The builder’s remedy in Menlo Park

The old Sunset Magazine campus: 80 Willow Road

Updated September 28, 2026. Every entry links to its source.

What’s proposed

N17 Development, for Willow Park LLC, would replace the campus in Linfield Oaks (District 3) with about 665 homes, 332,000 square feet of offices, a 130‑room hotel, shops and a preschool, in towers of 301 to 458 feet. The Almanac reports the tallest would be the tallest building in California outside San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego. The city’s project page has the plans and every letter.

Why the state is involved

N17 claims the builder’s remedy and a state fast track, AB 2011, that would skip environmental review. With 15% of its homes for lower‑income households, the project is below the 20% the remedy required when N17 filed, but projects the city found complete before 2025, as it found this one in November 2024, may use AB 1893’s lower bar instead. The city says the project doesn’t qualify for the fast track and is still weighing the remedy claim. The Attorney General says the city is breaking state housing law in how it has handled the application.

What has happened

1. Dec. 7, 2023N17 files its first application, a preliminary one, while Menlo Park’s housing plan still lacks state approval. The state certifies the plan on March 20, 2024. Source
2. 2024–2026The city finds the plans inconsistent with its development standards five times, which it notes is not a denial, and rules five times, most recently on May 6, 2026, that the project does not qualify for AB 2011. It says it is still weighing the builder’s remedy claim. Source
3. May 13, 2025The council hires a consultant for the environmental review. The work has not started: it is waiting on the developer’s deposit to pay for it. Source
4. June 24, 2025The Sunset campus is found eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, which puts it on the California Register of Historical Resources. Source
5. July 29, 2026Attorney General Rob Bonta writes that the city’s handling violates AB 2011, the Housing Accountability Act and AB 712: it changed its reasons for refusing the fast track after giving its first ones, withheld builder’s remedy protections, and has billed the developer for the city’s own legal costs (about $300,000, by the developer’s count). The letter does not order the city to approve the project. Read the letter (PDF)
6. Aug. 3, 2026The developer’s lawyers give notice that they intend to sue, and say the city must approve the project by October 27, 90 days after the Attorney General’s letter. Source
7. Aug. 25, 2026Mayor Betsy Nash replies to the Attorney General. She blames the housing plan’s delay on turnover among the state’s reviewers and invites him to visit the site. Source
8. Sept. 23, 2026Rep. Sam Liccardo asks the U.S. Treasury to review the project’s financing and to consider sanctions against the Russian businessman reported to own the site. He is not under U.S. sanctions. Sanctioned people cannot own property in the U.S., so sanctions could stop the project. Source
9. Oct. 27, 2026Coming upThe date by which the developer says the city must approve. Source

If it goes to court

If the developer sues and wins on the grounds the Attorney General named, AB 712 requires a fine of at least $10,000 per home, the Housing Accountability Act’s minimum: $6.65 million or more at 665 homes, plus the developer’s legal fees. The same law bars a city from making an applicant pay the city’s own legal costs, which the Attorney General says Menlo Park is doing.

Next to Vasara: 104 Constitution Drive

Updated September 28, 2026. Every entry links to its source.

What’s proposed

Greystar would build 140 homes in District 1, in a building about 83 feet tall (92 feet to the top of its stair and elevator towers), at 160 homes per acre. The 0.87‑acre lot sits between Highway 101 and the Bayfront Expressway, on Greystar’s own Vasara site: the city approved it in 2022 for a 34,499‑square‑foot office and commercial building that hasn’t been started, next to Vasara’s finished 335‑apartment building. The city’s project page says it will verify these figures once the application is complete, and it has not published how many homes would be affordable.

Where it stands

The city has found the application incomplete three times, most recently on October 16, 2024, and the city’s page lists no new filing since. State law gives a developer 90 days to supply what an incomplete notice asks for; if it doesn’t, the preliminary application expires, and with it the claim to the rules in place before certification. The city hasn’t said publicly whether that has happened here; its page still says Greystar can resubmit or appeal.

What has happened

1. Before Mar. 20, 2024Greystar files a preliminary application claiming the builder’s remedy, before the state certifies Menlo Park’s housing plan. The exact date has not been made public. Source
2. June 4, 2024Greystar files the formal application. Source
3. July 3, 2024The city finds it incomplete: several required items are missing. Source
4. July 16, 2024Greystar resubmits. Source
5. Aug. 15, 2024Incomplete again, for several missing items. Source
6. Sept. 16, 2024Greystar resubmits again. Source
7. Oct. 16, 2024Incomplete a third time, for one missing item. The city’s page says Greystar can resubmit or appeal, and lists nothing since. Source