September 15, 2026
(via email)
The Honorable Betsy Nash
The Honorable Jennifer Wise
The Honorable Drew Combs
The Honorable Jeff Schmidt
The Honorable Cecilia Taylor
Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Menlo Park City Council Members,
I spoke at the last council meeting but wanted to more formally address the 80 Willow decision you are trying to make. I fervently support the City Council NOT approving the plan as it stands without the full prudence and diligence needed to ensure fairness for the citizens of Menlo Park. The council is being bullied, by a developer with greed in mind, and by an ambitious attorney general who has likely been influenced by that developer. The challenge you are facing is not one you probably signed up for when you ran for City Council. I ask you not to abandon us.
Approving this development is not the safe choice – it’s the irreversible one. A lawsuit is temporary and measured in months and dollars. A 39-story tower beside San Francisquito Creek is measured in centuries. No future council can undo this. There is no version of this vote you would get to revisit.
You are being bullied into approving the tallest buildings between San Francisco and Los Angeles without the fully appropriate and prudent due diligence.
You need to hold firm and bring N17 to the negotiating table. Public opinion, not just in Menlo Park, but across California, will be on your side.
I want you to know that the citizens of Menlo Park will be behind you if you reject the artificial deadline proposed by the developer. We have a town – and local media - that doesn’t understand that this is even a possibility – “It’ll never happen” - and the challenge to date has been to inform and educate citizens that it can indeed happen, unless we fight.
I urge you all to hold your ground. To listen to your hearts, your gut – you know that this development and the pressure being applied by N17 is wrong.
- The math doesn’t work. The developer is building a luxury hotel and Class A offices on the back of a piece of legislation intended to build housing. Their claims that the towers include housing is a fig leaf. These towers will make Menlo Park’s housing situation much, much worse. 665 homes but 3,100 jobs. I am not waxing nostalgic about the Sunset site. I’m fine with bulldozing it – I just think it should be housing.
- This development is only five miles from the San Andreas Fault and should require rigorous oversight, for the protection of the neighbors nearby. After seeing the Millenium Tower debacle, we don’t need that in Menlo Park.
- There are strong legal arguments to be made in our favor here and should be heeded by the council. While the city’s legal council may be focusing on reducing legal risk, the council needs to consider ALL risks posed by this development – including the long-term costs to the city and the risks to public safety, among others.
- While the primary focus seems to be on the Willows and Linfield Oaks neighborhoods, these towers will put an additional undue burden on Belle Haven, as that neighborhood becomes even more of a congested drive-thru for Dumbarton Bridge traffic – creating more gridlock and challenges for emergency services to that area. Something Sacramento perhaps hasn’t considered - how the externalities of this legislation may unfairly impact minority communities.
- Approving the project and then crossing fingers that a local group of citizens might sue the city is a highly risky strategy. That strategy would require a judge issuing an injunction to halt any building, and that is hardly guaranteed. This strategy would be exactly what N17 would want – an adversarial relationship between the city and its citizens. This strategy does not force N17 to the table. The Council would be passing the buck, an ineffective way to protect the city.
- The State’s process has been unfair. The long delays by the State: Menlo Park spent nearly two years in the State’s bureaucratic review loop, with over 250 days of waiting for responses from the State. Although statutory, to an outside observer this is a ridiculous burden to put on a town of 30,000. It is during this earnest back and forth with the State, waiting for responses, that a “paper napkin-level” plan was submitted by N17. In no other universe is this acceptable. The punishment doesn’t fit the crime. I’d love for an impartial judge to chime in on that.
I don’t envy you your position, but I want you to know that the city is behind you, if you decide to hold firm. You are dealing with something that, to an outsider, looks like absurdity, that’s why people can’t believe it. The public will be on your side. Other cities will support you. Californians will support you. Stick to your guns. Fight for us.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Burr
700 Woodland Avenue
