|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A new obstacle has emerged for the developers of the proposed Willow Park housing project at 80 Willow Road: a potential national historic designation for the site, which once housed the headquarters of Sunset magazine.
On Friday, May 9, the California State Historical Resources Commission unanimously determined that the former Sunset campus is eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. The decision advances the nomination to the federal Keeper of the National Register, which will make a final determination within 45 days of receiving the submission.
The nomination was submitted by the Menlo Park Historical Association, which argued that the site meets the federal criteria for historic recognition based on its architectural significance and its role in the commercial history of the American West.
“The Menlo Park Historical Association, on its own and solely using its own funds, without any outside funding whatsoever, commissioned this nomination,” said board member Karen Kitterman when presenting the nomination. “The association is a long-established nonprofit with an express mission of conducting historic preservation work. It is not an affordable housing opponent, and it has not nominated any other sites with proposed housing projects.”
The nomination argues the campus played a key role in the history of the American West. The Office of Historic Preservation highlighted that Sunset magazine made major contributions to the development and popularization of the “indoor-outdoor” California lifestyle from the Menlo Park campus, which it constructed in 1951.
The site also carries architectural significance. The building was the first commercial project designed by Cliff May, often regarded as the creator of California ranch house style. The landscape design was crafted by “master landscaper” Thomas Church, a leading figure in modern California garden design.
The historical value of the property was even noted by Sunset magazine itself in a special issue on the Los Angeles fires, in which an editor urged readers to help protect the campus.
“Fires aren’t the only thing threatening the Western dream, and while we can’t control the wind or heat, we can protect what we love. One of those places is Sunset’s historic campus in Menlo Park, the former home of this storied publication… It’s where we tested recipes in the Test Kitchen, planted experimental gardens and built an indoor outdoor lifestyle that people across the country aspired to. We’ve lost too much already. Let’s save what we can.”
The commission received 617 letters of support and 12 letters of objection to the nomination.
The developer behind the Willow Park project, N17, has opposed the nomination. Founder Oisín Heneghan framed the effort as a strategy to block housing in a region already facing a shortage.
“Everything in the world is historic. Everything is a story. But every building should not be elevated by the state and given the honor of historic designation,” he told the commission.
“A vacant, obsolete building is not historic, and it should not be found to be eligible for the National Registry,” Heneghan continued. “What’s truly historic is the housing crisis and the devastating effects it has on Californians. Our governor and state Legislature have repeatedly declared that we are in a housing emergency. The nomination of 80 Willow has been commissioned and paid for by anti-housing activists. They are doing this to interfere with housing. That’s the bottom line.”
N17 has proposed four high rise buildings on the 6.7-acre site with the tallest reaching 431 feet. The development would include 665 units with 155 being below market rate and over 500,000 square feet of commercial and office space.
Under federal law, the Office of Historic Preservation is not allowed to consider economic or development impacts when evaluating nominations. State Historic Preservation Officer Julianne Polanco emphasized that point during the hearing.
“Our office, this commission, has a purview under federal law and an obligation, and it does not include the ability to make decisions that are based beyond the criteria of the National Register,” Polanco said. “It does not in any way mean that our office is unsympathetic to housing needs, to developer rights, or to any other public desire. I want to be clear that we are prohibited from considering those things… and to do so, in my opinion, as the head of the Office, would be violating the law.
“At a time when somebody decides that we have a different purview, then we will take that seriously and implement it,” she added.
Heneghan also argued that the nomination misled the commission about the landscaping and building.
“When you read the nomination, it says everything (the landscaping and architecture) is all intact and original — that’s a complete fabrication,” he said. “Every picture the nomination showed does not exist now.”
Heneghan said that much of the landscaping and trees have been changed and the interior has been significantly remodeled.
Heneghan added that it has been difficult to rent out the office building and the roof is damaged and needs to be replaced. He also said that it has been difficult to insure the property.
In response to his argument that the building’s architecture has been changed, state staff argued it did not change the building’s significance. “Properties are not expected to be preserved in amber. Buildings and landscapes are expected to experience change over time. A respected colleague described preservation as managed change. Integrity is evaluated for the property as a whole, not individual features such as paths, or separately for public and private views,” said state Historian Amy Crain. “In evaluating the property as a whole, it retains all aspects of integrity.”
If approved by the Keeper of the National Register, the Sunset campus would gain formal recognition as a historic site — potentially complicating or delaying any future redevelopment plans, regardless of California’s “builder’s remedy” housing provisions.
Listing on the register triggers an additional layer of environmental review under both federal and state law. In particular, projects involving historically designated properties may be subject to additional California Environmental Quality Act requirements.
While listing does not prevent a private property owner from altering or demolishing the site, it can make it more difficult to obtain necessary approvals. For the proposed Willow Park development, this could lead to delays, increased costs or even substantial changes to the project’s design and scope.
Heneghan said he will still move forward with the development. The city council is expected to award a $900,000 contract to create an environmental impact report for the project. N17 will have to reimburse the city the full cost. The report is expected to take 17 months.
In the meantime, at least some of the property has been leased to Workspace Strategies, a Kentucky-based coworking management company to operate a shared workspace, the firm announced in September 2024.
The space soft-launched on May 1, 2025, and will officially open on May 21.
Editor’s Note: This story was updated with the correct name for the developer. The developer behind Willow Park is N17.
Listened to the hearing (it’s on Cal-Span). The Commissioners were unanimous, one saying —“The importance of this building is remarkably large.” No doubt Washington will confirm National Register eligibility. Then it’s *automatically* listed on the California Register of Historic Resources, making CEQA historic review mandatory, so removing the building would appear unlikely. Cautionary tale for developers — research property before jumping in.