Menlo Park City Council last night (Sept. 29) decided not to approve the controversial 80 Willow Road skyscraper under a timeline set by the project’s developer and the Attorney General’s office, and Councilman Drew Combs announced today (Sept. 30) that an interested buyer has emerged.
Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office sent the city a letter on July 28 saying the city improperly changed its reasons for rejecting developer Oisin Heneghan’s proposal for 665 apartments, a hotel, office space and a preschool across three towers, with the tallest going up to 461 feet or 39 stories.
The property is owned by Russian billionaire Vitaly Yusufov, the son of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s energy minister, Igor Yusufov.
Bonta’s letter and a follow up letter from Heneghan asserted the council must approve the project without further review by Oct. 27.
“The City Council believes it is important to get this right, even if there are financial consequences and service impacts for the city that may be triggered by our effort to vindicate out rights and protect the Menlo Park community,” Mayor Betsy Nash said.
Doherty said that council “respectfully disagrees” with the AG’s analysis. Since receiving the AG’s letter, city officials have been researching and analyzing the issues raised in the letter.
Nash said the council is “united in its position” that the AG’s letter is incorrect.
“The AG issued its opinion without having the benefit of the city’s extensive knowledge of the property and the history of the development application, and without once inquiring with the city about the background of the application. The council strongly opposes approval of the project under the terms in the AG’s letter. This massive commercial development would severely compound infrastructure challenges in Menlo Park, endanger emergency services’ response times, and exacerbate the existing jobs-housing imbalance. The project does not deliver the housing that Menlo Park needs, contrary to the very purpose of the Builder’s Remedy law,” Nash said.
The Builder’s Remedy is a provision in state law provision that lets housing developers bypass local zoning, height, and density rules when a city fails to adopt a compliant state housing plan. In this case, it has resulted in plans for a 39-story tower, far in excess of what neighborhood zoning would allow.
Last week, the Post reported that Congressman Sam Liccardo asked the U.S. Department of Treasury yesterday to look into potential sanctions against 80 Willow Road property owner Vitaly Yusufov and his father. A sanctions designation could stop development of Yusufov’s 39-story tower at the former Sunset Magazine headquarters in Menlo Park.
“Public sources raise serious questions about Vitaly Yusufov’s ties to the Russian government and individuals linked to organized crime, warranting immediate review by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), and, ultimately, consideration for sanctions,” Liccardo said in his letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Vitaly Yusufov bought the seven-acre property in 2019 through his LLC, Willow Project. He plans to develop the site into 665 apartments, a hotel, office space and a preschool across three towers, with the tallest going up to 461 feet.
Yusufov faces sanctions in Ukraine, while his father, former Russian Energy Minister under Russian President Vladimir Putin, Igor Yusufov, also faces sanctions in Ukraine and in Canada.
Liccardo argues in his letter that because the property is in Silicon Valley, with many major tech companies in the vicinity, Yusufov and other possible owners should be looked into due to national security concerns.
A representative from Bessent’s office declined to comment on Liccardo’s letter.
Meanwhile, Councilman Drew Combs said in his newsletter that a “well-resourced party with a serious interest” in buying the Sunset campus reached out to him. Combs didn’t name the potential buyer, but said he and Nash have been talking to that person. “The potential buyer is very familiar with the property and values its historical significance. They have indicated that their intended use of the campus could be accommodated with only minimal interior modifications,” Combs wrote. Combs acknowledged that while the sale may not go through, it’s a promising possibility for the site.• Sept. 24: Liccardo calls for sanctions on Sunset property owner
• Sept. 18: Sanctions would stop the 39-story Sunset tower
• Aug. 3: Developer threatens city over Sunset project
• April 25, 2025: In a win for developers, council isn’t supporting bill to rein-in Builder’s Remedy
• Opinion: Palo Alto should sponsor bill to combat huge Builder’s Remedy developments
• Aug. 12, 2024: Few applicants for city council seats, one of them has no opinion on Sunset Towers
“
Thank you for reporting on this. Menlo Park must stop this obscene and dangerous project, while moving ahead with reasonable efforts to provide affordable housing in support of a more diverse community.
Prop 79 and “builders remedy” were never about affordable housing or diversity. It was always a license for greedy developers to extract value from desirable neighborhoods. The “diversity” and “affordability” rhetoric were always a smoke screen, a bait and switch. If the real-estate industry knows how to do anything, it knows how to sell. Anything… from Florida swamp land to bad legislation.
Unfortunately, sanctions won’t prevent another developer from buying the property and submitting the same plans. The developer in this case is one problem and the law is the other.
Might be easier and safer for N17, Oisin and Yusufovs to get out of the white hot scrutiny by unloading the property to someone who will so something far better for the community with it, while they still can. Looks like Menlo Park has some strong legal legs to stand and N17 evolving a growing taint.
It is childlike magical thinking to think some other real-estate developer is going devote years of their life to planning and building a project in harmony with a neighborhood of one-story residential properties out of sympathy, instead of the project that squeezes the maximizes profit allowed by Prop 79 out of the property. The only way to stop this project and all of the others like it, is to repeal Prop 79.
Finally. Bonta needs to get out of his office and actually see how his rigidity defies common sense instead of rejecting all appeals all the time while forbidding ALL discussion / reconsideration / evidence for 8 long ridiculous years.
“… even if there are financial consequences and service impacts for the city that may be triggered by our effort..” That’s awfully brave from Nash, throwing our taxpayer dollars to fight a problem she and the council created. And on her way out the door, to add insult to injury. I have yet to hear ANY of the council apologize for this mess. We wouldn’t be here if they had done their job and got a housing plan approved on time. But they all blame someone else. And now it looks like we’re going to flush how many tens of millions just to lose this pointless fight against state law? Unbelievable.
Many Palo Altans agree with the Menlo Park City Council’s courageous decision to not approve this project. They have stood up to the bullies including Bonta, YIMBY Law and the developer. If this were built travel to Menlo Park would be arrested. Emergency responders including fire, police and EMS would be stopped in their tracks. The San Francisquito Creek would be threatened. Adjacent neighborhoods would be congested and traffic accidents would proliferate. We all need to thank the Menlo Park City Council for standing up for what is right and just.
Well, Bonta is just enforcing the housing mandates passed by the Legislature. And he’s only too happy to do it. And he let the Stanford Five off too.
When this greedy, colossal and completely inappropriate project was slipped in under the builders remedy at the last minute by a a Russian oligarch’s son, I wondered why Mark Zuckerberg did not step up and buy the Sunset property.
Mr. Zuckerberg’s Meta Corporation is by far the largest employer in Menlo Park, with about 12,000 employees, and that would have been a nice way to lend a real helping hand given his business location. Mr. Zuckerberg could use some favorable publicity after lining up behind Trump at his latest inauguration. With a net worth of 250.5 billion dollars, it still would be well within his reach to buy off the current owner, who has a very questionable background.
Give me a break. Zuck just cancelled the Willow Village development project and it was a fraction of that cost. He cares nothing about Menlo Park, and probably thinks the city doesn’t do enough for him providing all these jobs.
I’ll bet Vitaly wants to sell and get out of Dodge before the FBI catches up with him.
It is a little premature for that. There is a pretty good chance Bessent is going to toss this hot potato back down Liccardo’s pants and make him live with the political consequences of his support for Prop 79 and “builder’s remedy”.
Stew, do you really think anybody in Washington gives a toot about Prop 79 and the Builder’s Remedy? I know we’re focused on it, but do you think they care about it in Washington? If they deal with this at all, they’ll see it as an opportunity to stop a Russian from laundering his money in the U.S., and it won’t matter if that’s in Menlo Park or Peoria.
Observer, given the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and Yusufov’s profile, Yusufov has surely been on the FBI’s radar for years and is probably already the target of an elaborate multi-agency intelligence operation of some sort. Just another reason why it was foolish for the voters of California to cede control of their communities to the state.
How did we get here? Menlo Park’s housing element lacked state certification from January 31, 2023, until March 20, 2024 allowing this builder’s remedy project. • January 31, 2023: Combs was the sole dissenting vote, voting No in a 4-1 vote when the City Council initially adopted and sent the 2023–2031 Housing Element to the state. • June 27, 2023: Combs was absent for the 3-0 vote when a revised version was approved to be sent back to the state. • January 23, 2024: Serving as Vice Mayor, Combs again cast the sole dissenting vote, voting No in a 3-1 vote to formally adopt the final, state-approved document. After the vote, Combs clarified his stance, “I just wanted to clarify, I had no specific objection to those amendments and very much understood the necessity of them, I have preexisting objections to the housing element.”
Details, how did we get here? Let’s go back a little further to October 10, 2025. The day Scott Wiener’s SB79 was signed into law by governor Gavin Newsom. Scott Wiener is the largest recipient of real estate money in the California Legislature by a wide margin. That should tell you everything you need to know about the true origin of SB79… and developer Oisin Heneghan’s plans for 80 Willow Road.
“Details’s” comment is misleading by telling half the story. While Combs was the dissenting vote on these measures, they passed, so his opposition is meaningless. He didn’t block it. Nice try, “Details.”
BTW, were you the person who passed out anonymous flyers door to door claiming falsely that Drew favored the Sunset towers? It was very clever on the part of the person who did this. Not only did they do so anonymously, they avoided mail fraud charges by distributing them by hand. Nobody could file an FPPC complaint because, officially at least, the flyer didn’t say who had authorized it. That kind of dirty trickery works in council district elections where the number of voters is small.
Observer, you are correct, his opposition is meaningless. Council needs strong leadership to stay on top of important state mandates like this.
I am not aware of any anonymous door fliers. With so many ring door cameras. It may not be possible to distribute fliers secretly, but according to the FPPC Political Advertisement Disclosures Fact Sheet, a disclaimer may not be required, “If you distribute 200 or fewer substantially similar flyers or mailings in a calendar month, it falls below the mass mailing threshold. A disclaimer is not legally required under the Political Reform Act.”