Local elected officials unite in opposition to huge builder’s remedy project in Menlo Park

Amid residents’ concern and confusion over the high-rise builder’s remedy development proposed for the former Sunset Magazine headquarters, a growing group of local elected officials are clear: This project cannot happen in Menlo Park.

The dense project proposed by N17 Development features four buildings, two of them residential, to replace the single-story former Sunset Magazine campus at 80 Willow Road. The tallest building would rise 326 feet, taller than the 305-foot Statue of Liberty and only 4 feet below most modern definitions of a skyscraper.

State Sen. Josh Becker and County Supervisor Ray Mueller released a joint statement voicing their disapproval of the project, located near the Palo Alto border with Menlo Park, at the corner of Willow and Middlefield roads.

“The environmental impact of such an immense project right next to the San Francisquito Creek cannot be ignored,” Mueller and Becker said. “The need for housing across the region is serious and demands serious proposals to address the shortage.”

Because Menlo Park does not yet have an approved housing element, the project was filed under builder’s remedy, which limits the city’s authority to deny an affordable housing project or hamper a development after a preapplication is submitted, according to Christopher Elmendorf, a professor at University of California at Davis specializing in property and land-use law. Any project that has at least 20% of its units designated affordable for lower-income households, or 100% of units designated for moderate-income households, cannot be restricted by zoning or the city’s general plan, according to builder’s remedy.

However, Menlo Park Council member Drew Combs questioned whether builder’s remedy even applies to the N17 project site.

“I don’t think that the city should give much validity or credibility to (the developer’s) stance … that there is some provision within state law that allows them to build like a 30-story tower there,” Combs said.

Combs added that a complex with offices and a luxury hotel doesn’t prioritize housing in the way both Menlo Park and California should, or abide by Menlo Park’s 35-foot zoning regulations for height limit.

The current designs include retail, hotel rooms, offices and a 226-foot-tall building for laboratories and research. N17’s towering project has 148,400 square feet of non-residential space and approximately 1,232,100 square feet of residential area.

“The builder’s remedy process is complex,” Council member Maria Doerr said. “It’s not clear in the law what standards apply based on when builder remedy projects were submitted and when housing elements were finalized and/or certified. Some cities have taken different positions about whether or not the builder’s remedy even applies to them.”

Doerr added that all cities in California are navigating unknowns when it comes to builder’s remedy and that Menlo Park staffers are processing builder’s remedy applications, including 80 Willow Road, as is required.

Builder’s remedy requires that one-third of a project be designated for housing, and that at least 20% of its units be designated affordable for lower-income households or 100% of units designated for moderate-income households. The current plans for 80 Willow Road do not state what percentage of the project is intended for affordable housing.

After a preapplication for the project was filed with the city’s building department, Mayor Jen Wolosin told The Almanac that she thought the size of it must be a typo. “There’s a community consensus that this is not reasonable … to me this is orders of magnitude beyond what is reasonable,” she said.

Council members Betsy Nash and Cecilia Taylor did not respond to interview requests.

Combs was the only council member to vote against the current iteration of the housing element, which he says concentrated too much future development east of El Camino, specifically near Highway 101, something the city has done in the past. The city has discussed the need to move potential housing away from Menlo Park’s underserved communities located in that area, and put housing throughout the city in order for a housing element to be approved by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

An approved housing element is required of every city and town in California every eight years, demonstrating how they’ll meet housing standards set by the state, which include a set number of new housing units, called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) number.

Mueller, a former Menlo Park City Council member said that the city’s efforts to achieve an approved housing element have not been half-hearted.

“For a city like Menlo Park, who in good faith is working with HCD to meet an already large RHNA allocation and gain approval of their housing element, to somehow be subjected to this no-limits builder’s remedy project penalty, all in the process of approval, and be left to costly litigation to fight it, is absolutely absurd,” Mueller said.

City officials and residents are unsure exactly what form the path forward will take, but the growing consensus appears to be that the towering project simply does not fit in Menlo Park.

N17 has not responded to multiple requests for comment.

“Builder’s remedy is an old provision that has been rarely utilized and never utilized in the manner that they are utilizing it,” Combs said. “If they think that builder’s remedy applies here, then I think the city needs to make a very clear decision about whether it agrees with that assessment or not. I don’t agree with that assessment.”