Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]

Facebook Expansion Project

From: domainremoved <Patti>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:15:27 -0700

Dear Menlo Park City Council,

Please consider the following as you evaluate the Development Agreement,
Final EIR and related documents:

   - This project adds 6,550 new jobs but ostensibly only adds demand for
   175 new housing.units in Menlo Park. You received emails in the last few
   months from current Facebook employees who want to live in Menlo Park
   housing. So there is latent demand even amongst current employees. There
   were some probing questions about the methodology used in the DEIR; the
   FEIR is unresponsive to those.
   In the midst of a regional housing shortage, the Council needs to do all
   it can to solve the crisis rather than add to it. This project adds
   significant new demand for housing, and does not provide any additional
   housing. The Council should require a firm commitment on Facebook's part to
   provide a significant amount of housing or the funding for it. That should
   help reduce traffic impacts and help the city attain its climate change
   Dismissing the housing impacts as Less Than Significant defies logic and
   common sense. The Council should do better; otherwise displacement of
   valued residents will continue and worsened traffic and climate change
   impacts will continue.

   - The proposed entitlements run with the land. Future owners may not be
   as community-minded as Facebook has appeared to be. Hibiscus Properties
   could become "WeReallyDon'tCare Properties" (a made-up name for
   illustration purposes).
   All anticipated benefits and mitigation measures that are proposed to
   outweigh the many significant negative impacts on our community must be
   more certain and not rely on the goodwill of Hibiscus Properties/Facebook.
   Such goodwill cannot be relied upon in the future. Specific attention needs
   to be focused on:
      - *housing*, - there is *no* commitment in the Development Agreement
      to build or fund *any* housing, only to "design and plan"
      - *traffic demand management *- the proposed TDM measures exempt, off
      the top, 18 violations at peak hours per year (12 special events, and 3
      non-special event days every 180 days). It also allows violations on the
      East Campus and West Campus to be independently calculated. These are big
      loopholes that allow gaming such as shifting traffic between the
      and allow excessive traffic. The Belle Haven community bears the brunt of
      these violations, and so does the rest of the Menlo Park community as far
      as Alpine and Sand Hill Roads.
      Facebook should schedule these events outside of peak hours, for the
      good of our community, and manage its trips as the single
corporate entity
      it is. The TDM system must support better compliance than this does.

      - The City needs to identify infrastructure improvements needed, as
   part of the General Plan Update process, conduct nexus studies, and modify
   the impact fee structure accordingly. It is quite troubling that a very
   large project like this would not be charged such fees because that process
   has not taken place. The Council should ensure that it does in time to
   affect large projects in the pipeline. Otherwise, who will be left holding
   the bag to pay for them? Individual taxpayers?

   - The FEIR compares apples and papayas when comparing the VMT per
   employee with the Plan Bay Area VMT per capita (20.8). As explained in Plan
   Bay Area 2040 Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report, the latter
   is calculated as follows: *“**Vehicle Miles Traveled **Cars, buses, and
   commercial vehicles travel about 149 million miles a day on the Bay Area
   freeways and local roads (which is equivalent to about 21 vehicle miles
   traveled per day per person). Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is a term used
   throughout this EIR and refers to the number of vehicle miles traveled
   within a specified geographic area during a given period of time. One
   vehicle traveling one mile constitutes one vehicle mile, regardless of its
   size or the number of passengers. VMT is a common measure of roadway use
   and economic activity. The region’s per capita VMT is the total VMT divided
   by the population of the Bay Area; basically, it is a measure of the
   vehicle miles each person travels on average.” *(page 2.21-23, emphasis

The City needs to compare apples and apples when evaluating traffic
impacts. In this case, the conclusions about VMT are based on comparing VMT
per employee of the project with regional VMT per population. In the case
of the General Plan Update's EIR, the same regional VMT of 20.8 per capita
which is per population, is compared to that project's VMT per service
population (residents plus employees). It appears that neither FEIR
compares the respective project's VMT to an equivalent regional VMT. Find
out what an accurate comparison is in both cases. Do not rely on funny

Do not approve the Development Agreement and related documents until there

   - A real commitment to BUILD or FUND THE BUILDING OF significant
   additional housing somewhere in Menlo Park, not just a commitment to
   "design and plan" such housing,
   - A real commitment to manage trips across the entire Facebook campus,
   not to manage the east and west campuses separately, and to allow fewer
   exceptions to what is counted at peak hours. Our community will suffer

Thank you for your consideration.
Patti Fry
Received on Tue Nov 01 2016 - 18:20:23 PDT

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]

Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)