Dear Mayor Nash and Council members,
On June 2, 2026, you asked the developers about "Empty parking ramp spaces above level 2 and below street level" and they basically said it is not their experience.
Obviously, they have not physically visited the Palo Alto Ramps and seen the empty levels and the homeless camps.
(I presume the council has done a drive through on a weekday ( mid-day)
The follow up question should have been:
Our experience is that those levels are mostly empty; so how can a 5 + story ramp replace our ground level parking and service the apartments too?
The honest answer:
IT CAN NOT.
Please abandon the Parking Plaza Apartments plan,
AND
Do NOT spend any money on "financial consultants", until AFTER the November Ballot and the Lawsuit are resolved (if you win).
My forecast: $$$ wasted because the city will lose on the Ballot and the Lawsuit.
Start looking for other locations.
Respectfully,
Michael DeMoss
Resident
Attorney
Former Finance & Audit Commission member
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
> From: michael demoss
> Date: May 27, 2026 at 8:49:00 PM PDT
> To: michael demoss , daddemoss@gmail.com
> Subject: Fwd: Flaws in Developers proposals
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: michael demoss
>> Date: January 11, 2026 at 11:37:15 AM PST
>> To: Menlo Park City Council
>> Subject: Flaws in Developers proposals
>>
>> Dear Council Members:
>> 1/12/2026
>> At the next Council meeting, please explain to the voters why you are ignoring these warning signs, and why you are not seeking proposals at other locations.
>> Please read these warning signs published in The Almanac on 1/9/2026, pages 1 and 14
>> Re: "Housing Proposals"
>> The Almanacs Summary of Flaws:
>> 1) Eden Housing: Did not bid because: Building a parking garage at NO COST to the city is "infeasible".
>> They are being honest!
>> 2) Presidio Bay Ventures: 6 story parking garage that requires the city pay $15 million (or much more).
>> Note: 6 story Parking Garages are typically empty on levels 3,4,5&6 and do not "replace street level parking".
>> This Proposal is Only providing 140 Affordable apartments, not 345 which was required (that will not be good enough). Parking will be "Paid Parking".
>> (Fact: People will not pay to park while at ACE hardware, Chase Bank, Furniture stores or Amicis).
>> 3) Alliant Communities: 345 affordable apartments, with only 114 parking spaces, that will be a big parking problem. Plus: No Washer and Dryer in each unit? Most people (especially with children) would NOT rent a new modern-day apartment with:
>> NO WASHER & DRYER!
>> 4) Alta & Related CA: 253 parking spaces for 500 apartments will not work, AND: NO PLAN for paying for a parking garage?
>> If a parking garage is included, it will cost $63 million (or much more). They propose 4 Buildings that will be 7, 7, 8 and 9 stories tall. Tall buildings dont "esthetically" belong in downtown Menlo Park.
>> Say goodbye to a "sunny stroll in downtown Menlo Park".
>>
>> That is just what The Almanac is reporting. The more serious problems are in the small print details of the final contracts. (Environmental issues, Fire Safety issues, increased Vacancy issues, Loss of tax income to the city, etc.)
>>
>> Biggest problems now:
>> All these proposals FAIL to require at least 1,100 parking spaces to accommodate Both the businesses AND the tenants.
>> All these proposals fail to disclose that it will probably require 3 to 5 years of downtown business disruption.
>> The attractive "Architect drawings" do not show that: All these apartments open out to the unattractive backs of stores with Dumpsters, Delivery trucks, etc.
>> It is hard to sell that "on site view" to prospective tenants.
>> Finally: I believe the Ballot measure will PASS, AND the lawsuit will STOP the "Surplus Land issue", Because it is "Common Sense "!
>> Council Members: Start getting bids on OTHER LOCATIONS.
>> Michael DeMoss, Commercial Real Estate Attorney and Menlo Park Resident
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
