Menlo Park Housing Commission backs BMR agreement for 624 University Drive

The Menlo Park Housing Commission voted 4-0 on June 3 to recommend the Planning Commission approve a below‑market‑rate (BMR) housing agreement for a six‑unit residential project at 624 University Drive.

Jacob Garcia, a consultant planner for the City of Menlo Park, told the commission the proposal would demolish an existing four‑unit building and replace it with five detached buildings and one duplex, totaling six units. Under the city’s BMR guidelines and state law, projects under 20 units are required to provide 10 percent of units as BMR housing; that requirement yields a fractional obligation of 0.6 unit for a six‑unit project that rounds up to one required BMR unit. The applicant has proposed one deed‑restricted very low‑income unit to meet that requirement and an additional one low‑income unit to satisfy replacement obligations tied to SB 330.

“The project proposes two deed‑restricted affordable units, one low‑income unit and one very low‑income unit,” Garcia said during the presentation.

Planner Garcia and land use counsel Linda Fine explained the replacement requirement reflects state rules under SB 330 and the Housing Crisis Act that govern replacement of protected units when housing is demolished. Garcia said data used for the rebuttable presumption indicated a replacement obligation of 1.32 units for the site, which is rounded up under state law to require two replacement units; the applicant’s two deed‑restricted units address that obligation.

Linda Fine, land use counsel for the applicant Park South 624 LLC, said the project’s two one‑bedroom affordable units are located together in the duplex at the front of the property and that the very low‑income designation makes the project eligible for the maximum incentives and concessions under the state density bonus law. “I’m here for questions and to note that it’s close to transit and amenities,” Fine said.

Commissioners clarified how tenant priority and the city’s legacy/lottery lists would be applied, and asked about unit size and design. Staff confirmed the two affordable units would be smaller (described in the staff presentation as roughly 600 and 720 square feet) than the market‑rate two‑bedroom units (about 1,300 square feet) and would be located together in a duplex rather than dispersed among market units. A commissioner noted concern that concessions allowing the affordable units to differ in layout and placement might make them visually distinguishable from market‑rate units.

Staff also described parking and density bonus effects: the project proposes one covered parking space per one‑bedroom affordable unit and two parking spaces for each two‑bedroom market unit, consistent with state standards that can supersede local minimum parking requirements when density bonus provisions apply. The site is within about a half‑mile of a Caltrain station, a factor Garcia cited in the parking discussion.

Commissioner Bealy moved and Commissioner Chapa seconded the motion to recommend approval of the draft BMR agreement to the Planning Commission. A roll call vote recorded four ayes (Bealy, Chapa, Cranin, Chair Osler) and three absences, and the motion passed. The recommendation advances a draft agreement to the Planning Commission for formal consideration and final action.

Next procedural step: the Planning Commission will receive the BMR agreement and the draft will proceed through the city’s permit and review process; staff noted the agreement on the table is a draft that could be refined as it moves forward.