THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS FOR THE OLD SUNSET SITE
OBJECTIONS
Emily Mibach of the Post wrote an excellent summary of the proposal on 7/22/23 (https://padailypost.com/2023/07/22/developer-wants-to-replace-sunset-campus-with-a-building-as-large-as-hoover-tower)
“The site is 7 acres and the developer contemplates 4 buildings, two of which are towers respectively 300 and 270 ft. high. (Hoover Tower on the Stanford Campus is only 285 ft. high) There are to be 800-1,150 apts; 150 hotel rooms; 50,000-240,000 sq. ft of office space and 8,400 sq. ft of retail space.”
I have several objections to this proposed tower:
Possible National Security Issue:
The person listed as owner is Vitaly Yusufov. A person of that name is listed as being sanctioned for ties to the Russian regime. (https://www.opensanctions.org/entities/NK-4DV5Ky7JMXAn9RBcxZVVoQ) IF it is true that the owner/developer is a Russian oligarch with ties to the current regime, then revenue from the investment could reasonably be assumed to find its way to Russia.
Office Space:
The last thing Menlo Park needs is more office space, bringing in more employees and creating a need for yet more housing. The City is having enough trouble complying with the Housing Element as it is. Adding a limited number of apts. to the project does not compensate for the phenomenal amount of proposed commercial activities which accentuates the housing/work imbalance. This is especially so since few of the apts. will be low income. There has been considerable publicity recently about the vacany rate for office space throughout the peninsula.
Lack of Public Benefit:
Other large scale housing developments in Menlo Park have been designed with significant community benefits. Examples would include the Stanford developments along El Camino, which have shops, restaurants, plazas, fountains, a pool, and a major financial contribution to a tunnel. Willow Village is aptly named as it is planned as a community. The SRI development is planned to have public open space and 3 pools.
Historical Value of the Sunset Property:
The architect was Cliff May for the 1951 building. (http://ranchostyle.com/cliffnotes.html) He was famous for the California style buildings that brought the outside inside, in his unique designs that took advantage of the California climate.
The famous landscape architect for the amazing gardens, was Thomas Church (https://www.modernhomesportland.com/thomas-church-a-pioneer-in-landscape-architecture)
The architecture and gardens of the old Sunset were amazing, and the site should have been declared of historical significance. Both these men and their designs deserve recognition and conservation.
In the UK the government attempts to conserve significant buildings and there are severe penalties for altering/demolishing them:
“Scheduled monuments and buildings which are listed or in conservation areas are protected by law throughout the United Kingdom, and it is a criminal offence to carry out certain works to them without the necessary consent. A conviction can lead to fines and even imprisonment.”
Perhaps the City of Menlo Park has a register of significant buildings in need of preservation, to which this site could be added. If it does not, then it should start and the Sunset site should be on that list.
Conservation Value:
As I remember from touring the gardens, there were some very exotic and beautiful plants that should be worthy of conservation, if they still exist.
Riparian Conservation:
I remember the garden being right next to San Francisquito Creek and I think that One Shoreline would have some serious objections to such a large structure being built right next to the creek within the riparian setbacks.
Ground Water Recharge:
Such intensive construction on a 7 acre site will create a significant amount of impermeable surface that will add to problems with ground water recharge, and create significant runoff to the creek.
Flood Protection:
San Francisquito Creek floods and banks collapse. Such intensive development abutting a creek that has a long history of massive flooding/bank collapse makes no sense.
Climate Change Protections:
Menlo Park is a city of trees and they are valued not just for aesthetics, but for carbon absorption, for shade and for reducing the heat island effect. This development would be antithetical to those aims.
Night Sky Considerations:
Most modern construction considers protections from light pollution. This is even more important close to a creek which is a wildlife refuge. Huge towers with many residences, a hotel and commercial activities will create a light pollution problem. This could also affect migratory birds since the nearby Bay lands are an important resource for many species of birds.
High Water Table Level:
Underground parking is going to be a necessity and it is highly likely that any such construction would flood and require constant pumping, which might be a problem in an electric outage. It could also be safety issue should people become trapped in a flooded parking facility.
Zoning:
The current use is non residential
General Plan:
Does the General Plan note this site as possible for residential? If not, presumably a full EIR would be required.
Traffic Analysis:
This area is already at capacity and the number of vehicular trips that would be likely given the large number of residential units, hotel rooms, office employee trips, vendor trips etc. would result in a complete breakdown of vehicle throughput in the entire area.
Impact on the Belle Haven Community:
Willow Road is a main connection to the Belle Haven community and such a development would have a very negative impact on the ability of those residents to access the West side of the city.
Emergency Access and other Safety Factors:
The structure would be in the immediate vicinity of the MPFD HQ, and traffic to and from the proposed structure could impact the MPFD response time for incidents in the larger area.
It is possible that the MPFD does not have a ladder or other equipment that would be able to access the upper floors in case of an emergency.
San Mateo County Fire Dispatch has recently had several reports of elevator rescues. Given the number of times that PGE has had outages in Menlo Park, this should be a consideration. Stairs can be a means of a viable exit in an emergency if a building is 3-5 stories high, but not for higher structures.
Infrastructure:
What kind of water pressure, piping and pumping would be needed for fire sprinklers in huge towers, and does the city have that capability?
Are the local sewer pipes/pumping stations equipped for such structures?
Earthquake/Geological Data:
Many areas along San Francisquito Creek are liquefaction zones. It would seem unwise to build huge towers near the creek. Even if pylons were drilled down to bedrock, that may not be sufficient to support high towers. (This has proven true in San Francisco where one such tower is leaning severely and the windows are popping out.)
Palo Alto Airport:
Would such huge towers require the airport to alter flight patterns?
Lack of a Nearby High Transit Options:
The location is far from the train stations and I do not believe there is any reliable bus service in that area. This is a prerequisite for at least low income housing.
Lack of Nearby Stores:
The developer is relying on the State “Builders Remedy” by alleging that low income housing will be built. However, that housing requires the proximity of stores, jobs and social amenities which do not exist in that location or nearby, except for the Willows Market. The developer plans “retail” but given the massive development other than affordable housing, including a hotel, these stores ae not likely to be suitable for modest incomes.
Schools:
What impact would the proposed structures have on availability of schools? Menlo Atherton High School is the only nearby school. What financial burden would such a development place on school financing?
Hotels:
Surely Menlo Park has enough hotels. The site does not seem a good business venture for a hotel:
• It would be almost inaccessible from the freeway
• It is not close to Stanford or Sand Hill Road and venture capital locations
• It would not serve nearby locations
• Palo Alto and East Palo Alto have several high class hotels with easier access
Willow Road Problems:
At almost any time of day Willow Road is bumper to bumper traffic. This is the closest means of getting to US 101, which would presumably be the commute route for many residents in the proposed tower. This may well be exacerbated by the Willow Village development.
Middlefield Road Problems:
From Palo Alto to Redwood City Middlefield Road is beyond capacity and is particularly problematic given the number of students driving to and from Menlo Atherton High School and the various other planned developments in the immediate area.
CONCLUSION:
This is a highly flawed proposal that is antithetical to the values of Menlo Park and has very significant drawbacks. It would also exacerbate the housing/work imbalance and cause yet more problems with future Housing Element submissions.
