|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
>>> To Download this post select “Export as a PDF” in your browser. <<<
A few days before the February 10 City Council meeting, city planning staff published a report called an “Update on the request for proposals for development on Parking Plazas 1, 2 and 3 and a tentative project schedule.” The report included (a) a detailed, one-page summary of information from the three developer proposals the City had received in December and (b) a new planning schedule for this project. I found both and the Council review disappointing, surprising, and perplexing.
In this post, I provide a context for understanding the importance of this new information, evaluate the two key items in the staff report, and provide a transcript for the Council discussion that lasted less than 20-minutes. At the end of the post, there are some questions I recommend readers consider as they develop their own views of Council “decision-making” and this Project.
Background
This Project was originally proposed as a solution to a problem shared by all Bay Area cities. Their Housing Elements require developing hundreds of new units of very low-income (VLI) housing, i.e., designated for households with incomes equal or less than 50% of the median income in their respective counties. This is extremely difficult as these projects are very unattractive developer investments. Local land is expensive; construction costs are very high; and the revenues from VLI apartments are insufficient to generate acceptable returns. So, like many cities, Menlo Park now offers developers public land via “no cost” long-term, ground leases.
- The current Menlo Park Housing Element approved in December 2023, identified ALL Downtown parking lots as “opportunity sites” for VLI housing,
. - In mid-2024, the Council selected three of them and set a housing objective of “at least 345 units of very low-income units” for its Downtown affordable housing project (Project).
. - The City also faced an additional challenge. To avoid irrevocable harm to its Downtown, the City subsequently decided to replace all 556 existing public parking spaces and required the project developer to build them without any city financial support.
. - In early 2025, the City learned that requiring so much housing and public parking without providing City financing would discourage developers from submitting proposals. So, in September 2025, the City loosened its affordable housing objective in the Project RFP so developers could submit proposals with fewer VLI units.
. - Despite making this major adjustment, only three of six invited developers submitted proposals by the December 15 deadline, only two included VLI housing, and neither came close to meeting the original project objective of 345 VLI units.
. - The February 10 project update was the first opportunity for city staff to publicly review the submitted proposals with the Council and our community.
Proposal Review
This affordable housing project has been politically controversial since its start. So, our community had had a reasonable expectation that an initial review of the developer proposals would include (a) a planning staff preliminary assessment of how well each proposal complied with the Project RFP (b) a summary of any significant concerns the staff evaluation had surfaced, and (b) a brief explanation of how these could impact either the feasibility of the Project or its schedule. Then a Council discussion would follow.
Unfortunately, this did not happen. The proposals were neither reviewed, evaluated nor discussed during the meeting. And one needed a magnifying glass to even read the proposal “data sheet” submitted in the earlier staff report.
In my February 9 blog post, Developer Proposals for Downtown Affordable Housing Confirm This Project Is Doomed, I evaluated the only two proposals that include VLI housing and concluded neither one fully complied with the Project RFP. For example, both developers require substantial City financial support for 556 public parking spaces. While Alliant Communities has not yet requested this support, it will need it If the City requires Alliant to use union labor. (Note: its bid of $200M for the entire development is based on using non-labor and the Council has previously rejected this option). And the Related-Alta proposal clearly states the developer needs the City to share the cost of building an eight-story public parking structure which it estimates at $63M. It is also noteworthy that Alliant proposes only 191 units of VLI housing, and Related-Alta proposes only 259 units.
New Project Schedule
Planning staff proposed a tentative new project schedule that includes several important milestones in the first half of 2026.
- The Council selects a preferred proposal by late March/early April
. - The Council approves a Surplus Land Act (SLA) resolution 30-45 days later, i.e., in May.
. - The City notifies the State its plans to enter an exclusive negotiating agreement with the selected developer, also in May.
Council Discussion
In a nutshell, Councilmember Combs expressed his opposition to the Council showing a preference for any developer proposal prior to the November election and Councilmember Schmidt and Major Nash opposed his position.
I encourage readers to read the transcript of the meeting video in the windows below or download them as a PDF file.
View the unedited transcript in this scrollable window.
View the edited transcript (easier to read) in this scrollable window.
View the meeting video here. The Council discussion starts at minute 55:00 and lasts about 17 minutes.
Some Questions For Readers
1. What do you think of the planning staff decision NOT to provide a preliminary assessment of the proposals with regards to the Project RFP requirements almost two months after receiving them?
.
2. What do you think of the planning staff proposed tentative project schedule which includes the selection of a developer and project proposal well before the November election?
.
3. Only three councilmembers, Nash, Combs and Schmidt, expressed their views about how the Council should move the Project forward. What do you think about the views each expressed?
4. Councilmember Schmidt often expresses his concern the State could decertify the City Housing Element if the Project schedule is delayed. Do you share his concern?
.
5. Do you think the City should feel an obligation to inform HCD of (a) the November Election and (b) the high risk this Project is financially and politically infeasible? When?
Your Views Matter.
Make Sure Yourself Heard!
I encourage community members to proactively express their preferences and concerns about the Project to influential members of our city government.
Charged with child sex abuse, East Palo Alto employee gets character reference from council memberFebruary 23, 2026 2:08 pm
Woodside town manager behind scathing report asked town to buy out his contractFebruary 20, 2026 12:25 pm