|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Menlo Park received seven responses to its request for qualifications on the proposed development of downtown parking lots. On Friday, the city released the responses to the public.
According to a message posted to the city’s website, city staff is reviewing the proposals and will bring recommendations to the City Council in May. The city is not obligated to move forward with any of the proposals.
The city’s request required at least 345 affordable housing units for very low-income families and a minimum of 506 replacement public parking spaces.
Out of the seven responses, two came from for-profit affordable housing developers, two from a nonprofit affordable housing developer, one from a for-profit non-affordable housing developer and two were joint proposals.
Residents can provide feedback on the proposals through a form.
The idea of using the downtown parking lots for housing has been controversial among residents and businesses. Residents have raised $140,000 as of April 7 to fight the development in court if the city moves forward.
Here is a look at the proposals.
Alliant Communities
On March 31, Alliant Communities submitted its letter of interest to city staff for building affordable housing on the three downtown parking lots. Alliant is a for-profit affordable housing developer with projects in California and Nevada. Alliant has already done one project in Menlo Park, an 88-unit affordable housing development at 320 Sheridan Drive for the Ravenswood School District. Some neighbors objected to the project due to concerns about traffic, but the project is moving forward anyway.
Its proposal for downtown included three developments totaling 345 below-market units, with 60 reserved for seniors. All three sites would have ground-level parking with 506 public parking spaces to replace the 556 spaces that would be lost. In addition, there would be 190 parking spaces for residents.
The development also includes multiple public green spaces. The proposal did not specify how tall the development would be.
Alliant did not provide an estimated cost for the project and suggested using tax credits from federal, state and local governments.
Eden Housing
Eden Housing is a California-based for-profit affordable housing developer that submitted its letter of interest on March 28.
In its letter, Eden says it is not able to finance the construction of a parking garage but set aside a portion of a parking lot that could be used for a five-story, 515-space garage.
Eden would require the city of Menlo Park to take on and pay for any legal challenges arising from the development.
Eden’s proposal includes 344 below-market units, with 120 reserved for seniors.
Eden proposes a five-story residential development on part of Parking Plaza One with the rest used for a parking garage. For Parking Plaza Two, Eden proposed six stories of housing for seniors totaling 120 one-bedroom units. On Parking Plaza Three, Eden proposed five stories of housing with a total of 176 units for families.
Eden’s proposed accelerated timeline would complete construction by December 2032.
Eden said it would propose a financing plan if invited to submit a proposal.
MidPen Housing
MidPen Housing Corporation is a well-known nonprofit affordable housing developer on the Peninsula. It has worked on another development in Menlo Park, Gateway Rising.
MidPen submitted two potential scenarios for development. Both include at least 506 public parking spaces to replace the existing 556 spaces that would be lost, which the city required.
Scenario one would have at least 345 affordable units and three parking spaces for every four units. Buildings would range from six to eight stories. Scenario two would have 258 apartments and five to six stories.
MidPen gave the city multiple options including adding commercial and community gathering spaces and market-rate condos.
After tax credits and loans based on rental income, MidPen would still need roughly $390,000 per unit, which it suggests funding using county, state and local sources.
PATH Ventures
PATH Ventures, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit affordable housing developer, also submitted a proposal.
PATH proposed between 400 and 450 units at all three plazas, the most of any proposal, and said it would also be interested in developing some of the plazas and working with other groups for the rest.
For parking, it suggested sharing public and residential parking spaces by allowing members of the public to use spaces during the day while residents are at work.
PATH’s proposal included fewer details than most submissions.
Presidio Bay Ventures
Presidio Bay Ventures was the only predominantly market-rate housing developer to submit a proposal. If that name sounds familiar, it may be because Presidio built the Springline development in downtown Menlo Park.
Presidio proposed building 345 units across all three plazas and 506 public parking spaces, in addition to 76 flex parking spaces, for use by residents and members of the public. Presidio proposed five stories of residential development and two stories of parking at each plaza, with some of the parking being built below ground. Presidio would build a 250-space parking structure on Plaza Three as part of phase one.
In Presidio’s proposal, it implied that the city could not fund the development exclusively with traditional sources and would need to look at working with private investors.
Related and Alta
Related Companies of California and Alta Housing submitted a joint proposal to the city. Related is a for-profit developer, and Alta is a nonprofit affordable housing developer.
On Parking Plaza One, they proposed a 506-space parking garage, in addition to a six-story affordable housing development with 60 units and 0.5 parking spaces per unit. For Parking Plaza Two, they proposed a six-story affordable housing development with 62 units, 0.4 parking spaces per unit and a commercial or community space. For Parking Plaza Three, they proposed a six-story building with between 194 and 235 affordable units and 0.45 parking spaces per unit.
Pacific and West Development
The Pacific Companies and West Development Partners, both for-profit developers, also submitted a joint proposal. They suggested using modular construction, which allows part of the development to be built off-site and then transported.
Pacific highlighted its experience obtaining private funding of affordable housing, using “B bonds,” which it claims streamlines development.
They did not provide any specifics on the development, which the city requested.
Residents can view the proposals on the city’s website.
Clarification: This article was updated to clarify that Presidio Bay Ventures develops market-rate housing as well as other projects.
Why is Menlo Park’s City Council considering housing in a neighborhood that already has terrible, gridlock traffic? Why not add housing in the rarely used Sharon Hills Park? It has access to schools, shops, and 280, and the traffic in that area is not gridlock.
@Mich, short answer – because the 8 year plan for Menlo Park, the Menlo Park Housing Element says so, based on an array of factors, some of them driven by the state. The plan took 3 years, and hundreds of hours of consultant, staff and citizen time to approve and 4 iterations to approved by the state.
Long answer with most of the details – Read the 1400 page Housing Element here:
https://menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/3/community-development/documents/projects/housing-element-update/2023-2031-city-of-menlo-park-housing-element-clean_010324.pdf
Mid-range answer – Watch Jen Wolosin’s excellent video series on how the Housing Element evolved here:
https://www.youtube.com/@jenwolosin2293
If you want a quickie, listen to the 22 min podcast describing the Housing Element here:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/6xKEqh7xcZIfceCKjzBhUi
Please also realize that when Sharon Park was suggested as a housing Opportunity Site back in 2021 while the Housing Element was still in the planning process, thousands of citizens signed a petition to protect both Sharon and Burgess Parks.
https://www.change.org/p/menlo-park-housing-commission-preserve-menlo-park-s-green-spaces
Everybody asking these kind of questions is about 3 years too late to the planning party, that we were all invited to back in 2021 and 2022.
My understanding is that it still can be reconsidered.
The original question was about Sharon Hills Park, not Sharon Park. The petition was about Sharon Park.
@Mich, good point with respect to the petition, but the answer is still the same. The petition raised enough resident ire about converting park to housing in 2021 that it started a movement to keep all city-owned park land off the Opportunity Site list for the 6th cycle Housing Element which covers 2023-2031. Very unlikely it would be reconsidered for a variety of reasons:
* Resident sentiment
* State strictures – parks are for cities to convert
* Rework of the Housing Element Opportunity Sites would require HCD recertification.
Worthwhile reading, from that period in 2021 when the Housing Element was being developed.
https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/29727/L5-presentation
Use of parts of Sharon Hills Park could be reconsidered as planning begins for the 7th cycle likely around 2028 or 2029. Please note that that park is 3 different parcels in the Housing Element list of city-owned properties.
Because that’s where the people with the money live.
Nice article! I think the most telling point is “ Eden would require the city of Menlo Park to take on and pay for any legal challenges arising from the development.” Rightly or wrongly, I don’t see much chance of anything getting approved given a well funded local NIMBY effort to thwart the general concept.
@Self Evident, having seen Rutan and Tucker in action, $140K is peanuts in the scope of things, and would barely get Alex B. and company to the filing stage. And if the city is brought in as a co-defendant, it is pretty much a guaranteed loss for the plaintiff under the doctrine that governments have the right to make decisions for the good of the community, and that the rights of landowners must be subordinate to the good of society.
Their pockets are deeper than $140K and they have significant real estate values to defend. I predict we will still be parking on the existing surface lots in 2030.
If this it will be a monumental disaster.
I don’t know why all of the insanity of squeezing in up to 6 story new construction around single story buildings that are the better part of a century old. Just buy out or eminent domain all of it and create a new, cohesive downtown Menlo. The businesses that are there don’t have a chance of surviving the years of heavy construction anyway. Give them first option on new retail space and bring in the bulldozers. If we’re going to redesign downtown do it smartly and not patchwork.
That would be the smarter way to go, but I’m pretty sure that the 4 old families that own much of the downtown, have an incredible Prop 13 deal on property taxes, and charge usurious rents, would fight tooth and nail, using every ugly means available. Plus where would the money come to buy them out ?
If you want a little fun, you can see how ridiculously low most of the property taxes are for downtown owners in this map:
https://www.officialdata.org/ca-property-tax/#37.45227602281659,-122.18400835990907,18
Is anyone else concerned that the developers are effectively proposing an additional reduction of roughly 300-400 parking spots on top of the 50 spots effectively being removed by the city (lose 556 spots, replace with 506)? The developers in general are proposing between 0 and 0.5ish parking spots per unit when in fact units typically require 1.5 spots on average, according to other developers who have spoken at past City Council meetings.
MP Homeowner II: And this is but another among many reasons not to build this boondoggle. They’ll tell you “fewer people are driving cars now”. That is just more save the world nonsense we always get from these folks. One only need look at traffic around here and spend some time in the parking lots downtown during the week to KNOW people are still driving cars. Plenty of them and removing any parking is a bad idea. Especially if they have any hope of revitalizing the downtown.