City Council,
Reasons to STOP the plan to build apartments and apartments on the Downtown parking lots:
Significant funding gaps requiring city subsidies, the binding November 2026 ballot measure (Measure P), strong documented opposition and economic risks to downtown businesses, legal/historical constraints on the lots, and viable alternatives for meeting Housing Element obligations.
Menlo Park’s plan (via Housing Element Program H4.G) seeks a private developer to build at least 345 affordable/workforce units (targeting 15–80% AMI) plus full replacement of the 556 public surface spaces on Parking Plazas 1, 2, and 3 (city-owned lots north of Santa Cruz Avenue), typically via a long-term nominal ground lease. Three proposals (Alliant Communities, Presidio Bay Ventures, Related California/Alta Housing) were received; they range from ~345–500 units with varying mixes of fully affordable, workforce, and some market-rate units, plus structured or distributed replacement parking.
1. Documented financial infeasibility and city cost exposure
An independent financial review (Strategic Economics, presented around the September 2026 study session) found substantial funding gaps in all three proposals even with free/nominal land: roughly $19–20 million for Alliant and Related/Alta, and ~$45 million for Presidio Bay.
• Replacement public parking alone is estimated at $30–35 million (or higher in some proposals, e.g., ~$33–63 million for a multi-story garage). The original RFP prioritized (and earlier versions required) developer-financed replacement parking with no city contribution; the proposals do not fully deliver that.
• Developers seek city assistance such as impact fee deferrals/waivers, soft debt, redirected community benefits (e.g., from other projects like USGS), or direct contributions. Soft sources (philanthropic/quasi-public) are uncertain and competitive in California’s affordable housing funding environment.
• Additional unaccounted risks include utility connections, long construction timelines (phasing into the early 2030s), and potential cost overruns.
Facts showing these gaps cannot be closed without material city general-fund or fee impacts (or that private/soft sources fail to materialize) would directly undercut the “no-cost-to-city” premise.
2. Measure P on the November 3, 2026 ballot and voter-control risk
A citizen initiative (qualified with verified signatures exceeding the 10% threshold) is on the ballot as Measure P. It would prohibit the city from selling, leasing, donating, disposing of, or conveying the downtown parking plazas (or making physical alterations that permanently diminish parking availability, access, or convenience) without subsequent voter approval. It also layers requirements around Surplus Land Act designations.
Proceeding to select a developer, declare surplus land, or enter exclusive negotiations before the election risks sunk costs, litigation, or a project that voters can later block. High signature volume and organized opposition already demonstrate political risk. Confirmation that Measure P is likely to pass (or post-election confirmation that it did) would make continued pursuit of the current path high-risk and inefficient.
3. Business and community opposition, plus downtown economic impacts
Opposition is organized and well-documented:
• Save Downtown Menlo and allies collected far more than the required signatures, raised substantial funds (over $130k early on), and highlighted risks to the many small businesses that rely on convenient surface parking.
• Multiple packed council meetings (hundreds attending/commenting), petitions from 100+ businesses, and arguments that temporary construction loss of spaces plus less-convenient structured/shared parking will reduce foot traffic and harm the “village” character of downtown.
• Concerns about multi-year disruption, traffic, emergency access/fire safety (critics note limited prior study), and scale (buildings up to ~7–9 stories in some concepts).
Quantified evidence of parking utilization, projected business revenue losses, or post-construction accessibility shortfalls would strengthen this case.
4. Historical/legal constraints on the lots
The plazas were largely acquired and improved via special assessments paid by downtown commercial property owners (primarily 1940s–1960s) specifically for public parking. Opponents argue this creates fiduciary or trust-like obligations that limit unilateral conversion without broader consent or compensation mechanisms. A related lawsuit was paused but could revive. Clear legal opinions or court findings confirming constraints or liability risk would be persuasive.
5. Housing Element compliance does not require these specific lots
Menlo Park’s 2023–2031 Housing Element has excess capacity (a ~30% buffer over RHNA of roughly 2,946 units). The eight downtown plazas were identified as opportunity sites for the 345+ very-low-income units under H4.G, but they are not the sole path:
• Other pipeline/opportunity sites (including advancing projects at USGS/Presidio Bay, SRI/Parkline phases, Bohannon area, and various commercial corridors) can absorb units.
• Cities can amend Housing Elements to substitute sites if they demonstrate continued RHNA compliance to HCD; opponents and some analyses argue this is feasible without triggering builder’s remedy or other penalties.
Evidence of alternative sites delivering equivalent (or better) lower-income units on better-suited land—with fewer conflicts over parking, character, and disruption—would allow the council to meet state mandates while abandoning this specific plan.
Additional supporting facts
• Only three of six pre-qualified teams submitted full proposals; some nonprofit teams declined, citing parking replacement infeasibility at no city cost.
• Shared public/resident parking models and multi-story garages may not fully replicate the convenience of surface lots for short-term downtown patrons.
• Construction phasing creates prolonged temporary parking shortfalls.
Taken together—especially the combination of multi-tens-of-millions funding gaps requiring city money, the imminent voter-control ballot measure, documented business harm risk, and substitute sites that preserve Housing Element compliance—these facts give the council a clear, defensible basis to pause or abandon the private-developer parking-ramp-plus-apartments approach on Plazas 1–3 and pursue alternatives. Current status (as of late September 2026) includes ongoing financial review and council study sessions, so new data on gaps, Measure P polling, or alternative-site progress would be timely.
Sent from my iPhone
