Mayor Nash and Council members,
If you disagree, provide me with you written answers.
Thanks
Mike
An unbiased opinion from a commercial real estate attorney, an expert in complex real matters, like this one:
"The Menlo Park Downtown Parking Lot Landgrab"
21 Reasons to STOP 3 inexperienced Menlo Park council members from making a costly, irreversible real estate MISTAKE
1) Common Sense Ignored: Menlo Parks recent Feasibility Report says ALL 3 Developers downtown parking lot bids are NOT Financially Feasible.
2) Big $$$ Problems: All 3 developers bids require that YOU, the citys Taxpayers, contribute up to $45million ( a preliminary low estimate ) to pay for the developers PRIVATE Parking Ramp (Because of the developers Private "Money GAP", as disclosed in the citys Feasibility Report).
3) Fiduciary Duty: The city is in a Fiscal Deficit now, and for the foreseeable future.<$$$$> NO Money for Private Developers !
4) No Reasonable Solutions: The 5 Proposed ( Flawed ) "Money Gap Solutions", to raise money to pay for the Developers PRIVATELY Owned Ramp:
a) No more free parking: Install timed "Pay for Parking" meters in the new ramp, AND on the street.
b) Increase the citys Sales Tax ! (Customers should help a Private Developer! )
c) Put an Extra Tax Assessment on the Store Owners (They can pass it on to their customers).
d) Build a smaller Parking Ramp (Dont replace the 556 surface parking spaces, AS PROMISED)
e) Reduce the number of "Unprofitable Affordable Apartment Units", and build more "Market Rate Apartments"! More profit for the PRIVATE Developer! (Defeating the sole purpose of the states mandate for Affordable apartments!) ?????
f) Hope the State can pay for the Private parking ramp? California is already deep in debt !
5) IGNORING HISTORY: For many years, the adjacent Store/Property Owners Paid an EXTRA annual Tax Assessment to Build, and Maintain the parking lots, IN EXCHANGE for the Citys PROMISE to let the adjacent property owners VOTE to APPROVE any future changes to their Parking Lots!
6) Broken Promise: This City Council is VIOLATING that well documented Agreement between the Adjacent Store/Property Owners and the City: "The property owners have a Right to VOTE to approve any changes to the parking lots !
" Yes on P" keeps the Promise to Vote !
7) Precedent : There is precedent for honoring that Agreement: in 2010, Mayor Richard Cline, and the council, actually withdrew a similar proposal to build a hotel and apartments on the same city parking lots. The adjacent property owners lawyers demanded the city honor the documented "Agreement to VOTE on Changes"; and the Vote was taken, and the result: Opposed to the proposal WON, by a clear MAJORITY !
As a result: Mayor Cline WITHDREW the Proposal ! ( THAT PRECEDENT is What this Council MUST HONOR ! )
8) LAWSUIT: This Councils blatant Violation of the established RIGHTS of the Adjacent Property Owners: "Right to Vote to Approve Changes to their parking lots", has caused a Costly Lawsuit against the city, to have a Judge force the city to honor the taxpayers "Right to Vote on Changes to their parking lots". ( The same thing a "Yes on P" is doing!)
The Councils Fiduciary Duty?
Honor the Promise !
9) Public Opinion: 130+ store owners have signed a petition in Opposition to the citys plan to change their parking lots; which this council ignores. (They have VOTED)
10) Voter Opinion: Over 3,000 Menlo Park residents signed a petition to put measure P on this November 3rd ballot.
(About 15% of the voting population, have effectively pre-Voted "Yes on P", which this council ignores).
11) Private Waivers of Building Code Violations: Menlo Parks city building code requires 1.5+ parking spaces for every new apartment unit built. None of the 3 developers bids comply with that code requirement. Real Estate experts recommend a total of 1,100 parking spaces for this project, NOT 556 !
10) There has NOT been a mandatory "Traffic and Circulation Study" done; to rule out "Gridlock" (Congestion).
12) There has NOT been a mandatory "Environmental Study". (This can NOT be waived for this project, which is next to outdoor restaurants, after school gatherings area, health care facilities, residences, and customer shopping areas)
13) Safety: There has NOT been a mandatory Fire Department report on safety and emergency equipment access.
14) Unqualified? This city council has disclosed that none of them has any experience in commercial real estate negotiations, such as this one.
15) Private Gift? This inexperienced city council plans to "GIFT" our 3 parking lots (consisting of 5 downtown acres) valued at $50+ million dollars, to a PRIVATE developer, for a mere $1/ year, for 55 years.
16) NO Appraisal done: Who decided on $1/year, for 55 years??? And How is a "gift" of a $50+million dollar taxpayers asset, to a private developer, justified?
No Professional Appraisal has been done. Who cane up with the $1 dollar idea???
Real Estate Experts opinion:
This lease should be valued at: $600,000/year, with annual inflation escalators ($50,000/ month, NOT $1/month! ).
Who approved this "sweetheart land grab giveaway"????
17) Past experience ignored: Real Estate experts say: Past experience shows that a project of this magnitude will take about 5 years of parking lots disruption, to build a parking ramp and 345 apartments, AND the lack of parking for that long will cause customers to shop elsewhere; Stanford Mall, Target, Home Depot, etc., where convenient surface parking is convenient AND plentiful.
18) PRIORITIES: The council agreed to make "Vitality of Downtown" a Priority, BUT: Past experience shows that (Under a flawed plan like this one) the downtown businesses will begin to lose customers and close. Employees will lose their jobs; causing Irreversible change . . . Loss of Downtown Vitality!!!
19) Bid Details: Some of the Developers Bid "Details" are alarming: One of the developers bids requires "NO Washers or Dryers in each apartment"; to raise additional money to fund the "Money GAPS in their bid!
So . . . There will be a coin operated laundry room in each building !
This idea, from the 1930s Depression Era, is a "Deal Breaker !"
Another bid: Does not provide units across all RHNA categories:
• It provides zero very low-income (0–50% AMI) units.
The "Details" are important !
20) Important:
From Menlo Parks published Staff Report:
July 2026 page M-3.5 Quotation:
"Capacity continues to exceed both the required RHNA and the RHNA plus 30% buffer in every income category."
*RHNA stands for Regional Housing Needs Allocation (sometimes also referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment)
IF we are Exceeding, RHNA*, by a 30% buffer, in Every Income Category: Why are 3 council members rushing us into a Flawed, Costly, Irreversible, Unpopular, Unnecessary Project that damages Downtown Businesses, while benefiting a Private Developer???
PLUS: No RHNA affordable apartments need to be actually "Built" by 2031, they just need to be in the "Pipeline" by 2031. . . . 5 years from now !
What we have here is a city council that requires VOTER intervention!
There are many better locations for housing ( IF needed ).
21) As a Commercial Real Estate Attorney, and General Partner and Property Manager of 300+ Apartment units, and over 100,000 sq ft of Office and Retail space: I actually see MORE than 20 reasons to WALK AWAY from these 3 developers plans, AND I would NEVER, rely on the judgment of any of these 5 council members (much less 3 of them) on "Theyre decisions regarding the future of our Downtown Parking Lots". !
That is why "Yes on P" is so important!
Respectfully,
Michael C. DeMoss,
Resident of Menlo Park,
Former Chairman of the Audit Subcommittee, Menlo Park Finance & Audit Commission
Commercial Real Estate Attorney
