Vote No on Measure P to protect Affordable Homes and support a vibrant downtown small business district in Menlo Park!

The only thing voting No protects is the City Council’s reckless plan to replace half the downtown’s parking with 8-story housing towers.

The developer proposals provide neither the needed funding to replace the 556 public parking spaces, nor sufficient parking for new residents. And the construction of massive high-rises would turn the downtown into a 5+ year construction zone that small businesses could not survive.

That is why over 135 downtown businesses have publicly opposed Council’s reckless plan. Those businesses depend on Measure P passing.

Menlo Park is one of the most expensive communities in the country. Teachers, caregivers, firefighters, and emergency responders cannot afford to live here. The next generation deserves the chance to stay near family and friends. Yet, every day, it gets harder to afford a home.

That is exactly why we need a housing plan that will actually deliver homes—not waste years and millions of dollars pursuing a plan that may never work.

The plan to squeeze dense high-rises into our tiny parking lots faces infrastructure and financial obstacles that have not been addressed. And if the City proceeds with declaring the lots “surplus land” for housing, it risks renewed litigation over the rights of downtown property owners. (The City originally financed the acquisition of these lots through special assessments on surrounding property owners, specifically to provide parking for the business district.)

So regardless of Measure P, the Council’s current plan faces major obstacles that could delay housing for years—if it gets built at all.

Meanwhile, there are real housing opportunities that the City should be pursuing:

Bohannon Office Park – The owner of this vast site off Marsh Road wants to convert close to 20 acres of it to housing. The City had turned him away, but he’s still asking.

1283 Willow Road – This city-owned lot sits empty. It could provide housing, perhaps with a pharmacy below, which the community badly needs.

Former SRI/USGS sites – In an unexpected windfall, developers are proposing more than 1,750 new homes on these two large sites, near parks, the library, the train, and downtown. Why not work with these developers to make more of those homes affordable to teachers, caregivers, and other local workers?

Laura Melahn, Chair of Menlo Park’s Finance and Audit, has already drafted a Housing Element amendment showing how Menlo Park could meet its affordable housing commitments without relying on the downtown parking plazas. Her proposal focuses on more suitable sites and making already-planned housing more affordable.

Read her plan: TeamMenloPark.org/housing

Downtown Menlo Park has too many empty storefronts.

That’s because City Council has neglected the downtown for over a decade.

Nonetheless, the vacancy rate has been improving. In June of this year, the City finally relaxed retail-use restrictions on Santa Cruz Avenue, and new businesses are beginning to fill previously vacant storefronts. But few businesses will survive years of construction, followed by a permanent shortage of parking.

If you are concerned about vacancies, as we all are, then vote Yes on P - so the downtown can continue its recovery without being derailed.

Redwood City, San Carlos, and Burlingame have seen a boom in downtown businesses after adding housing and improving parking. New homes bring activity, vitality, and business to downtown. Measure P would prevent Menlo Park from doing this.

Redwood City’s own reports attribute its downtown revival to many factors, including entertainment, commercial development, public spaces and events, as well as housing. San Carlos replaced 185 public parking spaces with 254, plus 192 separate spaces for just 109 new homes. Burlingame’s project increased public parking by 162 spaces and provided separate resident parking.

Compare that with Menlo Park’s proposed plan to redevelop three plazas that currently provide 556 public parking spaces: the developer proposals leave the replacement parking unfunded and, worse, offer only 113 to 258 dedicated residential parking spaces for 345 to 500 new homes.

Those cities had good plans. Menlo Park doesn’t. With Measure P, the City Council becomes accountable to Menlo Park voters who expect a better plan for the downtown.

NOTE:

Menlo Park already has a good plan – the Menlo Park El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan – which was many years in the making, with broad community support. It calls for increasing the amount of downtown business parking (p. 252).

City Council’s current downtown housing plan is a dramatic step in the opposite direction.

Measure P inhibits bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements.

Measure P applies only to the parking plazas—not to bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout downtown.

When it comes to bicycle and pedestrian safety, the real concern should be with adding hundreds of dwellings into an already congested, high-traffic area.

Measure P would make it harder for families, seniors, and people with disabilities to live and visit downtown.

That’s backwards. Families, seniors and people with disabilities depend on parking close to their destination. Replacing convenient surface parking with a multi-level garage farther away makes downtown less accessible, not more.

Measure P is bad policy with no expiration date.

The downtown parking plazas have served Menlo Park for generations. A law requiring voter approval before changing their use is a simple safeguard - not a bad policy.

And the right to vote does not need an expiration date.

Nonetheless, Measure P can be removed in the same way it was adopted - by a vote. On the other hand, if we let Council go forward with their reckless plan, there will be no coming back.

Independent analysis finds it likely violates state laws, risking millions in legal fees and years of delay.

What independent analysis? It’s not the City’s 82-page Ballot Measure Impact Analysis, which clearly states that no legal analysis was performed. Nor is it the City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis of Measure P, which makes no mention of any legal violations.

Citing “independent analysis” without giving the source is an irresponsible scare tactic.

Taxpayers would foot the bill to defend it,

Measure P includes a provision ensuring that if City officials decline to defend a voter-approved law or appeal an adverse ruling, its proponents may step in to defend it. Reimbursement is limited to reasonable costs and capped at what the City itself would have spent on the defense.

Provisions like this have appeared in California citizen initiatives for more than a decade. The California Supreme Court has recognized the importance of allowing initiative proponents to defend voter-approved measures when public officials decline to do so, explaining that otherwise the initiative power could be significantly undermined.

including endless appeals (no matter the merits).

After a trial-court ruling, either side can ordinarily appeal to the California Court of Appeal. Further review by the California or U.S. Supreme Court is discretionary. Calling that “endless appeals” is irresponsible rhetoric.

It could also put Menlo Park out of compliance with state housing law, costing local control of development (and allowing builder’s remedy projects) city-wide.

Yet another scare tactic. State law does not require the downtown plazas to be used for housing. Menlo Park can amend its housing plan to stay in compliance, as San Mateo and other cities have done. There’s a greater threat of non-compliance if Menlo Park continues its single-minded pursuit of its doomed plan which will face years of delay, if it ever gets built at all.

And here’s the irony. It was our City Council that three years ago exposed us to Builder’s Remedy – in part because the State was concerned about the reliance on the downtown parking plazas. By refusing to admit their plan isn't working, the current council members are making the same mistake again.

(Councilmembers Ray Mueller and Drew Combs were the exceptions — they raised concerns, which were ignored.)

Furthermore, Menlo Park is doing better than other cities in providing housing. According to Menlo Park’s own July 2026 Housing Update, the City exceeds state-required housing capacity by 30%. This is largely because so much more housing will be built on the former SRI and USGS campuses. Over 1,750 homes are on the way in those locations, while our Housing Element only plans for 490. That’s an extra 1,260 homes - near downtown and the train station - that were not accounted for when the decision was made to sacrifice the parking plazas.

There are other ways to meet our housing goals, such as those explained in Laura Melahn’s proposed amendment to our Housing Element. The risk of builder’s remedy is not from Measure P – it is from a City Council that refuses to correct course.

If approved, Measure P would:

Block affordable homes downtown.

Measure P doesn’t block anything. It simply requires voter approval to change the use of the downtown parking plazas. If Council were to come up with a viable plan that produces housing without sacrificing the business district, voters would likely approve it.

Hinder Menlo Park's efforts to revitalize downtown like neighboring cities have.

Downtown desperately needs attention from the City, and Measure P does nothing to impede downtown improvements that are so badly needed, and so long over-due. But if Measure P fails, we’ll get more of the same: a Council willing to sacrifice the downtown for the sake of their housing plan.

Block much-needed downtown parking improvements.

Wrong again. Measure P explicitly states that maintenance, renovations, and capital improvements to improve the parking do not require voter approval. For instance, the process to repave the lots would stay the same.

Oddly, our opponents claim to worry about parking improvements, when their plan would remove 556 spaces without funding to replace them all. Is removing a parking space improving it?

Forever inhibit the city's ability to plan for downtown's future.

Measure P does not inhibit the City's ability to plan. The City can do studies, make designs, develop proposals and ask voters to approve a different use of the plazas.

If anything, Measure P provides City planners more leverage. Developers will know that they need to provide an attractive proposal, one that will be supported by a majority of voters - not just three friendlies on a 5-person City Council.

Delay even simple downtown projects like installing EV Chargers, by up to two years.

Measure P expressly allows projects intended to “preserve, improve or expand availability, access or convenience of public parking.” So projects like EV-chargers that improve parking convenience would not require a vote, and thus not be delayed.

Complicate compliance with state law.

Compliance is already complicated by the fact that the downtown housing plan is not working. So regardless of Measure P, the City is going to have to explain to the State why we are depending on a project that is years behind schedule with no solution to the major obstacles that remain.

Measure P puts us on a more viable path to housing compliance.

Cost Menlo Park taxpayers millions in legal fees.

Says who? The City's own impact report declined to estimate litigation costs because potential legal claims were too speculative.

The real risk to taxpayers is not from a speculative lawsuit – it’s from the very real cost of building a garage to replace 556 public parking spaces. The developer proposals put the cost at up to $63 million ($110,000/space) and ask for tens of millions in City assistance. But no one knows what the ultimate cost would be, or who would pay for it. Palo Alto just approved a six-story downtown garage with 265 spaces costing $41 million – that’s $154,700/space. At that rate, replacing our 556 spaces would cost $86 million – money going towards concrete instead of making homes more affordable.

Join trusted community leaders and organizations and Vote No on Measure P to support a vibrant downtown and create affordable homes within reach for Menlo Park!

The community leaders and outside organizations that want you to Vote No are the same leaders and organizations that came up with this plan in the first place. For many of them, it has been a dream 10 years in the making.

It might be their dream - but it’s not their decision. The parking plazas are vital public assets that have served downtown for generations. Measure P says that before they are permanently committed to another use, the voters of Menlo Park get a say.

Vote YES on P. It’s our last chance to protect our downtown from City Council’s reckless plan.