Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-23 City CouncilTO: FROM: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Attention: Policy and Services Committee CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING DATE: SUBJECT: September 23, 1998 CMR:359:98 SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-GENERATED AIRCRAFT NOISE RECOMMENDATION The purpose of this staff report is to provide information that will help facilitate discussion of the issue of noise generated by aircraft flying over Palo Alto on its way to San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee review and discuss this issue and make an appropriate recommendation to the Council for its consideration. BACKGROUND Noise from aircraft flying over Palo Alto on the way to SFO has become an increasingly serious issue for Palo Alto residents and surrounding communities. While residents are concerned about aircraft noise throughout the day, complaints have been heaviest regarding early morning and late night, flights arriving, primarily, fi’om the Pacific Northwest, South Pacific, Europe, Asia, and the Big Sur approach from Southern California. Several Palo Alto residents and members of a Peninsula-based organization, UPROAR, have repeatedly approached the City regarding their concerns about aircraft noise. In response to a memo from Council Members Eakins and Mossar (Attachment A), Council referred this issue to the Policy and Services Committee for discussion and possible recommendation(s) back to Council. It is staff’s understanding that the authority to control and regulate aircraft in flight and on the ground is vested exclusively in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Federal law pre-empts any local government from implementing any action intended to determine the routes of aircraft in flight. However, the California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Section 5012, establishes a standard for acceptable level of aircraft noise for persons living in the vicinity of airports as a Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) of 65 decibels (db). The CNEL is a measurement that takes into account the noise emitted by all aircraft during a 24 hour period. The standard is not applied to single-event aircraft noise levels. Single-event noise is the CMR:359:98 Page 1 of 6 type of noise to which most people are sensitive. However, as per the variance issued by Caltrans to SFO, based on the outcome of a court case in the early 1970’s, the State of California cannot regulate single-event aircraft noise. Furthermore, Palo Alto is outside of the 65db CNEL contour area, which means that the noise level in Palo Alto is below 65db, and State standards do not identify noise levels below 65db as problematic. Nonetheless, many residents continue to experience single-event aircraft noise impacts. Title 21, Section 5053 of the California Code of Regulations permits Caltrans to grant a variance to an airport operator exceeding the 65db CNEL, if it is in the public interest to do so. SFO is the second largest airport in Califomia and the fifth largest in the U.S., with regard to the number of passengers served. Consequently, the airport is a major part of the national and international transportation system. SFO does exceed the 65db CNEL in some areas close to the airport. However, due to its economic, social, and political importance~ Caltrans continues to renew SFO’s request for a variance to Caltrans noise standards. The latest variance was issued August 21, 1998. The conditions of approval for the variance were set by the State. Most of the conditions of approval make reference to the Roundtable working with the airport to enforce and manage noise programs, provide information ¯ regarding airport noise, discuss new concepts for reduction of aircraft noise, and to develop a work program for noise abatement. Since the City of Palo Alto is not a member of the Roundtable, it directly requested Caltrans to include in the conditions of approval certain conditions to help mitigate noise problems within Palo Alto (Attachment B). Additional Runway at SFO A project to add anadditional runway is under consideration at SFO. The intent of this project is to reduce delays to aircraft landing during inclement weather by providing sufficient separation between runways, so that aircraft can land simultaneously, on different runways. City staff has discussed the concern regarding the possibility of an additional runway with a SFO representative. It is staff’s understanding that the airport is in the process of conducting a feasibility study to realign or reconfigure existing runway(s) to reduce delays to aircraft landing during inclement weather conditions and not necessarily add a runway. In clear weather conditions, visual landing techniques are used and up to 100 aircraft can land per hohr. However, under inclement weather conditions, which require use of instrument landing techniques, only 50 aircraft can land per hour. As a result, aircraft traffic backs up and causes substantial delays. DISCUSSION The Airport/Community Roundtable is the only existing mechanism for local communities to address SFO-generated aircraft noise in a coordinated manner. The Roundtable was created in 1981 through a Memorandum’of Understanding (MOU) between the Counties of San Mateo and San Francisco, the San Francisco Airports Commission, and eleven cities within northern San Mateo County. The purpose of the MOU was to create a forum for discussion and implementation of the noise reduction and mitigation measures identified in the San Francisco/San Mateo County Joint Land Use Study for SFO completed earlier. Objectives set forth in the MOU are included as Attachment C. CMR:359:98 Page 2 of 6 In 1997, the MOU was amended ("MOU Amendment") to open up the membership in the Airport Roundtable to all cities within San Mateo County. Since that date, Atherton, Menlo Park, Redwood City, and others have become members. In response to community concerns, the City has on two occasions expressed its interest in-becoming a member of the Roundtable. However, both of the City’s requests were denied. Instead, the Roundtable Chair, Patrick Kelly, refen’ed Palo Alto to the Regional Airport Planning Committee (RAPC). The RAPC includes representatives from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). It is an advisory body to MTC and ABAG regarding all airport-related issues in the nine Bay Area counties. Palo Alto made two written requests to become a voting member of the Airport/Community Roundtable. Both requests were denied. The Menlo Park City Council, in its regular meeting of May 19, 1998, unanimously adopted a resolution requesting Roundtable Member Agencies to amend the MOU to admit the City of Palo Alto as a voting member. In June 1998, the City of Palo Alto sent a letter to all of the Roundtable Member Agencies requesting that they take appropriate action to amend the MOU and admit the City of Palo Alto as a voting member (Attachment D). The Roundtable considered this matter on June 3, 1998, and denied Menlo Park’s request to amend the MOU to admit Palo Alto by a vote of eight to five. City staff continues to attend Roundtable Board meetings, workshops, and public information meetings. This pro~?ides an opportunity to learn about the aircraft noise issue and the effectiveness, albeit limited, of local government to influence airportoperations and FAA regulations. In addition to Palo Alto’s attempts to join the Roundtable, the City responded positively to .a letter from Atherton Mayor Dudley (January 1997) supporting his offer to spearhead an effort to establish a coalition of elected officials from affected communities to address aircraft noise issues. The City sent a letter :to the Federal Aviation Administration expressing concerns and requesting that it establish effective measures for reducing the negative impact caused by aircraft noise. Letters fi’om the Mayor were sent to State Senators Kopp and Sher and State Assembly Members Lempert and Papan, expressing concern about aircraft noise issues and soliciting their support to see that the noise variance, which SFO was seeking from Caltrans, not be reissued and that only a temporary extension be approved. The City has supported legislation (SB 1853 - Kopp) to address the aircraft noise issue, and Council Members and staff have met with State and Federal representatives and to suggest possible regulatory and/or legislative options to address the aircraft noise issue. CMR:359:98 Page 3 of 6 Possible Options for Other Local, State, or Federal Action Local Action 1. Palo Alto could disseminate the telephone numbers of the SFO noise automated hotline and the SFO Noise Monitoring Center, which would provide residents concerned with aircraft noise a means to register their complaint directly with SFO. Palo Alto could take an active role in the RPAC meetings, including working with the RPAC to have Palo Alto concerns addressed in the RPAC Work Plan. An MTC staff member indicated, however, that pa~ricipation in the meetings may not bring about any changes or relief from aircraft noise in Palo Alto, because the RAPC is an advisory body which has no legal authority over any of the aiqgorts. Palo Alto could participate in efforts to develop a coalition that collectively could be more effective than an individual community in dealing with representatives of the ahport and the FAA. Should such a coalition be developed, it would require additional expertise on City staff. The level of expertise required to address the aircraft noise issue in a meaningful manner exceeds staff’s technical and legal experience. Federal Action 1. Request the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to require SFO to conduct a regional study of air traffic conta’ol requirements, constraints, and opportunities, with the goal of minimizing noise impacts. The study would include identification of the flight patterns and routes region-wide that are most environmentally desirable and determination of how to establish and coordinate use of routes while maintaining. aircraft safety, including implementing changes to flight patterns or procedures. Request the FAA to notify the City of Palo Alto prior to: (a) approving any additional flights over Palo Alto between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., (b) significantly increasing the number of flights over Palo Alto, or (c) implementing changes in flight patterns. 4 Request .the FAA to test increasing the altitude of aircraft flying over Palo Alto, including requhSng rigorous enforcement of the minimum height of planes flying over Palo Alto. State 1. Action The current noise standard uses a cumulative noise measure (65db CNEL). It does not adequately address the negative impact of single aircraft noise and vibration impacts. Due to the considerable increase in late night and early morning flights, a noise measure that places more weight on the impact of single-aircraft noise and vibration should be considered to address the noise issue. 2.Require airports, including SFO, to test noise monitoring equipment which may be outdated and install noise monitors in communities impacted by overflight noise, CIVIR:359:98 Page 4 of 6 including Palo Alto and sun’ounding communities, to assess noise levels, and implement steps to address noise issues. 3.Provide Caltrans the. authority to impose penalties if State noise regulations (cumulative or single aircraft noise) are not being met. The City could request State legislators to consider introducing legislation that would place more weight on the impact of single-aircraft noise, as well as work with State and. Federal legislators towards achieving some or all of the above-suggested actions at the State and Federal level. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This report does not represent a change to existing City policy. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS Currently, $10,000 is ~ available in the operating budget of the Police Department to gather a limited amount of data regarding the ~i’equency of occturence as well as the level of aircraft noise at ground level in Palo Alto. Staff is currently spending approximately an average of four person hours per week on this issue. Additional staff resources, including legal and technical assistance, may be required depending upon the Policy and Services Committee’s recommendations to the Council. If appropriate, staff will return to Council when the Committee’s recommendations are agendized with an estimate of additional resources required to implement the recommendations. ATTACHMENTS A.Council Memo refen’ing aircraft noise issue to Policy and Selwices Committee B.Letter to Caltrans requesting conditions be included in SFO variance C.Menlo Park letter identifying the objectives of the Airport/Community Roundtable Memorandum of Understanding D.Letter to Roundtable member agencies requesting that the City of Palo Alto be admitted as a voting member, CMR:359:98 Page 5 of 6 PREPARED BY: Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ANNE CRONIN MOORE Interim Director of Planning and Cot .unity Envir~r~ ent J i~. FLEMING / J ] lanager Patrick Kelly, Chair, Airport/Community Roundtable John Martin, Director, San Francisco International Airport Mary & Robert Carlstead Peter &Cynthia Hibbard Diane Close Nancy Stem James Juracisch Bette Kieman Jim Lewis Mary Robinson Jay Kuo Elizabeth & Bo Boudart Brace Jaffe & Zhenhua Wong Inge Crozier , Jane Sideris Ruth Carlton Warren Kallenbach Keith Yocam Ric Steinberger Jack Gottsman CMR:359:98 Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENT A City of Palo Alto 11 MEMORANDUM DATE:July 27, 1998 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Our Colleagues Council Members Eakins and Mossar City Policy on San Francisco International Airport Noise Airport noise is a generally increasing problem for a number of residents of Palo Alto. Several Palo Alto residents and members of a Peninsula-based organization, UPROAR, have repeatedly approached members of the City Council for assistance in relief from the noise generated by aircraft flying over Palo Alto on an approach-path to San Francisco International Airport (SFO). In response to community concerns, City Council has made two attempts to gain admittance to the Airport Roundtable. On both occasions, Council’s request was refused by Roundtable member cities. We believe that Council must now assess the issues related to concerns and complaints about airport-generated noise. Additionally, proposals now on the table for the addition of a third runway at SFO are creating increasing concern about potential future impacts. We ’ask our colleagues to support our request to refer these issues to the Policy and Services Committee for discussion and possible recommendation for action. May 28, 1998 Cit Palo Alto Office of the Mayor and City Coundl ATTACHMENT B Richard G. Dyer Airport Environmental Specialist Caltrans - Aeronautics.Program, M.S. 40 P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Dear Mr. Dyer: Thank you for providing us with an .opportunity to provide comments on the proposed decision regarding the application by San Francisco International Airport (SFO) for a variance to the State Noise Standards. On December 22, 1997, then Palo Alto Mayor, Joe Huber, requested that the variance be granted subject to several conditions. It is noted that none of the conditions Palo Alto requested are included in the va6ance, except that SFO must info~Tn the Airport/Community Roundtable and cities within 20 miles of the ah-port about flight path changes. Since Palo Alto is not a member of the Roundtable and is more than 20 miles from the ahport, Palo Alto requests that this condition.be changed to inform cities within 30 miles of the ah-port. Most of the conditions of approval for the noise variance make a reference to the Roundtable for continued cooperation ha enforcing mad managing noise programs, providing information regarding air, port noise, discussing new concepts for reduction in aircraft noise, and developing a work program for noise abatement efforts, etc. Palo Alto supports the coordinated effo~*s of the Roundtable to develop a COlrmaon understanding regarding aircraft noise issues and to mil~ilnize noise impacts. However, as you know, Palo Alto has not been allowed to beco~ne a member of the Roundtable. Therefore, it has been forced to make comments separate from the Roundtable negotiations. Since the conditions of approval heavily rely on the cooperation of the Roundtable, and Palo Alto is not a member of the Roundtable, Pa~o Alto requests that the conditions of approval of the variance also include the following conditions to help mitigate noise problems in communities like Palo Alto. 1)Require SFO to document the number of complaints, (a) by city jurisdiction, including Palo Alto, and (b) by each individual call per flight. For instance, if five calls are received regarding flight A, and three calls regarding flight B, then eight complaints should be documented. In addition, calls from one individual regarding separate flights should be documented as separate complaints. P.O.Box10250 Palo Alto, CA94303 415.329.2477 415.328.3631 Fax Richard G. Dyer May 28, 19)8 Page 2 2)Kequire SFO to provide several noise monitors in Palo Alto, to provide the necessary data to address the aircraft noise issue. It is requested that a minimum of four monitors be provided for the following reasons: a)Planes that follow~ the Big Sur approach cross the city on a diagonal. To accurately assess the impact of noise across such a vast swath of geography requires more than a single monitor. We note that there are numerous monitors in San Francisco. b)The Big Sur approach is one of the most heavily used approaches. As the ah9ort’s expansion project is completed, or as artvals shift into evening horn’s, file impact of airport operation.s will be even greater. It is in the interest of the airport, as well as Palo Alto, to have numerous monitors so that a more accurate assessment of noise can be made than would be the case if a single monitor were installed. 4) Require SFO to request the FAA to test increasing the altitude of aircraft flying over Palo ARo, especially via the Big Sur approach. In the alternative, require SFO to request that the FAA rigorously enforce the minimmn height of planes flying over Palo Alto. As documented, the height of planes over Athe~on varied significantly during the early/hOming horns. It was apparentin the data fi’om the Woodside "Ve~y High Frequency Omnidirectional Range Station (VOR) test that a few low planes are the somce of many of the complaints about problems involving Atherton. It is Palo Alto’s belief that a similar variation is one source of the complaints from our residents, and that this variation may umeasonably deny our residents the quiet use and enjoyment of their property. It can also be reasonably assumed that a constant descent approach with rigorous adherence to the established altitude along the approach will result in noise mitigation along the entire path of descent, including within the 65 CNEL contom’. Caltrans should require that the airpm~ send a letter to the FAA requesting better enforcement. Palo Alto believes that the 65 CNEL standard is outdated. In addition, the 65 CNEL standard does not adequately take into account the negative impact of single-event aircraft noise occurrences. Single event occurrences that are clearly excessive should not simply be blended into an average. The average does not reflect the actual negative impact of the event. As a condition of the noise variance, Caltrans should require that the airport produce a report on different standards and measurement techniques used at aia~ports around the globe. It is beyond the research capability of Palo Alto to produce such a report. However, the SFO has this ability. The report should be produced within 90 days of the granting of the variance. Palo Alto and other communities can then begin to effectively consider options including possible changes in State and federal law. Richard G. Dyer May 28, 1998 Page 3 As a condition of the variance, Caltrans should require SFO to document all noise impacts on Palo Alto when modeling current and future approaches to the airport. The current work plan agreed to by the Roundtable may or .may not result in this evidence being produced. We want to ensure that any noise impact modeling carried out as a condition of the variance take into consideration the City of Palo Alto and its residents. Sincerely, DICK ROSENBAUM Mayor cc: City Council Patrick Kelly, Airport/Community Roundtable John Martin, Director, San Francisco International Airport Senator Byron Sher Senator Quentin Kopp Assembly Member Ted Lempert Assembly Member Anna Eshoo CHUCK KINNEY MAYOR PAULCOLLACCHI MAYORPROTEM ROBER! N. BURMEISTER COUN~ILMEMBER BERH~EVALENCtA COUNCILMEMBER STEPHEN SCHMIOT COUHCiLMEMBER ATTACHMENT C 701 LAUREL STREET / MENLO PARK, CA 94025-3483 / 650.858.3380 / ~:AX 650.328.7935 May 20, 1998 RECE!VF..D Patrick Kelly, Chair Airport/Community Roundtable c/o Planning & Development Division Department of Environmental Management County of San Marco .590 Hamilton Street Redwood City, CA 94063 OFFIC~ OE ~’{"]E CITY’ IV]ANAGE~ N/t¥ 2 8 1998 ; DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION Request to Admit the City of Palo Alto as a Voting Member of the Airport Roundtable At their regular meeting of May 19, 1998, the Menlo Park City Council unanimously adopted Resolution No. 4992 requesting that the Member Agencies of the Airport Roundtable amend the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Acceptance of the Joint Action Plan and Establishing an AirporffCommunity Roundtable to admit the City of Palo ’Alto as a voting member. The City Council requests that you agendize this matter for consideration at the June meeting of the R.oundtable. In 1981 the Counties of San Marco and San Francisco, the San Francisco Airports Commission, and eleven cities within San Marco Cminty entered into a Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Acceptance of the Joint Action Plan and Establishing an Airport/Community Roundtable ("MOU") creating what is referred to as the "Airport Roundtable". The purpose of the MOU was to create the Airport Roundtable and to set forth the following six objectives: Objective 1. Achieve compatibility between the Airport and its Environs in the shortest amount of time and with the least possible cost or disruption to the Airport and affected jurisdictions. Objective 2. Attain a consensus between the Airports Commission and local governing bodies on the individual Plan Elements and achieve a balance between the costs and benefits of the proposed actions and their economic, environmental, social and institutional impacts. Objective 3. Provide a mechanism that provides for cooperation between the Airport and local communities in reaching decisions on planning, zoning, and building matters in local communities, while recognizing local governments’ autonomy over those decisions. Objective 4. Protect and enhance existing residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Airport. Objective 5. Provide affected Environs jurisdictions with specific assistance to effectively deal with Airport/Environs compatibility problems. Objective 6. Provide a mechanism that ensures cooperation between the. Airport and local communities in reaching decisions on Airport land use and management, while recognizing the Airport’s authority over those decisions. Printed on recycled paper Letter {o P. Kelly AtrporffCommunlty P Page Two ¯ ~dtable In 1997, the MOU was amended ("MOU Amendment") to open up the membership in the Airport Roundtable to all cities within San Marco County. Since that date, Atherton, Menlo Park, Redwood City, and others have become members. According to the staff of the Airport Roundtable, the City of Palo Alto has approached the Airport Roundtable on at least one previous occasion requesting that it be admitted as a member. Apparently, Palo Alto has not been admitted previously due to concerns that if membership is expanded to include the City of Palo Alto, which is outside of San Mateo County, that other cities will similarly insis.t on becoming members, thereby diluting the original objectives of the Airport Roundtable. It is the City Council’s contention that Menlo Park and Palo Alto residents are similarly negatively impacted by noise generated from incoming flights to SFO. Therefore, the simple fact that Palo Alto is in another county should not prohibit it from representing its residents on the body created to protect existing residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Airport. The Menlo Park City Council respectively requests that the Airport P, oundtable amend the N1OU to admit the City of Palo Alto as a voting member of the Airport Roundtable. For the City Council, City Manager JMD/pc c:Richard Rosenbaum, Palo Alto Mayor San Mateo County Cities County of San Mateo Itr5-98 pp 2-3 City, : PaloAlto Office of the Mayor and City Council June 1, 1998 ATTACHMENT D Subject:Request to Amend the Memorandum of Understanding Acceptance of the Joint Action Plan and Establishing an Airport/Community Roundtable Dear ~~Salutatio~: "The purpose of this letter is to request that the ~.iiAgenc~) as a member of the Airport/Community Roundtable, take .appropriate action to amend the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding AcceptanCe of the Joint Action Plan and Establishing an Airport/Community Roundtable (MOU), to admit the City of Palo Alto as a voting member of the Roundtable. As you are aware from past con’espondence and discussions at the Roundtable meetings, Palo Alto has approached the Roundtable on two occasions requesting to be admitted as a member. Palo Alto has not been admitted due to concerns that if membership is expanded to include the City of Palo Alto, which is outside San Mateo County, that other cities will, similarly, insist on becoming members, thereby diluting the original objectives of the Airport!Community Roundtable. However, aircraft noise does not recognize county lines and Palo Alto is faced with many of the same .issues that impact the southern San Mateo County cities, which are outside ofthe existing 65 CNEL Contour Line of aircraft noise and were recently admitted to the Roundtable. As traffic continues to grow at San Francisco International Airport (SFIA), noise issues will continue to be a concern to Peninsula cities. Palo Alto believes the simple fact that it is in another county, should not prohibit it from representing its residents as a member of the organization that was created to protect existing residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of the San Francisco airport. Palo Alto strongly supports a coordinated effort to develop a common understanding regarding aircraft noise issues and work toward practical solutions for impacted communities. The Roundtable is the only existing mechanism for local authorities to address these issues in a coordinated manner. Palo Alto believes that SFIA is a regional asset of incomparable value and looks forward to joining the Airport/Community Roundtable to work toward increasing the beneficial impact of SFIA upon the region. P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2477 650.328.3631 fax Contac ).: June 1, 1998 Page 2 Again, we respectfially request that the ~Ageney~ take appropriate action to amend the MOU, to admit the City of Palo Alto as a voting member of the Roundtable. This letter is being sent to all of the Member Agencies of the P~oundtable. Thank you for your support in this matter and any other actions that help address concerns regarding the impaqt of aircraft noise on affected communities. Sincerely, DICK ROSENBAUM Mayor co:City Council Patrick Kelly, Airport/Community P~oundtable John Martin, Director, San Francisco International Airport Senator Byron Sher Senator Quentin Kopp Assembly Member Ted Lempert Congresswoman Anna Eshoo Distribution list of June 1, 1998 letter to Member Agencies of the Airport/Community Roundtable requesting amendment of MOU - Transmitted via fax Timothy Treaty (mailed via Fed Ex) San Francisco Airport Noise Committee City and County of San Francisco 20 Linares Avenue San Francisco, CA 94116 Mafia Ayerdi Office of the Mayor City and County of San Francisco City Hall, Room 200 San Francisco, CA 94102 John Martin Airport Director San Francisco International Airport Box 8097 San Franciso, CA 94128 Mary Griffin County of San Mateo Board of Supervisors County Government Center 401 Marshall Street, FirstFloor ¯ Redwood City, CA 94063 Herbert Foreman (mailed via Fed EX) C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee C/CAG of San Mateo County 360 Loyola Drive Millbrae, CA 94030 William Conwell Council Member Town of Atherton 541 Jefferson Avenue, No. 205 Redwood City, CA 94063 Coralin Feierbach Council Member City of Belmont 1070 Sixth Avenue Belmont, CA 94002 Sepi Richardson Council Member City of Brisbane P.O. Box AR Brisbane, CA 94005 Mike Spinelli Council Member City of Burlingame 1301 Mills Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Carol Klatt Council Member City of Daly City 333 Ninetieth Street Daly City, CA 94015 Marland Townsend Council Member City of Foster City 610 Foster City Boulevard Foster City, CA 94404 Betty Stone Council Member City of Half Moon Bay 501 Main Street Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 Patrick Kelly Council Member Town of Hillsborough 1415 San Raymundo Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 Charles Kinney Council Member CityofMenlo Park 701 Laurel Street Menlo Park, CA 94025 Mark Church Council Member City of Millbrae 208 South Ashton Avenue Millbrae, CA 94030 Barbara Carr Council Member City of Pacifica 120 Manor Drive Pacifica, CA 94044 Nancy Vian Council Member Town of Portola Valley 765 Portola Road ¯ Portola Valley, CA 94028 Matt Leipzig Council Member City of Redwood City P.O. Box 28 Redwood City, CA 94064 Chris Pallas Council Member City of San Bruno 1905 Donner Avenue San Bruno, CA 94066 Sue Lempert Council Member ¯ City of San Mateo 330 West Twentieth Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Karyl Matsumoto Council Member City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Sally Mitchell Council Member City of San Carlos ’ 3358 LaMesa Drive, No. 11 San Carlos, CA 94070