|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Opposition and worry continue to mount over the controversial proposal to construct towers on the former Sunset Magazine headquarters in Menlo Park.
More than 700 people have signed a change.org petition by Brielle Johnck of Menlo Park in protest against the ambitious mixed-use complex at 80 Willow Road proposed last year as a “builder’s remedy” project by the development company N17.
“This site is a treasure for people in the community,” Johnck said. The N17 project “is a horrific plan.”
N17 submitted a preliminary application to the city under Senate Bill 330, a state provision known as builder’s remedy that allows developers to bypass local land-use regulations.
At the time, Menlo Park was open to builder’s remedy applications and other penalties because it had yet to secure state certification for an urban-growth plan called the housing element.
On March 21, the city announced that its plan was certified by the state Department of Housing and Community Development. However, that approval does not render N17’s application null and void.
“As long as the developer submitted a preliminary application pursuant to SB 330 or has submitted a full application, the builder’s remedy proposal is still valid and should be processed accordingly,” said HCD spokesperson Alicia Murillo.
But Johnck told this news organization that she wants local zoning rules and height limits followed.
The project site “is really in a residential neighborhood,” she added. “If we just have housing on these sites, we might put a dent in the housing crisis. But (developers) want to put offices. We’re digging ourselves in a bigger hole.”
Johnck and her husband, former Menlo Park mayor Steve Schmidt, also met with and passed their concerns to Mayor Cecilia Taylor and Council member Jen Wolosin.
“We were told that the city is following the application process according to city rules,” Johnck said in her petition.
In emails to this news organization, city leaders acknowledged how wary residents are about the N17 proposal.
“It is clear that much of the Menlo Park community has deep concerns,” Taylor said.
“I hear loud and clear the depth of concern that residents have,” Wolosin also said.
In her March 13 newsletter, Wolosin wrote that many residents have reached out to her about the project.
“I understand how worried people are about the prospect of multiple high-rise buildings along the creek at the corner of Middlefield and Willow,” she said in the newsletter. “I share many of your concerns. I find the proposed project outrageously out of scale from what is reasonable.”
She added: “The City Council has worked hard to designate sites for housing development throughout the city during the housing-element process and rezoned land to enable that development. This project is completely inconsistent with what we had planned.”
But while she understands the call for Menlo Park to keep the proposal from moving forward, Wolosin said, “it is important that the city not interfere with the project applicant’s due-process rights. There is a process that must be followed, and there are still many unknowns.”
She noted, though, that because N17 has yet to file a formal development application “there are no next steps for this project right now.”
N17 – founded by real-estate professional Oisin Heneghan – eyes building three high rises of 421 feet, 371 feet and 305 feet, according to the city’s housing-element website.
Those heights would be comparable to the Embarcadero Center office towers in San Francisco.
N17 would provide up to 805 housing units, a 162-room hotel, 300,000 square feet of offices and 15,000 square feet of retail space, according to the city.
Heneghan could not be reached for comment for this story. But previously, he told The Almanac that the project would include 160 affordable units and the final design is expected to be submitted later this year.
Menlo Park has two additional proposals already filed under builder’s remedy. One is for 19 residential units at 1305 Hoover St., and the other is for 140 dwellings at 104 Constitution Dr.
Jeremy Levine, policy manager for the nonprofit organization Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County, pointed out that Menlo Park may have some options to try to stop a builder’s remedy project.
“One avenue the city could use to block the builder’s remedy proposals in Menlo Park would be to claim the city’s housing element was actually in compliance at the time of the application’s submission even though HCD hadn’t certified it yet,” Levine said in an email to this news organization.
In her petition, Johnck mentioned that the statewide grassroots coalition Our Neighborhood Voices has been fighting the ability of developers to pursue multistory, multi-unit projects in single-family neighborhoods following the passage of state laws in recent years.
The group has been campaigning to put an initiative on the ballot that would ensure local communities are in charge of their own zoning and land-use regulations.
A court ruling favoring a proposed builder’s remedy development in Southern California, however, may pose further challenges to Menlo Park and other jurisdictions battling those types of projects.
In early March, a court ruled that La Cañada Flintridge violated state housing law by denying an application last year for an affordable-housing project filed under builder’s remedy.
“The court found that a project’s eligibility for the builder’s remedy vests at the time of the application,” Levine said. “As long as a city does not have a housing element certified by HCD, they cannot deny a builder’s remedy proposal even if the city adopted the housing element before the application and got certified later.”
Levine also noted that the court could require La Cañada Flintridge to do a speedy California Environmental Quality Act review of the project.
Such a requirement could close a tactic – the CEQA process – that local jurisdictions “have had at their disposal in the past to delay or block builder’s remedy proposals,” he said.
Menlo Park knows of, and is monitoring, the case.
“The city is aware of this trial-court ruling and continues to analyze all applicable law regarding the builder’s remedy,” the mayor said.
View Menlo Park’s housing plan for 2023-31 on the city website at menlopark.gov.
In talking with a previous city council and planning commission member they were questioning why Menlo Park has not passed a resolution to stop this proposed project all together. Additionally, don’t believe this Sunset campus is part of the housing element and given all the planned development close to Middlefield rd, I would like to see the Sunset campus turned into a park to offset the planned development.
As has been widely reported, the site is now owned by a Russian billionaire, Vitaly Yusufov, son of a former top Russian government official with close ties to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. N17 is only the developer working for the owners.
The La Cañada Flintridge project is five stories. The Sunset property should be recognized for its historic and cultural value to the community, preserved, and opened to the public. But if those buildings have to be razed, a five-story structure might be acceptable. Especially if it’s entirely devoted to housing so doesn’t create more housing need than it fills.
Even not considering historic value or neighbors’ dislike of a high-rise: the road really doesn’t have the capacity for something of the proposed scale, does it? Willow already has heavy traffic. Sometimes NIMBY is a bad attitude, but this project was absurd for the location. I think the reward for getting the housing element passed should be to send this project packing.
From this story it is very difficult to understand the scope of the project. Why is it not explained by using a common metric of square footage? Why confuse matters by using units, rooms, and square feet? Also, there is no mention of the fact that the city had years to comply with the act, but didn’t. Elected officials should be held accountable for their failure to protect the community from this avoidable outcome.
Can you imagine if this was proposed in an established neighborhood in the golden children neighborhoods, west of El Camino? It would never happen. Nothing about this pathetic proposal make sense, with the exception of developers making bank. Shame on Menlo Park for even allowing this joke to come to the table.
“Can you imagine if this was proposed in an established neighborhood in the golden children neighborhoods, west of El Camino?” As a resident of Belle Haven, my sense is the dividing line is US-101, not El Camino …. do you have any idea of what is planned over here – and what has already been built? But no worries, I see it as a mixed bag, not totally bad, not totally good.
No question that, over the years, Belle Haven has borne the brunt of development. But El Camino is the new dividing line, as can be quickly ascertained by checking the relative housing values east and west of ECR. Hundreds of new housing units, plus office, were recently built on the east side of El Camino, impacting many who live east of the street. The SRI property, 1/4 east of ECR, is about to be developed into a high density area, with 6-story buildings for housing plus much more commercial space — another project that will exacerbate the housing deficit.
The proposed Sunset project would be the coup de grace for anyone living in Linfield Oaks, many in the Willows, and quite a few people in north Palo Alto. I’m not sure I’ll ever be able to leave my Linfield Oaks house unless I’m on foot (and can avoid getting hit by a car speeding down Willow).
Our council doesn’t care. They won’t protect the quality of life of current residents, unlike Atherton’s town council. Their mantra is “more housing” and although they realize these new projects only create more demand for housing because of the accompanying commercial, they’ll have termed out of office by the next housing plan cycle!
This project is wonderful news. Menlo Park tried to play games and found out the consequences. They deserve every inch of this. We are in a housing crunch exactly because of politicians that run cities like Menlo Park. There is, of course, plenty of case law showing that cities cannot play games and hope for courts to bail them out. Good luck!
> In her petition, Johnck mentioned that the statewide grassroots coalition Our Neighborhood Voices has been fighting the ability of developers to pursue multistory, multi-unit projects in single-family neighborhoods following the passage of state laws in recent years.
>
> The group has been campaigning to put an initiative on the ballot that would ensure local communities are in charge of their own zoning and land-use regulations.
The citizens of this state will not go backwards towards NIMBYism. This will fail.
“Menlo Park tried to play games and found out the consequences.”
I’m not a fan of this council, but they did not play games with HCD and the Housing Element. Council acted in good faith with a new and confusing set of bureaucratic requirements.
https://twitter.com/CSElmendorf/status/1535025768245252096