80 Willow Road Towers (Former Sunset Magazine Campus)

Ask a question to begin.

Builder's remedy towers on the former Sunset Magazine campus. The developer sued Oct 2, 2026 alleging the city illegally delayed approval; on Oct 13 the council hired Goldfarb & Lipman to defend. The city found the project ineligible for AB 2011 streamlining and disputes its builder's remedy eligibility.

N17 Development files an SB 330 preliminary application for the Sunset campus, before HCD certifies Menlo Park's housing element.

HCD finds the housing element in substantial compliance. The earlier preliminary application is the basis for the developer's builder's remedy claim.

After two incompleteness findings, the city deems the formal application, filed May 24, 2024, complete.

The Senate Housing Committee does not advance Sen. Josh Becker's SB 457. A committee consultant's report said the bill could "strip the project of its status as a Builder's Remedy project."

The State Historical Resources Commission votes unanimously that the campus is eligible for the National Register. The Keeper of the National Register agrees on June 24, 2025; the owner's objection blocks a formal listing.

One of five rulings, from June 2024 to May 2026, that the project does not qualify for AB 2011 streamlining. The city says it "continues to evaluate" the builder's remedy claim.

An AB 712 notice from the Attorney General's office cites AB 2011 and the Housing Accountability Act and tells the city to stop charging the applicant for its legal review.

Counsel David Blackwell demands approval and a refund of $302,938 in fees.

After closed session, Mayor Betsy Nash reports that the council "strongly opposes approval of the project under the terms in the AG's letter." No vote count was reported.

Willow Project LLC petitions San Mateo County Superior Court for orders requiring approval and a fee refund, plus damages and penalties.

The council approves Goldfarb & Lipman on the consent calendar, at $405 to $525 an hour, to defend the suit.

In an August 2026 letter, demanded that the city approve the project by Oct. 27 and refund $302,938 in review fees. Allen Matkins filed the Oct. 2, 2026 petition.

Reported Menlo Park's handling of the 80 Willow application to HCD and the Attorney General.

"The Attorney General has made clear that Menlo Park cannot continue moving the goalposts" (Aug. 3, 2026). N17 says its December 2023 preliminary application came before the housing element was certified, so builder's remedy protections apply, and that AB 2011 entitles the project to approval without discretionary review.

"For those reasons, the City cannot continue to find the Project inconsistent with the Act's objective planning standards." (AB 712 notice, July 29, 2026.) The notice found violations of AB 2011 and the Housing Accountability Act and told the city to stop charging the applicant for its lawyers.

Authored SB 457, which a committee consultant's report said could "strip the project of its status as a Builder's Remedy project." The bill died in the Senate Housing Committee on April 29, 2025. Becker: "This was a focused, practical bill."

"The council strongly opposes approval of the project under the terms in the AG's letter." (Sept. 29, 2026.) Also: "The project does not deliver the housing that Menlo Park needs, contrary to the very purpose of the Builder's Remedy law."

"The attorney general's letter is not a binding legal ruling." (August 2026)

Petition filed Oct. 2, 2026. The city's posted schedule lists a hearing on Nov. 16 or 19 and a decision by Dec. 19, 2026, subject to change.

Paid for the nomination; board member Karen Kitterman presented it. The State Historical Resources Commission found the site eligible on May 9, 2025.

The city disputes the builder's remedy claim. Its Oct. 1, 2026 response to the Attorney General argues that the preliminary application lapsed and that the hotel disqualifies the project. No court has ruled.

Five rulings, from June 22, 2024 to May 6, 2026, that the project does not qualify for AB 2011's ministerial approval, plus consistency letters from January 2025 to April 2026 finding conflicts with city standards, keep the project in discretionary review. The Attorney General says AB 2011 requires ministerial approval.

After a nomination paid for by the association, the State Historical Resources Commission found the campus eligible for the National Register, and the Keeper agreed on June 24, 2025. The site is on the California Register, so environmental review must address it.

The council approved an EIR contract with LSA Associates. Review has not started because the applicant has not paid the deposit; the developer says AB 2011 entitles the project to approval without CEQA review.