Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Menlo Park housing commission recommends BMR agreement that allows rental option for 50‑unit 68 Willow Road project
Loading...
Summary
The Menlo Park Housing Commission voted 6–0 (one absence) to recommend that the Planning Commission approve an alternate below‑market‑rate (BMR) agreement for a 50‑unit development at 68 Willow Road that would allow the developer to deliver the project as rental housing if for‑sale financing becomes infeasible.
The Menlo Park Housing Commission on April 1 voted 6–0, with one absence, to recommend that the Planning Commission approve an alternate below‑market‑rate (BMR) agreement for a 50‑unit development at 68 Willow Road that would permit the developer to pursue the project as rental housing if market conditions prevent a for‑sale path.
Senior Planner Chris Turner outlined the proposal and BMR conditions, saying the city requires a 15% set‑aside for BMR units (eight units in this 50‑unit project), that rental BMR units would be targeted at about 80% of area median income, and that affordability restrictions would run for 55 years. "The BMR requirements require those 50 units... So in this case, 8 units required to be BMR units," Turner said during the presentation.
Developer representative Chase Rapp told the commission the team wants flexibility to switch temporarily to rental tenure if financing weakens. "Mortgage rates are not coming down, where we thought they were when we forecasted from when we started this project two years ago. Construction costs continue to go up," Rapp said, adding that the rental option is intended to preserve a path to deliver housing rather than stall the project.
A resident who lives near the site, Patrick Yee, spoke in support during public comment, saying he appreciated that the developer spread the BMR units across buildings and provided a mix of unit sizes: "I live...very close to this proposed development. I am supportive of this development," Yee said.
Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant for clarifications about unit configuration, financing drivers, property management for the affordable units, and the subdivision map process. Staff said the 15% set‑aside applies regardless of whether the project moves forward as rental or for‑sale, and that a tentative subdivision map would only be taken to the city council if the project pursued the for‑sale path. Commissioners discussed whether nonprofits typically manage small affordable sets and whether impact fees or insurance differ by tenure; staff said those costs can vary.
After questions, Commissioner Osler moved to recommend the alternate BMR agreement to the Planning Commission; Commissioner Chapa seconded. The roll call vote passed 6–0 with one absence.
Next steps: the Planning Commission will consider both the for‑sale and alternate rental BMR agreements together at a future hearing; staff said both agreements would be presented to the Planning Commission to allow that body to act on the preferred path. The housing commission’s action is a recommendation only; final approvals for subdivision or use permits will follow the Planning Commission and, if applicable, City Council review.
