Attachment I

ATTACHMENT I

From: [email protected] To: _connectmenlo Subject: EPA pathway improvement recommendations Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 2:53:17 PM

Hello,

I was speaking with my neighbor Romain Taniere at the National Night Out event last night on Kavanaugh Dr about some improvements we would like to see in our neighborhood. He suggested that I send our ideas to you in case you can help:

- I work at Facebook and would love to see a pathway opened up between Adams Ct and Hamilton Ct to make the walk into work easier. I would feel much safer not having to walk down University Ave near the bay and also not having to walk on Willow as much as possible (my cousin was repeatedly cat called at when walking down this street by herself). There is a gate in between these 2 courts but it appears to be opened and closed at certain hours. Knowing this pathway is open at all hours would be much better. Another option would be to open up the back of the Prologis property to the area between Kelly Ct and Casey Ct.

- I also have a large dog and have to take him to a park every day to play with a ball. The closest park is across University Ave which is not convenient during rush hour traffic. I understand there used to be a pathway between 2555 and 2559 Hazelwood to the park at Cesar Chavez Elementary School. It would be great if that pathway could be re-opened.

Thank you for your time! Kimberly Baller

EPA resident since August 2015

I1 I2 August City the to changes 701 businesses Dear Menlo future Members Deanna carefully title of (Residential 1960’s property particular Drive airport pre-existing existence planning, residential commercial industrial/commercial required Dealing residential put others both property an Laurel of report Ms. in residents Menlo Park, and undue 18, or City To with It I I Despite Chow, One Menlo for am consider and to owners, Chow who and of has of agricultural I Street 2016 address developers at we use. see generated sign the officials Mixed non-conforming businesses CA the non-conforming one additional these will my that come Park other hardship might have Principal that Park. and M-2 open a are Menlo co-owners of be 94025 with the similar location complaints Use). this the the to Members free agencies provided and required area do Our and compatibility zone, for use and my no on concern at co-owners potential Park potential so. Planner, our from acknowledgement, family which parcels current our pre-existing attention prospective and for owners Certainly, perhaps are Planning property s,and use, uses, to regarding quality of property. limits the will its second- is would sign and the and problem in new or corresponding that past of unnecessarily which may of this that or future future a Menlo some rental the Commission are owners. we zoning existing partner light tenants the include restrictions 50+ the lodge zone and the Such 30,000 they are aware before changes acknowledgement intent years. industrial/commercial lawful residential space Park third-generation City regarding should designation aware complaints family may a use our that change that square Planning n unduly and dust, of it for to dust, with warehouse placed consider occurs, in wish Menlo that change clearly future built light zoning noise developers past anticipated noise, foot may to this with for Commission, on that industrial Park we conduct warn and light and the to consume warehouse that require our it property light before and the on recommend eight be by is current use traffic. industrial/commercial property future

Constitution r have contemplating the use incompatible and City traffic industrial/commercial future industrial and of unit our purchasing City. the by may land code this been sa As owners light at commercial prospective of warehouse our time uses. would 180 property, that be owners our enforcement, minimum, proposed tenants, and/or - considered Drive. and Constitution tenants. with any of Much property zoning be the could resources re-zoning R-MU in tenants or In future could like the any use to be in as sell “‘ of an a a I )

to obtain expensive and time consuming conditional use permits. These hindrances are the kind of thing that would make our industrial rental business much more difficult to conduct and could easily result in a loss of tenant base and income for our families.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Robert Battagin T & B Industrial Development P. 0. Box 1145 Woodacre, CA 94973

I3 From: Tim Bauman To: _CCIN Cc: _Planning Commission Subject: Housing in Menlo Park Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 9:19:04 AM

Dear Menlo Park City Council,

My name is Tim and I work at Facebook in Menlo Park. I’m writing in support of the general plan update allowing 4,500 new housing units. I urge the City Council to approve the general plan update with allowances for the full 4,500 additional units.

Sincerely,

Tim Bauman

I4 From: Chuck Bernstein To: _Planning Commission Cc: _CCIN; PlanningDept Subject: Item G2-General Plan FIA Date: Monday, September 12, 2016 6:22:23 PM Attachments: Letter to Planning Commission re FIA.pdf

Planning Commissioners:

Please see my comments on the Fiscal Impact Analysis that is on your agenda tonight. This is, in my opinion, intentionally deceitful work designed to advocate for development rather than an objective analysis of the impact of the development.

In the event you have trouble downloading my attachment, I have appended it below, unformatted.

--Chuck Bernstein

======Charles D. Bernstein 444 Oak Court Menlo Park, CA 94025 650-325-3365

September 12, 2016

Planning Commission City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel Street Menlo Park, CA 94025-2483

Re.: Item G2, General Plan/M-2 FIA

Dear Members:

As both a 48-year resident of Menlo Park and a member of the Board of Directors of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District, I vigorously object to both the form and substance of the BAE Urban Economics report, ConnectMenlo Fiscal Impact Analysis (³FIA²), dated September 7, 2016. I want to add that I have some experience in these types of analyses: in my former life as a business consultant, I qualified as an expert witness in legal proceedings involving business valuations.

I have not had much time to review the report, but what I have reviewed suggests that the report must be completely redone. Its methodology for addressing property taxes is at odds with normal property assessment procedures.

Because the first public hearing on this matter is tonight, I am only summarizing my main concerns below. In sum, if this report were done accurately and responsibly, its conclusions would be very different.

I5 Advocacy, Not Analysis

As the Menlo Park City Council reviews the potential impacts of massive future development, its members must have clear and realistic information to support their discussions. Unfortunately, the city continues to hire hacks who call themselves ³urban economists.² (If street-corner pot dealers used the same PR agent, they would be calling themselves, ³urban physicians.²) Rather than hold a Ph.D. in economics, these individuals have taken a real estate course or two and see their roles as providing advocacy for more development rather than objective analyses.

With respect to the FIA¹s section on property taxes, the most charitable things that can be said is that the unnamed preparers were incompetent. More likely, though, they were intentionally deceptive, because BAE did know the proper way to approach property taxes when they prepared the FIA for Menlo Park¹s Downtown Plan.

It would be helpful to the city¹s decision makers if city planning staff had at least one person capable of reviewing an FIA. Alternatively, a draft should be permitted for peer review to an objective reviewer.

Faulty Property Tax Methodology

A county assessor typically uses documented transaction values and construction costs to assess the value of existing properties and new construction. This assumes that the transaction value or the construction cost used represents an arms-length transaction and not a sale among related parties.

When these values are not readily available, which is rare, alternative methods are used. Often they are similar to those used by an appraiser. Those include book value (historical value of assets), modified book value (market value of assets), replacement value (cost to replace assets), operating value or earning value (capitalized value of the earnings potential of an asset as an investment), and perhaps one or two others. An appraiser will typically use many or all of the methodologies and then comment upon the appropriateness of each for the specific situation before determining a value or range of values. This is a subjective matter and there is, consequently, a wide range of possible values. An appraiser will often ask (discreetly) the purpose of the appraisal, which serves to reveal whether the client desires a low appraisal value or a high appraisal value.

In the present case, BAE has used the last methodology‹operating value or earnings value (see p. 23)‹to value the increase in value of the ³project² (really, series of projects in the M-2) to be built under the proposed General Plan. This was inappropriate and unnecessary (except, perhaps, to make the project look more attractive.) Not only is that methodology different than the one the San Mateo County Assessor will use, it is different than the methodology used when BEA prepared the FIA for Menlo Park¹s Downtown Plan.

BEA¹s methodology here values the current rents to be charged and the current earnings on hotel rooms at current capitalization values (5.00%-6.75%). The latter are the reciprocals of earnings multiples

I6 (14.8-20.0 X). This has the effect of reassessing at current values all of the underlying land involved, something that everyone knows, and the report itself states, will not occur.

What BAE should have done is what they did in the previous FIA they undertook for Menlo Park: value the construction costs, which would be the basis the County Assessor would use. I have taken a partially informed stab at this in the next section.

Change in Assessed Value Using a Normal Methodology

Using a normal methodology creates a huge change in the calculations. If one uses $250 per sq. ft. for the commercial development, the construction value would be $1.025 billion. If one uses $240,000 as the average cost per residential unit (1,200 sq. ft. X $200 per sq. ft.), the total construction value would be $1.320 billion, for a total of $2.345 billion. At 9% of 1%, Menlo Park¹s total property tax would be $2,110,500, only 34.1% BAE¹s estimate of $6,195,600.

It appears that the ILVLF component bears a linear relationship to the property taxes. Assuming that is so, the ILVLF would be $558,000 versus the $1,637,400 estimated by BEA.

In total, the estimate above of the two property-tax related items, $2,668,000, is over $5 million lower, than BEA¹s figure of $7,833,000. That drops the ³net fiscal impact² of the project by over half.

The drop in BEA's calculation of ³net fiscal impact² has an even more dramatic impact on the Fire District and local schools. It drops the net impact to the Fire District to a negative number and it further reduces the negative impacts on the schools.

Fire District

The Fire District¹s ³New Property Tax Revenue² is shown as $8,288,561, resulting in a ³Net Fiscal Impact² of $2,790,661 (see p. 58). Using the property tax estimate from above (34.1% of BEA figure) produces revenue of $2,823,457. The reduction in revenue would not change BEA¹s estimate of expenditures, $5,667,100. Bottom line, the Fire District ³loses² $2,843,643 under the ³project² scenario.

The last paragraph of the ³Revenues² section on page 57 is entirely disingenuous. As of the report date, the city has already indicated it would not move forward on impact fees and that should be noted in the report. Moreover, the statement, ³If the City Council does not adopt the fee, the MPFPD may be able to rely on other [unnamed] revenue sources,² is without foundation.

Other Objections

I have not had time to digest the full report, but I have some preliminary observations that would suggest that the other revenue estimates are overstated:

I7 1. The sales taxes use average consumption figures for the area. However, most of the residential housing is multifamily. Typically, those residents would have lower discretionary income and, therefore, the averages are probably not appropriate to use.

2. The sales taxes calculated exclude the impact of the free meals, and so forth, available to Facebook employees, even though Facebook housing appears to be included.

3. The transient occupancy taxes assume that all of the hotel rooms will be built. Given the hotel building that is going on elsewhere in Menlo Park and in neighboring cities, this is not assured at all.

4. The UUT estimates assume traditional usage patterns. However, the development is supposed to be energy and water efficient, meaning that the average may not be appropriate.

5. The ³other revenue² is both vague and suspect. These items appear to be fees for service provided by Menlo Park, but as such they are supposed to represent the actual cost of providing the service. If the services were provided, the city¹s expenditures should increase by roughly the same amount, and that does not appear to be the case. Looking at these as ³additional revenue² does not seem to be warranted. Nevertheless, this item represents about a quarter of all the additional revenue expected.

* * * * *

I ask that you take a very hard look at what has been given to you. I believe that a careful review of the figures and objective analyses will show that not only does the proposed project have serious impacts on our quality of life, it will prove to be a financial albatross as well.

Yours truly,

Charles D. Bernstein 650-424-1155 (w) [email protected]

CDB/ms c.c.: City Council

I8 From: Paul Chang To: _CCIN Cc: _Planning Commission Subject: General Plan Housing Update Date: Thursday, September 01, 2016 11:57:17 PM

Dear Menlo Park City Council,

My name is Paul and I've lived my whole life in both the south bay and san francisco. I'm currently an employee at Favebook in Menlo Park. I’m writing this in full support of the general plan update allowing 4,500 new housing units. I urge the City Council to approve the general plan update with allowances for the full 4,500 additional units. Rent or buy prices have been surging out of control and living in the bay has become less and less affordable. Ive considered moving out of the bay more and more, the worse the situation gets. But I believe that there is some incremental steps that each of our cities can make to help every economic class in our community thrive.

I further urge the Council to recommend and approve the allowances for new housing without any additional delay. Our city, county, and region is in the midst of a decades long housing shortage and housing delayed is housing denied. I know you have the authority to make positive changes for our community and this is something that many many people desperately need a change for.

Sincerely,

Paul Chang

-- Paul Chang Tufts University | School of Engineering '15 BS in Computer Science

I9 From: Robert Chen To: _CCIN Cc: _Planning Commission Subject: Please approve more housing in Menlo Park Date: Friday, September 02, 2016 8:14:48 AM

Dear Menlo Park City Council,

My name is Rob Chen, and I work at Facebook in Menlo Park. I'm writing in support of the 4,500 housing units pending approval in your general plan.

More local housing will ease commutes, reducing traffic and pollution, raising the standard of living for both people live and/or work in Menlo Park.

Thanks for reading, and please feel free to reach out if you have any follow-ups.

Regards, Rob Chen

Get Outlook for iOS

I10 From: Keith Ogden To: Katherine Strehl Cc: Chow, Deanna M; Cogan, Jim C Subject: CLSEPA memo on general plan; UC Berkeley report on Housing and Displacement Date: Friday, June 17, 2016 2:31:39 PM Attachments: CLSEPA Memo Re ConnectMenlo and Affordable Housing.pdf

Dear Commissioner Strehl:

My name is Keith Ogden, and I'm a housing attorney at Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto. Our mission is to provide transformative legal services that enable diverse communities in the Peninsula and beyond to achieve a secure and thriving future.

I provided a brief comment at the May 23 Planning Commission meeting on the topic of the General Plan update and affordable housing. In my comment I referenced a memo that CLSEPA submitted to the City of Menlo Park in April. I am attaching that memo in case you have not had a chance to review it. In it, we discuss the interrelated issues of economic development, jobs creation, traffic, housing creation (both affordable and market-rate) and displacement. We urge the creation of sufficient affordable housing to mitigate displacement of people and mitigate increased traffic and pollution. Please take a moment to review the memo. We plan to follow up with you in July to discuss in more detail the issues raised, as well as the possible solutions.

In addition, I'm providing a link to a UC Berkeley report which discusses in more detail the connections between affordable housing creation and displacement prevention. If possible, I recommend reading the report in its entirety (it's 12 pages long). The blog link below does a good job summarizing the report if you'd like to get a quick snapshot.

http://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/images/udp_research_brief_052316.pdf

http://www.urbandisplacement.org/blog/development-and-displacement

For context, you may have seen a Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) report from earlier this year discussing the housing crisis. That report in part relied on data gathered by this team of UC Berkeley researchers. Apparently, however, the LAO report was selective in the data that they used. As a result, the Berkeley researchers contend that the LAO report failed to analyze the effect of subsidized housing construction on stabilizing neighborhoods.

After looking at all the available data, the Berkeley researchers conclude that subsidized housing is twice as effective as market rate housing at stabilizing neighborhoods facing displacement pressures. The updated report does a great job at getting at the impacts of both market rate and subsidized housing and explaining why we need to create both to mitigate displacement and provide housing for all.

I look forward to following up with you soon.

Very best,

Keith Ogden, Esq. Senior Attorney, Housing and Economic Advancement Ph: (650) 391-0346 Fax: (866) 688-5204 Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto 1861 Bay Road East Palo Alto, CA 94303

PS. Check out this map of individuals who we have helped!

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This e-mail message from Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto is intended only for the individual to which it is addressed. This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail by accident, please notify the sender immediately and destroy

I11 this e-mail and all copies of it.

I12 I13 I14 I15 I16 I17 I18 I19 I20 I21 I22 I23 I24 I25 From: Matthew M J Conolly To: _CCIN Cc: _Planning Commission Subject: [housing] general plan update with allowances for 4,500 unit Date: Friday, September 02, 2016 1:28:12 PM

Dear Menlo Park City Council,

My name is Matthew Conolly and I work at Facebook in Menlo Park. I’m writing in support of the general plan update allowing 4,500 new housing units. I urge the City Council to approve the general plan update with allowances for the full 4,500 additional units.

Sincerely,

Matthew Conolly

I26 From: Alex Duff To: _Planning Commission; _CCIN Subject: Support for housing Date: Thursday, September 01, 2016 10:38:38 PM

Dear Menlo Park City Council, My name is Alex Duff and I work at Facebook in Menlo Park. I’m writing in support of the general plan update allowing 4,500 new housing units. I urge the City Council to approve the general plan update with allowances for the full 4,500 additional units. I further urge the Council to recommend and approve the allowances for new housing without any additional delay. Our city, county, and region is in the midst of a decades long housing shortage and housing delayed is housing denied. Sincerely, Alex Duff

I27 From: Patti L Fry To: _Planning Commission Subject: General Plan Growth Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 12:45:34 PM

Dear Planning Commission, During your July 11th meeting about the General Plan, I had made a comment about the General Plan allowing 50% growth of population and housing and 70% growth in employment from now until 2040. That statement was questioned during your discussion, and the GPU consultant replied incorrectly about the math, perhaps misunderstanding my comment.

The arithmetic is simple: it is the comparison between Existing conditions and 2040 Buildout. That's how one calculates the growth between now and the year 2040 of 50% population/housing growth and 70% growth of jobs, If you look at deir page 3-29, put numbers from 1 to 6 above the columns starting from left to right. My comparison was between column 1 and 6. I think the consultant responded by comparing only columns 5 and 6.

Most of the projected growth is due to unapproved, and even un-proposed potential projects, in the columns between. Column 2 from the left contains both approved/not-built projects and proposed/not-approved projects. It would be helpful to see those separately, as was done for the Facebook project.

But my point was that the General Plan Update Update encompasses all the unapproved potential growth. The General Plan update includes updating the Land Use and Circulation Elements are being updated, adding zoning changes for M-2, and reaffirming the zoning provisions for the rest of the city. If the type or amount of growth seems low or high, this is the ideal time to tackle such questions because this update is the first time in 22 years (since 1994) that we have this picture of what exists and what is ahead by continuing with current Land Use Element's zoning.

There also was a question about where to put more housing. This is the time to examine such questions. There are opportunities in column 4 (potential new projects) and even in column 2 for proposed projects in the works. The consultant's response focused only on column 5 (M-2).

Hope this is helpful. Patti

I28 From: Patti L Fry To: _Planning Commission Subject: General Plan Update FIA Date: Monday, September 12, 2016 5:34:21 PM

Dear Planning Commissioners,

As stated in the staff report, "The FIA is an informational tool to help members of the public and decision-makers to understand the potential fiscal implications as a result of the proposed project.” and "The Planning Commission and City Council will need to consider whether the proposed land use changes and zoning requirements reflect desired development and support the overall Guiding Principles, and goals and policies of the General Plan Update.”

Your discussion this evening is important in determining whether the Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) adequately portrays the potential fiscal implications and whether there may be some changes necessary to the General Plan Update (GPU) to help ensure that the desired financial i- and other - impacts are more likely. Following are some observations and suggestions for your discussion about both these topics:

REVENUE - the primary source of General Fund revenue is property taxes, followed by sales tax, and hotel TOT. Most special districts, including the schools, rely on property taxes. Thus, close examination of the FIA assumptions is in order.. It appears to me that the revenue expectations from the M-2 area could be highly overstated.

PROPERTY TAX REVENUE - with the majority of nonresidential growth (56%) and residential growth (82%) forecast to occur in the M-2 area, you should probe into the following questions: Why does the FIA assume property re-assessments would be based on a valuation method rather than actual transaction costs? Generally the land and improvements are separately assessed. The FIA uses a valuation method that includes the value of the land. This is inappropriate in M-2 because there are a few property owners who own virtually all of the land, and hold it for very long periods of time, and rarely turnover. Thus, it is not appropriate to assume that re-assessments of the land will occur. In M-2, in particular, It is more appropriate to assume the county assessor will re-assess the land when and if it ever turns over. Only the net new assessment of buildings/improvements when constructed should be assumed for M-2 non- residential development.

Why is there an expectation in M-2 that the land will turnover (FIA page 33) . With the exception of the Facebook land, there has been little turnover of other pieces of non-residential land in M-2 and there should be little expectation for it to do so in the future. In M-2, the future residential properties are on that same land. An annual rate of turnover of 7% is very high for non-residential in an area where it rarely changes hands. Because the projected new residences in M-2 will be on what is now non-residential land, and will be rentals, it also is inappropriate to assume these properties turnover at the same rate as residential properties in other parts of Menlo Park. It would be more appropriate to assume they turnover at a similar rate as M-2 non-residential properties,

I29 which is almost never. The projected property taxes for land and buildings portions should be separated clearly in the FIA. The expectation of re-assessed M-2 land should be extremely modest, and accordingly reduced. This would lower the General Fund and special districts revenue projections. SALES TAX REVENUE - The sales tax revenue from both businesses and employee spending is overly high for the M-2 area. Why does the FIA apply the median of business sales tax revenue from the past 15 years when the business market has shifted to types of uses that provide virtually no sales tax revenue? The FIA includes the historical range of sales tax revenue but provides no current or future market explanation for why it applies the median from such a long period of time. In M-2, in particular, the office and light industrial market has shifted away from sales-tax producing corporate sales offices, manufacturing and distribution to professional services and internet services/social media, which provide little if any sales or use tax revenue. The days of revenue-producing business offices for SUN Microsystems, Raychem/Tyco are gone.

Why does the FIA assume that employee spending will be similar to national suburban employment areas near shopping centers?. With more than half of the employees in the Project working in M-2 (56%), this assumption is quite high. If current M-2 data about employee spending were available, that would be more helpful than using a national statistic because the Silicon Valley tech company practices are not prevalent nationally. Additionally, there is no assurance there will be a shopping center in M-2, or even ANY retail. The GPU rezoning allows it but does not require any retail or restaurants. In fact, it has maximum FAR for commercial uses, but no minimum FAR. The leakage of retail spending by new employees and new residents in M-2 could be far higher than in the rest of Menlo Park. There is a shopping center in East Palo Alto. The traffic to other parts of Menlo Park is projected to be much worse than currently. It will be much easier for new employees and residents to shop/eat in EPA, Palo Alto, Redwood City than Menlo Park. Tech company and Silicon Valley employer practices do not resemble those employers in other parts of the country. The FIA should apply local data about employee spending, which is probably less than elsewhere in the US. The FIA should provide more realistic assumptions about employee and residential spending in the M-2 area, and more realistic taxable business-to-business revenue based on current and forecast market conditions, not based on historical information from market conditions that are very unlikely to recur. This would lower the revenue projections for the General Fund in particular.

IMPACT FEES - The FIA displays Impact Fees and merely states that these "offset the anticipated impacts" without clearly stating that impact fees can never result in net revenue because they are required to have a nexus with costs. SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACTS - the staff report does not include the following information that is in the FIA. The projected deficit, even though using the FIA's overly-optimistic property tax revenue assumptions, shows that the Menlo Park City School District would suffer a deficit equivalent to 11% of its budget, Las Lomitas 3% of its budget, and Sequoia Union High School District 4% of its budget. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - None of the new zoning districts for M-2 require any revenue-producing uses. It would be more likely for new employees and residents to Live, Work, Play in Menlo Park if there were a minimum requirement. This requirement could be in any or all of the new zoning districts at the Base level, or could be a requirement at the Bonus level to

I30 ensure some of the projected sales tax revenue. Otherwise, there is no assurance there would be any from business-to-business transactions. There is little assurance that spending by new employees and new residents would be anything similar to the rest of Menlo Park or national averages. A design point of the GPU was to "streamline" development, which means that there would be little to no opportunity to negotiate for revenue benefits. There could be a required Bonus level negotiation, with support for schools listed as a potential public benefit. The streamlining could be for businesses that produce revenue, and negotiated agreements for those that do not (must apply to change of use, too). For full disclosure, the FIA should show the range of revenue possibilities, adjusted as suggested above. With appropriately reduced property tax and sales tax assumptions from M-2 area, it is quite possible that the total revenues will not exceed expenses. This reality, in turn, should result in serious revisions to address the need to support a better mix of revenue-producing land use and/or decisions that result in alternative revenue sources, ideally from the same property owner that take advantage of increased development potential from the GP update.

Sincerely,

Patti Fry, MBA and former Planning Commissioner

PS My comments are intended to be part of the record regarding the GPU, its FIA and EIR.

I31 October 7, 2016

SUBJECT: General Plan Update and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Update DEIR - Additional Comments

Dear City of Menlo Park,

For the record, below are additional comments related to the General Plan Update (“GPU”) and Zoning Ordinance Amendment (“ZOA”), and related Draft EIR.

General Plan Update – If the city is serious about addressing the local and regional housing shortage, traffic congestion, and climate change, it will put quantifiable objectives and measurable milestones in the Goals, Policies, and Programs (“GPP”). The current General Plan has some metrics (e.g., related to traffic congestion), but the revised GPP’s do not. I do not believe there are ANY metrics. The City and community cannot manage what it does not measure. If the City is serious about addressing the housing shortage rather than exacerbating it with its land use rules, about promoting alternative means of getting around other than vehicles, and attaining its stated climate change objective, there would be quantified goals (e.g., desired jobs/housing balance, total and average VMT, LOS for specific parts of our town’s roadway system, GHG emissions) related to these that are time-bound, with clear programs with measurable milestones that could realistically achieve the goals over defined timeframes. Such measurable goals and milestones must be identified in the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the updated General Plan.

Zoning Ordinance Amendments – There are several issues regarding the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments (“ZOA”). First, the only proposed changes are in the M-2 district whereas the current zoning rules need to be re-examined citywide since that has not been done comprehensively since 1994. It is unfortunate that the City Council directed the GPU/ZOA effort to consider zoning changes only in the M-2 zoning district. This limitation means that current zoning rules will guide future growth citywide through 2040. Most of the rules were put in place in 1994, when Menlo Park and the larger region were quite different in terms of population, jobs, traffic congestion, even roadway configurations (e.g., intersection of Sand Hill Road with El Camino didn’t exist until 2001), and business practices were very different.

Second, the proposed new Office and Life Sciences Districts allow significantly increased worker densities (and related housing demand) but ban housing in those two districts. The M-2 area west of highway 101 is an ideal area in which to allow more housing. It is near a shopping center, and closer to transit and schools. Allowing, even promoting, housing in that area could go a long way towards alleviating the shortage.

Third, both the proposed rules and the current rules would perpetuate, possibly worsen, an imbalance of jobs and housing. They ignore current business practices regarding office worker densities and market preferences for developing offices rather than residential or other commercial

Comments GPU ZO DEIR additional 20161006 Page 1 of 5

I32 uses desired by residents. An analysis of the rules in the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan (“ECR/D SP”) and the proposed new Residential Mixed Use District (on pages 4 and 5) shows that additional development in these areas is likely to worsen, not alleviate, the housing shortage.

Note that it is very unclear what the proposed zoning rule changes really are. See the attached chart (page 3) that compares various versions from currently available City documents that I could find (not an easy task). The attached analysis evaluates each version; each version allows worsened housing shortage from new development in the proposed Residential Mixed Use District, some more than others. The General Plan Advisory Committee (“GPAC”) reviewed the Land Use Element draft, not the other versions. The EIR must be more clear what it is evaluating, and that should honor the hard work of the GPAC.

Last, the analyses provided herein assume current tech company worker density norms of 150 SF/office worker. The DEIR does not, assuming an average (including life sciences offices) of more than 300 SF/worker. This is not appropriately conservative for analyzing potential impacts of the GPU. We know that some companies are already using worker densities of only 75 SF/worker (see article http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/08/03/menlo-park-amsterdam-firm-opens-co-working-space-in-belle-haven/), with 400 desks in a 30,000 SF building.)

If the current and proposed rules that virtually ensure continued, probably worsened, housing shortages are not addressed in this process, the city could be accused of acting irresponsibly and could assume related risks.

EIR - I want re re-emphasize the need for the City to analyze Maximum Allowable Development (“MAD”) with existing and proposed rules citywide, including in the ECR/D SP area (the MAD in this area was never identified when it was adopted). Our community and decisionmakers need to know the results if every property were developed to the maximum it could be. The 1994 General Plan did that; this one should, too.

Thank you for your consideration,

Patti Fry

Menlo Park resident and former Planning Commissioner

Comments GPU ZO DEIR additional 20161006 Page 2 of 5

I33 Draft Land Use Element Oct. 2015: Draft Zoning Ordinance for Planning GPU DEIR page 3-26 LU-13 to LU-14 from city website 7/25/16 Commission 5/23/16 June 2016 Office. “This designation provides for office and research Office (Attachment D pages 2, 4) Office (O). “This district allows new high-tech office, R&D, and development uses, business-oriented community “Maximum FAR at Base 45% (plus and life sciences uses, along with supportive commercial education and training facilities, supportive commercial 10% commercial and 175% hotel, if retail and personal services for nearby employment and retail and personal services, residential, and hotel uses. The allowed) hotel uses. The district also accommodates existing light- designation also accommodates existing and new light- Maximum Bonus FAR 100% (plus 25% industrial uses and new light-industrial uses that are not in industrial uses that are not in conflict with existing or commercial)” conflict with existing or planned commercial, residential, or planned commercial or residential uses in the vicinity. Maximum commercial 10% at Base; O district uses in the vicinity. Hotels are allowed as an option Hotels are allowed as options in several locations. The 25% at Bonus in several locations. The maximum base FAR shall be 45 maximum base FAR shall be 45 percent and the maximum percent, plus 10 percent for commercial uses. The maximum bonus FAR with community amenities shall be 100 percent. Office a Permitted use up to 250,000 bonus-level FAR with community amenities shall be 100 Maximum FAR for retail and service uses shall be 25 SF. Requires CUP >250,000 SF percent, plus 25 percent for commercial uses. The maximum percent and for hotels shall be 175 percent.” FAR for hotels shall be 175 percent.”

Life Sciences. “This designation provides for new life Life Sciences (Attachment E pages Life Sciences (LS). “This district allows new life sciences and sciences and R&D uses, along with high-tech office and 3,4) R&D uses, along with limited high-tech office and small- small-scale supportive commercial retail and personal Maximum Base FAR “55% plus 10% scale supportive commercial retail and personal services for services for nearby employment, residential and hotel uses. Commercial” nearby employment and hotel uses. The district also The designation also accommodates existing light- Maximum Bonus FAR is “125% plus accommodates existing light-industrial uses and new light- industrial uses and new light-industrial uses that are not in 10% commercial” industrial uses that are not in conflict with existing or conflict with existing or planned commercial or residential Maximum commercial 10% at Base, planned commercial, residential, or LS District uses in the uses in the vicinity. The maximum base FAR shall be 55 10% at Bonus vicinity. The maximum base FAR shall be 55 percent, plus a percent and the maximum bonus FAR with community maximum 10 percent for commercial uses. The maximum amenities shall be 125 percent. Maximum FAR for retail Office a Permitted use up to 20,000 bonus-level FAR with community amenities shall be 125 uses shall be 25 percent.” SF. Requires CUP >20,000 SF percent, plus 10 percent for commercial uses.”

Mixed Use Residential. “This designation provides for Residential-Mixed Use (Attachment F Residential – Mixed Use (R-MU). “This district allows high- higher density housing to meet the needs of all income pages 4, 5) density residential/retail mixed-use development along levels. It also allows mixed use developments with Maximum residential Base “Floor specific retail corridors. Retail uses can range from small- integrated or stand-alone retail and services uses, and area ratio shall increase on an even scale businesses that serve nearby employment to a large- offices that comply with the purposes of the Office gradient from 60% for 20 du/ac to format grocery that also serves adjacent neighborhoods. Designation. Retail uses can range from small-scale 90% for 30 du/ac.” The district is intended to promote the creation of businesses that serve nearby employment to a large- Maximum residential Bonus FAR residential and residential mixed-use neighborhoods format grocery that also serves adjacent neighborhoods. 200% with “>30 du/acre to oriented toward pedestrians, transit, and bicycle use, The Mixed Use Residential Designation is intended to 100 du/acre” especially for commuting to nearby jobs. Residential density promote live/work/play environments oriented toward Maximum commercial FAR is 15% at shall not exceed 100 dwelling units per net acre at the bonus pedestrians, transit, and bicycle use, especially for Base, 25% at Bonus level. Maximum FAR shall be 25 percent for office, retail, commuting to nearby jobs. Residential density shall not Bonus FAR requires at least 15% of and service uses, and 200 percent for residential uses at the exceed 50 units per net acre. Maximum FAR shall be 50 residential units “affordable housing” bonus level.” percent for office uses, 25 percent for retail and service Office a Permitted use up to 20,000 uses, and 100 percent for residential uses.” SF. Requires CUP >20,000 SF

Comments GPU ZO DEIR additional 20161006 Page 3 of 5

I34 THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AMENDMENT ALLOWS A WORSENED HOUSING SHORTAGE

ConnectMenlo RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE DISTRICT The General Plan Update, draft Land Use element and Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment seem to allow office to be between 0.25 and 0.50 FAR Below is an anaysis of the built-in housing shortage perpetuated by the proposed Mixed Use Residential zoning, using a hypothetical 1 acre site. The other two, larger, proposed zoning districts (Office and Life Sciences) would increase the allowable square feet, therefore more jobs and housing demand but do not allow any housing. This analysis assumes that a developer maximizes the allowable office and maximizes the allowable housing units. A housing shortage results with the detailed zoning rules provided in the draft Zoning Ordinance and draft General Plan Land Use Element

HOUSING DEMAND MINIMUM HOUSING MAXIMUM HOUSING OFFICE @ MAXIMUM HOUSING SHORTAGE SOURCE MAXIMUM FAR UNITS UNITS FAR IMPACT (WORSENED) DOCUMENTS BASE BONUS BASE BONUS BASE BONUS BASE BONUS BASE BONUS GPU DEIR (3-26) Residential 2.00 100 [27, if Office, Retail, minimum service uses 0.25 57 30 units] Draft Zoning Ordinance* Residential 0.60 to 0.90 2.00 20 30 20 to 30 30 to 100 4 to 14 27 to 43 Commercial 0.15 0.25 34 57 Draft Land Use Element Residential 1.00 50 63 Retail/Services 0.25 [83, if minimum Office 0.50 113 30 units] Assumptions 1 acre site or 43,560 SF 150 SF/office worker (Facebook and tech company norm) 1.28 employed residents/household (assumption used in ECR/Downtown Specific Plan) *Office is a Permitted ("by right") use up to 20,000 SF. To exceed 20,000 SF of office, a project would require a Conditional Use Permit.

Sources: General Plan Update DEIR June 2016; draft Zoning Ordinance, Planning Commission staff report 5/23/16; draft Land Use Element October 2015 (city website July 2016)

When a developer wants to maximize office SF in the Residential Mixed Use District, the project would always cause more housing demand than the site could provide because the proposed rules allow so much office FAR. The other two proposed Districts ban housing, so their upzoning also will add to housing demand and worsen the housing shortage.

Comments GPU ZO DEIR additional 20161006 Page 4 of 5

I35 THE CURRENT ECR/DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN ALLOWS A WORSENED HOUSING SHORTAGE

ECR/D Specific Plan Perpetuates Housing Shortage The ECR/D Specific Plan has different maximum FAR (Base and Bonus) for its various zoning districts. It allows office to be up to 50% of the FAR Below is an anaysis of the built-in housing shortage perpetuated by the current zoning, using a hypothetical 1 acre site. This analysis assumes that a developer maximizes the allowable office and maximizes the allowable housing units. In ALL cases, a housing shortage results.

HOUSING SHORTAGE MAXIMUM HOUSING HOUSING DEMAND EVEN IF HOUSING MAXIMUM FAR MAXIMUM OFFICE SF UNITS* OFFICE @ 50% FAR MAXIMIZED LARGE SITES IN ZONING ZONING DISTRICT BASE BONUS BASE BONUS BASE BONUS BASE BONUS BASE BONUS DISTRICT ECR NE-Low Density 0.75 1.10 0.38 0.55 20 30 85 125 65 95 ECR NE 1.10 1.50 0.55 0.75 25 40 125 170 100 130 Greenheart Station 1300 ECR NE-Residential 1.10 1.50 0.55 0.75 32 50 125 170 93 120 Stanford Middle Plaza; Big 5 ECR SE 1.25 1.75 0.63 0.88 40 60 142 199 102 139 shopping center ECR NW 1.10 1.50 0.55 0.75 25 40 125 170 100 130 ECR SW 1.10 1.50 0.55 0.75 25 40 125 170 100 130 Safeway shopping center Station Area East 1.35 1.75 0.68 0.88 50 60 153 199 103 139 Station Area West 2.00 2.25 1.00 1.13 50 60 227 255 177 195 Downtown 2.00 2.25 1.00 1.13 25 40 227 255 202 215 Downtown Adjacent 0.85 1.00 0.43 0.50 18.5 25 96 113 78 88 Menlo Church * No minimum number of housing units required

Assumptions 1 acre site or 43,560 SF 150 SF/office worker (Facebook and tech company norm) 1.28 employed residents/household (assumption used in ECR/Downtown Specific Plan)

The housing demand is calculated by dividing the maximum allowed office FAR by the current office worker density to get the number of workers, and then dividing that by the average number of employed residents per household. For example, in the ECR-SE zoning district, the calculation at the Base level would be 1.25 FAR times 43,560 SF, multiplied by 50%, divided by 150 SF/office worker. The result is divided by 1.28 employed residents/household. Once the allowed housing density goes above 40 units/acre, then the average size is smaller than 500 SF when office is 50% FAR.

When a developer wants to maximize office SF, the project would always cause more housing demand than the site could provide because the rules allow so much office FAR.

Comments GPU ZO DEIR additional 20161006 Page 5 of 5

I36 From: Deborah Guzman Barrios To: _CCIN Cc: _Planning Commission Subject: Housing Units Date: Friday, September 02, 2016 10:47:25 AM

Dear Menlo Park City Council,

My name is Deborah Guzman and I work at Oculus in Menlo Park. I’m writing in support of the general plan update allowing 4,500 new housing units. I urge the City Council to approve the general plan update with allowances for the full 4,500 additional units.

Sincerely,

Deborah Guzman

I37 From: William Hall To: _CCIN Cc: _Planning Commission Date: Friday, September 02, 2016 10:52:18 AM

Dear Menlo Park City Council,

My name is William and I work at Facebook in Menlo Park. I’m writing in support of the general plan update allowing 4,500 new housing units. I urge the City Council to approve the general plan update with allowances for the full 4,500 additional units.

Sincerely,

William

I38 From: Perata, Kyle T To: Perata, Kyle T Subject: RE: [email protected] Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 5:40:21 PM

From: Alex Hakso [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 8:18 AM To: _CCIN Subject: [email protected]

Dear Menlo Park City Council,

My name is Alex Hakso and I live in nearby redwood city. I’m writing in support of the general plan update allowing 4,500 new housing units. I urge the City Council to approve the general plan update with allowances for the full 4,500 additional units.

Every incremental change in housing represents another person or family who has their commute slashed, and their quality of life improved.

Sincerely,

Alex Hakso

-- Alex Hakso Ph.D. Candidate Stress and Crustal Mechanics Research Group

[email protected]

Department of Geophysics email address 397 Panama Mall Mitchell Bldg B57 Stanford, CA 94305

I39 From: David Hillier To: _CCIN; _Planning Commission Subject: Support for general plan update Date: Friday, September 02, 2016 11:54:18 AM

Hi there Menlo Park City Council!

My name’s Dave and I’m one of your local friendly Facebook employees at the end of Willow Road. Just wanted to write in and lend my voice of support to the general plan update allowing 4,500 new housing units. Housing and transportation are two of the most important challenges facing the Bay Area at the moment, so these additional units next to a major employer are sorely needed. I implore the Council to recommend and approve the allowances for new housing without delay as the longer we wait for steps like this in the right direction, the worse the situation becomes.

Sincerely, David Hillier

I40 From: Skip Hilton To: _Planning Commission Cc: _CCIN Subject: Support and Comment on the General Plan Update Date: Monday, July 11, 2016 5:43:40 PM

Dear Members of the Planning Commission:

I would like to provide some input to your discussion of Draft EIR for the General Plan Update taking place tonight. In general, I support the General Plan. As I am out of town and unable to attend the town hall, I want to make sure you are hearing from residents that support the proposals for developing housing, shopping, and amenities in the Bayfront/M2 Area.

First off, I want to commend the City Council, Planning Commission, and other Menlo Park officials for working with Facebook on these issues. Rather than just fighting their desire to grow, they are tapping this hub of economic investment and activity to solve other problems and improve our city. This is a lot more than just mitigating traffic impacts. I believe these officials deserve commendation for doing the hard work and taking this collaborative approach. Keep it up.

I also commend Facebook for proposing to build housing that will accommodate their growing employee base, and reduce the commute burden and traffic impacts created by their organization as it continues to expand and grow. My hope is that this housing stock will also serve non-Facebook employees, and provide more affordable housing options to the limited inventory of expensive housing up and down the peninsula.

My concern is that some residents and housing proponents will advocate for higher requirements on Facebook and other developers in the M2 that are so stringent and high as to stifle all efforts to build and improve the area. We see the same problem with the Downtown Specific Plan - just zoning for a specific number of units for housing does not mean that those units will actually be built. The higher the burden we place on the investors and developers interesting in improving the area through zoning, the less likely these projects will come to fruition. As I read it, the General Plan allows for 5500 new workers in the Bayfront/M2. We need to make sure that the housing being proposed is actually built so that these workers have the option of living nearby, so we start fixing our jobs/housing imbalance rather than making it worse.

Menlo Park also sorely lacks housing that is accessible to low and middle-income workers. We are unlikely to find the space to build significant numbers of affordable housing units in our downtown corridor, although this is an ideal location due to public transit access. The second biggest "hub" for public transit should be, and could be the Bayfront/M2. There is ample space to build high density, affordable housing throughout the General Plan area. The best tool for this is to require 15% of the units entitled by the General Plan be set aside as affordable housing, and I encourage the Commission to make this recommendation. This BRM rate is equal to Palo Alto's percentage and higher than San Mateo's. As I understand it, Redwood City does not require inclusionary zoning at all. At this BMR requirement level we could add nearly 700 units of affordable housing based on the 4500 total housing units proposed - affordable housing which we desperately need.

Finally, there are some concerns that Facebook in particular may not be able to develop all of the housing units with the current zoning. I believe they would like to build the housing.

I41 However, given the amount of housing we would like to see, it is foreseeable that a lack of FAR or height allowance could hinder this housing development, and require a need to ask for additional FAR and height exceptions on a project-by-project basis. In that case there is a real possibility that the financial incentives encourage them to build just SOME of the housing that is entitled, but build ALL of the office space that is entitled - a result which does not solve the jobs/housing imbalance. I would like to see a mechanism for the city to push for this housing to be completed. One approach would be to unlock the entitled office space in tranches as housing is developed in kind.

Regards,

Skip Hilton 148 Dunsmuir Way Menlo Park, CA 94025 Suburban Park

-- Skip Hilton [email protected] 650-799-1992

I42 From: Yvonne Lo To: _CCIN; _Planning Commission Subject: New housing units for Menlo Park Date: Friday, September 02, 2016 10:52:43 AM

Dear Menlo Park City Council,

My name is Yvonne Lo and I live in San Jose but I work at Facebook in Menlo Park. I’m writing in support of the general plan update allowing 4,500 new housing units. I urge the City Council to approve the general plan update with allowances for the full 4,500 additional units.

Sincerely,

Yvonne Lo

I43 From: Kristen Lopez To: _CCIN Cc: _Planning Commission Subject: Housing Shortage Date: Thursday, September 01, 2016 11:53:40 PM

Dear Menlo Park City Council,

My name is Kristen Lopez and I work at Facebook in Menlo Park. I’m writing in support of the general plan update allowing 4,500 new housing units. I urge the City Council to approve the general plan update with allowances for the full 4,500 additional units.

Sincerely,

Kristen Lopez Bread Sous Chef /// Facebook, Inc. MPK (650) 285-9080

I44 From: Rick Malins To: _CCIN Cc: _Planning Commission Subject: Please support the general plan update! Date: Friday, September 02, 2016 8:43:19 AM

Dear Menlo Park City Council,

My name is Rick Malins and I work at Facebook (1 Hacker Way) in Menlo Park. I’m writing in support of the general plan update allowing 4,500 new housing units in the area. I urge the City Council to approve the general plan update with allowances for the full 4,500 additional units. The area certainly has more capacity for housing, and by building more units, we can reduce road travel (especially for employees commuting to the area), help keep housing costs down by creating more housing stock and more affordable housing, and create a greater sense of community -- especially in the Bayshore area where Facebook is located.

Sincerely, Rick

I45 From: Daniel Obenshain To: _CCIN Cc: _Planning Commission Subject: Re: Housing and Public Transportation in Menlo Park Date: Friday, September 02, 2016 9:42:36 AM

Dear Menlo Park City Council,

My name is Daniel Obenshain. I live in East Palo Alto and commute to work each day at Facebook in Menlo Park. I am writing to you today to urge you to support the general plan update allowing 4,500 new housing units, and to make extending the Caltrain along the Dumbarton rail corridor a priority.

This additional housing will reduce pressures on the housing market in the area, allowing for shorter commute times overall, less traffic congestion, and more affordable housing options as the supply catches up with demand.

Extending the the Dumbarton rail corridor will enable more people to commute to work in Menlo Park by public transit, taking many cars off the road and relieving traffic congestion.

Sincerely,

Daniel Obenshain

I46 From: Gulaya Pizarro To: _CCIN Cc: _Planning Commission Subject: Please Provide More Housing Date: Friday, September 02, 2016 9:05:26 AM

Dear Menlo Park City Council,

I live in Bellehaven in Menlo Park and have the luck of living right by my office at Facebook. I’m writing in support of the general plan update allowing 4,500 new housing units. I urge the City Council to approve the general plan update with allowances for the full 4,500 additional units.

I have many co-workers that are commuting into the office from all over the Bay Area: Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose. One of my coworkers commutes from Tracy, CA, almost a THREE HOUR commute, one way. This is because she simply can't afford housing near the office and she lives and commutes from her parent's home.

While Facebook provides shuttles which reduces congestion, this is only a band-aid to the real problem. The lack of housing. It seems unfair that Menlo Park gets to reap the rewards of having a company like Facebook here without also supporting the community, city, county and Bay area at large with options for housing.

I urge the Council to recommend and approve the allowances for new housing without any additional delay. Our city, county, and region is in the midst of a decades long housing shortage and housing delayed is housing denied.

Sincerely,

Gulaya Pizarro

I47 From: Perata, Kyle T To: Perata, Kyle T Subject: FW: In support of more housing in the general plan Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 5:40:57 PM

-----Original Message----- From: Christian Preseau [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 10:28 PM To: _CCIN Subject: In support of more housing in the general plan

Hello,

I work in Menlo Park and live in an apartment just over the border in Palo Alto. Like everyone who has attempted to rent or buy property in the area recently, I have been frustrated by the lack of available units and the insane prices that creates.

I hear there is a proposal to update the Menlo Park general plan to allow 4,500 housing units to be build in the city. I would like to voice my strong support of this plan— the sooner we can get more housing on the market, the better!

Regards, Christian Preseau

I48 From: Andrew Regner To: _CCIN Cc: _Planning Commission Subject: Menlo Park General Plan Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:43:50 PM

Dear Menlo Park City Council,

My name is Andrew Regner and I work at Facebook in Menlo Park. I’m writing in support of the general plan update allowing 4,500 new housing units. I urge the City Council to approve the general plan update with allowances for the full 4,500 additional units.

I further urge the Council to recommend and approve the allowances for new housing without any additional delay. Our city, county, and region is in the midst of a decades long housing shortage.

My wife and I have lived in 5 different regions of this country and hope to settle down here. Menlo Park and the entire Bay Area is such a wonderful place it is no wonder that the people who have lived here their whole lives want to stay here, and anyone that moves here for work does too. It would be a sincere shame to see such a opportunity we have now for the future be passed by and see the region move in the wrong direction.

Sincerely, Andrew & Stacey Regner

I49 From: Diane Bailey To: _Planning Commission Cc: Charlie Knox; Chow, Deanna M Subject: Support for ConnectMenlo & Recommendations to Prevent GHG Increases Date: Monday, September 12, 2016 3:35:01 PM Attachments: Menlo Spark Comments on Draft EIR for ConnectMenlo.pdf C421302D-8C87-4C6E-9C4A-456168B4C399[52].png Connect Menlo GHG Analysis.xlsx

Dear Planning Commissioners, I’m unable to attend your meeting this evening and wanted to share some comments on the General Plan and M2-Area Zoning Update (item G2). We are strongly supportive of the updates to both the General Plan and Zoning, which will greatly improve the sustainability and vibrancy of the City as the region experiences significant growth.

Although the discussion tonight is focused on fiscal impacts, I want to take this opportunity to share our general comments on the Draft EIR and related analysis (please find these attached). The Draft EIR for ConnectMenlo discusses many significant benefits of the Plan; however, it finds "significant and unavoidable” Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. On a philosophical level, it is troubling to accept these impacts without further investigation and analysis of how they could be avoided. We have created an example of this type of analysis with recommendations on how to both improve the current GHG analysis in the EIR and steps to minimize additional impacts and provide additional benefits to communities.

We request that these improvements and additional measures be considered for potential inclusion in the Final EIR. Thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, Diane Bailey

Diane Bailey | Executive Director

MENLO SPARK

[email protected] | 650-281-7073

Visit us: www.MenloSpark.org

Find us on Facebook

Climate Neutral for a Healthy, Prosperous Menlo Park

I50 EV, PV & Fossil Free: Guides for Electric Cars, solar & Fossil Free Homes at: http://www.menlospark.org/get-report.html

I51 Climate Neutral for a Healthy, Prosperous Menlo Park

Ms. Deanna Chow, Principal Planner Planning Division City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel Street Menlo Park, CA 94025

Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report on the ConnectMenlo General Plan and M-2 Area Zoning Update, Comments and Recommendations

Dear Ms. Chow,

We are writing to comment on and propose strengthening improvements to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the ConnectMenlo General Plan and Zoning update (the Plan), which would further the sustainability, livability and economic vitality of Menlo Park. As an independent nonprofit organization, Menlo Spark is working with businesses, residents, and government partners towards a climate neutral Menlo Park by 2025. We strongly support the City of Menlo Park’s Climate Action Plan Goals, as well as the substantial growth and sustainability improvements envisioned by this Plan. However, without significant additional mitigations to what has been proposed in this DEIR, Menlo Park will experience an increase in carbon emissions, putting the 2020 Carbon goals out of reach and thwarting our long-term sustainability. We propose a suite of mitigations to help the City of Menlo Park grow in a healthy, responsible manner that preserves our environmental values, character and vibrancy.

Menlo Park has made many substantial steps towards becoming more sustainable. For example, the decision earlier this year to join the County’s Peninsula Clean Energy Program, with bold support for 100% renewable power will go a long way towards meeting our 2020 carbon targets. Further, the proposed Plan includes many important clean energy and green building standards in the new zoning regulations that we have strongly supported in previous comments. We commend the City for a commitment to clean energy and green buildings.

The social and economic vitality of Menlo Park and the region as a whole are inextricably linked to a healthy environment. Our comments focus on the environmental mitigation necessary to preserve the health and high quality of life of our communities as the development envisioned in the Plan proceeds. We support the following mitigations for Greenhouse Gases (GHG), Transportation, and Air Quality, and recommend several additional measures.

I52 1. Greenhouse gases The proposed Plan and updated Zoning present extraordinary vision, measures, and standards to create more sustainable building, mobility and land use patterns. These will result in much lower carbon (or GHG) intensities than the status quo. The green building and clean energy standards combined with a concerted shift from driving alone to walking, biking and public transit, will reduce GHG emissions per “service unit” by more than 20 percent.1

The sustainability improvements and carbon intensity reductions in the Plan and accompanying Zoning must be lauded. We strongly support the intent of the single greenhouse gas mitigation strategy, GHG- 1, that directs the City to update its Climate Action Plan (CAP) to address the GHG reductions needed by 2020; identify a GHG emissions reduction target for 2030 and 2040 consistent with state goals; and update the CAP to include measures to ensure the city is on a trajectory that aligns with the state’s 2030 GHG emissions reduction target. However, the DEIR is unable to articulate specifically how Menlo Park will achieve its 2020 Climate Action Plan targets for the various scenarios. The Final EIR should evaluate the reductions needed to meet these goals and contemplate them as mitigation measures. We recommend the following improvements to the GHG analysis and additional mitigations.

In order to more accurately project the GHG emissions and compare alternatives, the FEIR should: ● Consider all of the provisions of the updated Plan and Zoning that impact carbon intensity and incorporate them into the GHG forecasting and modeling, including: ○ Green and sustainable building regulations; ○ Creation of a live/work/play environment with travel patterns that are oriented toward pedestrian, transit, and bicycle use; ○ Bicycle parking standards and other measures supporting alternatives to driving; and ○ Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plans to reduce trip generation by 20 percent below standard use rates. ● Utilize more up to date energy data and base projected carbon intensity of electricity on expected Peninsula Clean Energy portfolio trajectories rather than PG&E.2 ● Forecasts based on housing and employee growth should also consider upcoming regulations, conservation measures and external factors. ● The GHG emissions analysis of vehicles should be adjusted to account for higher rates of electric, hybrid and other clean vehicles in Menlo Park.3 ● The FEIR should present a clear comparison of GHG emissions from the baseline conditions and each of the alternatives.

1 See Appendix E, GHG Emissions Inventory & Forecast: Existing MTCO2e/SP is 4.3 compared to240 maximum citywide buildout MTCO2e/SP of 3.3. Note however a discrepancy in 2040 thresholds between Table 4.6-7 lists a 2040 Plan-Level Efficiency Target of 2.5 MTCO2e/SP compared to Appendix E listing a BAAQMD GHG GP threshold of 3.2 MTCO2e/SP in 2040. 2 Note that this more accurate portrayal of future energy supply will result in a lower carbon intensity per kWh as PCE is launching with a 75% carbon free portfolio that will increase carbon free power over time. 3 Note that the DEIR vehicle emission modeling was based on statewide average data from EMFAC, instead of incorporating local fleet data, a necessary step since Menlo Park has some of highest electric car ownership rates in the nation.

I53 In order to ensure that Menlo Park stays on track to meet its climate goals in 2020 and beyond, additional specific mitigation measures should be evaluated in the FEIR. All of the near-term Climate Action Plan strategies listed in Table 4.6-8 should be analyzed and GHG reduction potential reported in the FEIR, whether they apply to new development or not, because measures for existing transportation and land uses can constitute mitigation.4 In addition to the list of measures in Table 4.6-8, we recommend that the following mitigations be included and thoroughly analyzed in the FEIR: ● Enhanced energy efficiency programs, such as Rising Sun Energy and Green @Home;5 ● Incentives and technical support for replacing natural gas heating and water heating in existing buildings, such as Palo Alto’s electric water heater rebates;6 ● High efficiency Co-Gen, similar to Stanford University’s Energy Plant;7 ● Incentives and increased infrastructure for carbon-free vehicles;8 and ● Community projects including waste digesters, net positive micro-grids, and enhanced tree canopy management.9

The City should make a strong commitment to reduce GHG emissions, to ensure that we will stay on track in the future.

2. Transportation With regard to transportation impacts from the Plan, we laud Menlo Park’s commitment to alternative transportation as a means of reducing congestion and lessening the environmental impact of the Plan. However, because current traffic congestion is already acute and because the DEIR shows many intersections worsening, the City should more aggressively support alternatives to single occupancy vehicles through additional mitigations and TDM requirements.

First, the DEIR demonstrates remarkable benefits of building substantial housing near job centers that results in much slower growth in traffic (as measured by vehicle miles traveled or VMT), since the additional housing allows more people to access local jobs without driving.10 The benefits from this additional housing will be greatest if the housing is built before the commercial development. For that reason, we recommend phased development that emphasizes new housing before or in tandem with commercial development to minimize growth in traffic.

4 Although the Plan cannot apply new requirements to existing land uses, it can envision fees that can be used to fund improvements to existing properties, as offsets and where such property owners agree. 5 The Rising Sun Energy Center provides both job training and employment, and direct energy and water efficiency services free to residents in disadvantaged communities. See: http://risingsunenergy.org The Green @Home Aprogram, run by non-profit Acterra, helps residents make energy efficiency improvements. See: http://www.acterra.org/programs/greenathome/ 6 Although this program is run by the City of Palo Alto Utility, a similar program could be run independently by the City of Menlo Park, or partnering with Peninsula Clean Energy or the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which envisions these types of incentive programs in its Climate Plan. See: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/resrebate/smartenergy/heat_pump_water_heaters/default.asp http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/clean-air-plan-update/building-fact-sheet-pdf.pdf?la=en 7 http://news.stanford.edu/features/2015/sesi/ 8 See for example: http://www.theicct.org/leading-us-city-electric-vehicle-activities 9 See for example: http://www.sustainia.me/cities/ 10 See for example, Table 4.13-13, showing VMT per capita in 2014 equal to 15, while VMT per capita would go down to 14 in 2040 if the Plan was fully built out.

I54 We strongly support many of the transportation mitigations included in the DEIR:

● Updating the Transportation Impact Fee program to bolster funding of both infrastructure and roadway improvements (TR-1b), as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities (TR-6a). ● Updating the existing shuttle fee program to guarantee funding of city-sponsored shuttle services (TR-6b). This will not only improve vital public transit services in areas that are currently underserved, it will help students and commuters reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles and cut traffic. ● Continuing support for the Dumbarton Corridor Study (TR-6c). The City should strongly advocate for as swift a reuse of this important transportation corridor as possible.

The final EIR should increase mitigation related to the proposed Zoning trip reduction requirement of 20%. Although this is a reasonable requirement at the current level of transit and alternatives to driving available, we recommend a stronger goal approaching 40% or higher when major transit improvements are complete. The Plan envisions significantly improved additional options to driving alone, including redevelopment of the Dumbarton transit corridor, which would facilitate enhanced trip reduction. For example, the San Mateo Rail Corridor Plan set up tiered trip reduction goals beginning with 25% in the short term, and including a long-term trip generation threshold of 40% once a major new transit oriented development was completed.11 The North Bayshore Precise Plan in Mountain View recently established a trip cap based on a single occupancy vehicle (SOV) mode share target of 45%.12

3. Air quality We applaud the many policies and requirements that address air quality in the Plan and associated proposed zoning. The DEIR also includes several air quality mitigation measures that we support, including AQ2a (development of specific mitigation plans where necessary), and AQ3a and AQ3b (diesel pollution and sensitive land uses). However, additional mitigation is called for because the area of Menlo Park facing the most impacts from future development is not only a part of the regional nonattainment area for state and federal smog and soot standards, it is also downwind of the busy 101 freeway, and Belle Haven residents are therefore exposed to serious health hazards from Toxic Air Contaminants such as diesel soot.13 The City must ensure that there is ample site specific mitigation required for individual new developments as they move forward, such as enhanced measures to reduce drive-alone rates, elimination of fossil fuel use in buildings, and attentive application of measure AQ3a to ensure clean delivery and service trucks. In addition, the City should explore providing free air filters

11 These trip reduction goals are tied to the Bay Meadows development in San Mateo. http://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/11019 12 See the Precise Plan here: http://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=15164 13 Note that Table 4.2-8 incorrectly states that additional projected PM2.5 emissions do not exceed the daily threshold. This is important because health impacts related to fine particulate matter exposure are the most serious of the air pollutant triggers, contributing to premature deaths among many other impacts.

I55 to all Belle Haven residents living near the freeway, any congested areas, or major new construction sites.14

Menlo Park has in many cases been a leader in requiring green development that minimizes environmental impacts. The proposed Plan has incorporated many goals and policies that ensure Menlo Park can continue to thrive and modernize while maintaining its charm and sustainable quality of life. The improvements recommended here can help ensure that the ConnectMenlo General Plan fully preserves the environment and allows Menlo Park to stay on track to its environmental and climate goals. Many of the ideas we propose are simply extensions of existing policy that require only moderate effort, yet would yield substantial benefits throughout the community of Belle Haven and city-wide.

This DEIR shows that ConnectMenlo can be a win-win for the environment, livability, convenience, transit, and our economy. With some adjustments to sustainable development strategies Menlo Park can transform over the next 25 years into a model city full of life, community, vitality, and character. Thank you for considering our comments.

Sincerely,

Diane Bailey, Executive Director, Menlo Spark [email protected]

Natalie Baker, Menlo Spark Intern [email protected]

Clara Dewey, Menlo Spark Intern [email protected]

14 We recommend a program providing High Efficiency or “HEPA” filters, such has been done in other freeway-impacted communities. See: https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/guide-air-cleaners-home Note that air filters have been requested by at least one Belle Haven resident at a public meeting related to ConnectMenlo.

I56 CONNECTMENLO - GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORY & FORECAST Jun-16 Source: DEIR Appendices, pdf page 1006 https://www.menlopark.org/1013/Environmental-Impact-Report Note that Columns shaded orange, red and blue have been adjusted according to specifications listed below.

Baseline GHG Emissions and Projections for Menlo Park, estimated for the General Plan Update EIR

2020 2040 2020 2040 Projection 2040 Projection Adjusted Projection Adjusted Projection Existing Percent of AB 32 Year including Maximum including Sectors 2020 including 2040 including (2014) Total 2020 Zoning & Citywide Zoning & Projection Additional Projection Additional proposed Buildout proposed Mitigation Mitigation mitigation mitigation Transportation 98,429 36 97,661 95,708 92,999 83,698.70 87,933 64,631 56,567 42,425.33

Residential (Natural Gas 55,354 20 58,735 50,502 42,933 38,956 75,776 50,118 33,026 18,091 and Electricity)

Nonresidential* (Natural Gas 100,846 37 96,820 78,050 70,664 64,401 151,059 94,794 55,007 31,523 and Electricity) City (Natural Gas and 1 1,455 1,005 880 880 2,070 1,148 707 707 Electricity) 1,581 Waste 3,546 1 4,047 1,012 990 990 5,758 1,440 1,305 1,305 Water/Wastew 1,291 0 1,083 975 933 931 1,541 1,156 939 925 ater Other - Offroad 12,696 5 11,768 11,768 11,768 10,591 13,389 10,042 10,042 7,531.31 Equipment Total Community 273,743 100 271,570 239,019 221,167 200,448 337,526 223,328 157,593 84,812 Emissions Service 63,800 72,830 103,600 Population MTCO2e/SP 4.29 3.73 3.04 2.75 3.26 2.16 1.52 0.82 BAAQMD Permitted Sources (not included in total)* 49,401

Notes: *listed on p. 1014, BAAQMD 2011 INVENTORY, MENLO PARK STATIONARY SOURCES Table above based on emissions generated by land uses in the City and SOI. Excludes lifecycle emissions, municipal emissions that are not associated with land uses (e.g., utility operations), and stationary sources that are regulated by BAAQMD.

Emissions forecasts for the non-transportation sectors are based on changes in housing units (residential energy), population (area sources,) employment (nonresidential energy, area sources), or service population (waste, water/wastewater).

Transportation. EMFAC2014 (exhaust) and TJKM using the regional model. Energy. Energy use based on a three year (2011-2013) average provided by PG&E.

I57 Water/Wastewater. Includes fugitive emissions from wastewater processing associated with water/wastewater treatment and conveyance. Water use and wastewater demand is estimated based on rates from the WSA.

Waste. CARB Landfill Emissions Tool Version 1_2013 and CalRecycle. Forecast waste generation based on three year average (2012-2014) waste commitment for the (LGOP), Version 1.1. City of Menlo Park obtained from CalRecycle. Assumes 75 percent of fugitive GHG emissions are captured within the landfill's Landfill Gas Capture System with a landfill gas capture efficiency of 75%. The Landfill gas capture efficiency is based on the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Local Government Operations Protocol

Other Sources. OFFROAD2007. Estimated based on population (Landscaping), employment (Light Commercial Equipment), and construction building permits (Construction) for Menlo Park as a percentage of San Mateo County. Excludes BAAQMD permitted sources. Daily construction emissions multiplied by 347 days/year to account for reduced/limited construction activity on weekends and holidays.

Lifecycle: The GHG emissions inventory for CEQA is a combination of a geographic and consumption-based emissions inventory. While the BAAQMD is updating the regional emissions inventory for the Bay Area utilizing a consumption-based emissions methodology, life cycle emissions are not included in the GHG emissions analysis for CEQA purposes in accordance with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (SB 97 Final Statement of Reasons) and the California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association (GHG Thresholds Whitepaper).

GHG emissions are based on the global warming potentials (GWPs) contained within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Second Assessment Report. The IPCC has since come out with updated GWPs in their Fourth (2007) and Fifth (2013) Assessment Reports. However, BAAQMD's per capita significance criteria is based on the older GWPs in the SAR. Consequently, to maintain consistency with the modeling and thresholds currently used for CEQA assessments, this inventory utilizes the GWPs in IPCC's Second Assessment Report.

Permitted sources are based on data from BAAQMD for year 2011 emissions. This includes the Bayfront Park Landfill Emissions.

Growth Rates from Baseline DEIR Appendices p. 1012 2020 (ABAG) 2040 Housing Growth Rate 1.18 1.52 Population Growth Rate 1.18 1.53 Employment Growth Rate 1.1 1.72 Service Population Growth Rate 1.14 1.62

BAU Energy Forecast: 2015 2020 2040 Residential En electricity 76,947,221 90,512,384 116,771,813 kWh Projected based on increase in housing units. gas 7,463,042 8,778,715 11,325,593 therms Nonresidentia electricity 187,193,847 206,761,359 322,591,338 kWh Projected based on increase in employment. gas 11,793,941 13,026,770 20,324,510 therms City Energy U electricity 4,352,648 4,968,704 7,067,936 kWh Projected based on increase in Service gas 130,575 149,056 212,031 therms

Population & Housing, see page 1013

1) Adjustments to 2020 and 2040 Projected Emissions

● (1a) Utilize more up to date energy data and base projected carbon intensity of electricity on expected Peninsula Clean Energy portfolio trajectories rather than PG&E.[1] [1] Note that this more accurate portrayal of future energy supply will result in a lower carbon intensity per kWh as PCE is launching with a 75% carbon free portfolio that will increase carbon free power over time.

Assumptions: 2020 PCE 80% Carbon-free portfolio, with an opt out rate of 10% 0.03 PCE Carbon intensity factor for Electricity (metric tons CO2/MWh) 0.13 PGE Carbon intensity factor for Electriciy (metric tons CO2/MWh) for 10% of total load opted out 2040 PCE 100% Carbon-free portfolio, with an opt out rate of 10% 0.11 PGE Carbon intensity factor for Electriciy (metric tons CO2/MWh) for 10% of total load opted out 0.005 PGE Carbon intensity factor for Natural Gas* (metric ton CO2/therm)

I58 Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program. * Note that this factor appears very low relative to current understanding of methane leakage during extraction & transmission

● (1b) Forecasts based on housing and employee growth should also consider upcoming regulations, conservation measures and external factors. Anticipated GHG control measures are too many to list here; most noteworthy are: In August 2016, SB 32 passed the legislature and is expected to soon be signed into law; the bill will require statewide GHG emissions to be reduced to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. (see: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB32)

And companion bill, AB 197 similarly expected to soon be signed into law, among other additions including increased legislative oversight, requires ARB to create a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions. (see: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB197)

In July 2016, California adopted a Sustainable freight plan to improve freight system efficiency by 25 percent by 2030, deploying over 100,000 zero-emission vehicles and equipment, maximizing near-zero emissions by 2020, and eventually reaching zero emissions in the industry by 2050. See https://www.arb.ca.gov/gmp/sfti/sfti.htm

In 2015, California adopted a 50% RPS by 2030 (Already adjusted for in 1a) Building Energy Code, "title 24" is updated to become more stringent every 3 years in CA, with 2016 code updates stepping towards Zero Net Energy building; 2020 ZNE requirements for homes and 2030 ZNE requirements for Multi-family & Commercial buildings See: http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2015_releases/2015-06-10_building_standards_nr.html

Assumptions: 25% Reduction in all 2040 emissions relative to the current forecast to reflect the new 40% reduction goal of SB 32 by 2030 relative to the AB 32 goal to reduce GHGs by 2020 to 15% below 1990 levels (encompassing sustainable freight & other policy improvements, including ZNE buildings) See: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm 75% Reduction in waste due to anticipated Zero Waste Ordinance planned to reduce waste by at least 75% and potentially 90% by 2020 10% Reduction in GHGs from water and wastewater due to conservation efforts; for example, the City of Menlo Park reports: Our customers have reduced water use 38 percent over 2013 levels See: https://www.menlopark.org/356/Water-regulations

● (1c) The GHG emissions analysis of vehicles should be adjusted to account for higher rates of electric, hybrid and other clean vehicles in Menlo Park.[2] [2] Note that the DEIR vehicle emission modeling was based on statewide average data from EMFAC, instead of incorporating local fleet data, a necessary step since Menlo Park has some of highest electric car ownership rates in the nation. Note that EMFAC 2014 already includes Pavley + California Advanced Clean Car Standards, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), on-road diesel fleet rules, and the Smartway/Phase I Heavy Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Regulation. Assumptions: 2% Reduction in Vehicle Emissions due to increased EV ownership in Menlo Park relative to Statewide statistics.

2.9 % EV fleet in Menlo Park 0.7% % EVs in CA 200,000 Total EVs in CA CA Population, 38.8 million, 2014 28.7 million vehicles registered in CA, 2014 729 Total EV rebates in Menlo Park Menlo Park Population, 33,450 Source: http://energycenter.org/clean-vehicle-rebate-project/rebate-statistics http://www.statista.com/statistics/196024/number-of-registered-automobiles-in-california/ And U.S. Census Info

2) Accounting for Proposed Zoning Requirements & Mitigation in 2020 & 2040 Emissions Projections ● Consider all of the provisions of the updated Plan and Zoning that impact carbon intensity and incorporate them into the GHG forecasting and modeling, including:

○ (2a) Green and sustainable building regulations; Note that these standards call for 100% Renewable Energy for all large new developments Assumptions: Additional service population in 2020 and 2040 will result in no additional energy emissions; energy usage shall remain at baseline levels

○ Creation of a live/work/play environment with travel patterns that are oriented toward pedestrian, transit, and bicycle use; (See 2b )

○ Bicycle parking standards and other measures supporting alternatives to driving; (See 2b ) and

I59 ○ (2b) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plans to reduce trip generation by 20 percent below standard use rates. Assumptions: Additional service population in 2020 and 2040 will result in 0.8 VMT & GHG Increase

14% Increased Service Population, 2020 62% Increased Service Population, 2040

○ (2c) Reduced Waste for New Developments, requiring 90% diversion rate Assumptions: Additional service population in 2020 and 2040 will result in additional 15 percent reduction of waste relative to city-wide zero waste ordinance

○ (2d) Recycled water requirements for New Developments could result in an additional 30% reduction in water use (and thus wastewater) Assumptions: Additional service population in 2020 and 2040 will result in additional 30 percent reduction of waste relative to city-wide zero waste ordinance

3) Considering Additional Mitigations in 2020 and 2040 Emissions Projections

● (3a) Enhanced energy efficiency programs, such as Rising Sun Energy and Green @Home;[1] [1] The Rising Sun Energy Center provides both job training and employment, and direct energy and water efficiency services free to residents in disadvantaged communities. See: http://risingsunenergy.org The Green @Home Aprogram, run by non-profit Acterra, helps residents make energy efficiency improvements. See: http://www.acterra.org/programs/greenathome/

In 2015, Rising Sun's Commuinty Youth Energy Services summer program employed 180 youth and served 5,704 homes in 20 cities, leading to the annual reduction of 967,693 kWh, 11,315 therms, and 28.4 million gallons of water.

GPEIR Youth Electricity Gas saved Water saved % Water Gallons of appendices Employed Saved (kWh) (therms) (gallons) Homes Served saved Water Used p. 1013 Annual Benefits per City: 9 48,385 566 1,420,000 285 1,263,914,632 2015 Starting in 2017, 2020 total 27 145,154 1,697 4,260,000 856 0.3% 1,421,606,803 2020 Starting in 2017, 2040 total 207 1,112,847 13,012 32,660,000 6,560 2% 2,052,375,485 2040

● (3b) Incentives and technical support for replacing natural gas heating and water heating in existing buildings, such as Palo Alto’s electric water heater rebates;[2] [2] Although this program is run by the City of Palo Alto Utility, a similar program could be run independently by the City of Menlo Park, or partnering with Peninsula Clean Energy or the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which envisions these types of incentive programs in its Climate Plan. See: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/resrebate/smartenergy/heat_pump_water_heaters/default.asp http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/clean-air-plan-update/building-fact-sheet-pdf.pdf?la=en Assumptions: 10% replacement of NG appliances & heating in existing buildings by 2020 and 50% by 2040 (Both Residential & Commercial)

● High efficiency Co-Gen, similar to Stanford University’s Energy Plant;[3] Note that stationary source emissions aren't included in the GP EIR inventory but this action could be considered as an offset if needed. [3] http://news.stanford.edu/features/2015/sesi/ Assumptions: 68% Reduction in CoGen GHG emissions, similar to what Stanford's SESI plant achieved 17,695 tons CO2e emissions from SRI CoGen, see GP EIR Appendices, p. 1014

● (3c) Incentives and increased infrastructure for carbon-free vehicles;[4] and [4] See for example: http://www.theicct.org/leading-us-city-electric-vehicle-activities Assumptions: 10% of fleet is ZEVs by 2020 and 50% ZEVs by 2040 Note that because 2040 emissions were adjusted across the board with a 25% reduction anticipating SB 32 measures, this measure was applied by taking an additional 25% reduction to on- and off-road transportation sources to total 50% ZEV.

● (3d) Community projects including waste digesters, net positive micro-grids, and enhanced tree canopy management. Note that wastewater methane capture is the only mitigation quantified & applied here. [5] See for example: http://www.sustainia.me/cities/ Assumptions: 90% of remaining wastewater GHG emissions reduced by a community methane digester.\ 29% of wastewater CO2e from fugitive CH4 v. total, GP EIR Appendices, p. 1017 - 1019

I60 PCE Scenarios for Menlo Park PCE is the San Mateo County Community Choice Energy program: "Peninsula Clean Energy" Source: PCE Feasibility study http://green.smcgov.org/sites/green.smcgov.org/files/DRAFT_Peninsula_Clean_Energy_CCA_Technical_Study_9_18_2015.pdf

1) Total CO2e emissions in Menlo Park

#REF! 2013 metric tonnes CO2e Menlo Park Climate Action Plan

2) Projected Electricity Consumption (Residential + Commercial), excluding direct power Load Menlo Park, 2013 #REF! kWh Portion of Menlo Park load that is residential #REF! Total County Load, 2014, PCE Analysis, p. 36 3,900,930,000 kWh Total County Load, Year 5 (2020), PCE Analysis p. 77 3,940,036,544 kWh Note that the load requirments listed on p. 77 are for Scenario 1, which is 85% of the total, County load in Menlo Park = 7.5%, PCE Analysis p. 75 since it accounts for a 15% opt out rate.

3) PCE Scenarios

Key Considerations Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Environmental 35% Renewable 50% Renewable 100% Renewable Benefits:

Renewable energy 35% GHG-Free 63% GHG-Free 100% GHG-Free and GHG content

Rates Average 6% savings Average 4% savings Average 2% increase relative to PG&E rate relative to PG&E rate relative to PG&E rate projections projections projections*

35 50 100

Projected Residential Average $5.40 Average $4.05 Average $1.80 Customer monthly cost savings monthly cost savings monthly cost increase relative to PG&E rate relative to PG&E rate relative to PG&E rate -5.4 -4.05 1.8 Cost Impacts* projections projections projections Chart Title

120 Assumed PCE 75% for residential and Participation** 85% across all 85% across all small commercial customer groups customer groups customers; 50% for all 100 other customers 80

I61 60 0.278 metric tons 0.115 metric tons CO2/MWh emissions Zero emissions rate Comparative GHG CO2/MWh emissions 40 rate results in results in ≈130,000 Emissions Impacts rate results in additional GHG metric ton GHG relative to assumed ≈75,000 metric ton emissions of emissions reduction in 20 PG&E portfolio GHG emissions ≈136,000 metric tons Year 1 reduction in Year 1 in Year 1 0 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

* Average monthly usage for PCE res. customers ≈ 450 kWh ** Projected rate savings/increases are assumed to impact customer participation levels; medium and large commercial customers are assumed to be highly cost sensitive

4) Annual GHG Emissions Factor Comparison (Metric Tons CO2/MWh) (PCE report p. 48, 52, 56)

Hypothetical Hypothetical Year PG&E PCE Scenario 1 PCE Scenario 2 PCE Scenario 3 75% 80%

1 0.158 0.278 0.115 0 0.0575 0.046

2 0.149 0.278 0.106 0

3 0.139 0.278 0.096 0

4 0.131 0.278 0.088 0

5 0.127 0.278 0.084 0 0.042 0.0336

6 0.123 0.272 0.08 0

7 0.12 0.265 0.077 0

8 0.116 0.258 0.073 0

9 0.112 0.25 0.07 0

10 0.109 0.24 0.066 0 0.0264

I62 BAAQMD 2011 INVENTORY, MENLO PARK STATIONARY SOURCES

Source: BAAQMD, Accessed January 2016, Reports, Data, and Documents, http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/emission-inventory/maps-data-and-documents

Plant #

19890 3499 18148 9573 561 20668 11668 19243 16110 17428 18216 3011 2877 9032 17258 20224 11092 11104 18066 19690 7258 19245 13488 20079 18855 18792 18716 20076 556 14789 598 19374 14188 13212 1462

Plant Name Non-biogenic Total CO2 CALTRANS 1 1 City of Menlo Park 146 3,361 Conor Medsystems, c/o Cordis West Coast 4 4 Diageo North America, Inc 556 556 ECI Painting, Inc 16 16 Facebook, Inc 7 7 Gas Recovery Systems, Inc 11,771 22,793 General Service Admin. 4,399 4,399 Geron Corp. 9 9 Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation (Quadrus Bldg 8) Infolmage 1 1 IPT SRI Cogeneration Inc 26,022 26,022 L-3 Comms. Randtron Antenna Systems 1 1 Landec Corp. 0 0 Latham & Watkins LLP 1 1 Membrane Tech. & Research Inc 588 588 Membrane Tech. & Research Inc 76 76 Memry Corp. 50 50 Menlo Business Park, LLC 4 4 Menlo Park Surgical Hosp./PA/Medi. Foundation Merchandising Systems, Inc 3 3 Merchandising Systems, Inc 18 18 Pacific Bell 2 2 Pacific Biosciences 12 12 Pentair Thermal Management, LLC 1 1 Rosewood Hotel c/o Stanford University 2 2 Sand Hill Oak Partners 4 4 SilverLake 0 0 SLAC National Accelerator Lab. 1,325 1,325 South Bayside System Authority 0 0 SRI International 44 44 St Anthony's Dining Room 0 0 State of California Department of Transportation Tyco Electronics Corp. 16 16 Tyco Electronics Corp. 1,859 1,859

I63 Veterans Administration Medical Center 2,464 2,464 Total 49,401

Plant Address

Route 101 Marsh Road 1003 Hamilton Court 151 Commonwealth Drive 165 Constitution Drive 1601 Willow Road Marsh Road 345 Middlefield Road 230 Constitution Drive 2498 Sand Hill Road 141 Jefferson Drive 333 Ravenswood Drive 130 Constitution Drive 3603 Haven Avenue, Suite E 140 Scott Drive 1235 Hamilton Court 1360 Willow Rd, Suite 103 4065 Campbell Avenue 1455 Adams Drive 570 Willow Road 1140 O'Brien Drive 2855 Sand Hill Road 2950 Sand Hill Road 1380 Willow Road 307 Constitution Ave 2825 Sand Hill Road 2800 Sand Hill Road 2775 Sand Hill Road 2575 Sand Hill Road 1401 Marsh Road 333 Ravenswood Ave, Mail Stop AE128 3500 Middlefield Road Highway 84 304 Constitution Drive 795 Willow Road

City

Menlo Park

I64 County

San Mateo

Zipcode Biogenic 94025 0 94025 3,216 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 11,022 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0 94025 0

Non-Biogenic Total 1 1

146 3,361 4 4 556 556 16 16 7 7 11,771 22,793 4,399 4,399 9 9 1 1 0 0 26,022 26,022 1 1 0 0 1 1 588 588 76 76 50 50 4 4 3 3 18 18 0 0 2 2 12 12 1 1 2 2 4 4 0 0 1,325 1,325 0 0 44 44 0 0 16 16 1,859 1,859 2,464 2,464

49,401

I65 From: John Tarlton To: Chow, Deanna M Cc: David Johnson; Susan M. Eschweiler; Ruth Farrell Subject: ConnectMenlo Draft Life Science District Design Regulations Date: Thursday, June 23, 2016 5:03:00 PM Attachments: image001.png ConnectMenlo Life Science Regulations Letter to Deanna Chow 23Jun2016.pdf

Deanna, Please find attached correspondence regarding the LS District. Thank You!

John John C. Tarlton President & CEO Tarlton Properties, Inc. 1530 O’Brien Drive Menlo Park, CA 94025 +1.650.330.3600 Office +1.650.303.3000 Cell

I66 June 23, 2016

Deanna Chow Planning Division City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel Street Menlo Park, CA 94025

RE: ConnectMenlo – Open Items on LS District Regulations

Deanna,

Thank you again for all of your hard work and that of your team of consultants on this significant project.

The Planning Commission meeting on Monday reminded me that we needed to circle back with you and the team to review where we are on a number of requested revisions to the proposed LS District regulations. As you know, we have been active participants in the ConnectMenlo process and have raised these issues on a number of previous occasions:

 Letter of response to the first draft of LS District Zoning dated 1/28/16  Presented slide show regarding typical life science buildings at 1/28/16 GPAC meeting  Letter and package of design impact studies to Planning Commission dated 5/23/16  Participated in and provided comment to all three of the community outreach meetings for ConnectMenlo

While many of the concerns we previously expressed have been addressed, there are others that to our knowledge have not yet been resolved. For your convenience, we have provided a list of those items with citations to the specific chapter sections (see attached).

Each of these items was presented in greater detail, including diagrams, in our prior letter submitted May 23, 2016. That package together with our prior correspondence and presentations at public hearings also included what we believe to be compelling rationale for the proposed changes, consistent with the goals of the Belle Haven neighborhood, the City and the ConnectMenlo process.

Thank You!

John C. Tarlton President & CEO Tarlton Properties, Inc.

Tarlton Properties, Inc. 1530 O’Brien Drive, Suite C Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone (650) 330-3600 Fax (650) 330-3636 www.tarlton.com

I67 Top 10 Unresolved Issues – Draft Life Science District Zoning Regulations

1. “Maximum setback at street” should not be limited to 35 feet. We requested an increase to maintain our landscaping, trees and the ability to provide some visitor parking in front of the buildings. Currently the “build to” lines are still in the City’s draft code. We submitted a street section for O’Brien Drive as an example of our vision for the district, which accommodates the existing 80’ Hetch Hetchy Right‐of‐Way and the existing landscaped berms. The draft code requires that building entrances are required to face the street or a publicly accessible courtyard. It is difficult to accomplish a street frontage entrance if there is no room to place ADA parking in front of the building. 2. “Maximum open space requirement” should be reduced to 20%, not 30%. Delete the requirement for a minimum amount of publicly accessible open space in order to provide for public safety and security of the Life Sciences companies. Plans previously submitted show the publicly accessible areas of the district as well landscaped pedestrian and bicycle paths along the public streets, O’Brien and Adams. These could be enhanced with pockets of additional public space on the south side of O’Brien Drive (extensions of the landscaped areas). 3. “Base Height and Minimum Stepback” The base and bonus level step back distances should be replaced by a daylight plane approach. We submitted drawings on May 23 illustrating this idea, which works together with the Maximum setback revisions previously requested (item 1). Limiting the height to 35’ or 45’ at the street, then stepping back upper floors works with the concept of a 5’ maximum front setback and creates a very urban environment. The Life Sciences District needs stacked floor plates and greater setback from the street, which will also avoid a canyon effect at the street. 4. “Paseos” are inappropriate for a Life Sciences industrial park environment where security and safety of the premises need greater control. 5. “Table 16 Non‐Residential Green Building Requirements “ for new construction should apply to the building shell only. In the Life Sciences District, the tenants will design and fund the interior build‐outs and may need air, water and electrical requirements, which cannot meet these standards. 6. “Green and Sustainable Building” We have suggested instead of 100% renewable energy, that a minimum of 1/3 of the roof area for new buildings (or an equivalent area somewhere on the site) be covered with solar PV panels and that the solar panels be exempted from the height limit similar to a roof screen. 7. “Sharing FAR: Should FAR transfer be allowed within the Zone? “ We believe it should be allowed anywhere within the LS District and we thought the Planning Commission agreed.

8. “Heights: Should adjustments be made to base and bonus level maximum heights to accommodate additional sea level rise and flood zone requirements? “ We believe that as regulations are added to raise the finish floors to accommodate sea level rise and flood potential, the height of the buildings should be raised by the same amount, or the definition of where the height is measured should be redefined to accommodate the revisions. We thought the Planning Commission agreed.

9. “Community Amenities” How will the impact fee program will work, and why pay 120% of the fee? To my knowledge this fee level is arbitrary.

10. “New Connections” Any site area dedicated for paseo or street should not be deducted from total lot area for the purpose of calculating FAR.

I68 From: Perata, Kyle T To: Perata, Kyle T Subject: FW: Testimony on I1, I2 regarding environmental justice, fair housing and equal employment opportunity Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 8:13:41 PM Attachments: mpparegionalAAveterans.png ATT00001.htm mpdemographics.png ATT00002.htm mpdemographics2000.png ATT00003.htm geographicalmobilitympAA.png ATT00004.htm mpregionalAAemployment.png ATT00005.htm mpregionalhousingAA.png ATT00006.htm PublicHistorian.pdf ATT00007.htm

Testimony, Menlo Park City Council, Regarding Agenda Item I1 and I2 John William Templeton, Curator, California African-American Freedom Trail Last Sunday, two milestones went little noted—the unveiling of a statue honoring the father of California’s Fair Housing Act, W. Byron Rumford, and the recognition of the worst disaster of World War II, the Port Chicago Massacre. Both events are part of my book, Our Roots Run Deep: the Black Experience in California, Vol. 3, 1950-2000. This summer, we have mapped 6,000 sites of interest for the California African-American Freedom Trail. Belle Haven is one of those places because of the middle class community in Ravenswood and because of the extraordinary impact of Roy L. Clay Sr. He opened his business, Rod-L Electronics and has continued to be a global leader since 1977. Back in 2000, I came to Belle Haven with a proclamation from Gov. Gray Davis acknowledging Clay’s selection as a Silicon Valley Engineering Hall of Fame member. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to discuss with him the proposal for the expansion of the Facebook campus and he shared the reservations which you should take very seriously. Both the hundreds in Port Chicago and Assemblyman Rumford gave their lives in the pursuit of fair employment and housing.. However, the land use practices of the Peninsula cities have reversed much of the progress of the past 50 years. Although you only have jurisdiction in your city, your decisions affect many throughout the region. Since the 2000 Census, the African-American population of Menlo Park has declined by a third. Discriminatory hiring practices by companies such as Facebook are at the root of that decline. Fewer than 300 African-Americans in Menlo Park have managerial and professional jobs, according to the American Community Survey in 2014. However, those of us in San Francisco face similar displacement, as the African-American

I69 population has declined from 60,000 in 2000 to 45,000 in 2014. San Francisco Uniifed School District has seen its enrollment of black students drop from 10,000 to 4,400 from 2005 to 2015. As editor of the San Jose Business Journal beginning in 1987, I can categorically reject the excuse of Facebook that it can not find qualified African-Americans. I made that point in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1998 and to the House Judiciary Committee in 2003. Since 1998, I have done an annual report Silicon Ceiling: Equal Opportunity and High Technology and hosted the 50 Most Important African-Americans in Technology on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday since 1999. Your counterparts in Palo Alto City Hall hosted the exhibition Soul of Technology honoring Roy Clay, the late Dr. Frank Greene, Ron Jones and Gerry Lawson among other African- American technical pioneers in 2009. Although Facebook was then just across the street, they did not participate. To grow in a non-inclusive way since then is an act of defiance of best practices in workplace standards, which grew out of the 1934 general strike which led to the National Labor Relations Act and A. Philip Randolph’s speech integrating the labor movement. When your city government allows a company which has less than one percent African- American employment to expand, it sends out demographic shock waves across the region. It also shuts out other businesses from exercising their First Amendment rights, a point made by the National Newspaper Publishers Association last week in opposing plans by Facebook to arbitrarily change its algorithms. The recent Mercury News article suggested that one third of those workers will live in San Francisco, adding to skyrocketing rents which are the highest in the country. Now, 25,000 African-Americans with graduate degrees live in the Bay Area, although only 2,000 African- American work in technology companies. In our most recent Silicon Ceiling 15, we noted that only 20 percent of technology employers even listed themselves as equal opportunity employers, a shocking trend which is facilitated by local land use policy. As a result, non-diverse workforces replicate stereotypes and bias through their mathematical formulas, leading to consumer racial profiling (CRP) in a variety of instances. If you’re African-American, you see how Facebook’s employees feel about you through the types of advertisements and posts which get directed to you and it can be quite disgusting at times. By hosting a company of global reach, you have the responsibility to take the interests of that larger community into account. Before taking further action, I recommend that the environmental justice analysis be performed of the impact of Menlo Park businesses, traffic and employment patterns on racial inequality in the region. You should throw boulders into the unknown and plead ignorance. People 75 miles away should not face abrupt disruptions because of actions taken without their knowledge. It is equally unfortunate that those who have sacrificed for this country as veterans are being displaced by such policies. When Roy Clay started Rod-L, he made a point of hiring local workers and training them irrespective of their educational backgrounds so that progress would be equally shared. Let’s not bury that legacy. .

I70 I71 I72 I73 I74 I75 PUBLIC HISTORIAN

John William Templeton

HIGHLIGHTS Catalyst for a transformation of research towards the applied use of African American heritage for community, personal and global transformation. Wanadu Aroo (history advisor) to the Amiru Songhai (Paramount Chief) of the Songhoy People covering ten West African nations. Executive Producer, ReUNION: Education-Arts-Education instructional television network.

MILESTONES NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT AFRO-AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, BALTIMORE, MD — 1976 As White House beat reporter covered the first Presidential proclamation of Black History Month; caused construction of current building of Schomberg Center for Research in Black Culture with investigative article on research library funding in the New York Public Library.

PAGE, MOORLAND SPINGARN RESEARCH CENTER — 1972 Worked under Dorothy Porter, the dean of black archivists during her last year at Howard University's extensive archive of African and African American manuscripts, literature and recorded media.

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT, JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT — 1975 Served as aide to Dr. J. DeOtis Roberts, editor of the leading scholarly journal in black theology and expert in liberation theology, at Howard University School of Religion.

INVESTIGATIVE INTERN, CENTER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES/HARPERS WEEKLY — 1974 Extensive use of Freedom of Information Act to investigate military intelligence agencies. Jointly wrote article for Harpers Weekly with SNCC veteran Courtland Cox on FBI's Cointelpro operations against the black freedom movement.

HISTORY GRADUATE ASSOCIATE SOUTHEASTERN BLACK PRESS INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPEL HILL, NC — 1977-78 Conducted oral history interviews with black newspaper editors in D.C., Virginia, Maryland, North and South Carolina and Georgia. Co-produced two-part documentary We Wish To Plead Our Own Cause on the UNC-TV Network statewide. Worked with advisory committee led by NNPA President Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett.

EXECUTIVE EDITOR, WINSTON-SALEM CHRONICLE — 1978 Created Roots of Black Winston-Salem series in concert with the release of Alex Haley's book and mini-series.

EDITOR, RICHMOND AFRO-AMERICAN & RICHMOND PLANET — 1980-84 Replaced Pulitzer juror Raymond H. Boone at country's oldest black newspaper to publish the first centennial edition in the history of the black press in 1983, winning four NNPA First Prize Merit Awards. Had building designated as an SDX/SPJ Historic Site in Journalism and street renamed John Mitchell Square.

PRESIDENT, JACKSON WARD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE — 1982-86 As a resident and business operator, was picked by community to lead effort to revive country's oldest and largest black business district. After Maggie L. Walker National Historic Site opened, worked with National Park Service to create Jackson Ward National Historic District, the largest black historic business district in the nation.

1691 Turk St. San Francisco, CA 415-240-3537 venturata.com

John William Templeton Public Historian Page !1 of ! 8 I76 EDITOR OUR ROOTS RUN DEEP: THE BLACK EXPERIENCE IN CALIFORNIA,1500-1900, SAN JOSE, CA — 1991 After discovering that California's name was derived from a Spanish epic about an island nation populated solely by black women, found dozens of peer-reviewed and primary source documents for an anthology which brought the state's black history into the mainstream and classroom. Los Angeles black students experienced a two grade point average gain within weeks of reading the book.

CURATOR, OUR ROOTS RUN DEEP EXHIBITION — 1992-96 Presented first black history exhibition in the Historic State Capitol Museum sponsored by Assemblymember Barbara Lee, D- Oakland including portrait of Queen Calafia in Senate Budget Committee hearing room; also exhibited in Los Angeles Central Library and sixth floor gallery of new Main Library in San Francisco, Sonoma County Library, Allensworth State Historical Park. Exhibit peer reviewed by California State Library.

CO-EDITOR,OUR ROOTS RUN DEEP: THE BLACK EXPERIENCE IN CALIFORNIA,VOL. 2, 1900-1950 — 1996 San Diego educator Agin Shaheed is great grandson of C.C. Flint, the black power broker at the end of the 19th century, and grandson of J. McFarland Ervin, first black administrator in Los Angeles schools. Working with his mother Jana Calvert, we edited and published the writings of Flint and Ervin and discovered the extent of California involvement in the fight to overturn racial segregation in employment, housing and accommodations, including UCLA alumni Dr. Ralph Bunche and Jackie Robinson.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TRAINER IRISE SFUSD — 1994-1996 Gave teachers at 20 schools in San Francisco Unified School District training in infusion of African American heritage in daily classroom experiences; credited by principals with driving gains in student performance

EDITOR, DO NOT CALL US NEGROS: HOW MULTICULTUAL TEXTBOOKS PERPETUATE RACISM — 1992 Published and edited the manuscript of Stanford Professor Emeritus Sylvia Wynter, the patron saint of Caribbean intellectuals, which analyzed the K-8 history/ social science textbook submission of Houghton Mifflin for its impact to demotivate AfricanAmerican students. Her paradigm for measuring racial discrimination in literature is regarded as the gold standard in the field.

AUTHOR, THE BLACK QUEEN: HOW AFRICAN AMERICANS PUT CALIFORNIA ON THE MAP, VOL. 4 OUR ROOTS RUN DEEP: THE BLACK EXPERIENCE IN CALIFORNIA — 1998 Created teacher supplement to the three volumes of Our Roots Run Deep: the Black Experience in California including thematic lesson plans, bibliography, 150 most important black Californians and maps.

PRODUCER, KMTP-TV32 — 1993 - PRESENT Produced 56:30 Our Roots Run Deep documentary showing black historic sites in downtown San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles, sponsored by Bank of America; aired in 1993; Leidesdorff: A Man Without Boundaries, sponsored by the Port of San Francisco, in 1997; The King Behind King, Bridges, Chavez and Mandela 2011; Freedom Riders of the Cutting Edge, 2009; A Great Day in Gaming: From Queens to Silicon Valley: the Gerald A. Lawson Story

John William Templeton Public Historian Page !2 of ! 8 I77 GRANTEE, THE BLACK QUEEN: PRIMARY SOURCES IN CALIFORNIA HISTORY — 1997 Received grant from California Council for the Humanities for workshop at Bancroft Library, UC Berkeley on the 20th century primary sources of the James deTarr Abajian Collection with David Hilliard and Ericka Huggins helping to identify Black Panther artifacts.

CONSULTANT, AMERICAN REALTY&CONSTRUCTION — 1998 Retained to research the interaction between the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and the Western Addition A1 and A2 area, specifically commitments made in land disposition agreements as part of their bid to purchase the Fillmore Center apartments. Report became Chapter 7 of Our Roots Run Deep, Vol. 3.

AUTHOR, GRAMPA JACK'S SECRET — 1996 An historical novel based on my research of nine generations of my family tree back to Mali in the 15th century. Cover notes by Dr. Hassimi Maiga, direct descendant of Askia Muhammad, ruler of the Songhay Empire, which covered ten current West African countries.

LICENSEE, GENERAL HISTORY OF AFRICA, UNESCO — 1994 In the earliest days of the Internet, gained permission from UNESCO in Paris for multimedia distribution of the eight volume scientific study. That meant reading and excerpting the10,000 pages.

EDITOR OUR ROOTS RUN DEEP: THE BLACK EXPERIENCE IN CALIFORNIA, VOL. 3, 1950-PRESENT — 1998 Anthology of the pivotal postwar explosion of black population across the Golden State through the writings and speeches of the key figures. As contemporary as the news with chapters on the O.J. trial, Proposition 209 and the CIA and crack controversy.

RESCUER, SAN FRANCISCO SUN REPORTER MORGUE — 1996 With Amy Holloway and Max Millard, entered the abandoned medical office of Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett and San Francisco Sun Reporter at night after learning that newspaper's file cabinets had been left after the building was foreclosed after Goodlett's death. By negotiating with squatters in the middle of the night, carried 34 cartons of historic material in garbage bags to the nearby San Francisco African American Historical & Cultural Society where it became the Carlton B. Goodlett Collection

RESIDENT HISTORIAN, AFRICAN AMERICAN ART & CULTURE COMPLEX — 1996-2005 Created exhibition Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett: Physician, Publisher, Psychologist, Prophet using discoveries from subsequently demolished Sun Reporter building. Coordinated Fillmore Live programming for San Francisco Juneteenth Committee. Project Historian for city's largest oral history project, training seven community interviewers to conduct 300 interviews, working with S.F. African American Historical & Cultural Society, Holocaust Society of Northern California, and National Japanese American Historical Society for 64 persons honored in Gene Suttle Plaza.

CURATOR, CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES — 1998-99 Created commissioned, peer reviewed exhibition California: A State of Natural Diversity on display during February 1998 and 1999. It showed African American explorers, farmers, miners, architects, engineers, soldiers, sailors and their imprint on the physical environment of California.

John William Templeton Public Historian Page !3 of ! 8 I78 CURATOR TECH MUSEUM OF INNOVATION SAN JOSE — 1998 Developed Turning the Century: African-American Innovators from the Industrial Age and at the Dawn of the New Millennium portraying 20 inventors from the 19th century and 20 black Silicon Valley innovators with equally significant discoveries. Led to the creation of the 50 Most Important African Americans in Technology.

KEYNOTE, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL FOR THE PROMOTION OF HISTORY — 1997 Gave analysis of the Tourism Implications of African American Historic Sites for the leading organization of professional historians in the state at their Ventura conference.

ORGANIZER, 50 MOST IMPORTANT AFRICAN AMERICANS IN TECHNOLOGY — 1999 Worked with White House, congressional staff to present awards to previously unheralded African American scientists and entrepreneurs at the California African American Museum in Los Angeles. Symposium has continued yearly since then in Washington, D.C., Oakland, San Francisco.

CURATOR, JAZZGENESIS: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN "REB" SPIKES AND THE CENTRAL AVENUE JAZZ SCENE, 1921-1945 — 2004 Combined genealogy and archeology to follow the world's greatest saxophonist Spikes, and his brother pianist John Spikes, from the first jazz band in history on San Francisco's Barbary Coast to Los Angeles where they opened the first jazz record store at 12th and Central in 1921, were the first black producers of a jazz record, Ory's Creole Trombone, Nd operated a movie talent booking agency. Presented exhibit at William Grant Still Arts Center of LA Dept. Of Cultural Affairs. Found two original handwritten wax masters of Ory's Creole Trombone.

CHARRETTE PARTICIPANT, LORD CULTURAL RESOURCES — 2003 Retained to give a vision statement for the Museum of the African Diaspora to help the architects complete the new downtown museum at Third and Mission.

HISTORICAL CONSULTANT EMJOHNSON INTERESTS — 2002-2008 Created exhibition JazzGenesis: San Francisco and the Birth of Jazz which documented primary source record of the eight "black and tan" resorts in the 400 and 500 blocks of Pacific from 1901 through 1921. Exhibit was displayed in the Visitor Center of the then S,F. Convention and Visitor Bureau from 2008 to 2010. Created jazz film festival with Avery Clayton of the Clayton Museum in Culver City leading up to the opening of the Jazz Heritage Center.

POET, SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP — 2008 Created commissioned choreopoem More Mo Than You Know to describe the history of the Fillmore District. Performed for SFHDC's 25th anniversary at Rasselas Jazz Club.

CURATOR, THE BLACK QUEEN: CALIFORNIA BLACK HERITAGE CONFIRMED BY PUBLIC ART — 2005 First public showing of the California State Archives portrait of Queen Califia by Lucille Lloyd, prepared for the larger mural in the Senate Budget Committee hearing room in the State Capitol. Combined with Maynard Dixon/Frank von Sloun murals in the Room of the Dons at the Mark Hopkins Hotel and exclusive works by James Gayles and TheArthur Wright, we examine how the founding narrative of California had been interpreted by artists. Exhibited in the San Francisco African American Historical & Cultural Society Gallery at Ft. Mason and at William Grant Still Art Center in Los Angeles as the city's official Black History Month display.

John William Templeton Public Historian Page !4 of !8 I79 PANELIST, ASSOCIATION FOR THE STUDY OF AFRICAN AMERICAN LIFE AND HISTORY, ATLANTA — 2006 Gave updated presentation on tourism implications of African American history with panelists from Penn State and the National Archives and Records Administration during the 91st annual conference of the organization which sponsors Black History Month.

CONTRIBUTOR OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, NEW YORK CITY — 2006 Wrote African Americans in the West for the Oxford Encyclopedia of African American History, 1619-1890, the Age of Frederick Douglass covering 23 states west if the Mississippi.

KEYNOTER IMPACT 209 UCLA — 2007 Commissioned by Equal Justice Center to prepare a contrahistory analysis of the effect of Proposition 209 as compared to the trends in evidence before its oassage. Made findings during lunch speech at Impact 209 symposium at UCLA School of Law.

KEYNOTER, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL FOR THE SOCIAL STUDIES — OAKLAND, CA 2008 Conducted survey of social science teachers on their capacity to provide culturally responsive instruction in California history. Presented findings in speech Black Heritage as Gap Closer and gave tour of African American and Chinese historic sites jointly with Chinese American Historical Society.

CONSULTANT, TEACHING AMERICAN HISTORY — 2007 Trained 30 San Francisco Unified social studies teachers in San Francisco African American history as an intervention strategy for improving student outcomes for project funded by a national initiative of the U.S. Dept. Of Education, led by the district's social science curriculum advisor.

GRANTEE, HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND COMMITTEE, — 2007 Obtained grant award from fund generated by S. F. Redevelopment Agency in legal settlement to support preservation studies. Created context statement Invisible Pioneers with Dr. Johnetta Richards of San Francisco State and architect Miles Stevens. Findings peer reviewed by Dr. Douglas Daniels of UC-Santa Barbara and Peter Wiley, author of National Trust Guide to San Francisco Landmarks.

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, CITY OF SAN JOSE — 2010 As subcontractor to Stevens and Associates, prepared a historic resource evaluation of African American history in San Jose for the San Jose Redevelopment Agency as part of plan to build new facility for the African American Community Service Agency.

HISTORIAN/INTERVIEWEE THE BLACK ROCK (MASTAMIND PRODUCTIONS) 2006 Worked with filmmaker Kevin Epps to interpret his primary source research into the several hundred black prisoners at Alcatraz, integrate into the script and serve as narrator for some of the inmate records and their writings in highly acclaimed documentary now shown daily at the national park.

John William Templeton Public Historian Page !5 of ! 8 I80 CURATOR, SFSOUL: TASTE THE EXCITEMENT — 2005 Tracked down all 60 African American restaurants, took pictures and created an exhibit to confirm what no one believed, including long-time residents, the vitality of African American restaurants at the Bayview branch of the San Francisco Public Library. Resulted in several new restaurants, including Food and Wine Top 10 New Restaurant Farmer Brown, Cafe Golo and Bayou. Also, gave exposure to chef Tanya Holland, now California Chef of the Year.

ORGANIZER, PRESERVING CALIFORNIA BLACK HERITAGE ANNUAL CONFERENCE — 2007 TO PRESENT Beginning with first event at Ingleside Presbyterian Church, spotlighted the need for broad public understanding of historic character of black institutions, homes and communities. Hold events in the historic sites and provide professional development for educators on applying the content. 2012 conference visited seven black and two white churches over nine days founded before 1852 which all played a part in the abolition of slavery for the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. Sept 13, 2014 conference features invited speakers Anthony Jackson, director of California State Parks, Supt. of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, Mark Oliver, assistant to the Secretary of Interior for education and volunteerism.

PLAYWRIGHT, QUEEN CALAFIA: RULER OF CALIFORNIA — 2008 Wrote one-woman play depicting a university professor making a career changing presentation in the Room of the Dons at the Mark Hopkins Hotel when the murals by Maynard Dixon and Frank von Sloun command her attention, in fact her very being. Presented staged reading starring Ursaline Bryant at William Grant Still Arts Center in Los Angeles and Ajuana Black at the Buriel Clay Theater in San Francisco.

CAKEWALK: AN HISTORICAL NOVEL ABOUT THE UNSUNG CREATORS OF JAZZ MUSIC — 2010 A chronicle of the 14 year period between 1906 and 1921 when "black and tan " resorts founded by Pullman porters, frequented by Buffalo soldiers, dominated entertainment in the waterfront area of San Francisco, with a subplot of the parallel 14 year process to confirm the role of San Francisco in the creation of jazz.

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, POTRERO PROGRESS — 2010 Created a high school summer session for the Economic Opportunities Council's Potrero Family Resource Center From Salt to San Francisco General as a demonstration of the infusion of African American history into classroom settings. Worked with UCSF, S.F. State, Fish and Wildlife Service, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, S.F. General to weave history, science, arts and math. Students described it to evaluators as a "dream come true."

CLERK OF SESSION, NEW LIBERATION PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH — 2007 Wrote history of church founded by Western Addition Community Organization founder Rev. Hannibal Williams and presented as short film. Organized Circle of Elders violence reduction program using history to connect with Western Addition gang leaders to bring them to a gathering with ministers, law enforcement, business leaders that resulted in an 18- month cessation of shootings in the neighborhood.

AUTHOR, COME TO THE WATER: SHARING THE RICH BLACK EXPERIENCE IN SAN FRANCISCO — 2010 Textbook designed to Core Common Subjects standards on African American heritage in San Francisco. Book used for four annual 7 week courses on city's black heritage from January to March in conjunction with National Park Service, S.F. Public Library and Port of San Francisco. Participants include Pioneer Urbanites author Dr. Douglas Daniels.

John William Templeton Public Historian Page !6 of ! 8 I81 SOUL OF TECHNOLOGY EXHIBIT, CITY OF PALO ALTO — 2009 Display of Palo Alto standouts like Silicon Valley Engineering Hall of Fame members Roy Clay Sr. and Dr. Frank S. Greene and the 50 Most Important African Americans in Technology in Palo Alto City Hall throughout February.

LET YOUR LIGHT SHINE: THE LASERS OF DR. ROBERT LAWRENCE THORNTON TECH MUSEUM OF INNOVATION — 2011 Holder of 50 patents in optoelectronics and first black to win a doctorate in applied physics from Stanford, Thornton was two-time winner of Xerox' corporation wide award for the most patent as the creator of the technology behind the laser printer and Blu-Ray among many industrial applications. Exhibit is part of a six week narrative on the electromagnetic spectrum for ReUNION.

GOLD RUSH ABOLITIONISTS: THE CALIFORNIA MOVEMENT TO EMANCIPATION, — State archivists discovered the resolution ratifying the 13th Amendment in a Capitol closet and asked me to investigate the document and its context. The resulting exhibition for the Legislative Black Caucus researched the role of black and white members of the Underground Railroad including black churches predating the Civil War, white abolitionist churches and the connection of the transcontinental railroad and Emancipation Proclamation. Online version included a 30 day lesson plan for schools.

CURATOR, STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS MARCHING FOR CIVIL RIGHTS: THE UNITED SAN FRANCISCO FREEDOM MOVEMENT 2013 The third in the Year of Jubilee trilogy, this exhibit came from interviews and artifacts of the leaders of the campaign of demonstrations between 1963 and 1965 which resulted in 375 agreements with employers to desegregate workforces and spawned successor Free Speech, antiwar and environmental movements. Located in Newark, NJ the 18 year old leader of the Palace Hotel sitin in March 1964. Presented in local hotels opened up because of the campaign.

MAIN SPEAKER, TRIBUTE TO REV. THOMAS STARR KING — 2013 The Grand Masonic Lodge of California and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of California joined in a tribute to the former pastor of First Unitarian Universalist Church in Union Square known for pro-Union speeches that turned sentiment from Confederate sympathizers. Starr King spoke at all the black churches and lodges and was the only white speaker at the Grand zjubilee to mark the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

CREATOR, AFRICAN AMERICAN FREEDOM TRAIL — 2013 Developed trail to show the continuity of the African American freedom struggle in San Francisco across. National borders, languages and specific neighborhoods drawing from an extensive data base gleaned fro a search of every black oublication in the city from 1854 to 1985. Designed brochure for San Francisco Travel, negotiated three year agreement to present on their web site through the Super Bowl season and followed through on research paradigm presented to the American Educational Research Association.

EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, REUNION:EDUCATION-ARTS-HERITAGE 2012- PRESENT Featured in a Presidential Session of the American Educational Research Association in 2013, and scheduled to present to AERA in May 2015 to report findings from our instructional television network designed to give psycho-social intervention to far-below proficient learners by infusing norms of success in history and current society with four hours daily programming, an hour each to different grade levels.

John William Templeton Public Historian Page !7 of !8 I82 CATALOGER CLARENCE GATSON COLLECTION 2013-14 Assisted the family of the late style editor, staff photographer and production manager for the San Francisco Sun Reporter from 1968 to 1992 to gather, categorize and appraise 20,000 photos and negatives with Dr. James Taylor, political science chair at the University of San Francisco, Dr. Dorothy Tsuruta, Africana studies chair of San Francisco State, Tyrone Cannon, dean of USF libraries, and Naomi Jelks, African American librarian at San Francisco Public Library. Negotiated a three year licensing deal with Project Gado and Getty Images for the family.

CONSULTANT, COMMISSION ON RESEARCH IN BLACK EDUCATION — 2002 Collated 72 submissions from leading education faculty for this special unit of the American Education Research Association designed to gather best practices for teaching African American students for the summary report.

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 9 — 2013 Gave videoconference on history of environmental justice to offices throughout the Western states. Used the Bayview Hunters Point area as a demonstration of the issues involved.

ORGANIZER, SAVING THE MANUSCRIPTS OF GAO AND TIMBUKTU — 2013 As an advisor to Dr. Hassimi O. Maiga, Amiru Songhai, arranged his first public call for the world to save the UNESCO World Heritage Sites of Gao, Djenne and Timbuktu, which house the manuscripts of their universities from the 11th through 15th centuries, at Marcus Books and San Francisco State; travelled to Washington for Senate hearings, consulted with Sens. Chris Coons, D-DE and Saxby Chambliss and assistant secretary of state for African affairs Johnnie Carson as the U.S. eventually collaborated with the French to drive Al Queda from the areas occupied in Mali.

ITINERARY PLANNER, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SECTION, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION — 2006 Arranged panel discussion and tour for ABA section on displacement, community benefits and fair housing issues in the Western Addition area of San Francisco, using Chapter 7 of Our Roots Run Deep, Vol. 3, The Cutting Edge of Urban Removal.

EDUCATION B.A. CUM LAUDE JOURNALISM JOHN H. JOHNSON SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATIONS, HOWARD UNIVERSITY Graduate Research Associate, Department of Black Studies and School of Journalism, UNC-Chapel Hill; Minority Science Writers Seminar, Council for the Advancement of Science Writing; Stanford Professional Publishing Course, Stanford School Redesign Network

AWARDS

HUMAN RIGHTS AWARD 2013 CHURCH WOMEN UNITED SAN FRANCISCO Proﬁles of Excellence Circle 7, KGO TV 2011 Library Laureate 2002, Friends of the San Francisco Public Library; Sesquicentennial Commendation, California Sesqicentennial Commission.

John William Templeton Public Historian Page !8 of ! 8 I83 From: Isabella Tioseco To: _CCIN Cc: _Planning Commission Date: Friday, September 02, 2016 8:19:02 AM

Dear Menlo Park City Council,

My name is Isabella Tioseco and I live in Pittsburg, CA and work at Facebook HQ at 1 Hacker Way in Menlo Park. I’m writing in support of the general plan update allowing 4,500 new housing units. I urge the City Council to approve the general plan update with allowances for the full 4,500 additional units.

Sincerely,

Isabella Tioseco

I84 From: Jackie Ward To: _connectmenlo Cc: [email protected]; "Rafik Ward" Subject: concern/question re: upcoming Open House and City Plan Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:48:30 PM

Dear City Planning Committee, We received your postcard about the upcoming General Plan Update Open Houses, one of which I plan to attend. I’m afraid, despite living in MP for 8 yrs now and having a son at Oak Knoll Elementary, I haven’t kept in the loop about the past two year’s of city planning, as much as I would have liked. However, now learning from our MPCSD Superintendant that our school district is faced with a severe budget crisis, given the population growth that has occurred in MP and is forecasted to continue over the next several years, I felt it imperative to become more involved and ask you the following. As you plan to build 4,500 more residential units and thereby increase the flood of families moving into the area, have you considered that many of our schools, in particular, Laurel, Encinal, and Oak Knoll, are already at their capacities, with our children’s class sizes bursting at the seams in numbers close to 27 for grades 3, 4, 5? What is the committee’s plan to offer quality public school education to all of these new residents, as well as the current ones, who are paying extremely high property taxes to live here? Is there discussion around the need to build more schools to accompany the growth in residential housing? I haven’t seen much information about this issue and was hoping you could better inform me. I would love to become more involved and feel that our children’s education should remain a top priority as MP finalizes its City Plan. Please let me know how I might be able to collaborate with you. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jackie and Rafik Ward 1775 Stanford Ave

I85