|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A multi-use skyscraper proposal in Menlo Park has scored a big boost after California Attorney General Rob Bonta sent a letter to the city alleging that it violated state housing laws to prevent the controversial project from advancing.
Citing findings in the notice, the project’s developer has threatened to sue the city.
Since 2023, the developer N17 has been pursuing the towering, multi-building mixed-use community on the former Sunset Magazine headquarters at 80 Willow Road in the Linfield Oaks neighborhood. City leaders and residents have fought it at every turn, contending, among other reasons, that the project is way out of scale and character for the area.
But in a 10-page letter to the city dated July 29, Bonta expressed concern that Menlo Park “has not handled the application in accordance with the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022,” also known as Assembly Bill 2011.
Bonta in his letter did not explicitly order Menlo Park to let the proposal move forward but admonished the city for the alleged violations, including improperly adding reasons to justify its initial determination that the project was not eligible for streamlined approval under AB 2011.
N17 founder Oisín Heneghan welcomed Bonta’s notice.
“The attorney general has made clear that Menlo Park cannot continue moving the goalposts or requiring a housing applicant to bankroll the city’s own resistance to approving housing,” Heneghan said in a news release. “The state has now rejected every remaining legal basis the city asserted for denying streamlined approval.”
In an email to The Almanac, Heneghan said, “We are actively working with the city on finalizing the project approvals.”
He did not elaborate on that statement when asked whether the city indicated to him a willingness to move the project forward.
Menlo Park is reviewing Bonta’s notice.
“The city is evaluating the opinions expressed in the AG notice regarding the manner in which the AG believes the city should handle the development application for the 80 Willow project,” Menlo Park said in a statement. “The city will continue to evaluate the application and the AG’s notice.”
N17 released updated renderings of its proposal for a large multi-use development proposal at 80 Willow Road. Courtesy N17. 
N17 released updated renderings of its proposal for a large multi-use development proposal at 80 Willow Road. Courtesy N17. 
N17 released updated renderings of its proposal for a large multi-use development proposal at 80 Willow Road. Courtesy N17.
The project would feature 665 new homes, including 100 affordable units, as well as retail and office space, a sports club, a hotel, a preschool, a public plaza and other amenities.
The project’s tallest building could reach 458 feet, according to information from the city website.
Bonta’s notice to Menlo Park was first reported Monday, Aug. 3, by the San Francisco Chronicle.
The Almanac obtained copies of the notice through a state Public Records Act request and from Heneghan.
In his notice, Bonta pointed out that the developer submitted a revised application for streamlined approval to address the city’s initial determination that the project was inconsistent with certain aspects of AB 2011’s site and development standards for mixed-income housing.
Menlo Park was still unsatisfied with the resubmittal as it cited additional inconsistencies, the notice said, but AB 2011 prohibits the city from making new findings not identified previously.
The city also violated the state Housing Accountability Act (HAA) by failing to give the project the protections afforded to it under a state provision called builder’s remedy, the notice said.
Builder’s remedy allows developers to bypass local land-use rules when cities fail to garner state approval for their long-range housing plan. Menlo Park had yet to gain state certification for its housing plan when N17 first proposed the development now dubbed Willow Park.
In addition, Bonta alleged in his notice that Menlo Park violated HAA by wrongfully requiring the developer to pay for the city’s legal costs involving the review process.
“To date, Menlo Park has billed the applicant $302,938 for legal fees alone,” the developer said in its news release.
In the wake of Bonta’s notice, the developer through a lawyer notified Menlo Park of its intent to file a lawsuit to force the city to move the project along.
“The city’s unlawful actions are summarized in” Bonta’s notice, attorney David Blackwell said in an Aug. 3 letter to Menlo Park.
Citing Bonta’s findings, Blackwell in his letter contended that the city must approve the project within 90 days from the date of the notice – or by Oct. 27. The city is also obligated to refund the developer the legal costs related to the project’s review, he said.
The City Council is scheduled to discuss the potential lawsuit in closed session Wednesday, Aug. 5.
In his August newsletter to the community, Councilmember Drew Combs addressed Bonta’s notice.
“The attorney general’s letter marks a new phase in a process that had largely stalled because of the developer’s refusal to fund an environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),” Combs said. “It is also worth noting that the project is proposed for an environmentally sensitive site along San Francisquito Creek and would require the demolition of the historically significant former Sunset Magazine headquarters.”
Bonta’s notice does not compel Menlo Park to clear the project, Combs also said.
“The attorney general’s letter is not a binding legal ruling,” Combs said. “In fact, the letter does not clearly identify what specific process or outcome the attorney general believes the city should pursue. Is the state actually suggesting that the city approve a project of this scale without any additional analysis? That is an important question, and one that deserves greater clarity.”
He added, “Even with that clarity, however, the attorney general’s opinion does not dictate the ultimate outcome or eliminate the city’s ability to pursue any legal or procedural remedies that are available.”
Patti Fry, a former planning commissioner and longtime resident who opposes the project, criticized Bonta’s take.
“I find it bizarre that the state AG is taking the city to task for wanting to protect our community by evaluating the project’s environmental impacts,” Fry said in an email to this publication. “AG Bonta casts a blind eye to the fact that with no environmental impact report this developer may not attempt any mitigation whatsoever for the myriad impacts on the creek area, street congestion citywide, noise and light impacts on nearby homes, the ability of this small suburban town to provide big-city services and infrastructure to such an enormous project, etc.”
