- Numerous residents and community groups advocate for converting downtown parking lots into affordable housing to address the housing crisis, foster downtown vibrancy, and accommodate essential workers, with many emphasizing the importance of including deeply affordable units and leveraging city land efficiently.
- Some community members oppose housing projects citing concerns over parking shortages, traffic, community character, potential crime, and the impact on downtown businesses. Several call for alternative locations like the Civic Center sites and emphasize preserving the town’s aesthetic and neighborhood integrity.
- Many residents highlight the need for adequate parking solutions, suggesting multi-story or underground structures, and express worries about the feasibility of replacing parking with new developments, urging careful planning and exploration of alternative sites to ensure sufficient parking.
- Community members commend RFQ submissions from developers proposing mixed-use, deeply affordable housing, and emphasize the importance of selecting experienced, mission-driven developers to ensure project success and sustainability.
- Residents advocate for maintaining projects like the Quiet Zone to reduce train horn noise, emphasizing its health and quality of life benefits, and urge the city to keep funding for these projects despite budget considerations.
- Some suggest prioritizing civic center sites over downtown parking lots to meet housing mandates efficiently, and propose dual strategies to avoid delays, lawsuits, and community opposition, advocating for flexible planning.
- Residents share personal stories of housing hardship, the importance of inclusive community planning, and the need for equitable development that supports diverse income levels, essential workers, and long-term residents to preserve a vibrant, accessible Menlo Park.
- Multiple messages focus on housing-related issues, including community meetings on the 80 Willow mega-tower proposal, concerns about large homes replacing traditional single-story residences, and discussions on affordable housing initiatives supported by the city, such as grants and community programs.
- Community members express frustrations about new developments, especially large homes replacing small houses, with concerns about neighborhood character, privacy, and inadequate community engagement during construction planning.
- Several inputs highlight the importance of maintaining and expanding affordable housing, citing ongoing funding for programs like HIP Housing and emphasizing the need for long-term leases and supportive services for low-income residents.
- Residents call for more inclusive community involvement in development plans, updates on downtown revitalization, and improvements to public spaces to foster a vibrant, connected neighborhood.
- Concerns are raised about city planning decisions, staff shortages, and the need for strategic updates to zoning and retail policies to support housing growth and downtown economic vitality.
- Multiple residents and stakeholders express concern about the lack of transparency regarding RFQ responses for affordable housing, requesting access to documents, and emphasizing the need for community involvement in decisions impacting housing location and development.
- Community members oppose using downtown parking lots and certain city sites for housing, suggesting alternative locations such as USGS or vacant properties, and highlight petitions with significant opposition to current housing site proposals.
- Business owners and residents voice concerns about the potential negative effects of housing developments, including parking shortages, disruption of downtown life, and preservation of community character, advocating for balanced and alternative solutions.
- There is discussion about strategic placement of affordable housing, with some proposing USGS as a location, and emphasizing the importance of fair processes, public votes, and transparency in planning efforts.
- The community is invited to informational sessions and discussions regarding housing proposals, with calls for considering public input, understanding existing legal challenges, and exploring better site options.
- Resident concerns include the effects of ongoing development, the need for proper community input, and the importance of preserving local character and supporting existing infrastructure, particularly parking and community spaces.
- Residents highlight issues at local amenities like the Belle Haven Senior Center, the library, and Menlo Swim and Sport, calling for improvements, proper maintenance, and transparency in addressing ongoing problems and preserving community assets.
- Many residents and business owners support redevelopment plans, particularly advocating for affordable housing on downtown parking lots to revitalize the area and address housing shortages. Opponents argue the scale is too large, impacts neighborhood character, and threatens local businesses, especially retail spaces, citing potential negative effects on traffic, parking, and downtown vibrancy.
- Several residents and organizations suggest considering other city-owned sites such as Civic Center parking lots and open spaces, which are viewed as more appropriate for housing projects. There is concern about focusing solely on downtown parking lots, which face opposition and potential economic consequences.
- Business owners express fears that housing plans on parking lots and downtown disruptions are causing retail closures and relocating stores, like Ruby LivingDesign and Coffeebar. They highlight that lack of parking and construction disturbances threaten downtown's vitality and the local economy.
- Residents and stakeholders emphasize the need for safe access points, including support for a second entrance to residential projects such as 320 Sheridan Drive and Flood Park developments, to improve safety, traffic flow, and emergency access. There are also concerns about traffic congestion, especially on major roads like Bay Road and VanBuren.
- The majority of community members support affordable housing initiatives, particularly near transit and central locations like downtown. Several express willingness to assist and advocate for supportive development that balances housing needs with community character and infrastructure capacity.
-
-
- Many residents and stakeholders express strong opposition to plans for high-density housing in downtown Menlo Park, particularly in parking lots and the Civic Center area. Concerns include the loss of parking, negative impacts on downtown businesses, safety issues, infrastructure limitations, and the potential for increased traffic congestion. Several advocate for alternative sites such as Santa Cruz Avenue and Civic Center lots, emphasizing the need for thoughtful planning that balances affordable housing with community well-being.
- Some community members support housing development but urge locating it in areas with better infrastructure, wider roads, and less impact on downtown commerce, such as Willow Ave or Civic Center lots. They argue that spreading out housing across districts and preserving downtown's character and economic vitality are priorities.
- Residents highlight infrastructure challenges, including sewer and water capacity issues, safety risks for first responders, and the inadequacy of parking and road widths if housing is placed in parking lots. They emphasize the need for comprehensive feasibility studies and infrastructure upgrades before proceeding.
- Community groups advocate for community benefits such as parks, bike paths, and amenities in conjunction with development. Some support electrification, sustainability initiatives, and other programs aligned with climate goals, but remain cautious about densely packed housing proposals.
- Multiple residents oppose converting downtown parking lots into housing due to the negative impact on shopping, dining, and parking availability, and warn it may lead to economic decline and block access to essential services.
- Residents call for transparent planning processes, thorough feasibility studies, and community input. They suggest that the Civic Center site offers a practical alternative for housing that minimizes disruption and benefits the community.
1
