|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Menlo Forward, a newly formed group of residents aimed at promoting “smart growth and quality of life” in Menlo Park and neighboring cities, has set its sights on tackling the controversial proposed development at 80 Willow Drive, the former headquarters of Sunset Magazine.
“The proposed development is wildly out of scale for Menlo Park, doesn’t align with the city’s state-approved housing plan, and would worsen the city’s housing deficit and traffic congestion,” said JoAnne Goldberg, board member of Menlo Forward in a Tuesday, Oct. 8, press release. “We urge the city to fight this outrageous proposal, which overrides Menlo Park’s housing plan — and common sense.”
The proposed development, dubbed “Willow Park,” from developer N17 has stirred up much concern in Menlo Park due to its scale.
Renderings from the developer show that the project 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.
If plans from the developer are approved as currently proposed, the tallest of the three towers would be the tallest building in the Bay Area outside of San Francisco, standing at 431 feet tall.
Menlo Forward says they have seen “widespread opposition” to the developer’s plans for the site, not only from residents of Menlo Park, but from residents of neighboring cities such as Palo Alto and Atherton.
“Linfield Oaks, where I live, is ground zero, and all the neighbors are aware of the proposal and have expressed concerns about it,” said Goldberg. “But there is also a widespread feeling that we’re pretty puny opposition for Russian billionaires. When I heard about Menlo Forward, I jumped on board.”
The site at 80 Willow Road is now owned by a company controlled by Vitaly Yusufov, who is the son of former Russian energy minister Igor Yusufov, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. The ownership of the site by Yusufov has also raised concern among neighbors.
Menlo Forward’s mission statement states that the organization wants to preserve the character of Menlo Park and neighboring communities, while fostering a vibrant community that meets the needs of diverse residents.
Menlo Forward says they are not a single issue organization, but that they are currently focused on the development at 80 Willow Road, and are “urging local residents and city leaders to oppose the development.”
“By working together, local residents can influence the outcome of this development,” the organization said in a press release. “We look forward to engaging with our neighbors and city leaders for solutions that benefit everyone.”
The organization aims to influence the outcome of the development at 80 Willow Road by working with Menlo Park’s city leaders to encourage them to hold the developer to Menlo Park’s zoning restrictions.
“We want to ensure that our elected leaders understand the strong opposition to this proposal,” said a spokesperson for Menlo Forward in an email to this news organization. “Because Menlo Park’s (city) council members represent five districts … it is important for all five to understand the negative impact on the city as a whole.”
Menlo Forward says the organization is also prepared to defend the community’s position on the development from a legal standpoint, should it come to that.
Learn more about Menlo Forward at menloforward.org
Status of the development
Currently, the city is reviewing a resubmitted development application from N17, which was submitted on Sept. 12. The city has until Oct. 12 to review the formal application and determine if it is complete.
If the application is deemed incomplete, 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.
Anyone can view the full architectural drawings and application materials in person at Menlo Park City Hall, 701 Laurel St., by appointment.
Just remember, you elected the politicians who voted for these laws that are stealing your quality of life. Wake up!
Been there— it’s a little late.
The question is, will our state and local leaders do anything about the 27% of affordable housing, nationwide, being purchased by huge corporate investors in order to rent them out at market rates, worsening the housing crisis, and destroying the livability of our city?
Also, consider the large percentage of corporate office buildings being built nationwide, many of which are sitting unoccupied, and in some cases, being defaulted on.
How can we say with any sincerity that our goal is to provide affordable housing for those who need it, when we continue to allow outsized housing projects, in smaller residential neighborhoods, many of which are mostly office buildings and market rate housing, hiding behind a relatively small number of truly affordable housing units, (for rent, not purchase), damaging/overbuilding our small residential neighborhoods for profit while worsening the affordable housing crisis and giving nothing back to the community besides too much density, traffic and pollution?
Why do our local and state governments not attempt to derive housing solutions from this obscene investor/developer behavior rather than enabling it?
Hu. Maybe they should have supported Measure V.
Perhaps an unwise name choice for a generally NIMBY-sounding group given how supportive Palo Alto Forward is of residential density as a means to support area retail, affordable housing targets, our schools, and the environment/ climate.
Aa someone who lives 2 blocks away from the project, I am good with more new neighbors – especially if it means cleaning up the mess of an unsafe road and creek situation at the border between PA and MP.
Bring it on and improve the area!
Right. If you disagree, you’re a NIMBY person. Getting tired of some folks trotting out that old trope in an attempt to invalidate reasonable concerns.