The Builder’s Remedy is a provision in California state law created to encourage cities to meet their housing goals by giving developers leeway to bypass local zoning regulations and other city rules if a city misses their deadline for adopting a state-required housing plan. Under Builder’s Remedy, developers are allowed to build new developments that violate height and zoning restrictions as long as the project meets specific affordable housing requirements.

Menlo Park achieved state certification of its mandated Housing Element (HE) in March of 2024, but the developer’s application was filed in 2023, before the HE had secured final approval, so the developer believes their proposal is still valid under the builder’s remedy provision.

The project will undergo a special city-level review process outlined by state law SB330, which will include hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council and environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Under SB330, cities have limited options to prevent a builder’s remedy project from being built if the project plan was submitted before a city has an approved housing element. The city must follow the process prescribed in SB330. Menlo Park could potentially challenge a project through CEQA if they determine the following:

• Significant, unavoidable environmental impacts cannot be mitigated
• Extreme environmental hazards 
• Demonstrable threats to critical environmental resources

City, state or federal government codes might also impose constraints on the project that either supersede SB330 or are exempted / not covered by SB330. These constraints could include building safety standards, infrastructure requirements, or environmental regulations. The council and city staff will likely investigate all of these possibilities, especially with guidance from technical experts. The city council has the option to pursue legal action against the developer, challenging the project’s compliance with SB330, environmental regulations (CEQA), or other relevant building and safety codes. 

The proposed project, as it stands, would clearly have far higher density and height than current or planned future zoning by an exceedingly large margin (39, 33, and 19 stories vs 4 stories). There are numerous complicated questions and conflicting state directives that raise questions about whether this project is legitimate and viable:

• Should this project even qualify for builders’ remedy/SB330 given that it conflicts with a now-certified city Housing Element plan? 
• Does the design, size, or historic origin violate CEQA? 

Does the “savings” clause  in the builders’ remedy protect cities’ authority to apply “development standards” to these projects? For more info, see here.

No, the development’s commercial elements – offices, hotel and retail, will employ more people than the new residential units can house, resulting in net negative housing for the city of Menlo Park. The 665 residential units would likely create housing for 1,330 people, but the office, hotel, retail, school and facility spaces will create new housing needs for approximately 3,000 workers, exacerbating the current shortage of housing. The Housing Element cites the jobs/housing imbalance in Menlo Park as being one of the largest drivers of housing costs. To truly address the housing deficit, future developments must prioritize a more balanced ratio of residential units to commercial spaces.

Yes, The City is proceeding with a full EIR preceded by a set of Initial Studies. The City-selected EIR consultant, LSA Associates, will perform both and has scoped the EIR process to at least 17 months. Currently, the City is awaiting the developer’s authorization to process as well as a required financial deposit. Once initiated, the EIR is projected to go through the following steps per the RFQ response. The Bolded are critical periods for community input and feedback.

• Project initiation and start-up meeting with City staff — Weeks 1-2
• Site visit to document existing conditions — Week 2

Data Gathering and Evaluation:

• Collection and review of background documents and data — Weeks 2-4
• Preparation and review of project description — Weeks 3-5

• Establishment of evaluation methodology and thresholds — Weeks 5-8
• Preparation of Initial Study and administrative draft — Weeks 8-12

• Preparation and circulation of NOP — Weeks 12-14
• Public scoping session and comment review — Weeks 14-18

• Completion of technical analyses (air quality, biology, traffic, etc.) — Weeks 12-26
• Peer review of sponsor-provided studies — Weeks 12-26

• Development of administrative, screencheck, and printcheck draft EIR — Weeks 26-34
• Internal and City reviews with revisions — Weeks 34-38

• Public circulation of Draft EIR (approx. 45 days) — Weeks 38-44
• Collection and review of public and agency comments — Weeks 44-46

• Preparation of responses to comments — Weeks 46-50
• Finalize EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations — Weeks 50-54

• Attendance and presentations at Planning Commission and City Council hearings — Weeks 54-58
• Certification of the EIR and filing of Notices — Weeks 58-60

• Delivery of final documents and record — Weeks 60+

The City deemed the application for 80 Willow complete on November 14, 2024 under SB 330 requirements. This triggered the next phase of review, which has two major parallel tracks:

1. Consistency and Standards Review
The City is conducting a detailed evaluation of the proposal against objective local development standards and health/safety requirements under the California Housing Accountability Act (HAA).

• Since January 2025, the City and the developer have gone through multiple rounds of review and feedback.
• The most recent Consistency Letter (May 2025) found that the proposed project still fails to meet several core requirements.
• While this does not constitute a formal denial, it highlights serious and unprecedented issues with the current design and feasibility of the project.

2. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Process
Separately, the City has engaged LSA Associates, an independent consultant, to perform the legally required environmental analysis. The full EIR process is expected to span at least 17 months once initiated.

• Next Step: The City is currently awaiting the developer’s formal authorization and financial deposit before work can begin.
• Once authorized, the consultant will conduct several months (3–6) of technical studies and reports evaluating the project’s impacts across key areas.
• Based on these studies, the consultant will issue an Initial Study, which summarizes the environmental impacts and identifies areas requiring full EIR review.
• The Initial Study will be followed immediately by the public scoping period, an essential phase where the community can provide focused input on key environmental concerns. This scoping period includes a month-long public comment window and a single publicly noticed hearing.
• It is critical for residents to understand that this scoping period and hearing represent the next important and formal opportunity to influence the project’s outcome by raising concerns on impacts such as traffic, noise, biological and historical resources, and more.
• Following the public input phase, the City and consultant will proceed with the Complete EIR, which involves a thorough analysis of all environmental impacts and additional public hearings.

As of June 27, 2025, the National Park Service has officially signed off on the former Sunset Magazines Headquarters’ eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. Although the property won’t be added to the National Register because the owner objected, it is now automatically listed in the California Register of Historical Resources under three separate categories: Architecture, Landscape Architecture, and Commerce. The Palo Alto Daily Post and Sunset Magazine ran nice articles heralding the listing which triggers heightened protection under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mitigations can include anything from preserving the entire site to erecting a commemorative plaque. Please thank the Menlo Park Historical (MPHA) for independently spearheading the proposal and their efforts to secure this designation.

Residents should ask the City Council to ensure that city staff continue to rigorously evaluate the project based on objective standards, focusing specifically on the three key areas within the City’s control: Health, Safety, and the CEQA/EIR results. Additionally, residents need to be actively involved in the CEQA and EIR process, especially during the three critical periods for community input and public hearings.

Residents should also support the City Council, Planning Commission, and city staff as they implement the City’s Housing Element, which includes plans for housing in downtown Menlo Park and other designated sites. This support is crucial because if these projects don’t break ground on schedule, the city risks falling out of compliance in the 2027 mid-cycle review. Failure to comply could lead to unrestrained builder development similar to 80 Willow with an even faster, less restrictive development ministerial approval process outlined under SB 35 and SB 423. Currently, San Francisco is the only city under this streamlined process, where local control and many CEQA requirements are effectively bypassed. Without successful housing production, Menlo Park could face similar consequences.

Menlo Forward is leading a grassroots effort to mobilize neighbors in Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and Atherton to advocate for a common sense approach to developing 80 Willow Road.

In addition, during the environmental review phase, Menlo Forward will retain technical experts to better understand the environmental impacts of the project. If necessary, we will mount a legal challenge to ensure the project complies with Menlo Park zoning regulations for density and height and mitigates environmental impacts.

We are a grassroots community organization made up of residents from Menlo Park and neighboring communities. Ongoing support from community donors is the life-blood to our mission.

We envision responsible development that enriches, rather than overwhelms, our community. The development must address our critical affordable housing needs and remain consistent with Menlo Park’s approved housing plan with respect to zoning ordinances for height and density. In addition, the development must not jeopardize public safety, the health of the San Francisquito Creek ecosystem, and the historical significance of the property as the birthplace of the Western Living Movement.

Menlo Forward supports the creation of affordable housing and responsible, sustainable development in Menlo Park to ensure a healthy balance between new jobs and housing availability. The proposal for 80 Willow Road is wildly out of scale for our community. It presents egregious environmental and public safety hazards, but even worse, is horribly housing net negative as a result of adding extensive new commercial space.