The developers of parking lots 1
2, and 3 project—Presidio Bay, Alliant, and Alta -Related have attempted to
portray the ballot initiative as the obstacle to housing. That narrative is
a smokescreen designed to distract from the fundamental flaws of their
proposal.
The real issue is not the ballot measure. The real issue is that these
developers are seeking extraordinary public subsidies and concessions on
some of Menlo Parks most valuable public land. The proposal has included
requests for long-term ground leases at nominal rates, city-funded parking
structures, fee waivers, and other public financial assistance. When
developers ask the City to pay for garages, infrastructure, and fees, they
are really asking Menlo Park taxpayers to subsidize a private development
venture.
Even if the ballot initiative did not exist, serious questions remain about
whether Downtown Lots 1, 2, and 3 can responsibly accommodate hundreds of
housing units and potentially more than 1,000 additional residents. The
City has yet to fully demonstrate adequate water supply, sewer capacity,
traffic circulation, emergency access, fire safety, and evacuation
capabilities for a project of this magnitude in the center of downtown.
These are not political issues—they are practical infrastructure realities.
The developers have repeatedly suggested that replacing surface parking
with structured parking solves the problem. It does not. Surface parking is
convenient, visible, and directly supports downtown retailers, restaurants,
and service businesses. A parking garage is not equivalent to dispersed,
easily accessible surface parking, particularly for seniors, families, and
customers making quick visits. The loss of these lots risks undermining the
very businesses that make downtown Menlo Park successful.
We have wasted too much of the taxpayers money. With a biased 165k 9212
report and now another biased 100k feasibility report regarding the
developers
Proposals. Menlo Park Residents and stakeholders say “ enough is enough.”
This project is not on the outskirts of town, and is not “ surplus Land.”
It is currently being used daily and its use is and will be used in the
future.
Housing can and should be built in Menlo Park, but it must be built in
locations that can support it without sacrificing essential public assets
or requiring taxpayers to shoulder the financial burden. The debate is not
about whether housing should be built; it is about whether giving away
valuable public land, subsidizing private developers, and overloading
constrained infrastructure is the right solution. The ballot initiative did
not create those concerns. The developers proposal did.
Mary Seaton
Cal-Interiors
1300 El Camino Real, Belmont Ca 94002
650-477-7790
cal-interiors.com
