|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Menlo Park has taken its next step toward redeveloping its downtown parking plazas into affordable housing. At its Aug. 26 meeting, the City Council authorized staff to release a request for proposals to six pre-qualified development teams.
The move stems from the city’s obligation under its 2023–2031 housing element, which requires Menlo Park to plan for nearly 3,000 new housing units, including more than 1,600 affordable to moderate- and lower-income households. The parking plazas, located in the heart of downtown, are listed in the Housing Element as some of the city’s most significant opportunity sites. However, business owners say losing surface parking, even if some or all of the spaces are replaced in a parking garage, would be detrimental to the downtown area.
While the city’s housing element had a goal of unit completion by 2027, it has fallen behind that target; staff emphasized that “all efforts” must be made to have the units constructed within the current housing element cycle, which ends in 2031.
Earlier this year, the city invited developers to submit their qualifications to build on the lots. Seven teams responded and in June the council selected six to advance: Alliant Communities, Eden Housing, MidPen Housing, PATH Ventures, Presidio Bay Ventures and Related Companies with Alta Housing.
Those teams will now be asked to prepare detailed proposals under the RFP. While much of the RFP was similar to the RFQ, there was one difference: some “requirements” were removed and replaced with “priorities.” One of the requirements that was changed to a priority is replacing all surface parking spaces.
Save Downtown Menlo, a group that formed to fight the loss of of the parking lots, sees it as the council breaking their promise. “For 10 months, City Council assured us that lost downtown parking would be replaced. But at Tuesday’s meeting, just before approving the RFP, they quietly removed the replacement requirement,” it said in an email newsletter. “Now, parking replacement is just a ‘priority.’ Translation: optional.”
The council also changed other requirements involving units of housing and size to priorities. The change was made after the meeting’s agenda went out.
Councilmembers were previously concerned when Eden Housing, one of the seven developers, said it would not be able to fund replacement parking. The council included Eden in the RFP process since it did not want to risk punishing a developer for providing an honest assessment.
The city has already received more than 140 written public comments on the project, raising concerns about parking loss, building scale and construction impacts. The draft RFP seeks to address those issues by requiring developers to present comprehensive plans covering design, circulation, sustainability features and construction mitigation.
Proposals will be evaluated on several factors: the strength of the development concept, the team’s experience and financial capacity, the project’s community benefits and engagement plan, and the quality of long-term property management. The city may hold public open houses and developer interviews before making a final selection.
Staff expects to release the RFP in September with a 90-day response window, leading to council review and developer selection in early 2026.
While city staff stressed that neither an ongoing lawsuit nor a proposed ballot initiative legally prevents issuing the RFP at this stage, both could complicate future steps.
Woman arrested at Meta headquarters after demanding to speak with ZuckerbergJanuary 7, 2026 11:58 am
Dr. Thomas J. Fogarty, inventor of the balloon catheter, dies at 91 in Portola ValleyJanuary 7, 2026 10:25 am
Already the promise to replace surface parking taken by this project is starting go soft. Now instead of required it is a “priority”. Yeah, sure it is. When they need to cut cost because those expensive parking spaces that will be in those garages, guess what goes from being a priority to nonexistent?
Here are some important clarifications:
1. The included staff comment that the housing units must be CONSTRUCTED by 2031 is INCORRECT. The City only needs to approve building permits for all housing during this housing element cycle.
2. Both big changes that Arden mentions were made after the staff report on the prior Thursday and the Council largely ignored both during their discussion. Why did they make them? And what impacts do the Council expect? This behavior further undermines our communities trust in the City Council.
3. The Council and planning staff had continued to claim this project had to be completed by 2027 even though this has not been a realistic date for more than a year. Why? To create a false sense of urgency and put pressure on the planning process?
This project couldn’t be completed by 2027 if they tried. If the work is phased they way they have been discussing, this project is four years minimum. If they stared tomorrow they wouldn’t be done until 2029. I’m so sick and tired of this council gas lighting us and trying to shove their agenda down our throats. We don’t want it. We’ve made it abundantly clear we don’t want it, yet still they keep trying to force it through. There are other, better places for this housing that don’t require tearing up the downtown to do it. Or, gifting citizen owned property to developers.