|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Renderings for the proposed Willow Park development in Menlo Park have been revealed. They depict four high-rise buildings that are aimed to create more affordable housing but will likely do little to stem controversy over the project. The development proposed by N17 Developers would be built on the site of the former Sunset magazine headquarters at 80 Willow Road.
Willow Park is designed to be a 6.7-acre community that includes housing, commercial and office spaces, a Montessori school, hotel rooms and recreation areas, according to a press release distributed on Friday.
The design has been in the works since November 2023 with its tallest condominium and hotel building reaching 431 feet in height.
Out of 665 housing units, 133 would be reserved for affordable housing for low-income residents. That would increase Menlo Park’s “affordable housing by more than 24%,” according to the release. The affordable housing will be offered to those who make 80% less than the area median income.
N17 plans to utilize the “builder’s remedy,” which holds that California cities that have not adopted an approved housing element forfeit their authority to deny housing developments that meet certain criteria meant to serve low-income residents.
Although Menlo Park had its housing element approved by the state on March 21, N17’s application was filed in 2023 and is still valid. It “will undergo the city’s standard housing development review process,” said Mayor Cecilia Taylor in a statement to The Almanac. This process which will include hearings brought before the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Community members have previously petitioned against the multi-use complex and have expressed their disapproval to city officials.
Taylor explained that the city of Menlo Park has taken community input into consideration as the city council “has adopted standards and development requirements that the council and community deem appropriate for sites and neighborhoods within the city.”
“The current Willow Park proposal is not only inconsistent with these approved and vetted standards, but it is very out of scale with those standards,” said Taylor.
Rendering of Willow Park from Palo Alto bird-eye view. Courtesy Solomon Cordwell Buenz. 
Renderings showing the ground-level open space and pavilion of Willow Park. Courtesy Solomon Cordwell Buenz. 
Renderings showing the ground-level open space and pavilion of Willow Park. Courtesy Solomon Cordwell Buenz. 
Rendering of Willow Park development. Courtesy Solomon Cordwell Buenz.
Willow Park would feature a 130-room hotel, 324,000 square feet of office space and acres of open space for recreational use and amenities such as a fitness center, swimming pools, bakery, restaurants and ice cream shop.
Designers of Willow Park have embraced “the natural beauty” of the San Francisquito Creek that runs along the southern and eastern border of the property. The open space allows “residents and visitors to enjoy the lush green environment,” according to the project communication director Tracy Craig.
“As a local resident, I have a vested interest in helping the community grow in a way that matches the needs of today’s Californians,” said N17 founder OisĂn Heneghan in a statement. “While the magazine offices were an appropriate land use when it was constructed in 1951 and the population of California was one-fifth of what it is now, today people need and deserve housing in prime locations, not vacant office buildings or long commutes. California’s housing crisis requires all of us to embrace change.”
The site was chosen by developers for its large size, accessibility to major routes and walkability to Menlo Park and downtown Palo Alto. Developers say the complex is designed to “deprioritize the need for cars” as it’s located near major employers, grocery stores, hospitals and is a 10-minute bicycle ride from Stanford University.
“Projects like Willow Park are a direct response to California’s dire need for housing,” said Corey Smith, the executive director of the Housing Action Coalition in the press release. “Frankly, we cannot push this off any longer. We need housing in Silicon Valley that incorporates the principles of sustainable urbanism. It’s time to start building structures that are designed for the public’s current needs while accounting for the needs of generations that will come after us.”
Solomon Cordwell Buenz, an international architecture firm, has been chosen by N17 to design Willow Park. To learn more about the proposed development, visit willowpark.life.
This design looks incredible. Let’s all work together to get this built and provide the housing supply that the region so desperately needs.
You obviously don’t live in the area
Willow Road East of Middlefield Road is often backed up with traffic. It is at capacity now. The existing roads will not be able to support this newly proposed development.
This behometh is obscene. The historic association for Menlo Park needs to have submitted the application to the National Registry.
Sunset was not just a local influencer but a national phenomenon. Traffic studies will show that this monster YIMBY development pushed by the son of an oligarch and Putin devoté is incompatible with Menlo Park and Palo Alto. The San Francisquito Creek will not support this massive construction with heights TALLER than the Statue of Liberty. Menlo Park and Palo Alto work together and implement eminent domain to prevent the defacement of our towns.
“Out of 665 housing units, 133 would be reserved for affordable housing for low-income residents.”
Obscene indeed. And don’t tell me this is about housing and/or affordability when the oligarch developer is going to add thousands of new office worker/commuters, a 130-room hotel with traffic from its guests and all its workers and a school when we know that parent pickup/dropoff traffic only adds to the rush-hour gridlock!
How much money have Palo Alto and Menlo Park spent on lane reductions so Middlefield is now one-lane in each direction after years of construction?
Is the developer going to redesign the roads to accommodate all the thousands of new workers who will only make the jobs/housing imbalance worse??
Given the planned construction on Middlefield and Embarcadero due to years of Casti construction and the closure of Churchill for the rail construction, will the oligarch developer be offering Aeroflot helicopter shuttle service for those of us who need to cross El Camino??
Thinking of Casti, this developer needs to submit a Traffic Demand Management plan so we can spend the same 6.5 years reviewing how this won’t add a single “net new car trip” — another Silicon Valley Developer Miracle.
Senator Becker and Menlo Park officials are now opposing this atrocity but we’ve nothing from Assemblyman Mark Berman who — as usual — stonewalls questions about his consistent Build, Baby, Build housing policies that gave him a $1,000,000 campaign funding edge over his opponent former Mayor Kou when last reported months ago.
Care to comment, Mr. Berman?
Perhaps someone should interview the fire chiefs in Menlo Park and Palo Alto on their thoughts about this project.
I mention this because I remember the former Menlo Park fire chief explaining that traffic and increased density prevented his crew from getting to fires and accidents in a timely fashion a decade ago and was amazed at how his common sense arguments were ignored.
And now home insurance companies are cancelling insurance policies for the very same reasons.
Are we being punked? How Marc Berman could be quiet about this is … disappointing. I’m glad that Josh Becker is doing the right thing here.
As many know, I am both a staunch supporter of affordable housing, and also a staunch environmentalist. When done correctly, affordable housing serves environmentalist goals, by — as the Sierra Club has stated officially — eliminating car commutes and allowing local workers to live in biking, walking, and/or shuttle distance from work. When those conditions exist, new housing is a big win for communities. Also, most environmental studies conclude that multi-story buildings are generally more sustainable than one-story sprawl, but once a building height increases three or four floors, those benefits often transform into environmental harm. Plus — obviously — adding new housing serves zero benefit to communities or the environment if it comes with the cost of adding even more jobs, as Online Name articulately states above.
I don’t get how and why the Builder’s Remedy could be used for a development that includes more office space for commercial companies than it does housing for local workers. That is no “remedy” but actually a direct exacerbation of the problem. If the Builder’s Remedy really would allow such a problematic development, then hopefully Senator Becker and Assembly Person Berman (hello!!) will work to fix this. This monstrosity is no “remedy” — it would be an escalation of the very problem to all new heights.
I have an idea to the developer: take out all commercial office space because it will create enormous traffic and move the jobs-housing balance in the wrong direction. Include the retail, the amenities, and housing: as long as housing includes mostly 3+ BRs, which are the greatest need. Lower the height to 3 or 4 stories (slightly higher if you come up with a valid reason, but no higher than the Stanford housing towers, which are, I think, 6 stories?). Retail and amenities on the first floor; housing with ample 3 BR options above. There, I fixed it.
The builders remedy is idiotic. Lets have Newsome build this in his backyard. Only a developer or a non local would go for this. How about just have the state pay for 133 low income homes on this space and not the monstrosity adjacent to San Francisquito creek. Where are the environmentalists on this?
I suspect that the developer is playing a long game by generating outrage at what is clearly an out-of-scale and beyond local acceptance project so that they can come back with a reduced version of the project so local residents can feel they won a battle. However, even the reduced scale project will likely be well beyond what the area can sustainably support and will bring environmental degradation. Elected officials know how the game is played and unless they stand up for their local constituents they are complicit with over-the-top scheme to bring mega-returns to the developer. We, the voters, need to let them know we are watching them.
“We, the voters, need to let them know we are watching them.”
Very true. But watching isn’t enough, not when hundreds of people show up for Zooms with them and then watch them evade, skirt the issues, refuse to react to specific details of proposed legislation even when the details are READ to them. swear they’re undecided because everything’s just so so complex and how they’re trying so so hard to wrap their minds around the issues and then — miraculously the very next day –they saw the light and voted just the way their big money backers wanted.