for Proposal) from developers - despite the fact 94% of the public feedback shown in the staff report indicated opposition to plans.

14. On June 3rd, Save Downtown Menlo began collecting signatures for our Citizens’ Initiative. To qualify for the ballot, we must collect signatures from at least 10% of Menlo Park’s registered voters by this November.

What’s next?

The City will soon issue an Request for Proposal from 6 developers.

Save Downtown Menlo is collecting signatures for our ballot initiative. Sign up here to volunteer to collect signatures.

Subscribe for email updates to stay informed as things happen.

Menlo Park residents left out in the cold.

What you can do:

1 - Learn More

Here’s the City’s information about the plans: menlopark.gov/downtowndevelopment

2 - Contact City Council

You can send a public email to Council at city.council@menlopark.gov

Or contact your councilmember directly or attend their office hours. Here’s how to reach them.

Tell the City what you think about the developer RFQ submissions using this form. This is important because staff will be compiling the results for Council.

3 - Sign our Ballot Measure Petition

Learn more about our Citizens’ Initiative. If you are Menlo Park voter, you can sign outside Draeger’s Wednesday, 4-6pm, before Concert in the Park.

And, separately, whether or not you are a Menlo voter, you sign our Change.org petition.

4 - Donate

You can donate to to our ballot measure campaign here.

Or contribute to our Legal Defense GoFundMe.

5 - Spread the word

Tell friends and neighbors. Share this page on social media with the buttons below:

6 - Subscribe for email updates!

To be involved, you need to know what’s going on.

Click Here to Sign Up for Email Updates.

AND LEARN MORE ABOUT OUR BALLOT INITIATIVE

What is Menlo Park’s Housing Element?

The Housing Element is a state-mandated section of the City’s General Plan that identifies how the city will accommodate its regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) of nearly 3,000 units at different levels of affordability. The 2023–2031 Housing Element was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in March 2024. If the Housing Element is not compliant, the state may withhold funding and resources from the city.

The housing element period (2023–2031) doesn’t require that all units be built by December 31, 2031. Rather, Menlo Park must demonstrate by that time that:

Adequate zoning capacity and planning policies are in place to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) across income levels.
It has activated that capacity—meaning sites have the proper zoning, approvals, and policies so housing can be built.

How did the City originally fund the parking lots?

Between 1945 and 1965, the City used assessments on surrounding properties to fund the acquisition of land to create parking lots for the adjacent businesses. The City attorney now claims these lots can be re-purposed because the properties have “received the long-term benefit of the financed improvements” - but ethical and legal objections have been raised in response to that opinion.

What might the apartment buildings look like?

Conceptual designs were initially provided by UC Berkeley students as part of a class project. Perhaps the final developments will resemble those concepts. Or perhaps they will be more like the recently completed Kiku Crossing in San Mateo, which has a mere 245 units (compared to the 345-483 units planned for downtown Menlo.)

Would there be replacement parking?

Not nearly enough. “Replacement parking” would either be pushed into a large parking garage or require a validation system. Worse, the plans for resident parking provide only about half a parking space per unit—meaning hundreds of new residents would end up competing with customers for the limited public parking.

Would foot traffic from new housing help downtown businesses?

Local businesses would welcome more nearby residents—but not if it blocks access for everyone else. According to the 2022 Menlo Park Downtown Market Study, our downtown's “trade area” includes about 370,000 people within a 20-minute drive. If parking becomes just 5 minutes harder, that trade area shrinks by about 150,000 people. And seniors, families with kids, and people with mobility issues will reluctantly go elsewhere. Our businesses can't survive that loss.

Are you NIMBYs?

No. This isn't a backyard issue. Residents from across Menlo Park and neighboring cities are stepping up to protect a vital, public-serving downtown. The opposition is unprecedented and widespread. Our concern is for everyone who depends on a vibrant, accessible downtown—not just one neighborhood

Where else could the housing go?

There are better alternatives nearby—underused city-owned parcels and large private development sites—where housing can be added without sacrificing access to downtown or harming small businesses. Our City leaders chose the parking lots because they wanted to, not because they had to.

Can a state-approved Housing Element be amended?

Yes. Cities often amend their Housing Elements. For example, the City of San Mateo is currently revising its plan to shift housing away from business-serving parking lots and onto more suitable sites.

Would amending our Housing Element risk decertification?

We believe the opposite is true. To maintain certification, the City must focus on viable sites. Trying to force massive apartment buildings into narrow, heavily used downtown parking lots—without studying traffic, fire safety, or infrastructure—puts the entire plan at risk. These lots are plainly ill-suited for dense housing, and the challenges may be insurmountable. We’re still early in the Housing Element cycle. We have time to pivot to a workable plan. What we don’t have is time to cling to one that clearly won’t work.

Who is on the Menlo Park City Council?

Mayor Drew Combs, Vice Mayor Betsy Nash, and Council Members Cecilia Taylor, Jeff Schmidt, and Jennifer Wise. Here’s how to reach them.

Some questions & answers

What’s being said?

By the public:

380+ Emails to City Council in opposition to the plan.

Two pamphlets offering deep commentary on the issue.

An analysis of better options for our Housing Element.

By the press:

Traffic is Already Bad

Most afternoons & evenings, traffic on Oak Grove Ave. backs up for blocks. Now imagine if this parking lot, and the two on each side of it, consisted of high-rise housing and parking structures.