Nice job. Spent millions of this and still HCD sends a letter with jabs in it.

For all those thinking this will somehow change anything in MP. See you in 10 years when my prediction of little to no new additional housing will be built (outside of the current in-progress projects).

I have a question. Drew Combs said the state's approval won't nullify the two proposals (including the one at Sunset magazine) already filed under "builder's remedy". Why not? And what does that mean?

And another question. I heard there was a proposal to apply the "builder's remedy" if a city had not met at least half of its housing goal midway through the plan's lifespan. In other words, since Menlo Park's plan is for adding 3000 dwelling units; if less than 1500 are built in four years, are developers free to use the remedy? Or did this proposal not pass?

Thank you.

@Ellen "Why not?"

"Certification" apparently takes place when HCD gives formal approval. The Sunset project was submitted prior to certification, so it is still valid.

There are mid-cycle reviews but I don't know what mid-cycle con-conformance is and what HCD powers get unleashed on non-conformers. I do know that mid-cycle housing counts are based on *permits* pulled not *approvals*. Councils make approvals; developers pull permits, often waiting until market conditions are ripe. For example, under the Developer's Agreement for the Willow Village project there is no requirement that Meta build the housing component during the next cycle. Hence the 1700 *approved* units may count as 0 (zero) during the mid-cycle review. And, yes, a number of us did make council aware of this.

I congratulate council on the certification. I think the process, particularly this cycle was onerous and very subjective.

I disagree with @new guy. I think housing will get built, but in the usual places-- mostly Bayfront and some downtown.

Thank you PH for the clarification.

From your description of the Meta case, I assume that if the Sunset project was approved as currently described, the developers could pull the permits for the whole project, go ahead and build the office space, and hold on the residential units - affordable or otherwise. Correct? If that is the case, the net result is just amplifying our current problem of imbalance between jobs and housing. Please tell me I'm wrong.

@Ellen -- Projects have two phases -- planning and building. After getting planning approvals applicants go through a building permit process.

The legal context surrounding the planning approvals for the two projects are different.

Normal planning approvals expire. Applicants must get their building permits and break ground before the expiration date of the planning approvals (or return for planning approval extensions.)

The Meta project required multiple planning approvals that were then bundled inside a Developer's Agreement ("DA"). A DA is a contract between city and applicant, that, in its case, among other things, extended the termination date of the planning approvals. Meta sought planning approvals during an office recession so the DA bought them market relief to wait to get building permits at a (much) later date when the market returns.

Negotiating a DA is optional to both parties and not part of the routine planning approval process.

I doubt Menlo Park will agree to a DA with N17. Without a DA, the planning approvals will expire if N17 doesn't obtain building permits and break ground within the term of the planning approvals. I don't know what the term is.

I don't know if N17 can build the office and let the housing expire, but I doubt it. Market rate housing is very profitable in Menlo Park. Not as profitable as office, but still very profitable. Most developers specialize. If N17 specializes in housing then it will exploit the Developer's Remedy to happily gorge on housing.