BY AMELIA BISCARDI
Daily Post Staff Writer
Tuesday night (Jan. 14), those for and against the Menlo Park City Council’s controversial plan to convert three downtown parking lots into government-subsidized housing will face off in council chambers.
Council is set to vote on whether to move forward with a plan to replace three of the parking lots off of Santa Cruz Avenue between El Camino Real and University Drive with apartment buildings possibly as high as 10 stories.
On one side is the group called Save Downtown Menlo Park, which opposes the conversion of parking lots into apartments. Among the petition’s backers are many downtown merchants and landlords, including Ace Hardware owner Vasile Oros and business owner Alex Beltramo.
On the other side is Menlo Together, an advocacy group that often lobbies the council on issues such as housing and the environment. Among its leaders are former Housing Commissioner Karen Grove and former Complete Streets Commissioner Adina Levin.
Leading up to tomorrow’s meeting, the council’s inbox has been flooded with emails from residents, business owners and people who visit downtown all weighing in on the matter.
“Local businesses thrive when they have customers and employees living nearby. Older ‘empty nesters’ living in large homes can downsize, opening new housing options for larger families and allowing the elderly to live in a walkable, disability-accessible location,” resident Jeff Gibboney wrote in an email in support of the plan to council.
Supporters of Save Downtown Menlo Park have been busy placing signs and flyers.
Elisa Spurlin, owner of Peabody Fine Art Gallery and Framing, said she recently made the rounds in the parking lots, placing Save Downtown flyers under windshield wipers while The Nativity Of The Holy Virgin Church was in service. Spurlin said she wanted to make sure congregants knew they could lose their overflow parking.
Some people in Save Downtown Menlo Park were surprised to see that the city was pushing the housing plan.
“To me, it seemed like something far-fetched that would never happen,” resident and property owner Alex Beltramo said. “Because it made no sense.”
On Nov. 19, council hit the brakes on the project, voting 3-2 to postpone the decision to the new year.
During that meeting, 38 speakers said they hadn’t heard anything about replacing the parking lots with housing.
City Principal Planner Tom Smith said plans for the project began in 2021 and that the city notified residents in multiple ways with mail and public postings about the Housing Element. The Housing Element is a document that says where the city has zoned for future housing, and that the number of possible homes meets a criteria set by a regional agency. The city has to plan for 2,946 new homes over an eight-year period.
The three lots have 556 parking spaces. Many residents are concerned that eliminating this parking will create more problems for the already struggling downtown retail scene.
Complicating the matters, three law firms have threatened the city with lawsuits.
A pro-housing group is threatening to sue the city if it doesn’t implement the housing plan.
A letter from the San Francisco-based group YIMBY Law says the city is not sticking to its timeline to build the 345 to 483 apartments, as evidenced by the council’s decision on Nov. 19 to postpone its decision on the matter to Tuesday.
Assistant City Manager Stephen Stolte said in an email that the city will continue to follow all programs and policies in the Housing Element.
YIMBY Law’s attorneys aren’t the only ones who have contacted the city.
Mayor Drew Combs said the city had received a public records request from another law firm seeking documents about the downtown housing project.
The request, by the Rutan & Tucker law firm, asks for records relating to any potential bonds for the improvement or maintenance of the downtown parking lots. The law firm has also sent the city a letter against the project.
A third law firm, Matteoni O’Laughlin & Hechtman, is challenging the city’s intention to use the parking lots for housing. The firm represents owners of the building at 1149 Chestnut Ave., including Coffeebar.
The attorneys cite a law that says a local government cannot change the use of any of its properties without the approval of 51% of nearby property owners.
Combs said that he has spoken with longtime Santa Cruz Avenue property owners who told him they have paid for some maintenance of the lots in the past. But does that mean the businesses own the parking lots?
The city’s attorney told Combs that the council has the authority to put housing on the parking lots. Smith, the principal planner, told council in a memo that the city holds the titles to the three properties.
If council goes forward, the city could ask private developers to submit proposals and cost estimates.
If built, the housing would be available for what are described as “very low-income” households, which earn between 30-50% of the area median income or between $41,150 and $68,550, according to San Mateo County’s income limits.
As a Resident of Menlo Park for over 55 years, I am disgusted by the idiotic plan proposed by the council and staff for converting the heavily used day parking lots behind the north side of downtown Santa Cruz Ave. to high-rise tenements, Senator Weiner’s stupid bill not withstanding.
This after rolling over on the Russian obscenity proposed for the Sunset Property!!
A much more rational solution would be to use part of the under-utilized parking spaces right next to the Southern Pacific right of way behind Menlo Station from Big 5 Sports, Staples and other low traffic businesses. Freeloaders park there now. See attached Jpeg