Dear Mayor and Council members,
The city began with a simple premise. It owns land valued at $50 million.
It would lease that land for 8.3 cents a month, and the developer would
build the housing and replace all 556 public parking spaces without
additional city funding. That was the plan.
Now let’s look at the numbers. Strategic Economics identifies a $20 million
funding gap for Alliant, a $45 million funding gap for Presidio Bay, and a
$19 million gap for Related and Alta. Three significant funding gaps, even
with essentially free land.
The proposed responses would place additional burdens on downtown business
owners, commercial property owners, Menlo Park taxpayers, visitors, and
frequent parking lot users.
My estimated cost for 556 replacement public parking spaces and
approximately 500 residential parking spaces is $83–$150 million. Other
potential costs deserve examination, including subsurface contamination
remediation, construction delays, legal defense expenses, and possible
litigation exposure. These risks should be evaluated before the City makes
further commitments.
The City has not completed its parking study, which is expected in January
2027. How can the Council reasonably determine that these lots are
unnecessary before that work is complete?
The plazas serve an active public purpose today. They provide surface
parking that downtown businesses, retailers, restaurants, employees, and
customers depend on. The lots are full, and the need for accessible parking
will continue.
Government Code section 54221(b)(1) requires a formal determination that
surplus land is not necessary for the agency’s use, supported by written
findings. Section 54221(c)(1) recognizes current agency operations and
future operations under an adopted written plan. HCD’s Guidelines, Section
104, explain agency use.
The Council should explain how these heavily used public parking lots have
become unnecessary. What evidence supports that conclusion? How will the
City meet continuing parking needs? Where is the funded, enforceable plan
to maintain access for downtown businesses?
The affordability question also demands an answer. If developers now say
their funding gaps require reducing or eliminating housing for low- and
very-low-income households, the Council must explain what affordable
housing will actually be delivered.
If the City claims an affordable-housing exemption under the Surplus Land
Act, the revised project must still satisfy that exemption’s requirements.
A developer’s funding gap does not waive those requirements.
Before proceeding, identify the precise statutory exemption, publish the
supporting findings, and demonstrate that the actual project qualifies. An
exempt surplus designation requires a legal basis and supporting findings;
a Council vote alone does not establish that the statutory requirements
have been met.
Hearing the Council’s discussion last night was disturbing. The focus
appeared to be on finding additional money from residents, businesses, and
visitors while considering fewer parking spaces and less affordable housing
to accommodate the developers’ financial constraints.
The numbers are staggering. The City has already spent $165,000 on a 9212
report that I believe was biased and $60,000 on Strategic Economics.
Potential parking, remediation, and litigation costs could add substantial
financial exposure. The public deserves a complete, documented assessment
of those costs.
I urge the Council to reject these proposals in their current form.
Pause, pivot, and amend the Housing Element.
Sincerely,
Mary Seaton
Yes on P
