This rich California city is losing its mind over a housing project — and it shows why new rules are needed
Most Californians are intimately familiar with stories of cities going to comically absurd lengths to block new housing.
Sausalito tried to argue it could build affordable units on underwater eelgrass. La Cañada Flintridge in Los Angeles County flirted with bankruptcy to fight its first multifamily development in more than a decade. And Woodside attempted to declare itself a mountain lion sanctuary to avoid duplexes.
But the affluent city of Menlo Park is bucking the trend. At least it's trying to.
This month, the city issued a request for proposals to transform three downtown city-owned parking lots into at least 345 units of affordable housing near public transit and local businesses. Since the city already owns the lots, it won't have to worry about land acquisition costs — making it easier for the projects to pencil out, Mayor Drew Combs told me.
But this is California, where no good housing deed goes unpunished.
A coalition of residents and small businesses called Save Downtown Menlo is suing to stop the development, alleging that the city lacks legal authority to repurpose the parking lots and that reducing parking would cause 'serious and irreparable harm.' It's also collecting signatures for a ballot measure to require voter approval to repurpose the downtown lots. The group announced this week that it already had 66% of the necessary signatures.
'Hoping to squeeze large apartment buildings into narrow, heavily used downtown parking lots … is not a path to success,' Save Downtown Menlo organizer Alex Beltramo told me in an email. When I pointed out that the Menlo Park City Council has pledged to replace most, if not all, of the 556 parking spaces that would be impacted, Beltramo argued it wouldn't be sufficient for residents and shoppers and replacing surface lots with parking garages would be 'more difficult to navigate and far less convenient.'
Making space for workers who otherwise couldn't afford to live nearby is a no-brainer.
So, who would actually be inconvenienced?
Most likely wealthy shoppers from Portola Valley, Woodside and Atherton who drive to downtown Menlo Park and 'absolutely believe they're entitled to their parking spot in front of their store,' Karen Grove, co-founder of Menlo Together, a group that advocates for affordable housing, sustainability and economic justice, told me.
Marlene Santoyo, a part-time Menlo Together organizer, told me she doubts that there would be as many businesses opposed to the project if it weren't affordable housing.
'They don't think low-income people can afford their coffee, can afford their pastries, can afford them as clients, when that is clearly not true,' she said.
All this is a clear example of why state lawmakers need to pass more robust housing laws, such as state Sen. Scott Wiener's SB79 to legalize dense housing near major transit stops and other bills to exempt most infill housing and infrastructure from frivolous reviews and lawsuits under the California Environmental Quality Act. (Gov. Gavin Newsom is seeking to accomplish the latter objective via a state budget trailer bill and is haggling with lawmakers over the details ahead of a Monday deadline.)
Even though the Menlo Park project would benefit the environment — it's close to transit and would save many residents from soul-draining, climate-polluting commutes — Save Downtown Menlo's lawsuit alleges that it violates CEQA and the city's general plan, which are 'standard fare challenges you'd see in almost any case objecting to new housing,' said Chris Elmendorf, a UC Davis School of Law professor and state housing law expert.
Furthermore, most Menlo Park residents have made it obvious time and again that they support increased development.
In 2014, a measure to limit downtown development was defeated with about 62% of the vote. In 2022, the same percentage of voters defeated a measure that would have prevented the City Council from rezoning land designated for single-family homes.
Even Mayor Combs, the City Council member perhaps most willing to strike a compromise with Save Downtown Menlo, described the situation as 'frustrating.'
He's being nice. The effort is unhinged.
One of the main allegations in the group's lawsuit, for example, is that Menlo Park doesn't technically own the parking lots because they were paid for by assessments on nearby property owners. Only a majority vote of those property owners, the lawsuit contends, could allow the lots to be repurposed.
When I ran this by Darien Shanske, a UC Davis School of Law professor and expert on taxation and local government law, he described the allegations as 'crazy,' noting that California law gives significant leeway to local policymakers to repurpose property paid for by an assessment district.
'I am not sure if this complaint was just drafted to be a nuisance, or by ChatGPT, or both,' Shanske told me in an email. 'For my part, the city should not be intimidated and should proceed.'
The irony is that Save Downtown Menlo's efforts — if successful — could lead to the city being forced to approve even bigger, denser projects. If Menlo Park were to backtrack on its plan to redevelop the parking lots, the state could revoke approval for its housing plan — opening it up to the builder's remedy, which permits developers to bypass local zoning rules for projects with affordable units, a spokesperson for the state Department of Housing and Community Development told me.
David Lanferman, the attorney who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Save Downtown Menlo, filed a similar lawsuit against Palo Alto, which is also seeking to transform a downtown parking lot into affordable housing. He did not respond to my request for comment.
Ultimately, logic may not be the point here. The goal seems to be making it harder to do things that should be simple — like building housing.
The state can't act fast enough. It's still far too easy for a vocal minority of people to hold up projects that would benefit the vast majority of a community.
Emily Hoeven is a columnist and editorial writer for the Opinion section.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
9 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
This rich California city is losing its mind over a housing project — and it shows why new rules are needed
Most Californians are intimately familiar with stories of cities going to comically absurd lengths to block new housing. Sausalito tried to argue it could build affordable units on underwater eelgrass. La Cañada Flintridge in Los Angeles County flirted with bankruptcy to fight its first multifamily development in more than a decade. And Woodside attempted to declare itself a mountain lion sanctuary to avoid duplexes. But the affluent city of Menlo Park is bucking the trend. At least it's trying to. This month, the city issued a request for proposals to transform three downtown city-owned parking lots into at least 345 units of affordable housing near public transit and local businesses. Since the city already owns the lots, it won't have to worry about land acquisition costs — making it easier for the projects to pencil out, Mayor Drew Combs told me. But this is California, where no good housing deed goes unpunished. A coalition of residents and small businesses called Save Downtown Menlo is suing to stop the development, alleging that the city lacks legal authority to repurpose the parking lots and that reducing parking would cause 'serious and irreparable harm.' It's also collecting signatures for a ballot measure to require voter approval to repurpose the downtown lots. The group announced this week that it already had 66% of the necessary signatures. 'Hoping to squeeze large apartment buildings into narrow, heavily used downtown parking lots … is not a path to success,' Save Downtown Menlo organizer Alex Beltramo told me in an email. When I pointed out that the Menlo Park City Council has pledged to replace most, if not all, of the 556 parking spaces that would be impacted, Beltramo argued it wouldn't be sufficient for residents and shoppers and replacing surface lots with parking garages would be 'more difficult to navigate and far less convenient.' Making space for workers who otherwise couldn't afford to live nearby is a no-brainer. So, who would actually be inconvenienced? Most likely wealthy shoppers from Portola Valley, Woodside and Atherton who drive to downtown Menlo Park and 'absolutely believe they're entitled to their parking spot in front of their store,' Karen Grove, co-founder of Menlo Together, a group that advocates for affordable housing, sustainability and economic justice, told me. Marlene Santoyo, a part-time Menlo Together organizer, told me she doubts that there would be as many businesses opposed to the project if it weren't affordable housing. 'They don't think low-income people can afford their coffee, can afford their pastries, can afford them as clients, when that is clearly not true,' she said. All this is a clear example of why state lawmakers need to pass more robust housing laws, such as state Sen. Scott Wiener's SB79 to legalize dense housing near major transit stops and other bills to exempt most infill housing and infrastructure from frivolous reviews and lawsuits under the California Environmental Quality Act. (Gov. Gavin Newsom is seeking to accomplish the latter objective via a state budget trailer bill and is haggling with lawmakers over the details ahead of a Monday deadline.) Even though the Menlo Park project would benefit the environment — it's close to transit and would save many residents from soul-draining, climate-polluting commutes — Save Downtown Menlo's lawsuit alleges that it violates CEQA and the city's general plan, which are 'standard fare challenges you'd see in almost any case objecting to new housing,' said Chris Elmendorf, a UC Davis School of Law professor and state housing law expert. Furthermore, most Menlo Park residents have made it obvious time and again that they support increased development. In 2014, a measure to limit downtown development was defeated with about 62% of the vote. In 2022, the same percentage of voters defeated a measure that would have prevented the City Council from rezoning land designated for single-family homes. Even Mayor Combs, the City Council member perhaps most willing to strike a compromise with Save Downtown Menlo, described the situation as 'frustrating.' He's being nice. The effort is unhinged. One of the main allegations in the group's lawsuit, for example, is that Menlo Park doesn't technically own the parking lots because they were paid for by assessments on nearby property owners. Only a majority vote of those property owners, the lawsuit contends, could allow the lots to be repurposed. When I ran this by Darien Shanske, a UC Davis School of Law professor and expert on taxation and local government law, he described the allegations as 'crazy,' noting that California law gives significant leeway to local policymakers to repurpose property paid for by an assessment district. 'I am not sure if this complaint was just drafted to be a nuisance, or by ChatGPT, or both,' Shanske told me in an email. 'For my part, the city should not be intimidated and should proceed.' The irony is that Save Downtown Menlo's efforts — if successful — could lead to the city being forced to approve even bigger, denser projects. If Menlo Park were to backtrack on its plan to redevelop the parking lots, the state could revoke approval for its housing plan — opening it up to the builder's remedy, which permits developers to bypass local zoning rules for projects with affordable units, a spokesperson for the state Department of Housing and Community Development told me. David Lanferman, the attorney who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Save Downtown Menlo, filed a similar lawsuit against Palo Alto, which is also seeking to transform a downtown parking lot into affordable housing. He did not respond to my request for comment. Ultimately, logic may not be the point here. The goal seems to be making it harder to do things that should be simple — like building housing. The state can't act fast enough. It's still far too easy for a vocal minority of people to hold up projects that would benefit the vast majority of a community. Emily Hoeven is a columnist and editorial writer for the Opinion section.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
California will see 'devastating' healthcare cuts under GOP bill, Newsom says
As many as 3.4 million Californians could lose their state Medi-Cal health insurance under the budget bill making its way through the U.S. Senate, Gov. Gavin Newsom said Friday. Newsom said the proposed cuts to healthcare in the "one big, beautiful bill," a cornerstone of President Trump's second-term agenda, could force the closure of struggling rural hospitals, reduce government food assistance for those in need and drive up premiums for people who rely on Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplace. "This is devastating," Newsom said. "I know that word is often overused in this line of work, but this is, in many ways, an understatement of how reckless and cruel and damaging this is." Medicaid provides health insurance for about 1 in 5 Americans and generally uses income, rather than employment, as a condition for enrollment. Roughly 15 million Californians, more than a third of the state, are on Medi-Cal, the state's version of Medicaid, with some of the highest percentages in rural counties that supported Trump in the November election. More than half of California children receive healthcare coverage through Medi-Cal. The Senate is still debating its version of the bill. But the current version would require many Medicaid recipients to prove every six months that they work, volunteer or attend school at least 80 hours per month. States would be required to set up their work eligibility verification systems by the end of 2026, just after the midterm elections. States that do not set up those systems could lose federal Medicaid funding. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters last month that the aim of the policy was to encourage poor Americans to contribute and "return the dignity of work to young men who need to be out working instead of playing video games all day." The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated this month that the requirements would cut about $344 billion in Medicaid spending over a decade and leave 4.8 million more people uninsured. Health policy experts warn that work requirements can lead to people who are eligible, but can't prove it, losing their benefits. Newsom said 5.1 million people in California would need to go through the work verification progress and about one-third would "likely" meet the requirements. The other two-thirds would "go through the labyrinth of manual verification," Newsom said. He said 3 million people in California could lose coverage through the new Medicaid work requirements, and 400,000 more could lose their insurance if they were required to re-verify their eligibility every six months. Newsom said that the state's estimate was based on the number of people who dropped off Medicaid in New Hampshire and Arkansas after those states briefly implemented their own work requirements. Last year, California became the first state in the nation to offer healthcare to low-income undocumented immigrants. The expansion, approved by Newsom and the Democratic-led Legislature, has cost the state billions and drawn sharp criticism from Republicans. Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City), who has previously called on Newsom to walk back that coverage, said on social media Friday that Newsom and Democratic legislative leaders had "obliterated" the healthcare system. Newsom's budget proposal in May proposed substantial cuts to the healthcare program for undocumented immigrants, including freezing new enrollment in 2026, requiring adults to pay $100 monthly premiums and cutting full dental coverage. Lawmakers ultimately agreed to require undocumented immigrant adults ages 19 to 59 to pay $30 monthly premiums beginning July 2027. Their plan adopts Newsom's enrollment cap but gives people three months to reapply if their coverage lapses instead of immediately cutting off their eligibility. Democrats agreed to cut full dental coverage for adult immigrants who are undocumented, but delayed the change until July 1, 2026. In Congress, the GOP bill could also pose a serious threat to 16 struggling hospitals in 14 rural counties, which received a $300-million lifeline in interest-free loans in 2023, Newsom said. He said the Republican members of Congress in California who supported the bill and represent rural parts of California, including Central Valley Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) and Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), are "gutting an already vulnerable system." Some senators are pushing to change a requirement that would require states to freeze and cut by half the tax they impose on Medicaid providers, slashing a key source of funding for rural hospitals. Michelle Baass, the director of the California Department of Health Care Services, said that change could be "fatal for the many rural and critical-access hospitals that are already financially strained." Newsom said in aggregate, the cuts could threaten California's progress in reducing the share of residents without health insurance, which stands at about 6.4%. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
New York Post
11 hours ago
- New York Post
California closes $12B deficit by cutting back immigrants' access to health care
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Friday a budget that pares back a number of progressive priorities, including a landmark health care expansion for low-income adult illegal immigrants, to close a $12 billion deficit. It's the third year in a row the nation's most populous state has been forced to slash funding or stop some of the programs championed by Democratic leaders. Lawmakers passed the budget earlier in the day following an agreement of a $321 billion spending plan between Newsom and Democratic leaders. 7 California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a budget that pares back a number of progressive priorities, including a health care expansion for low-income adult illegal immigrants. AP But the whole budget will be void if lawmakers don't send him legislation to make it easier to build housing by Monday. The budget avoids some of the most devastating cuts to essential safety net programs, state leaders said. They mostly relied on using state savings, borrowing from special funds and delaying payments to plug the budget hole. 'It's balanced, it maintains substantial reserves, and it's focused on supporting Californians,' Newsom said in a statement about the budget. California also faces potential federal cuts to health care programs and broad economic uncertainty that could force even deeper cuts. Newsom in May estimated that federal policies — including on tariffs and immigration enforcement — could reduce state tax revenue by $16 billion. 7 California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks to reporters in San Francisco, Calif. in June 12, 2025. JOHN G MABANGLO/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock 7 Migrant farm laborers have their temperatures in King City, Calif. on April 28, 2020. Getty Images 'We've had to make some tough decisions,' Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire said Friday. 'I know we're not going to please everyone, but we're doing this without any new taxes on everyday Californians.' Republican lawmakers said they were left out of budget negotiations. They also criticized Democrats for not doing enough to address future deficits, which could range between $17 billion to $24 billion annually. 7 Protesters hold up signs supporting healthcare for illegal immigrants during California's Immigrants Day of Action on May 20, 2019 in Sacramento, Calif. AP 'We're increasing borrowing, we're taking away from the rainy day fund, and we're not reducing our spending,' said Republican state Sen. Tony Strickland prior to the vote. 'And this budget also does nothing about affordability in California.' Here's a look at spending in key areas: Health care Under the budget deal, California will stop enrolling new adult patients without legal status in its state-funded health care program for low-income people starting 2026. The state will also implement a $30 monthly premium July 2027 for immigrants remaining on the program, including some with legal status. The premiums would apply to adults under 60 years old. The changes to the program, known as Medi-Cal, are a scaled-back version of Newsom's proposal in May. Still, it's a major blow to an ambitious program started last year to help the state inch closer to a goal of universal health care. Democratic state Sen. Maria Elena Durazo broke with her party and voted 'no' on the health care changes, calling them a betrayal of immigrant communities. The deal also removes $78 million in funding for mental health phone lines, including a program that served 100,000 people annually. It will eliminate funding that helps pay for dental services for low-income people in 2026 and delay implementation of legislation requiring health insurance to cover fertility services by six months to 2026. But lawmakers also successfully pushed back on several proposed cuts from Newsom that they called 'draconian.' The deal secures funding for a program providing in-home domestic and personal care services for some low-income residents and Californians with disabilities. It also avoids cuts to Planned Parenthood. 7 A family whose parens are illegal immigrants sign up for government assisted health care at the San Mateo Medical Center in San Mateo Calif. on Feb. 22, 2023. AP Environment Lawmakers agreed to let the state tap $1 billion from its cap-and-trade program to fund state firefighting efforts. The cap-and-trade program is a market-based system aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Companies have to buy credits to pollute, and that money goes into a fund lawmakers are supposed to tap for climate-related spending. Newsom wanted to reauthorize the program through 2045, with a guarantee that $1 billion would annually go to the state's long-delayed high-speed rail project. 7 The California State Capitol in Sacramento, Calif. on Aug. 5, 2024. AP The budget doesn't make that commitment, as lawmakers wanted to hash out spending plans outside of the budget process. The rail project currently receives 25% of the cap-and-trade proceeds, which is roughly $1 billion annually depending on the year. Legislative leaders also approved funding to help transition part-time firefighters into full-time positions. Many state firefighters only work nine months each year, which lawmakers said harms the state's ability to prevent and fight wildfires. The deal includes $10 million to increase the daily wage for incarcerated firefighters, who earn $5.80 to $10.24 a day currently. Public safety The budget agreement will provide $80 million to help implement a tough-on-crime initiative voters overwhelmingly approved last year. The measure makes shoplifting a felony for repeat offenders, increases penalties for some drug charges and gives judges the authority to order people with multiple drug charges into treatment. Most of the fund, $50 million, will help counties build more behavioral health beds. Probation officers will get $15 million for pre-trial services and courts will receive $20 million to support increased caseloads. Advocates of the measure — including sheriffs, district attorneys and probation officers — said that's not enough money. Some have estimated it would take around $400 million for the first year of the program. 7 A protester holds an American and Mexican flag outside the Federal Building in Los Angeles during a rally on June 6, 2025. AP Other priorities Newsom and lawmakers agreed to raise the state's film tax credit from $330 million to $750 million annually to boost Hollywood. The program, a priority for Newsom, will start this year and expire in 2030. The budget provides $10 million to help support immigration legal services, including deportation defense. But cities and counties won't see new funding to help them address homelessness next year, which local leaders said could lead to the loss of thousands of shelter beds. The budget also doesn't act on Newsom's proposal to streamline a project to create a massive underground tunnel to reroute a big part of the state's water supply.
