BY ELAINE GOODMAN
Daily Post Correspondent
City-owned parking lots in downtown Menlo Park could be developed with hundreds of homes for very-low-income residents, according to a study City Council will discuss tomorrow (Tuesday, Aug. 27).
The feasibility study looks at eight parking lots in downtown Menlo Park, all west of El Camino Real. The study proposes starting with lots 1, 2 and 3 – between Santa Cruz and Oak Grove avenues – for developing housing. Those lots contain 556 parking spaces combined.
At least 345 housing units could be built there, and the number could go up to 483 or even higher with the help of development bonuses, the study said. For example, projects can be taller and denser when they include public benefits.
Even more homes could be built in later development phases on lots 5 and 8 south of Santa Cruz Avenue, according to the study. Lot 5 has 150 parking spaces and lot 8 has 145.
Building housing in phases “would permit time for businesses and visitors to adapt to new parking locations and circulation patterns in the downtown area,” city planners said in a report to council.
The city hasn’t decided how it would replace parking that’s removed to make way for housing. The possibilities include building one or more parking garages, requiring replacement parking as part of the housing projects, or preserving surface parking on certain lots or portions of lots.
It’s not yet clear how much parking would be needed. A parking study now underway is expected to provide more information.
A previous city study for the downtown area recommended building one or two five-level parking garages with as many as 1,300 spaces.
Cost is another question when it comes to parking. Previous estimates have pegged the cost for garage parking at $30,000 to $50,000 per space, a figure that may be higher now, the report said. If a parking garage is built, an assessment district or parking fees are some of the potential funding sources.
The city has talked about building housing on the downtown parking lots for years. The idea became more formalized in the city’s most recent housing element – a plan that shows how the city can meet a housing quota handed down by the state. The state approved Menlo Park’s housing element, which covers 2023 to 2031, in March.
Menlo Park’s quota for the eight-year period is 2,946 housing units. That includes 740 units for very-low income residents.
The city’s housing element lists 69 sites that are good candidates for housing development. Eight of those are the downtown parking lots, where at least 345 units for very-low income residents could be built, according to the feasibility study.
The study recommends developing parking lots 1, 2 and 3 first for several reasons. Those lots are fully owned by the city. Lots 1 and 3 are the largest of the eight downtown lots, at roughly 2 acres each. And lots 1, 2 and 3 face the fewest issues in terms of utilities and easements.
If council decides to move forward with developing housing on the downtown lots, a next step would be to invite developers to submit their ideas for the sites. The city’s goal is to build 345 or more affordable units on the lots by 2027.
The proposal to build housing on lots 1, 2 and 3 – with later development of lots 5 and 8 – has the support of Menlo Together and the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County. Both groups encouraged the city to build as many homes as possible, and at the most affordable level, on the downtown lots.
In a letter to council, Karen Grove of Menlo Together said the city should look carefully at its downtown parking needs before requiring replacement parking.
“Parking needs downtown may be low enough to not necessitate a standalone garage, especially if complemented with transportation demand management and parking management strategies,” Grove wrote.
If a parking garage is needed, it should be built on lot 4, 6, or 7, wrote Jeremy Levine of the Housing Leadership Council. Those lots would be harder to develop with housing, he said.
“The sites most conducive to affordable housing development should be used first and foremost for housing,” Levine wrote.
I have a friend who lived at Tenderloin Housing Clinic in San Francisco. Many residents had drug, alcohol and Mental Health problems requiring 24 x 7 Security, Medical, Maintenance, Food handling etc. Huge expense! Everyone who went in or out had to be searched ….
Let me see if I have this right… Affordable housing = drug addiction and crime?
Most of my neighbors are very against this. Parking is already a nightmare and we all feel this will bring crime to our beautiful small little town, let alone the eye sore these huge buildings will bring. If you know who we can write about this, please pass it on to me.
How special. First they destroy all the businesses on both sides of El Camino up and down the state in the name of bike “safety” that even the folks at VTA laugh at and now they’re going to destroy all the businesses in Menlo Park be ensuring diners. workers and shoppers have no place to park.
Too bad about all those businesses like Bistro Vida investing in the community.
As a Palo Alto resident who’s gone to Menlo Park more often than PA, I guess I won’t have to worry about going there any more — or worrying how I’ll get past Builder’s Remedy atrocity planned for the Sunset site.
Counting up all the personal services I’ll have to replace and I’m up to 4 — and that’s before we hit my favorite restaurants, supermarkets, shops…
Isn’t progress great
What a fantastic idea. Much needed housing is better land use than more free parking. Kudos to Menlo Park leadership for this kind of thinking. Lets hope they have the courage to stay the course and make it happen. I’m a Menlo Park voter, they have my support.
I’ll bet your not invested as a homeowner. If these units go in our downtown will look like the worst areas of San Mateo or San Jose. Full of renters who can’t control their kids and who have no money to invest in their surroundings. I moved from one of those communities to Menlo Park because I was tired of the petty crime and the noise. But there will be one benefit – the homeowners of the downtown area will get to apply for lower property taxes once their property values drop off.
I could not agree with you more. This is insane and very unfair. Let me know who we can all write to to stop this from happening.
Once again I need to ask – how many more people can you realistically fit into Menlo Park. Have you ever tried to get onto El Camino going East from Menlo Ave, Oak Grove or Valparaiso?
Once the SRI development is completed that will only get worse. We need to revitalize our downtown and not just add more people to it. I realize I’m speaking as a person who moved to Menlo Park in 1953 and doesn’t want to see the Small Town feel go the way of some cities around us but instead see some real discussion on this issue.
Acres of parking lots waste premium space. Instead, replace them with parking structures and housing–win/win situation, and a more optimal, beneficial use of space for everyone.
The good people who provide the excellent service you value at our downtown restaurants and shops will thank you for reducing their daily work commutes to a short stroll.
This Menlo Park voter supports the effort!
I wonder how many “very low income” residents would shop at Dreager’s, eat at downtown restaurants where the average tab exceeds $50 per person BEFORE drinks, get their nails and hair done at the many pricey salons, use the services of high -end interior decorators and purchase expensive (but beautiful) carpets. This is an extremely stupid idea! The City should be improving its downtown instead of trying to transform it into something that makes absolutely no sense. There has been NO outreach to current residents nor local businesses yet the planned next step is to engage developers. City planning once again reveals its own lack of common sense.
A good way to run the tax base out of the city and state. Nice job. Be careful who you elect people. Think twice l, vote once.
Ignore the impact on existing businesses. Restaurants. Ace hardware. Trellis. Vida.
Housing is supposed to be distributed across all Menlo Park districts. Even sand hill road.
When we had a real redevelopment agency this was accomplished. Until the state Street Bank failure.
You may need to pass some bond measures first to pay for this.
Hmmm not very excited about this idea. Parking is already so tight by Santa Cruz Ave, the first thing we need anyway is a parking structure before even considering taking away parking.
I am not opposed to some multi-unit housing near downtown MP but what does ‘very-low’ income mean? Formerly unhoused people? This makes me nervous for reasons Charles mentioned. We have enough crazies wandering around MP already. (Don’t attack me, I know not all unhoused people are mentally unstable and I am not talking about those people.)
Just in, lameduck Wolosin, she of the “forget the Village Concept of Downtown Menlo Specific Plan” was Absent…
Doerr pushing the “Build 10 story towers asap, forget the downtown retail biz concerns of existing lack of parking” and like Wolosin, “Checked out”, not running for re election due to relocation, and comparing the Bay Meadows low income housing request for proposals like it’s similar to removing critical downtown business parking on lots 1,2,3,between Oak Grove/Santa Cruz, just shows how current council is so clueless about how the downtown mega housing for extremely and very low income housing will put currently struggling downtown retailers in a further viability bind. We long time Menlo Park homeowners who depend on a vital attractive downtown with yet limited parking options need to fight back against these clueless lame duck council members before they destroy downtown Menlo retail attractiveness and accessibility. Are you paying attention Nash????
The homeowners of Menlo Park need to drive up to South SF or the Bayview, because that’s the environ they’ll be owning in after just a few years. Every single reason you invested your life’s savings in Menlo Park is quickly evaporating, and it’s due to the people you elected and the YIMBY and other advocacy groups that do NOT own property here. But they know better than you tax payers.
There are many huge problems with this idea. Here’s a big one. Do the economics of building them make any sense? How much would parking structures/housing cost? The city staff report is HIGHLY misleading about the likely costs for simply building dedicated parking structures.
“Previous estimates have pegged the cost for garage parking at $30,000 to $50,000 per space, a figure that MAY be higher now, the report said. If a parking garage is built, an assessment district or parking fees are some of the potential funding sources.:
Let’s look at the Palo Alto experience building the Sherman Avenue parking structure. This two-year project was completed almost FIVE years ago (December 2020), cost $50.1 M, and provided 636 space in a six level structure. That means $79K per space. And IF the annual total cost increased ONLY 10% per year, the cost per space would now ) 5 years later) be 1.6 X $79K = $127K!!! . But construction of even one structure would likely not start for at least another three years. So REAL costs would continue to rise. And this does not include the cost for constructing housing on top of a parking structure.
And who would pay for the parking structures and housing?
“If a parking garage is built, an assessment district or parking fees are some of the potential funding sources.
This statement is totally inadequate, i.e., it attempts to deflect a MAJOR issue and reflects a LAZY and cavalier attitude towards Menlo Park residents and local businesses. We deserve a truly responsible and professional city government.
“In a letter to council, Karen Grove of Menlo Together said the city should look carefully at its downtown parking needs before requiring replacement parking.
“Parking needs downtown may be low enough to not necessitate a standalone garage, especially if complemented with transportation demand management and parking management strategies,” Grove wrote.”
“Transportation demand management and parking management strategies” are hollow (and lazy) buzzwords often tossed about by “woke” people who lack both the essential information and realism required to credibly support their positions. How many residents and businesses really expect a professional parking study to show that “parking needs may be low enough to not necessitate parking structure (s)?