To the Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Council Members,
My husband and I have owned our home and raised our family at 54 Willow Road since 2002. While I agree with the addition of affordable housing (so long as the units truly remain designated for affordable housing), the development project proposed for 80 Willow Road is completely unacceptable for anyone who lives in District 3.
A disproportionate amount of new construction in Menlo Park is already currently planned for District 3. The SRI/Parkline development located just ½ mile from 80 Willow Rd plans to add 1,082 residential units along with extensive commercial space. The USGS development will add 670 residential units plus extensive commercial space. Additionally, the 68 Willow Road project (on the same block as 80 Willow Road) will add 90 additional residential units. The combination of these housing developments totaling 1,832 residential units will already bring unmanageable density to a small area of our community. The traffic to access highway 101 from our home on Willow Road is already stressed without these new units often taking over 15 minutes to travel 1.4 miles.
The addition of any new development at 80 Willow Road needs to have an impact study that considers the effects anticipated by the previously accepted/planned developments outlined above. Adding the 665 housing units, over 300,000 sq ft of office, 37,000 sq ft of retail space, a hotel and preschool as proposed by N17 on top of the 1,832 residential units already approved will overwhelm Willow Road and this neighborhood of Menlo Park. Besides the overwhelming density, the fact that this project takes the form of three skyscrapers reaching 301, 431, and 458 feet in a residential neighborhood where no structure exceeds two stories is unacceptable. It is incomprehensible that a homeowner would face more scrutiny to add a 400 sq ft ADU than the project planned by N17 which involves 1.5 million sq ft and building heights of 450 feet. The threat of litigation should not dictate whether Menlo Park will conduct the review needed for a project of this scale.
While N17 filed its preliminary application in December 2023 and Menlo Parks housing element remained uncertified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development until March of 2024, the city’s plans were however under review. If the submission date of Menlo Park’s housing element predated N17’s filing date, that should negate the Builder’s Remedy rights pertaining to this property entirely. Regardless, the Builder’s Remedy should not allow a project that is totally out of scope of the neighborhood in which the projects reside. When a single development will add the tallest building in a county to a lot currently surrounded by single-story ranch homes, the Builder’s Remedy becomes punitive to homeowners and puts unbearable stress to the neighborhood that will already be challenged by excessive new development.
Additionally, the property has been granted protections under the California Environmental Quality Act which mandates that the developer must address impacts to the historic resource through a full environmental impact report, yet the CEQA review has not begun. It has been over a year since the city contracted LSA Associates to perform the environmental analysis, but the developer has not deposited the funds required for the consultant to start. If the developer does not provide funds for this mandatory step how will Menlo Park assure that the developers have the funds to complete any project in a timely manner? Making the residential neighbors endure a construction project of this scale is also unreasonable. If a smaller-scaled project moves forward at this site, assurances of financials and reasonable timelines should be mandated.
City Council, Please
* Do not approve this project without a completed Environmental Impact Report (also taking into consideration the impact of what has already been approved for development). Residents of Menlo Park deserve a full, independent accounting of the risks to the creek, public resources, public safety, traffic and surrounding neighborhoods before any final vote.
* Formally rebut the Attorney Generals letter where the Citys legal position is sound. Dont concede points by default. If the Citys original analysis holds up, defend it. There is no guarantee that Menlo Park would lose a lawsuit regarding this proposal given all the facts.
* Reject the developers October 27 deadline as a basis for rushing this decision. A deadline set unilaterally by the developer should not dictate City Councils timeline or process.
* Hold public hearings before any final decision is made to provide an acceptable level of transparency on a decision this consequential.
* Candidates running for City Council or defending seats, please commit publicly, before November 3, to how you will proceed. Residents are voting on three Council seats one week after the October 27 deadline and deserve to know where their representatives stand before they vote.
* Stand firm against pressure from both the State and the developer. Neither a warning letter from Sacramento nor a lawsuit threat from N17 is a legal requirement to approve this project. City Council should make its decision on the merits, not under duress or fear of threats.
* Stop approving any new construction in District 3 until those that are approved and underway are fully completed so that their impact to the neighborhood and public resources can be discerned.
* Be more equitable and spread new development to other districts of Menlo Park that have not shouldered any of the burden of new housing.
Thank you,
Tatjana Faruqi, Ph.D.
