Menlo Park’s housing plan, and where new homes are going
Every California city has to plan for its share of the state’s new homes. Here is where Menlo Park’s plan stands, and where the new homes are going.
Sources last checked October 19, 2026. Each dataset’s own as‑of date is noted beside it.
Solid dots are developments: every one on the city’s list that includes housing, plus four the list leaves out (Oak Gardens, 661-687 Partridge Ave, 985 Santa Cruz Ave and 624 University Dr), colored by stage. Click a dot for its numbers and a link to its page. Dashed circles are sites in the city’s housing plan, places where homes could go, with nothing on the city’s list yet.
Try it yourselfCan you make the housing plan work?The plan names 68 sites for new homes. Count them, drop them or make them bigger, and see whether the plan still covers what the state requires. →All 25 developments in a table
| Development | Stage | Homes | Below market |
|---|---|---|---|
| District 1 | |||
| Willow VillageApproved, not builtPausedPaused by Meta since May 1, 2026 | Approved, not builtPaused | 1,730 | 312 |
| LumePartly complete42 of these homes not started yet | Partly complete | 483 | 73 |
| 123 Independence DrApproved; permits under review | Approved; permits under review | 432 | 74 |
| VasaraCompleted | Completed | 335 | 48 |
| 155 Jefferson DrUnder review | Under review | 207 | 31 |
| Menlo FlatsApproved, not built | Approved, not built | 158 | 21 |
| 104 Constitution DrUnder review | Under review | 140 | 28 |
| 3705 Haven AveApproved, not built | Approved, not built | 112 | 14 |
| 111 Independence DrApproved, not built | Approved, not built | 105 | 18 |
| Laurel Landing (Habitat)Approved, not built | Approved, not built | 8 | 8 |
| District 2 | |||
| 320 Sheridan Dr (Ravenswood teacher housing)Under construction | Under construction | 88 | 87 |
| Oak GardensCompleted | Completed | 62 | 60 |
| District 3 | |||
| Parkline (SRI campus)Approved, not built | Approved, not built | 800 | 251 |
| 345 Middlefield Rd (former USGS)Under review | Under review | 670 | 118 |
| 80 Willow RdUnder review | Under review | 665 | 100 |
| Parkline Phase 2 (SRI campus)Under reviewOnly the homes it would add | Under review | 282 | 42 |
| 68 Willow RdApproved, not built | Approved, not built | 50 | 8 |
| 1300 & 1308 Hoover StUnder review | Under review | 34 | 4 |
| District 4 | |||
| Downtown parking lots (Program H4.G)Planned by the city | Planned by the city | 345 | 345 |
| 888 El Camino RealUnder review | Under review | 41 | 5 |
| 800 Oak Grove AveApproved, not built | Approved, not built | 15 | 1 |
| 980-990 Alice LaneUnder review | Under review | 10 | 1 |
| 985 Santa Cruz AveUnder review | Under review | 7 | 1 |
| 624 University DrUnder review | Under review | 6 | 2 |
| 661-687 Partridge AveUnder construction | Under construction | 2 | 1 |
| District 5 | |||
| None with housing on the city’s list | |||
Each name opens that development’s page on the city’s website, where its numbers come from.
The share each district carries
District 1 holds 55% of the homes in the city’s current developments and 38% of the below‑market homes. In contrast, Districts 2, 4 and 5 together hold 8% of the homes and 30% of the below‑market homes. District 1’s count includes Willow Village’s 1,730 homes: Meta paused the development on May 1, 2026, but it is still part of the city’s Housing Element.
| District | Developments | Projected | BuiltComplete and standing as of the date at the top of this page, in developments that count toward this housing cycle. | Total homes | Share of city | Below marketHomes deed-restricted to income-qualified households under the city's Below Market Rate program — not simply cheap housing. These are the counts the city publishes. Most belong to developments not built yet, so read this column mostly as homes promised rather than delivered. | % of homesBelow-market homes as a share of that district's own total homes — not of the citywide total. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District 1 | 10 | 2,934 | 776 | 3,710 | 54.7% | 627 | 16.9% |
| District 2 | 2 | 88 | 62 | 150 | 2.2% | 147 | 98.0% |
| District 3 | 6 | 2,501 | 0 | 2,501 | 36.8% | 523 | 20.9% |
| District 4 | 7 | 426 | 0 | 426 | 6.3% | 356 | 83.6% |
| District 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | — |
| Citywide | 25 | 5,949 | 838 | 6,787 | 100% | 1,653 | 24.4% |
Projected counts homes under construction, approved, under review or planned by the city; built counts homes finished this cycle. Parkline Phase 2 counts only the 282 homes it would add.
More about this table
“Below market” and “affordable” are not quite the same thing. Below Market Rate, or BMR, is the name of Menlo Park’s own program: any development of 20 or more homes must deed‑restrict at least 15% of them to income‑qualified households. Affordable housing is the wider category — it includes those BMR homes, and also developments that are 100% affordable through subsidy rather than through that requirement, like Laurel Landing and the Ravenswood teacher housing. Neither term means “cheap”: both describe homes with a legal restriction on who may rent or buy them and at what price.
The counts here are what the city’s page for each development labels below market. The state uses a third set of terms again — “very low,” “low,” “moderate” — which is what the permit table below reports, so the two tables cannot be added together.
These are counts of the developments on the map, not a measure of what each district could hold.
Why this table will not add up to the permit table below
The two count different things. This table counts homes in the 25 developments that count toward the 2023-2031 cycle, most of them not built or even permitted yet, and some still under review. The permit table counts building permits already issued in that window for every kind of home, single-family houses and backyard units too, sorted into the state’s income categories, and then adds the approved developments’ homes that aren’t in that count yet. A development still under review appears here and not there.
The below-market columns are the sharpest trap. Of the below-market homes counted here, 175 are built. The other 1,478 are not built yet, and comparing them to permits already issued measures the future against the past.
Why Menlo Park needs to build housing
California has required every city to plan for housing since 1969. The plan is the city’s Housing Element, rewritten every eight years and certified by the state’s housing department, HCD, under the Housing Element Law.
for the whole Bay Area, 2023–2031
the Association of Bay Area Governments divides the total
across four income levels, 1,662 of them affordable
The city doesn’t build the homes itself. It zones land and approves developments that meet its rules, and the state measures it by the building permits it issues.
Why Menlo Park needs to build affordable housing
The 2,946 homes come split by income. More than half of them, 1,662, are for households with “very low,” “low” or “moderate” incomes. State law holds cities responsible for the housing needs of “all economic segments of the community,” so the plan has to show land zoned for every income level, and the state counts permits at each one.
Permits so far, and homes approved, by income level
In building permits, homes for higher incomes are well ahead of the affordable ones.
| Income level | Required | Permits issued | % permitted | Approved, not in the count yet | So far |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Very low income | 740 | 137 | 18.5% | 187 | 324 |
| Low income | 426 | 119 | 27.9% | 425 | 544 |
| Moderate income | 496 | 134 | 27.0% | 188 | 322 |
| Above moderate income | 1,284 | 763 | 59.4% | 2,740 | 3,503 |
| Total | 2,946 | 1,153 | 39.1% | 3,540 | 4,693 |
Very low income
- Required
- 740
- Permits issued
- 137
- % permitted
- 18.5%
- Approved, not in the count yet
- 187
- So far
- 324
Low income
- Required
- 426
- Permits issued
- 119
- % permitted
- 27.9%
- Approved, not in the count yet
- 425
- So far
- 544
Moderate income
- Required
- 496
- Permits issued
- 134
- % permitted
- 27.0%
- Approved, not in the count yet
- 188
- So far
- 322
Above moderate income
- Required
- 1,284
- Permits issued
- 763
- % permitted
- 59.4%
- Approved, not in the count yet
- 2,740
- So far
- 3,503
Total
- Required
- 2,946
- Permits issued
- 1,153
- % permitted
- 39.1%
- Approved, not in the count yet
- 3,540
- So far
- 4,693
Permits issued is what the state counts: building permits as of December 2025. Approved, not in the count yet adds the homes in the 11 approved developments that aren’t in that count, among them the 800 at Parkline, which has no building permits yet, and the 1,730 at Willow Village, which Meta has paused. They join the count as their permits are issued. So far adds the two. The housing plan simulator starts from the same count, but with the three developments the city calls inactive (111 Independence Dr, Menlo Flats and Willow Village, 1,993 homes) switched off; it counts them only when they’re switched on.
Permits: cumulative from June 2022 through December 2025, from the City’s General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Report, presented to the City Council March 24, 2026, the latest count; the next, for 2026, is due by April 2027. Approved homes: each development’s figures, as in the list of developments above; where the city doesn’t split a development’s below-market homes by income level, rentals count as low income and homes for sale as moderate.
What the income levels mean
Each level is a share of the county’s median income, $200,800 for a household of four. So in San Mateo County, a household of four counts as “low” income up to $168,100 a year, and “very low” up to $105,050.
| Income level | % of median income | 1 person | 2 people | 3 people | 4 people |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extremely low | 30% | $44,150 | $50,450 | $56,750 | $63,050 |
| Very low | 50% | $73,550 | $84,050 | $94,550 | $105,050 |
| Low | 80% | $117,700 | $134,500 | $151,300 | $168,100 |
| Moderate | 120% | $168,650 | $192,750 | $216,850 | $240,950 |
Maximum household income, California State Income Schedule, effective June 1, 2026, set each year and published by the County of San Mateo. Menlo Park’s below-market program is a local program, so the state schedule applies rather than the federal one.
The downtown parking lots: nearly half of the very-low-income plan
Program H4.G of the Housing Element calls for at least 345 affordable homes on the city-owned parking lots downtown, in District 4, and counts every one of them as “very low” income: nearly half of the 740 very-low-income homes Menlo Park must plan for. The plan’s site list spreads them over all eight downtown lots, but the city is now pursuing only three, Plazas 1, 2 and 3, and asked that all 556 public parking spaces there be replaced. No developer has been chosen yet.
 Rendering, June 2 presentationAlliant Communities |  Rendering, June 2 presentationPresidio Bay Ventures |  Massing drawing, Dec. 2025 proposalRelated California & Alta Housing | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Homes | 345, all affordable | 347 | 500, including 157 at market rate |
| Incomes (% of median income) | 15–80% | 140 homes at 80%, 207 at 100% | 343 homes at 15–80%; the 157 market-rate homes at about 128–172% |
| Public parking spaces | 556, in the parking podiums of its Plaza 1 and Plaza 3 buildings | 556: 455 in a dedicated garage on Plaza 3 (2030), 101 in a Plaza 1 building’s podium (2033) | 574, all in a dedicated garage on Plaza 3 (planned for early 2029) |
| Funding gap | About $20 million | About $45 million | About $19 million |
| Proposed way to close it | About $10 million in deferred city impact fees, plus $10 million in low- or no-interest loans from sources not yet named | Waiving all city fees, community benefits expected from the future development of the former USGS campus, and/or up to $15 million from the city | No source identified yet |
The three proposals before the City Council
Rendering, June 2 presentationAlliant Communities
- Homes
- 345, all affordable
- Incomes (% of median income)
- 15–80%
- Public parking spaces
- 556, in the parking podiums of its Plaza 1 and Plaza 3 buildings
- Funding gap
- About $20 million
- Proposed way to close it
- About $10 million in deferred city impact fees, plus $10 million in low- or no-interest loans from sources not yet named
Rendering, June 2 presentationPresidio Bay Ventures
- Homes
- 347
- Incomes (% of median income)
- 140 homes at 80%, 207 at 100%
- Public parking spaces
- 556: 455 in a dedicated garage on Plaza 3 (2030), 101 in a Plaza 1 building’s podium (2033)
- Funding gap
- About $45 million
- Proposed way to close it
- Waiving all city fees, community benefits expected from the future development of the former USGS campus, and/or up to $15 million from the city
Massing drawing, Dec. 2025 proposalRelated California & Alta Housing
- Homes
- 500, including 157 at market rate
- Incomes (% of median income)
- 343 homes at 15–80%; the 157 market-rate homes at about 128–172%
- Public parking spaces
- 574, all in a dedicated garage on Plaza 3 (planned for early 2029)
- Funding gap
- About $19 million
- Proposed way to close it
- No source identified yet
From the city’s summary of the proposals and the independent financial review, in the staff report for the council’s Sept. 29, 2026 study session. Homes, incomes and parking follow the review’s figures, as presented to the council that night. The city’s summary counts Related/Alta’s homes a little differently (346 affordable at 30–60%, 154 at market rate), and Presidio Bay describes its own homes as serving 80–120%. The staff report notes Presidio Bay’s proposal doesn’t say whether its 100% homes would stay affordable by deed restriction. The pictures are the teams’ own, from the proposals and presentations the city published, and each links to its page. Related/Alta’s proposal has no rendering, so its picture is a massing drawing.
- Where it stands. The financial review found a gap in all three even with the land leased at a nominal cost, and said the cost of replacing the parking weighs on all three. Closing the gaps could take other funding, help from the city or changes to the city’s goals, such as fewer replacement spaces or fewer homes for the lowest incomes.
- Next. Choosing one of the three teams is on the council’s tentative agenda for its Oct. 27 or Nov. 10 meeting.
- November 3. If Measure P passes, building homes and replacement parking on these lots would need voter approval first. See what that does to the plan’s numbers in the simulator →
What happens if a city falls short
No certified plan: the builder’s remedy
The city can’t reject qualifying housing for breaking its zoning. Two applications filed before Menlo Park’s plan was certified still claim it. The builder’s remedy page → Try building the plan yourself →
Behind on permits: faster approvals
The state can put the city on a list where qualifying developments are approved by staff, with little local say. Menlo Park has not been on it since the list began in 2018; the next check is June 2027.
What comes next
- Every April: the city reports its progress to the state. The latest report went to the council in March 2026.
- June 2027: the state’s next check on the city’s permit pace.
- Throughout: programs the state’s approval letter requires, including affordable housing on the city’s downtown parking lots.
How Menlo Park’s plan got certified
The deadline was January 31, 2023, and Menlo Park adopted its plan that day. The state then asked for changes twice more and certified it on March 20, 2024, 414 days later. Menlo Park was far from alone: days before the deadline, only three of the Bay Area’s 109 cities and counties were on track to be certified on time, and four months after it, fewer than 30 were.
Two builder’s remedy applications were filed in that gap. They are shown by their preliminary filings, which is what the rule counts; the builder’s remedy page explains.
Before the deadline
After the deadline: 414 days until certification1
- April 7, 2023The state says the plan meets many of the law’s requirements but asks for more changes, mostly on fair housing and on the list of sites where homes could go and how many each could hold. Source
- June 30, 2023The city sends a revised plan. Source
- Aug. 29, 2023The state again asks for more changes. Source
- Nov. 28, 2023The council takes up the zoning changes the plan promised. State law requires them by January 31, 2024. Source
- Dec. 5, 2023The council adopts the zoning changes. Source
- Dec. 7, 2023Builder’s remedyN17 files a preliminary application for 80 Willow Road, on the old Sunset Magazine campus, while the plan is still uncertified. It claims the builder’s remedy. Source
- Dec. 20, 2023The state finds the revised plan meets the law’s requirements: a conditional approval, pending the council’s adoption. Source
- Jan. 23, 2024The council amends the plan to match the state’s conditional approval. Source
- Before Mar. 20, 2024Builder’s remedyGreystar files a preliminary application for 140 homes at 104 Constitution Drive, in District 1, also claiming the builder’s remedy. The exact date has not been made public. Source
- March 20, 2024The state certifies the plan, which shows room for more than 3,000 homes across all income levels. Source
1 Many Bay Area cities expected a 120‑day grace period after the deadline before the builder’s remedy applied. The state’s housing department said there was none: the remedy applied from January 31, 2023 (Holland & Knight, October 2022). ↩
Sources (33)
Every development, with its source
Each name links to that development's page on the city's website, the source of its unit and below-market counts. Oak Gardens isn’t on the city’s list: its name links to its own page, and the source of its counts is listed below. 661-687 Partridge Ave, 985 Santa Cruz Ave and 624 University Dr have no pages on the city’s website, but the city’s July 2026 housing update lists them: their names link to that report.
District 1
- 104 Constitution Dr — under review, 140 homes, 28 below market
- 111 Independence Dr — approved, not built, 105 homes, 18 below market
- 123 Independence Dr — approved; permits under review, 432 homes, 74 below market
- 155 Jefferson Dr — under review, 207 homes, 31 below market
- 3705 Haven Ave — approved, not built, 112 homes, 14 below market
- Laurel Landing (Habitat) — approved, not built, 8 homes, 8 below market
- Lume — partly complete, 483 homes, 73 below market
- Menlo Flats — approved, not built, 158 homes, 21 below market
- Vasara — completed, 335 homes, 48 below market
- Willow Village — approved, not built, paused by Meta since May 1, 2026, 1,730 homes, 312 below market
District 2
- 320 Sheridan Dr (Ravenswood teacher housing) — under construction, 88 homes, 87 below market
- Oak Gardens — completed, 62 homes, 60 below market
District 3
- 1300 & 1308 Hoover St — under review, 34 homes, 4 below market
- 345 Middlefield Rd (former USGS) — under review, 670 homes, 118 below market
- 68 Willow Rd — approved, not built, 50 homes, 8 below market
- 80 Willow Rd — under review, 665 homes, 100 below market
- Parkline (SRI campus) — approved, not built, 800 homes, 251 below market
- Parkline Phase 2 (SRI campus) — under review, 282 homes, 42 below market
District 4
- 800 Oak Grove Ave — approved, not built, 15 homes, 1 below market
- 888 El Camino Real — under review, 41 homes, 5 below market
- 980-990 Alice Lane — under review, 10 homes, 1 below market
- 661-687 Partridge Ave — under construction, 2 homes, 1 below market
- 985 Santa Cruz Ave — under review, 7 homes, 1 below market
- 624 University Dr — under review, 6 homes, 2 below market
- Downtown parking lots (Program H4.G) — planned by the city, 345 homes, 345 below market
Where the data comes from
- The list of developments itself, by status — approved
- completed
- under construction
- and under review
- Where each development stands, in the city’s own categories, and the income split for several: the city’s housing plan update, July 14, 2026
- Oak Gardens, which isn’t on the city’s list: the source of its figures
- Council district boundaries and zoning: City of Menlo Park GIS
- Income limits: County of San Mateo, 2026
- Renderings are from each development's city page, and the downtown lots' drawing from Presidio Bay's proposal to the city; unit and below-market counts are transcribed by hand from those pages and the city documents each development’s note names. Where two city sources disagree, the newest is used, and the note says which.
Limits of this data
- The city’s development pages rarely state median-income percentages. They give the legal categories (very low, low, moderate). Only Laurel Landing states a percentage outright — 80% of area median income. The percentages in the income table above are the standard definitions of those categories, not figures the city stated.
- Where the below-market counts come from. Each is from the development’s city page.
- Non-residential developments are excluded — hotels, the Meta campus, CSBio, the fire station, the golf club. They build no housing.
- A development is not a home. Willow Village’s 1,730 homes are approved but not under construction, and Meta paused the development on May 1, 2026. The city’s Housing Element still counts them, so they are counted here as projected, which raises District 1’s totals though none are built.