|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The city of Menlo Park received a resubmitted formal development application on Sept. 12 for the controversial builder’s remedy project on the site of the former Sunset Magazine headquarters at 80 Willow Road, according to a Thursday email newsletter from the city. In June, the city had deemed the first formal builder’s remedy application from developer N17 incomplete.
Renderings show that the project, dubbed “Willow Park” would consist of three towers that contain 665 housing units, more than 350,000 square feet of office space, a Montessori school, a 130-room hotel and nearly 40,000 square feet of retail space.
As required by state law for buildings submitted under builder’s remedy, 20% of the housing units planned for the project would be affordable to households earning less than 80% of the area median income. This would amount to 133 affordable units for the project.
The city has 30 days from Sept. 12 to review the new formal application and determine if it contains all necessary information.
If the application is deemed to be complete, the city will begin to review the project for compliance with applicable development standards, environmental regulations and any other applicable city requirements.
If the application is deemed incomplete again, N17 has the option to once again resubmit the application and address comments made by the city to bring it into compliance. The developer also has the option to appeal the city’s determination of incompleteness.
Menlo Park first received a formal development application for the site on May 24. That application was deemed to be incomplete by the city on June 22. The developer opted to resubmit the application to comply with comments made by the city.
If the project is constructed as currently proposed, the tallest of the three towers would stand at 431 feet tall, making it the tallest building in the Bay Area outside of San Francisco.
The possibility of such a large development being installed on the Sunset Magazine site has stirred up concern and controversy in Menlo Park. Community members have petitioned against the development due to the scale of the buildings and the potential impacts to traffic in the area.
Anyone can view the full architectural drawings and application materials in person at the Menlo Park City Hall, 701 Laurel St., by appointment.
Is there any concern with the project’s proximity to Putin? Any concerns among our tech titans?
Even though the deal to sell the property to the oligarch troubled Deutsche Bank, neither Yusufov or his father are under U.S. Treasury Department sanctions.
“The Deutsche Bank investment fund agreed to sell the office complex to a limited liability company called Willow Project, the people said. Some bank officials worried about the problematic appearance of doing business with a company they believed was owned by Vitaly Yusufov, the son of the former energy minister under President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.
A committee of Deutsche Bank executives in New York tried to block the transaction, citing the potential damage it could inflict on the bank’s reputation, according to the people. The decision was appealed to Europe, where another committee gave the green light.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/business/deutsche-bank-russia-real-estate-deal.html
All one truly need know about this Russian-funded clown car of a project can be heard 7 seconds into the marketing video found at the bottom of https://willowpark.life/, wherein Strachan Forgan, principal architect at Solomon Coldwell Buenz, informs us with a perfectly straight face that, “Willow Park is designed to be a vibrant, mixed-use community that integrates seamlessly with its surroundings.”
If multiple skyscrapers approaching 431 feet in height “integrate seamlessly” in a 1- and 2-story suburban neighborhood, one served by 2-lane roads which can never be widened, then one shudders to think what these people might propose in the way of a disruptive plan. Make no mistake: this project has everything to do with enriching its Russian and other absentee backers and nothing whatever to do with improving the quality of life or the housing crisis in Menlo Park, and the city should avail itself of every possible legal avenue to prevent the shadowy N17 concern from proceeding with the ridiculous plans and renderings already submitted.
I’m appalled that there is any entertaining whatsoever of this ridiculous project with regard to its proposed location. Russian influence/Putin, absentee backers aside, this high rise/hi-tech eyesore would completely obliterate the beauty and warm, residential feel of this area – not to mention negatively impact our already complicated, congested traffic issues at the Willow/Middlefield intersection.
As an architect with a penchant for cold, hard line designs more in concert with an IKEA vibe and an esthetic insensitivity to at least his design for this particular project, Strachan Forgan has conceptualized a horrific eyesore totally incompatible to the area proposed for the build. All one needs to do is view his portfolio to see his past projects to see where his skillset lies, not just for clients – but for his own personal living environment.
I would strongly encourage the City to reject this project FULL STOP – and to not entertain further reviews. I would also encourage the City to review the property’s ownership if in fact what we are hearing with regard to Russian ownership via ‘channels’ is true. Seems the City has fallen down on its due diligence responsibilities.
Commenters so far on this subject seem to be harping on the ‘Putin connection’ to this abominable development proposal.
I beg to differ: the blame lies squarely with state and local politicians who allowed the Builders’ Remedy provision to pass. In doing so, they have shown utter disregard for local communities and their quality of life, and favored developers.
Does anyone on Menlo Park Council support ‘Willow Park’? If so, who?
Is Council ready to instruct staff to deny approval and if necessary join other municipalities in opposition to Builders’ Remedy, perhaps in the courts?
…And what about construction unions? Do they oppose such projects, or look upon them simply as a source of employment for their members?
As with many fraught issues, the genesis of the one at hand is deep—and local—and it would behoove us to look inward rather than blaming the fashionable villan.