|
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 the report “Update on the request for proposals for development on Parking Plazas 1, 2 and 3 and a tentative project schedule.” It included (a) a detailed, one-page summary of information extracted from the three developer proposals received on December 15 and (b) a new planning schedule for this extremely challenging, affordable housing project. I found both items and the Council review disappointing, surprising, and perplexing.
In this post, I provide a context for understanding the importance of these two topics, evaluate the new information in the staff report, and provide a transcript for the Council discussion that lasted less than 20 minutes. At the end of the post, I include some questions for readers to consider as they develop their own views of the Council’s ongoing “decision-making” and the desirability and feasibility of this project.
Very Low Income Housing Is Difficult To Do
This Project was originally proposed as a solution to a problem shared by all Bay Area cities. Their Housing Elements require hundreds of new units the State of California considers very low income housing, i.e., apartments designated for households with incomes equal or less than 50% of the median income in their respective counties. Building this type of affordable housing is extremely difficult as these projects are very unattractive developer investments. Local land is expensive; construction costs are very high; and the revenues from very low income apartments are insufficient to generate acceptable returns. So, like many cities, Menlo Park incentivizes developers by offering 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 very low income housing.
. - In mid-2024, the Council selected the three lots on the North side of Santa Cruz Avenue and set a total housing objective of “at least 345 units of very low-income units” for the 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 the affordable housing objective in the Project RFP so developers could submit proposals with much fewer very low income units.
. - Despite making this major adjustment, only three of six invited developers submitted proposals by the December 15 deadline, only two included very low-income housing, and neither proposal came close to meeting the original project objective of 345 very low income units.
. - The February 10 project update was the first opportunity for city staff to 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” that was in the earlier staff report. (Figure 1)
In my earlier February 9 blog post, Developer Proposals for Downtown Affordable Housing Confirm This Project Is Doomed, I evaluated the only two proposals that include very low income 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-union labor and the Council has previously rejected this option). And the Related-Alta proposal clearly states it would need the City to share the cost of building an eight-story public parking structure which this developer estimates would be $63M. It is also noteworthy that Alliant proposes only 191 units of very low income 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
Given the strong community interest in this Project and the importance of the two primary topics of this review, I was surprised by the Council’s apparent lack of interest in discussing the staff report. The Council did NOT discuss the three proposals. And the very brief discussion of the new project schedule occurred only after Councilmember Combs insisted on expressing his opposition to the Council showing a preference for any developer proposal prior to the November election. Both Councilmember Schmidt and Mayor Nash OPPOSE his position. Then the session ended.
View the meeting video here. The Council discussion starts at minute 60:00 and lasts about 17 minutes.
A transcript of the brief Council discussion can be viewed in the window below and downloaded as a PDF file. (Note: It was edited solely to improve its readability.)
Some Questions For Readers
- How do you feel about the Council decision to spend so little time (17 minutes) on discussing the developer proposals and the new project schedule?
. - 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?
. - What do you think of the proposed tentative project schedule which includes the selection of a developer and project proposal well before the November election.
. - Only three council members, 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?
. - 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?
. - Do you think the City should continue to move forward with this project or shift its focus to identifying VLI housing sites outside Downtown?f
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.
Cops offer a crash course in real world policing at Menlo Park’s community academyMarch 6, 2026 10:49 am