This is horrifying! Anyone who tries to drive down Willow right now knows it is a parking lot. Our infrastructure can't handle this kind of project. It also delightfully coincides with taking Middlefield from 2 lanes to 1 lane. Who puts a massive project right in a residential neighborhood with 1 lane streets...and why? We already have a glut of office buildings. We don't need or want this! Truly horrifying

Way to go, Menlo Park! If this is what it takes to have some (desperately needed) affordable housing built, then so be it.

I'm disappointed that Heneghan has his sights set so low. Only 800 residential units? Only 28 stories? Only four buildings? Who cares about being taller than the Statue of Liberty? This acreage could easily accommodate a building that's taller than Salesforce Tower (1070 feet, and built on a smaller site) and thus accommodate over 2000 housing units by my calculations. The building would be a landmark, visible throughout the peninsula, way overshadowing that puny little tree that Palo Alto boasts about.

Of course, even with Heneghan's plan, the already congested intersection of Willow @ Middlefield will become permanently gridlocked. Clearly, it needs to be closed, and vehicles banned from the area. Instead, I propose a transit cemter on the roof of this skyscraper, with ziplines connecting the building directly to local schools (except M-A, which is close enough to walk), downtown Menlo Park and Palo Alto, and of course the Caltrain station, since all the residents will need to commute via public transit.

Given the lack of recreational amenities in the immediate area, I further propose that the adjacent creek be transformed into an amusement park that will serve the hundreds of families who will be moving in. In deference to our sometimes rainy winters, the base of the park can be a swim-in/swim-out aquarium.

This is our chance, Menlo Park. Let's not blow it on a few puny buildings when we could think big! Our council's failure can be our community's gain!

Rough year for the City Council.

A million dollar deficit after years of balanced budgets.

Failing to comply with Housing Element timelines resulting in unprecedented massive development proposals in residential neighborhoods.

What’s next?

Prospective City Council candidates start your engines!

You get the Government vision and direction that you vote for! Keep voting Berman & Becker in to our State Legislature and we will all be living in high rises and bicycling to the High Speed Rail Mega Station's in Palo Alto, Menlo Park & Redwood City.

Just keep voting for the people that are bring you this and MUCH more!

congrats to Becker and Berman and our Democrat majority Legislature and Gov

How wise to wipe out local control of zoning

Long live the People's State!!

To repeat CyberVoter;
The public did not vote on these laws.
The State Legislators passed this law, as with many other housing laws.
Remember, we elected these politicians.
If you like the results, continue re-election them.
If you don't like what is happening, vote them out.

This is insane. This is on top of the SRI redevelopment and Meta's development. Willow and surrounding streets are already returning to pre-pandemic parking lots. All of the monstrous development seems to be on the east side of El Camino.

Mojo86:

Just what makes you think this will be "affordable" housing? Do you have a clue what the cost of this type of construction is? Hint: There's NOTHING affordable about it. This is a developers dream to make a fortune. Never mind the utter chaos a building of this size will cause with or totally inadequate infrastructure.

When are the city councils of the state going to pull their heads out, band together and sue to reagin local control of zoning? The socialists running the state don't care what problems they cause as long as they can pretend to be "doing something". Of course, as usual, it's with other people's' money. And they wonder why people are bailing out of this state.

Mojo86:

Just what makes you think this will be "affordable" housing? Do you have a clue what the cost of this type of construction is? Hint: There's NOTHING affordable about it. This is a developers dream to make a fortune. Never mind the utter chaos a building of this size will cause with or totally inadequate infrastructure.

When are the city councils of the state going to pull their heads out, band together and sue to regain local control of zoning? The socialists running the state don't care what problems they cause as long as they can pretend to be "doing something". Of course, as usual, it's with other people's' money. And they wonder why people are bailing out of this state.

Mojo86:

In case you doubt what I say, here's an article on using empty office space for housing: Web Link

There's nothing affordable about it.

1: People get the government they voted for. Congratulations.

2: That said, (totally speculation, but I think most will agree) historically a Republican would be opposed to the housing 'mandates' that drive this type of insane construction and 'planning'. It saddens me to see the poor quality of candidates the GOP foists on Californians. It's little wonder we've become a 1-party government.

Xi Jinping and Recep Erdoğan would feel right at home in 1-party California (or Florida or Texas).

We need better government and better candidates.

The Sunset complex is the work of renown architect Cliff May and landscape architect Thomas Church. Yes, let’s destroy our history just to fill some developer’s pocketbook.

Where are the proposed developments in West Menlo Park? East side of ECR seems to be carrying all of the big developments (SRI, Meta, Stanford, Springline etc) and this feels unbalanced. Our roadways can’t support this increase in volume (and no, not everyone can ride a bike or the train), and our public schools are already looking for additional space in anticipation of existing developments.

Bay Area Voters:

How do we Change the Single party system that got us here & is taking us to even worse places. Continuing with Berman, Becker & Eshoo will bring more promises of "Equity", continuing to decline K-12 test scores, much more spending, even richer Real Estate Developers, higher taxes, utility rates and toll fees & only lead to more misery and a declining "quality of life".

No Republican will ever defeat these established Democratic Party Loyalists. They owe their loyalty & their future to the Democratic Party & NOT the people.

Our only hope is for the Republican Party to wake up & NOT run a candidate against these three, but instead support a more rational Democrat that is running against them & does NOT have supreme allegiance to the Party.

Instead, we need to elect Democratic candidates that serve & are loyal to the people. They are MOT Berman, Becker or Eshoo,

I Agree with Laura, it`s not normal!

I wonder whether this is a starting offer meant to be negotiated down. With retail and office spaces empty all over the country, it will be hard to find tenants for either in such an inconvenient location. The apartments could rent if the owner can afford to ask rents that people who want to live here can afford to pay. The whole venture seems risky.

YIYBY (Yes in * YOUR * Back Yard).
Note the one comment out of the first 17 from Mojo86 (i.e. the only one that is for concrete-covering Menlo Park). Then note the difference between Mojo86 is every other posting. Namely, Mojo86 is "a resident of another community". Mojo86, Mark Berman and the rest of the Sacramento Lawyers are all for deciding what OTHER people's neighborhoods and properties should be.

Too bad Measure V did not pass. Looks like once again the majority of the MP Council gets to decide about your neighborhood. Keep voting for them. You get what you vote for…

A Russian billionaire putting a monstrosity in the center of a very suburban neighborhood can and should be stopped. SF has been able to apparently turn down the towering high rise in the Outer Sunset. Menlo Park can and should be able to do the same.

And what makes anyone think that by adding all this housing won't just encourage for employers to move in?

Two comments:
1. Menlo Park council allowed itself to be put in this position. If they had submitted a proper housing element plan on time, this horrifying construction project never would have been proposed.
2. What recourse do we have now? And how swiftly must action be taken?

It's obviously a bluff. But it does expose the dangers of the law as it exists. Elections matter.

BTW, do we still have a housing "crisis". Did we ever have a "crisis", or did people just believe it because they couldn't fathom someone would make up such a "crisis".

Hint: people with agendas often make stuff up.

Dear Parent, just curious, what makes you think it's a bluff?

This is obviously a bad idea, not only will it stick out like a sore thumb but the roadways in the area won’t be able to handle it, maybe if they want to really destroy an area they could move all this unwanted new housing up to 280, there’s a lot of beautiful land on both sides of 280 they could build housing and easy access to the new housing using 280.

The developer is using a developer-indulgent law passed by the state legislature. The current lawmakers need to remove it from the books.
This law does not solve the housing crisis at all. The proposed Sunset project is an example. It would insert office towers that bring thousands of new workers and a fraction of that number of homes for them.
Since the law only requires 20% of the housing to be below market, 80% would be at and above. So what does that solve?

An alert Council would preserve the historic Sunset buildings and gardens, fight against the project, and push for removal of the "builder's remedy" law (it's a developer's dream).

"Since the law only requires 20% of the housing to be below market, 80% would be at and above. So what does that solve?"

Nothing. And the truth is, below market doesn't equal "affordable". Affordable housing in this area is a lie foisted on us by progressives that want to think they're "doing something" to solve a problem, all the while doing nothing.

YIYBY (Yes, in *YOUR* backyard) wins again!

what you get when your council doesn’t even vaguely care about the impacts of their ‘helpful’ actions on your neighborhood. Because they are pretending to be so very helpful and equitable —- at your expense.

The day the decision was made to throw away our zoning, our city knowingly invited a developer/owner feeding frenzy into small, residential neighborhoods east of El Camino.

The housing element has literally been weaponized by the state. But the city’s implementation, is their own choice, and only impacts neighborhoods between Middlefield and 101 — following the letter of the law while sidestepping the spirit of the law. Yes, in *YOUR* backyards, not in their backyards.

The cost of this over-development is completely predictable and there are no plans for any meaningful mitigation…unless you qualify. The myriad government bodies and agencies will be goaled on amount of affordable housing they create (and our city threw in extra— because they know they can remove it later). But after the fact, when the real cost of the 20/80 ratio is calculated, the cost of creating the 20 percent of sort-of-affordable housing will be completely overshadowed by the impact of the 80 percent additional office buildings, market rate housing and amenities that will be squeezed into our neighborhoods.

None of the damage will be discussed when the many public agencies, including our city government, tally up their victories and line up for their rewards for hitting or exceeding their state-mandated affordable housing goals.

I wouldn’t assume it’s a bluff. If a developer/owner can develop, they will. Nothing matters more than the money.

I’m just blown away that after so much aggressive effort to meet and exceed the state’s mandate, our council chose to miss the most critical, final deadline. How did that happen? One wonders if they were hoping for a builder’s remedy on this site to increase their affordable housing numbers. It’s just so bizarre!

Love all the useless outrage. This “builders remedy” project seems to be a big enough threat for the city and local NIMBYs to finally support a rational and equitable Housing Element that will deliver.

I LOVE THESE POSTS!!! Especially the one from Frozen near the top of this thread that I cannot like enough! Really well done, Frozen.

Seems like a lot of YIMBYs who screamed at the rest of us for being alarmists are getting their just desserts. It just depends on whose ox is being gored.

Kevin:

The housing element required by the state is BS. It was created by politicians so they could appear to be "doing something" about an "affordable" housing shortage. Never mind the fact that they can't actually create affordable housing in the Bay Area without government subsidies. Government subsidies which are forbidden by our state constitution, by the way. So they force this total nonsense down everyone's throats so they can tell everyone they are "doing something" when they are actually doing nothing. I don't care what housing element the city comes up with, it won't include actual affordable housing. The cost of land and construction are simply too high. The cities and counties in the state need to band together and file suit to stop this nonsense.

@Frozen,
Too funny! I wish I could muster your sense of the absurd. Thank you for making me laugh. I needed that.

It all starts in Sacramento. Where are Berman and Becker - spending their days trying to get in position to succeed Anna Eshoo in Congress. As someone pointed out, the Housing Element is probably the most socialistic doctrine in the United States - telling a city/county how much housing they have to create. Why don’t they just tell us how many children we can have? Buts it’s not just our impotent state legislators! No one in Sac is willing to take on this nonsense.

This is horribly sloppy reporting, bordering on plagiarism. Most of the material can be found in this article Web Link
The Almanac writer makes the same inaccurate reference to SB330 as originally in that article - SB330 is not the same thing as Builder’s Remedy, which has been a part of the Housing Accountability Act for decades. SB330 just added some juice for all development projects.

Liesel - The communities most impacted by a 300 foot tower, which is larger than any tower in, for example, downtown San Jose are: Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Atherton. These three communities seem to have an abundance of attorneys and/or mind-boggling wealthy residents who will use lawfare to protect the leafy nature of Middlefield Road, the creek, and the already cumbersome act of taking Willow to the freeway.

The concept of "affordable housing" is an absurd play on emotions, and emotions have ushered in insane housing mandates. The argument that our firefighters, police, school teachers, and convenience store workers will not be able to live here is ridiculous. There is a waiting list a mile long to join the lucrative and pension friendly jobs such as a firefighter or teacher. All of the above occupations can and will commute, all of the above could receive a wage increase that the local residents would never notice as they order their third bottle of Chardonnay at the Left Bank restaurant.

The same people who brought you the "housing crisis" also brought the "climate crisis" (we are supposed to be under water by now), the "wildfire crisis" (they caught the arsonist by the way, he was a professor believe it or not), the "water crisis" (we have so much water the real task is controlled releases from the reservoirs). And most recently it appears we have a "gender crisis" promoted by ill advised curriculum in our public schools.

The only real crisis we have is inflation, but nobody really likes to talk about the fact that it hits the poor the hardest. To discuss the inflation crisis would be to discuss our Government, and discussing the Government is not allowed, or so I am told but nobody has yet determined we have a Freedom of Speech crisis.

The tower is a bluff, the developer sketched up a plan and submitted it knowing all too well it has zero chance.

Nailed it! Thanks Parent !

To Parent, Nobody Home & all others:

Hopefully this is a "Wake-up Call" for all of us to pay attention to what our elected officials are doing to us. Berman will support anything the "Party" wants to get his next job from them. He does not report to the residents - he reports to the Party. In Atherton the Town Council is too busy outlawing anything "fossil" & planning "parties" & celebrations. They have turned over the Housing "Hot Potato" to the staff & will follow their recommendations.

But the staff are all in the same "fraternity" as the staff in other towns & the State and see their promotion within that fraternity & NOT a longterm position in Atherton. They have "no skin in the game" & will do what pleases Sacramento!

The residents in every town must step up & go to their Town Meetings & "take charge". For example, almost no one from Lindenwood attends a Town Meeting & lindenwood has the ONLY parcels in Atherton currently on the Council's list to be zoned for Multi-Family housing. "IF YOU ARE NOT AT THE TABLE, YOU ARE ON THE MENU!"

Atherton decided to go back to their original plan to build out Lindenwood sites that front on Bay Rd. The very outer limits of Lindenwood. They will barely feel a thing. The impact will be to Menlo Park residents living on or just off bay rd., where our city has already identified or agreed to shoe horn in multiple oversized properties and thanks to the county, an absolutely huge sports arena type park. So, Atherton will participate in the YIYBY (Yes, in *YOUR* backyard) strategy. They will not really feel the sting of having their vast properties rolled over by layers of politicians. And like mp, they’ve removed some properties from their list to protect “special” residents from the impact. So— no worries— Atherton is good.

Unless I'm missing something ... the current iteration of the housing element hasn't been rejected yet, has it? They have until January 31st of 2024 to get something approved? Were there serious issues with the previous housing element, or is just that they have to get everything worded correctly? The city has to make sure they have a viable plan to prevent this, but it's not obvious that the builder will be able to do this.

Alan - If I understand it correctly, Menlo Park's city council has adopted its housing element but the state's HCD has yet to approve it. I may be wrong...

"Alan - If I understand it correctly, Menlo Park's city council has adopted its housing element but the state's HCD has yet to approve it. I may be wrong..."

That sounds right. This is the latest news I saw about it.

Web Link

Some of our wiser city leaders warned us that the "Builders Remedy" could affect us if we didn't put together a pragmatic and equitable Housing Element (one that isn't built on hope of acquiring land and reliant on most of the development in Belle Haven). But others less wise continue to want to play "chicken" with state approval. We now know how much worse things can be, if we don't put a better plan together.

@Kevin "Some of our wiser city leaders warned ...."

You undermined your own point. The threat of builder's remedy may be real .... but the rejected and still unapproved MP Housing Element, *IS* the (fair, and pragmatic) product of the wise leaders you praise. It is not a "play chicken" HE.

You can't blame NIMBY's for the HE or its rejection by HCD. Kevin, when your guys are in power, and have been so more than one term, they can't blame anyone else for their failure.

My concern is not that your wise council was right all along, because here you are safe and protected from the builders remedy. (Not.) MY concern is that even a pro-housing council, cheerleaders for progressive housing theory, policy, and rhetoric CANNOT produce an acceptable HE or cannot get it approved quickly enough.

So MP gets screwed because 1.) HCD dragged its feet, or 2.) because even an earnest, pro-housing council cannot meet HCD demands due to economic realities, or ..... 3.) because the HE was idealistic not pragmatic, and that made it infeasible.

The HE may be infeasible BECAUSE it attempts to meet too many RHNA quotas outside of Bayfront ("Bayfront" is NOT "Belle Haven"), or that RHNA low-income and AFFH mandates simply cannot be satisfied in expensive communities whose market realities preclude them, ( and therefore must be documented and justified ad nauseum.)

I have repeatedly argued that on its face, HCD policy really intends to meet RHNA quotas through production of luxury housing units using AFFH as a pretext for doing so.

Regardless, failure to gain HE approval in time to ward off builder's remedy is on council, no-one else.