The Menlo Park City Council on Tuesday moved forward with a plan to study a measure that would give voters the power to approve or block redevelopment of city-owned parking lots for affordable housing after enough signatures were gathered to require the issue be put on the ballot.
Once the study is complete, the council could ultimately adopt the initiative for voter approval outright or give voters the decision to do so through a special election or on the November 2026 ballot.
The ballot effort stems from a city plan targeting three downtown parking lots for redevelopment, proposing to replace 556 public spaces with at least 345 affordable housing units. Six developers have been invited to submit proposals by Dec. 15.
The housing proposal has divided the community.
Opponents argue that reducing downtown parking would hurt longtime businesses and limit accessibility, while housing advocates say the project is essential to addressing the region’s growing needs.
The study will cost taxpayers a little over $164,000.
The analysis conducted by urban planning firm M-Group will examine the measure’s fiscal impacts, consistency with the city’s housing element, and potential effects on land use, housing supply, infrastructure funding and local business activity. It will also assess whether the proposal could hinder Menlo Park’s progress toward meeting state housing goals.
The firm is required to complete the report within 30 days.
The initiative, which gathered 3,440 signatures — more than 10% of the city’s registered voters and verified by the county elections office — is spearheaded by Save Downtown Menlo, a coalition of business owners and downtown patrons. It would require voter approval before any city-owned land could be repurposed for housing, with supporters arguing that such decisions should rest with residents rather than the council.
While Save Downtown Menlo opposes the project, the group says it is not anti-housing. It argues that removing convenient parking could push away longtime downtown patrons and that new housing would be better suited for the nearby Civic Center.
Alex Beltramo, an organizer of the group, told this news organization Wednesday that while he respects the council’s decision to commission a study, he supports holding a special election rather than waiting until the November general election.
“We respect the council’s decision to seek more analysis, and we will be watching to see if the report is objective and thorough. Given that M-Group helped create the Housing Element that put the parking plazas on the table, it’s essential their findings are impartial and transparent,” Beltramo said. “Now the priority should be a timely election. We support Mayor (Drew) Combs’ suggestion of having an election as soon as practical rather than delaying until November 2026 — so Menlo Park can move quickly toward clarity and unity.”
Combs was the only dissenter in Tuesday’s vote, favoring a special election over commissioning the report.
“I don’t see how the report is going to provide real value or how it’s going to change minds,” Combs said. “For $160,000, that’s a lot to bring us right back to the position that we would be in. And so for me, asking for the report is just kicking the can down the road — and it’s a really expensive can.”
City staff estimated that holding a special election between February and March would cost $315,000 to $378,000, while placing the measure on the November 2026 general election ballot would cost the city almost nothing.
Resident Mary Seaton urged the council to adopt the measure.
“Above all, my greatest concern is that the voices of community members and local retailers give both residents and business owners peace of mind that their city leaders value their input and are committed to preserving the character of downtown,” Seaton said.
Others, including former teacher and commercial real estate professional Jenny Michel, emphasized the struggles of housing-insecure individuals who could benefit from new affordable housing.
“I’ve lived on the streets, homeless, as a teacher here in Menlo Park,” Michel said. “We should have a moment of silence to mourn our residents and stakeholders who are housing unstable — and for our young people who don’t want to be tethered to a vehicle or lifestyle, or a future with an unstable planet.”
After hearing community perspectives, Councilmember Jeff Schmidt highlighted the broader legal and regulatory stakes facing the city.
“We’ve made a commitment to the state,” Schmidt said. “The previous council made that commitment, as has every city across the state. We have to honor that — otherwise the implications are a penalty like builders’ remedy.”
California’s builder’s remedy allows developers to bypass local zoning in cities without certified housing plans, provided at least 20% of units are affordable. Noncompliant cities may also lose state and federal funding.
Menlo Park currently remains in good standing with state housing laws. Nearby Portola Valley, however, had its housing plan decertified last year after state officials said the town was stalling on new housing — a cautionary example councilmembers say they hope to avoid.
Menlo Park’s state-mandated housing plan calls for nearly 3,000 new homes by 2031, including more than 1,600 affordable units for moderate- and low-income households. In San Mateo County, individuals earning below $109,700 are considered low income.