Dear Council Members,
I WAS encouraged by the strong turnout at the recent developer
presentation. The overwhelming sentiment expressed by attendees appeared to
be opposition to the Downtown Parking Lots 1, 2, and 3 proposal, and it was
refreshing to see so many new faces and hear new voices asking thoughtful
and difficult questions. Many of those questions remained unanswered, and
at one point a developer representative reportedly responded that several
issues raised were “above his pay grade.” That exchange underscored a
larger concern: fundamental questions about feasibility remain unresolved.
NONE of the proposals appear to adequately satisfy both critical
objectives: providing sufficient replacement parking and delivering the
required level of affordable housing. For example, Presidio Bay proposes a
shared parking garage concept, raising questions about long-term parking
availability and functionality. They also provide no low income housing,
only market rate housing. In addition, developers are reportedly seeking
significant concessions from the City, including waivers of development and
permit fees, as well as public financial assistance for construction of the
parking structure. Presidio Bay is also requesting an additional 40-year
extension at a lease rate of just $1 per year, raising further concerns
about the long-term financial obligations and public benefit of the
proposal.
I URGE the City Council to immediately stop treating Downtown Parking Lots
1, 2, and 3 as the centerpiece of Menlo Park’s housing strategy and instead
give serious consideration to the many alternative opportunity sites
already identified throughout the City. Continuing down this path
disregards repeated warnings from the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD), expends significant public resources, and
risks committing Menlo Park to a proposal burdened with substantial
uncertainty.
THE CITY was warned repeatedly by HCD—in October 2022, April 2023, and
again in August 2023—that if the downtown lots presented jurisdictional,
infrastructure, environmental, or development constraints, additional
analysis of city-owned properties and alternative sites would be necessary.
Those warnings should have prompted a broader reassessment. Instead, the
City appears to have doubled down on one of the most constrained and
uncertain sites under consideration.
IMPORTANTLY, many of these questions remain unanswered. Parking studies are
reportedly not expected to be completed until after the November election,
meaning residents are being asked to support a proposal without complete
information. That is not responsible planning.
IF THE opponents strike down the ballot initiative there will still be
significant obstacles and, substantial hurdles will remain: litigation
risk, possible environmental cleanup lasting years, potential regulatory
barriers, and possible intervention from fire protection agencies if
emergency access and circulation concerns cannot be resolved. Budget
deficits and funding gaps that may impact project viability, Economic
uncertainty and rising construction costs, Potential business closures and
prolonged disruption to downtown commerce during development, Ongoing
traffic and circulation impacts that could worsen existing conditions.Any
one of these issues could delay or halt development entirely. Any one of
these factors could significantly delay development. Taken together, they
create layers of uncertainty that raise serious questions about feasibility.
THE city itself acknowledges that Housing Element implementation is not
solely dependent on these downtown lots. Menlo Park has identified numerous
opportunity sites and housing strategies throughout Districts 2 through 5,
while projects already underway in District 1, including Belle Haven and
Bayfront,Civic Center, Corporation Yard and Bohannon owned sites could
contribute toward RHNA obligations through 2031.
The Housing Element can and should be AMENDED if circumstances change or if
alternative opportunities prove more viable. Additional options already
exist and deserve meaningful evaluation:
OTHER city-owned properties without severe downtown circulation conflicts •
Commercial and mixed-use corridors with redevelopment potential • Housing
opportunity sites across Districts 2–5 • Existing housing projects already
in the development pipeline • Adaptive reuse opportunities and
redevelopment elsewhere in Menlo Park • Additional sites that can be
evaluated without risking the functionality of downtown
THE CITY often emphasizes that the downtown lots are attractive because
they are publicly owned and located in a high-resource area. However,
“desirable” is not synonymous with “feasible.” Public ownership does not
eliminate environmental constraints, infrastructure deficiencies, safety
concerns, or practical development obstacles.
Residents were promised thoughtful planning, transparency, and responsible
stewardship. Instead, many increasingly perceive a process driven toward a
predetermined outcome rather than one guided by objective analysis and
evolving facts.
THE RESPONSIBLE path forward is clear:
pause this effort
revisit alternative sites ( not next cycle, but this cycle.)
conduct transparent and objective analysis,
and avoid risking years of delay and additional public expense on a
proposal with so many unresolved questions.
Respectfully,
Mary Seaton
Menlo Park Homeowner
Cal-Interiors
1300 El Camino Real, Belmont Ca 94002
650-477-7790
cal-interiors.com
