- Many residents and business owners support developing affordable housing on downtown parking lots, viewing it as a means to revitalize the downtown area and address housing needs. Several express trust in the city's plans and urge the council to proceed, emphasizing the benefits of proximity to public transportation, amenities, and existing infrastructure.
- A significant group of residents strongly oppose large-scale projects like N17’s multi-tower proposal at 80 Willow Road, citing concerns about scale, traffic, parking, impact on schools, neighborhood character, and misalignment with the city's housing plan. They advocate rejecting such proposals and emphasize the importance of preserving the community’s character.
- Residents and property owners express opposition to converting downtown parking lots into housing, citing potential negative impacts on downtown commerce, traffic, parking, and the character of the city. They prefer alternative sites such as Civic Center parking lots or the SRI development for more appropriate development opportunities.
- Several residents recommend considering other sites like the Civic Center parking lots, open space areas, or private developments (e.g., SRI property) that are better suited for housing without disrupting downtown vitality. They urge the council to evaluate these options and conduct thorough community input and impact studies.
- Issues related to site use, such as potential legal complications, the need for environmental review, and community opposition, are discussed. Some residents criticize the process for not fully exploring alternative sites and warn against rushing or overburdening downtown with high-density housing.
- Residents emphasize the importance of community input, transparent communication, and careful planning to balance housing goals with neighborhood character, traffic, parking, and open spaces. Several call for reconsideration of proposed sites and greater involvement of local stakeholders.
- Residents advocate for including a full-size sports field and community amenities in the SRI project, emphasizing benefits for youth health and local quality of life, especially given increased density.
- Longtime residents oppose high-density housing in downtown Menlo Park due to parking shortages, traffic congestion, potential business decline, and negative impacts on town character.
- Some residents favor spreading affordable housing to other districts with better infrastructure, proposing Santa Cruz Avenue and Civic Center lots as better locations to balance development and downtown vitality.
- Community members express concern that removing downtown parking lots for housing will hurt local businesses, diminish the attractive environment, and worsen parking limitations.
- Experts warn that parking lot-based housing plans could pose safety risks and lack sufficient infrastructure, advocating for carefully evaluated alternatives like Civic Center properties.
- Residents recommend using Civic Center lots for housing to preserve downtown character, ensure infrastructure capacity, and provide accessible, community-friendly locations.
- Community members criticize plans to replace surface parking with high-density housing, citing safety, environmental, and economic concerns, and favor alternative solutions.
- Residents and community members largely oppose the proposed plan to replace downtown parking lots with high-density, affordable housing, citing concerns over loss of parking, impact on small businesses, downtown character, traffic congestion, and infrastructure capacity. Many advocate for reconsidering site locations, such as the Civic Center area, and emphasize the need for community engagement, transparency, and sustainable planning to balance housing needs with maintaining downtown vibrancy.
- Several residents and community groups strongly support developing affordable housing on city-owned parking lots in downtown Menlo Park, emphasizing benefits like enhanced vibrancy, support for local workers and families, and regional housing compliance. Many advocate for including community amenities such as sports fields, parks, and recreational facilities, alongside housing, to improve quality of life, support youth health, and boost local businesses while ensuring adequate infrastructure and parking are addressed.
- Opposition voices highlight existing parking shortages, risks to local businesses, increased traffic, safety issues, and potential negative impacts on downtown’s charm. Some residents suggest exploring alternative locations like the Civic Center or SRI campus, and warn against rushing development without detailed planning or community input. Preservation of small businesses, pedestrian safety, and maintaining the small-town feel are prioritized concerns.
- Many residents call for additional community amenities such as sports fields, parks, recreational spaces, and improved infrastructure—particularly for youth and families. Some express concerns over current developments’ environmental impact, traffic, safety, and the importance of sustainable, walkable urban design. There is a push for balanced growth that includes green spaces and active transportation options.
- Critics question the legality, transparency, and thoroughness of the current development and housing plans. Concerns include insufficient community engagement, rushed timelines, possible misuse of public land, and the implications of state laws like the Surplus Land Act. Several calls for more inclusive, well-informed decision-making and thorough impact assessments are voiced to prevent unintended negative consequences.
1
