Kate,

As a journalist, shouldn't be objective rather than inserting your own opinion into this article. This article is NOT marked as an editorial, yet the first two sentences biased are biased to lead the reader to feel that the DIER is incorrect and should be challenged.

Next time label this an editorial.

Thanks

The comments regarding lack of housing impact in the DEIR did, however form the bulk of real comments on the night (aside from traffic), so I think her piece is fair enough.

I'm just amazed that the largest single building project in Menlo Park's history gets no more than a few supportive comments

Actually, Mper, the reporter was quoting the sentiment expressed at the meeting, not her own opinion. Therefore, it is straight reporting, not edtorial.

"That was the message that some of the people who gave their two cents' in public comment seemed to collectively say to Facebook during a four-hour study session and public hearing Monday on a draft environmental impact report on Facebook's expansion plans."

Although I wasn't able to attend this meeting, I shared the same view and my disbelief at Facebook's assertion that its campus expansion plans won't have an impact on Menlo Park residents when I attended the Belle Haven open house earlier this month. This campus expansion will only create financial pressure for more evictions and displacement.

The Menlo Park City Council should not approve any Facebook campus expansion until sufficient housing is built to house those new workers. To do so would only further exacerbate traffic and the housing crisis.

I've started to collect the personal stories of hardship felt by the community given Menlo Park's failure to address housing. I invite you to share your story of hardship, eviction and displacement -- whether its yourself or your neighbor. Please visit "Housing Crisis Stories" on this page and share your story: Web Link
Or, email me at christin@keplers.com

Every story we collect will be sent to all Menlo Park city councilmembers. We also plan to invite folks to share their story at an upcoming Kepler's event. Councilmembers need to hear these stories, please share yours!

I'm surprised there isn't more mention of the traffic impact in this article. The bulk of the traffic is not Facebook's fault, but rather drivers coming across the bridge. However, the EIR makes it clear that this problem will exacerbate the traffic issues, even with mitigation measures. It disrupts the flow of people trying to cross the neighborhood.

I am actually willing to give them a little more of a break on housing. Other than a few high-end rental properties in the process of being built, I don't see a lot of Facebook people renting in the area; they're not going to move into the affordable rentals in the area. A few may buy, but that would benefit the sellers, not hurt them. They could reduce the number of houses for rent, by buying from investors who previously rented places; that's the main mechanism by which they might adversely impact affordable housing.

In an article about the housing impacts of Facebook's expansion, shouldn't there be a mention that Facebook has proposed building 4500 housing units as part of the new General Plan?

That's a big deal. I think Facebook are trying to be the good guys here. (JI have no connection with the company.) Right now, the land they have isn't zoned for housing, so it would be illegal to build housing there. The city has to make it legal to build housing before they can do it!

First, I agree with Mper. The Almanac frequently struggles with bias issues.

Anyhow, while its interesting to hear that non resident business interests like the person watching over environmental impact on the bay, where is the indication that any of the commission members, the city govt or the developers are responding to residents very legitimate concerns on both sides of 101? Where's the open discussion?
My personal favorite is the comment that it's not FB's job to fix the existing traffic problems. Will they be responsible for hugely exacerbating the situation? Or for putting our water situation and housing situation in further straights? Or for considerably impacting the lifestyle on both sides of 101 while participating on the commission that is telling residents, sorry, some things just can't be mitigated? Really? Without breaking a sweat, I can think of a half dozen ways to make this more manageable for residents who will be directly and seriously impacted. But that was the commissions job. The city's job. The developer's job. You can tell how they feel about residents living close to FB, both sides of 101 by what they don't do.

Housing :

"Right now, the land their isn't zoned for housing."

Right now, the land they're on isn't zoned for 75ft buildings, and yet, the city has agreed to adjust the zoning laws to accommodate two of them.
I don't believe that includes the -10 floor hotel they will add, but not certain.

Can anyone confirm?
I understand the project at the 101 exchange at willow which is positioned as helping ease traffic on Willow and surrounding feeder roads, was actually put in place to make it easier for folks to walk and bike to and from FB. We always have needed better connectivity for people on foot or bikes to cross over 101, but I thought the new foot bridge crossing 101 from Van Ness was built to address that need.

When I read the description of the new project, I confess, I found it really confusing. How will removing 2 of 4 access roads to 101 improve traffic at that spot? Maybe less lane jumping for locals?
Why is there no mention of the crush of 'through'' traffic heading to and from the bridge during rush hour? This seems like rather a huge and obvious gap in the analysis.

Sorry, meant the foot bridge at Van Buren!! (Don't know where I am any more!)

The City of Menlo Park hasn't agreed to approve anything yet. The applicant (Facebook) submitted their project and controls the contents of it's EIR.

If I have this right, the existing general plan allow about 4 million sq ft of non-residential development in the area. In ADDITION; "The proposed general plan changes would allow up to 4,500 MORE housing units, 2.3 million MORE square feet of nonresidential space, and 400 MORE hotel rooms in the M-2 area. Those changes could increase the number of employees by 5,500."

Having The Facebook proposal and the general plan proposal presented as two proposals is very dubious--these are clearly contemplated as a single package, but have been split them into two parts to maximize approval chances. The Facebook proposal lacks housing, the general plan has plenty of it, Wow let's pass them both to solve the problem! I don't appreciate this type of public opinion and perception manipulation! Think both proposals showing up at the same time is a coincidence!? I think not. Why don't we just call both one big Facebook proposal.

I don't understand how this kind of intensive development can be approved so close to the bay. Aren't we worried about restoration of the bay and sea level rise? Shouldn't we pay attention to the fact that residents of Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties easily passed Measure AA and clearly care about these issues?

@Resident

I don't think this is a case of real underhanded collusion as you suggest. The M2 zoning was horribly out of date. Almost all of the projects approved in that area over the last 15 years have not been manufacturing or industrial uses as the economic profile of this city has changed. And yes, the handful of big land owners in the area have worked to influence the zoning so that it favors what they want to build. The overlapping EIR's are not a fiddle on behalf of the City to cloud over the problems, if anything they've illustrated how deficient our infrastructure is and how Belle Haven is being brought into the same economic pressure as the rest of the Bay.

Sadly Belle Haven can't have it both ways. The reason Belle Have and EPA were cheap was a very high crime rate. Now that that's fixed, you can't expect to make the area artificially undesirable to keep out the Yuppies when it's at the center of the New Economy Universe.