The Menlo Park City Council voted unanimously to place the Downtown Parking Plazas Ordinance initiative on the November ballot on Tuesday evening. The initiative will allow voters to decide whether or not to approve the possible 345 affordable housing units in eight downtown parking lots.
If passed, the ballot initiative would also prohibit the city from making most modifications or changes to the use of the parking lots without obtaining voter approval. This includes the sale or lease of any of the eight parking plazas.
After a brief introduction from Mayor Drew Combs, the M-Group, a local consulting firm, presented its $165,000 study on the potential impacts of downtown housing. Notably, this report included fiscal effects, infrastructure and housing impacts, and changes in equity.
The study found that the ballot initiative could have negative fiscal impacts. Due to discouragement of mixed land use, it could reduce revenue from property tax and sales tax from future products. This means that making it harder to build housing prevents possible future revenue made from taxes on the developments. The measure would also place massive constraints on other land development, thereby reducing city revenue.
It also found that the ballot measure could limit the execution of many city goals. It could possibly hinder land development, environmental justice efforts, and housing sections of the General Plan, as well as the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan. Leaving development up to voters could result in higher infrastructure costs and delayed modernization of downtown Menlo Park.
While no public action was required after the proposal was read, several members of the Council were appreciative of the quick one-month turnaround on the report.
“Obviously, there was a quick turnaround. It was an extensive report. I do feel obligated,” Combs said. “Since I was a council member that voted against a call for the report, I think my concerns still remain valid, that I expressed in not putting that it was the best use of the city’s and the community’s time and money, given that I don’t know that it is conclusively changed any minds or the situation, provided a ton of new data or information, but I do, again, extend appreciation.”
After the public hearing, public comment began from those on both sides of the issue.
Community member Mary Seaton objected to the report and development downtown, raising concerns about fire safety. “I believe it contains significant weaknesses and a clear analytical bias from the M-Group,” she said. “Menlo Park deserves planning based on facts, safety and professional standards—not bias, assumptions and omissions.”
Community member Adina Levin pointed out that leaving development to the voters could hinder city goals. “The report really identifies just how much more difficult it would make for the city to meet its housing obligations if the ballot measure were to pass,” Levin said. “There [are] plenty of reasons not to adopt what the ordinance would be, because it would make it a lot harder for the city to address its housing goals, and the issues about parking and access can be overcome and addressed,” she added.
“Menlo Park needs housing. We don’t need any more parking. [The report] seems like a delay tactic because we have empty lots across the street from El Camino Real. We have a parking garage next to the Caltrain station, and I don’t see a reason why we need to delay the action for us to build any housing further,” community member Caleb Whickham said.
He further stated that he would consider living downtown in the new apartments being built, noting that it could bring more foot traffic to the sleepy downtown. “I feel like this could really revitalize it,” Whickham added.
Sherry Zozlowski was opposed to further development in the area and argued for the necessity of the initiative due to possible overcrowding. “[The Council is responsible for] the bizarre transformation of our charming suburban downtown into an overcrowded, high-density, ‘urbanized,’ 15-minute city with no parking, no cars, and no shopping district to keep the debt stacked,” Zozlowski said. “You Council members have given us an abject lesson in governmental duplicity, collusion, arrogance, and tyrannical misuse of power. In return, through the initiative process, in November, we the people will be giving you an object lesson in democracy with a capital D.”
Members discussed possible courses of action—either to adopt the ballot initiative outright or place it on the ballot. City Council member Jeff Schmidt advised against putting it on a special election ballot, given the low voter turnout. “We can put it on the November ballot so we can have a more robust dialogue. We can really dive into these discussions,” he said. “I think the residents’ voices are important, because this is a bigger debate than just the Council here, and I look forward to having that discussion.”
Extended conversation around the possibility of placing it on the ballot occurred. Councilmember Cecilia Taylor voiced her appreciation for the ballot initiative and the spirit of public opinion. “This is a part of democracy. It’s one of the reasons why I believe all of us ran for office in the first place, because there was some decision that was made by the current elected officials that we did not agree with,” Taylor said.
The Council’s decision to put the initiative up to voters came after discussion of the consideration of public opinion and past modernization in other cities. The initiative could have broad impacts on housing, and will be placed on the ballot next election day, Nov. 3, 2026.
