Mayor Nash and Council Members Combs, Wise, Taylor and Schmidt:
Please Listen to the experts in the field of housing, construction and real estate; on the Downtown Parking Lot Ramp & Apartments:
At the 9/29/2026 Menlo Park council meeting:
To hear comments and review the Feasibility Report, Regarding the Downtown Parking Ramp and Apartments on the Parking lots:
Reality VS Politics, Wishful Ideology and Hidden Agendas.
Consider these experts:
Expert #1: Economic Strategies Consultants.
Reality:
The Feasibility Report results:
"Financially NOT Feasible".
Quote from the citys own feasibility report:
"all three proposals identified a significant financial gap."
None of the suggested financial solutions are workable !
One Solution: Why not Reduce the number of Affordable Apartments"
That is NOT logical and defeats the original PURPOSE of all this chaos:
More AFFORDABLE Housing !
Expert #2:
Reality:
The Housing Architect said:
Madam Mayor and Council Members. Im Henry Riggs. Im former multi-housing architect. Planning Commission Chair.
Weve heard that there is a funding gap. Thats an interesting way to phrase a project that doesnt work. When I was at UC Irvine, when we received bids that didnt meet the program, we simply discarded them.
This is way off.
People on a limited income or new to the area,
All have cars.
They have cars because they work construction, they work house cleaning.
I will finish by saying there are less disruptive sites. There are sites that are better for using state funding sources. We can do better. Yes. Thank you.
Expert #3:
Reality:
Michael DeMoss, Menlo Park resident.
As a Commercial Real Estate Attorney,
I was Vice President of the Property Management Division of Minnesotas largest real estate company.
I have 50 years experience as the General Partner (owner) and "Hands On" Manager of 300+ Apartment units, and more than 100,000 square feet of office buildings and retail stores (all of them with adequate parking lots)
The 3 proposed developments are NOT Feasible because:
Apartment Parking industry standards requires between 1.5 to 2 parking spaces per tenant unit.
Menlo Parks own building code requires 1.55 parking spaces for each apartment unit.
Do the math:
345 apartments x 1.55 = 530 assigned apartment parking spaces
Add to that:
The citys PROMISE and REQUIREMENT to Replace 555 existing surface parking spaces = about 1,100 total parking spaces Required to Avoid eventual Foreclosure and Damage to Adjacent Businesses!
None of the 3 developers meet this REQUIREMENT !
Real life proof :
Last year the beautiful new 363 unit San Jose "FAY Apartments" went bankrupt BECAUSE of "Lack of Adequate Parking".
I have managed all of our residential apartments and commercial properties; and the questions I heard over and over from prospective tenants:
"Where is my assigned parking going to be?"
Where do my customers and/or clients park?
Is parking FREE?
To argue that "today" people dont need cars, or parking spaces, is to Deny the recent Foreclosure of the FAY Apartments in downtown San Jose.
Reality vs Politics and wishful Ideology.
Which is more reliable?
Also:
One developer has decided to NOT have Washers & Dryers in each apartment; using a communal coin-operated laundry room, to increase landlord income.
That is UNACCEPTABLE!
NO realtor would recommend that !
No Developer should suggest it !
Also: Showing apartments to prospective tenants, with windows that look out on the overflowing dumpsters at the unattractive back of old stores:
Is a DEAL BREAKER.
It will be very hard to "sell that view" to prospective tenants.
Would YOU accept that???
There are so many more negatives that are unacceptable:
Calling our FULLY OCCUPIED downtown parking lots "Surplus Land", so that a mere 3 council persons can give OUR $50 million dollar asset, as a GIFT, to a PRIVATE Developer for a mere $1 per year, for 55 years, is a violation of the councils fiduciary duties and ethical obligations.
Real Estate Standard rental rates for 5 acres of land in Downtown Menlo Park Starts at $500,000/year with escalators.
The pending Lawsuit, and a Cease & Desist Order, will stop such an illogical Abuse of Trust.
Other negatives:
Ballot measure "YES on P" is pending
Admitted lack of real estate experience by council members
Fiscal deficits at the city
Statewide lack of money
Traffic Gridlock issues
Infrastructure issues
Fire Department safety issues
135 Business owners oppose this
And much more . . .
My advice:
Abandon this plan and look elsewhere.
Normally, I trust the city council to do what is responsible.
But, proceeding with this plan is UNREASONABLE.
When politicians become unresponsive to factual warning signs, waste taxpayers money and are unaccountable to the voters:
The Vote "YES on P" is the taxpayers only way to stop this costly, irreversible mistake.
That is why I must vote "Yes on P".
Michael DeMoss, resident,
Commercial Real Estate Attorney,
Former Chairman of the Menlo Park Finance & Audit subcommittee.
