Managed Retreat

Submitted by Jim Wagner

Pacifica Sea Level Rise Citizens Working Group this Thursday

The City of Pacifica will be holding another Public Meeting with the Sea Level Rise Citizen’s Working Group this Thursday, April 26 at 6PM at the Community Center; 540 Crespi Dr., Pacifica.

The description of the meeting is “Intro to Adaptation Strategies.”

If you are concerned about property rights, property values, or Sea Level Rise in Pacifica, please plan to attend the meeting on Thursday.

See the Facts below to give you a better sense of what might come out of these meetings if concerned homeowners are not involved in this process.  The California Coastal Commission has written a 95-page document called the “Residential Adaptation Policy Guidance,” that will help to shape Pacifica’ s Local Coastal Program (LCP).  The LCP contains the set of rules and ordinances that people must follow within the coastal zone.  This summer, the Coastal Commission is expected to finalize the document dealing with residential structures (homes), called the Residential Adaptation Policy Guidance.

RESIDENTIAL ADAPTATION POLICY GUIDANCE FACTS          

The Residential Adaptation Policy Guidance (RAPG) moves forward with guidelines on residential but not on commercial or public facilities.  Our communities include all three and there is no clear delineation between them.  Because of our development type, it is impossible to deal with one property type, ignoring the adjacent business or street that carries the sewer pipes.

The RAPG states that any type of armoring is harmful, when, in fact, the berm in Pacifica provides a habitat for endangered species, in addition to protecting homes and the golf course.

The RAPG was created by Coastal Commission staff without public input or consultation with the industries impacted, such as property and liability insurance and lenders.

If a home or business is drawn into one of the vulnerability zones, and the owner would like to make modifications to his or her property, he or she will be forced to agree that the property will not be armored or protected.  If a property is drawn into one of the vulnerability zones, it will be restricted in the amount of remodeling or modifications he or she can make to a property.

If a property is drawn into one of the vulnerability zones, it could make it difficult to get a loan or obtain insurance.

If a property is drawn into one of the vulnerability zones, the owner may be required to prove that he or she has sufficient resources to remove his or her home when the CCC and the city government decide it is necessary.  According to the RAPG, hotels and multi-family properties will be required to provide a bond, letter of credit, cash deposit, lien agreement to prove there are resources to remove the building.

If a home is drawn into one of the vulnerability zones, property values will decline.  This could affect property values in adjacent neighborhoods and even the remainder of cities on the coast.

Some of the properties that are drawn into any of the “vulnerability” zones will be condemned.  The CCC and the local government will decide which properties will be condemned and when that will happen.

If a property was built after January 1, 1977 – even though the owner received prior permission from the CCC to build – it is ineligible for any type of protection or armoring, even if neighboring properties are eligible.

If a property was built before January 1, 1977, it might qualify for temporary shoreline armoring or other protections.  But, this is not the case if the property has been remodeled or modified in the past 40 years.

Taxes will be impacted as properties are condemned and public utilities are forced to be relocated, while tax-generating commercial properties are lost, as well.

Increased litigation between property owners and governmental agencies will occur, at the expense of the taxpayers.

The CCC has committed to “managed retreat,” which will result in increased pressure on all property owners on the coast to surrender their property in the shortest timeframe legally possible.

Submitted by Jim Wagner

Special City Council meeting (Budget) Tuesday, 4/24/18

Attend this Special City Council Budget Study Session meeting in person, 2212 Beach Boulevard, 2nd floor.  Or, view on Comcast television, channel 26; or, view live on Pacific Coast television (PCT) webite 26 (small screen to the right).  PCT also archives City Council meetings on their website YouTube.  The PCT guide is here, see Tuesday, 4/24/18.   City Council updates and archives are available on the City Council website.  

Welcome to our sustainable budget (maybe),
and unsustainable NIMBY vision (always).

Interactive City Council budget meeting agenda, 4/24/18.     City Council meeting agenda, 4/24/18, pdf pages 30.

Open Session, 6:00 p.m., call to order, roll call.

Budget Study Session 
1.    Budget presentation, FY 2018-19, and discussion of strategies, report.  a)  Administrative reserve policy, 10% of General Fund expenditures (2/3 undesignated, 1/3 economic contingencies. b)  Public Works streets and roads, 89.1 miles, (89.1 centerline miles: 15.3 arterial, 12.3 collector, 61.3 residential, 0.2 unmanaged pavement).
Public comment (for items listed on the agenda).

Consideration
2.   Adopt City Council goals with prioritized projects, FY 2018-19, report.  a)  Goals adopted 4/24/18.  b)  Prioritized projects/Initiatives, FY 2018-19.  c)  Other executive priorities, FY 2018-19.  d)  City Council Goal-setting collective vision statements, 3/3/18. 
Public comment (for items listed on the agenda).
Adjourn.    Note: broken doll and pie crust picture from Stern Words blog/Icbennettstern, "Pie in the Sky", exhaustion, rants, uncategorized words. 

Posted by Kathy Meeh

City Council meeting, Monday April 23, 2018

Attend in person, 2212 Beach Boulevard, 2nd floor. Or view on local television or live feed Pacific Coast TV. If you missed meetings, view on PCT26 YouTube!  The city council meeting begins at 7 p.m., or shortly there following. City Council updates and archives are available on the City Council website.      Channel 26 television schedule, see Monday, 4/23/18.  

Interactive City Council meeting agenda, 4/23/18.        City Council meeting agenda, 4/23/18 pdf pages 159.

Some progress in NIMBY City,
and airplane noise bad.

Closed session, 5:30 p.m.  CA code 54957.6.  Conference with labor negotiator:  Firefighters local 240, Battalion Chiefs, Local 856; Wastewater Treatment Plant employees, Local 856, Miscellaneous Local 856, Department Directors, Local 350, Managers Local 350; Police Officers Association, Police Supervisors Association, Police Management Local 350.
 
Open session, 7:00 p.m.  Call to order, roll call, salute to flag.  Closed Session report.  
Special presentations.  Get us moving:  Jessica Epstein.
Consent Calendar 
1.    Approval of financial disbursements (checks), FY 2017-18, report.  a) 3/16/18 - 3/31/18.
2.    Approval of Minutes, report.  a) 3/9/18.
3.    Resolution, disposal of certain obsolete or duplicate City records (CA code 34090), report/resolution.  a) Inter-department memo, 6/1/17.
4.    Award contract for immediate sewer main repair replacement (Crespi Drive crossing Highway 1), to C2R Engineering, Inc., $148,130, total budget $196.510, from the Wastewater Enterprise Fund, FY 2017-18 Capital Budget, report.  a) Contract. 
5.    Resolution adopting the List of Projects funded by the CA Road Repair and Accountability act of 2017, SB1 (increased gas tax, estimated annual funding to the City, $640,000):  FY 2018-19 estimated funding $676,429, report/resolution.  Local road repair and related projects (matching funds; City Manager recommendations): 1) Linda Mar Blvd (Adobe to Alicante Dr.; Oceana Blvd (Milagra Dr. to Monterey Rd); 2) Cabrillo school pedestrian crossing improvement; 3) Citywide: 100 curb ramp installations or replacements; 4) Palmetto sidewalk: 1400 linear feet, curb and gutter, from Westline Dr. to 100 Palmetto Av,(west side, bridging the coastal trail mobility gap).
6.   Award contracts for 400 Esplanade Infrastructure Preservation Projects (rock revetment), report. a)  Ford Construction Company, Inc. b) GHD, Inc. c) Cotton Shires & Associates. d) Site map, Esplanade Avenue bluff at Manor Avenue.
7.    2-story mixed-use building (within City Growth Management Ordinance), ground floor commercial, 2nd floor 4 one-bedroom apartments: 535 San Pedro Avenue (southern end of Pedro Point Shopping Center, vacant lot, area of San Pedro and Grand Avenues, APN 023-072-110), report. a) Planning Commission Resolution Conditions of Approval). 
Communications.  Public (oral), City Council, City Staff.  Public Hearings, none.

Consideration
8.   Legal options report addressing increased Bay Area cities air traffic noise (and those affecting our City), caused by FAA's "NextGen" air traffic routing and automated satellite GPS technology, report.      
Adjourn.  
Notes: Photograph: view from Kent Road (Pedro Point), Zillow.  Update 4/20/18: City Council meeting links, (visual review of Interactive agenda, content seems the same or similar):  Interactive agenda, 4/23/18,  PDF agenda, 4/23/18, pages 159. 

Posted by Kathy Meeh

Planning Commission meeting, Monday April 16, 2018

Attend in person, 2212 Beach Boulevard, 2nd floor.  Or, view on local television or live feed Pacificcoast.TV, (formerly pct26.com).  If you miss civic meetings, view on PCT 26 You Tube!  The planning commission meeting begins at 7 p.m., or shortly there following.  Planning Commission updates, archives are available on the City website: City Council Agendas, and City Planning Commission.  Channel 26 television schedule, see Monday, 4/16/18.   

 

Interactive Planning Commission agenda, 4/16/18.       Planning Commission Agenda, pdf pages 65.

Open Session, 7:00 p.m.  Administrative:  Approval of order of Agenda, Approval of Draft Minutes: none.  Designation of Planning Commission liaison to City Council meeting, 5/14/18:  801 Fassler call up (Tom Clifford). Consent items, none.  Communications:  Public oral.  
 

Item 1.  New home construction,
Olympian Way (Pedro Point)

New Public Hearings
1.   File number 2017-029, CDP-390-17. Construction of a 2-story, 3,819 sq.ft. single-family dwelling, on a 12,498 sq. ft. lot), north side of Olympian Way, 1,200 feet west of Grand Avenue intersection, (APN 023-038-350), report.  a) Land use/zoning exhibit, b) Draft Resolution and COAs. c) Project plans.
2.    TA-111-18, City municipal code ordinance amendment, adding Article 49 to Chapter 4 of Title 9:  short term rental zoning to be consistent with the City General Plan and Local Coastal Land Use Plan, report. a) Resolution, b) Coastal Commission memo.

Consideration
3.    Annual Planning Commission reorganization, report.  a) Planning Commission By-Laws (amended and adopted 4/17/2017).

Communications:  Planning Commission, Staff, Adjourn.   

------------------------------ 

Reference, development/planning acronyms.  APN, Assessor's parcel number.  CDP, Coastal Development permit. CZ, (Coastal Zone Combining) zoning districts. DP, development permit. GPA, General Plan Amendment.  LDR, low density residential.  PD, Planned Development.  PE, Parking Exception. PSD, Site Development permit. PV, Permit Variance. S, Sign permit. SE, Sign Exception. SP, Specific Plan. RIA, Rent Increase Application.  SUB Subdivision. TA, text amendment (ordinance). UP, Use permit.  Zoning. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  CA CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Categorical Exemptions: Class 1 categorical exemption, section 15301. Freestanding single-family residences set-back and parking, C-1, neighborhood commercial. C-3, Service Commercial.  R1, single-family residential, Reference.com.  S, City of Pacifica Sign ordinance.  CA code, accessory (second residential) dwelling units, 65852.2.  Zoning/Planning Handouts, City of Pacifica.  RZ, rezoning.  TDR, transfer of development rights (urban planning).      Note photograph: 358 Olympian Way, from Redfin.

Posted by Kathy Meeh

Pacifica beachside property owners to pay $1.45 million fine

By Jenna Lyons 

Updated 2:58 pm, Thursday, April 12, 2018

The owners of a seaside apartment complex in Pacifica will pay $1.45 million in penalties after a state agency said they failed to maintain the seawall and public access stairway to a local beach, as well as carried out unauthorized construction at the site in an attempt to fix it.

Board members of the California Coastal Commission on Thursday unanimously approved the settlement agreement with a group of companies affiliated with OceanAire Apartments, which sits on properties at 100 and 101 Esplanade Avenue in Pacifica.

The owners’ violations varied from dumping boulders that weighed up to six tons on the beach, grading and trenching the land and blocking public access to the beach — all without a coastal development permit, according to a report from the commission.

“Having a public hearing on an item like this with a serious resolution and a serious amount of penalty sends a message that people need to take their (California) Coastal Act permit requirements seriously,” said Lisa Haage, chief of enforcement for the commission. “We’re hoping this kind of casual response wouldn’t happen in the future.”

The public access stairway to the beach ultimately collapsed in December 2016, in part due to winter storms, high tide events, structural issues and a lack of maintenance on the part of the owners.

Read more...

Posted by Steve Sinai

Student activism; School Bond Measures at Democrats meeting, Saturday April 14, 2018

This month’s meeting of the Pacifica-Daly City Democrats Club will be this Saturday, April 14, one week earlier than the customary third Saturday so as to avoid a conflict with Earth Day activities. 

Time to put a little money into our
school building infrastructure again.

 Student activism: March
for Our Lives movement

Terra Nova high school student Henry Lie and fellow student organizers will discuss the March for Our Lives movement and “what’s next” in terms of student activism and lobbying for sensible gun control reforms.

Additionally, Jefferson Union High School District Trustees Andrew Lie and Kalimah Salahuddin will present information on JUHSD’s Bond Measure J, which will be on the June 5 primary election ballot. Saturday’s program will also include a brief presentation to educate meeting attendees about Pacifica School District’s Bond Measure O, also on the June 5 ballot.

The meeting, in the rear banquet room at the Sharp Park Golf Course Restaurant, will begin at 9:30 a.m.  Breakfast will be available for $12, continental for $6, or just coffee for $3. However, no purchase is necessary, and the meeting is free and open to the general public. 

Submitted by Connie Menefee, President on behalf of the Executive Board of the Pacifica-Daly City Democrats Club

-------------------- 
Reference/related.  Gun control reform. March for Our Lives movement/information, Wikipedia. Gun laws guide.  School Bond Measures. Jefferson Union High School District Bond Issue, Ballotpedia, Measure J (11/2014), 2018 information (?). Pacifica School District, Measure O, 2018, "Old buildings need to be repaired or replaced and outdated heating systems require updates. .... a $55 million local education bond measure..."  Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, June 5, 2018 Elections recommendations: These School Bonds, require 55% of the vote:  Jefferson Union High School District, Measure J, $99M; Pacifica School District, Measure O, $55M.  California Statewide Primary Election, June 5, 2018, Voter Information Guide.     

Note: photographs.  Student march, credit Gerald Herbert/Associated Press/Parkland, Fla. from ABC 7 Eyewitness News/Society/Los Angeles, CA, "March for Our Lives: Lyft offers free rides..."  Piggy from The Camarillo Acorn, "PVSD to put school bond on June ballot/Hector Gonzalez, 2/1/18."
Posted by Kathy Meeh

City Council meeting, Monday, April 9, 2018

Attend in person, 2212 Beach Boulevard, 2nd floor. Or view on local television or live feed Pacific Coast TV. If you missed meetings, view on PCT26 YouTube!  The city council meeting begins at 7 p.m., or shortly there following. City Council updates and archives are available on the City Council website.      Channel 26 television schedule, see Monday, 4/9/18.   

Item 7 Appeal: 674 Corona Drive addition.

Interactive City Council meeting agenda, 4/9/18.      City Council meeting agenda, 4/9/18, pdf pages 284.

Closed session, 6:30 p.m.  CA code 54957.6.  Conference with labor negotiator:  Firefighters local 240, Battalion Chiefs, Local 856; Wastewater Treatment Plant employees, Local 856, Department Directors, Local 350, Managers Local 350; Police Officers Association, Police Supervisors Association, Police Management Local 350.

Open session, 7:00 p.m.  Call to order, roll call, salute to flag.  Closed Session report.  
Special presentations.  Proclamation:  Volunteer appreciation week.
Consent Calendar 
1.    Approval of financial disbursements (checks), FY 2017-18, report.  a) 3/1/18 - 3/15/18.
2.    Approval of Minutes, report.  a) 3/26/18.
3.    Proclamation confirming existence of a local emergency, Pacifica Coastline: Westline Drive to the end of Beach Blvd, report.  a) bluff failure, 4/2/18.
4.    Municipal code Chapter 28, Title 5, unruly gatherings and social host liability ordinance: adding cannabis and controlled substances (second reading), report/changes.  a)  Ordinance.  b)  report, 3/26/18.
5.    Adopt administrative policy honoring retiring public service City employees, report.  a) Proclamation (with at least 15 years of service). 

Item 8 Committee/Commission candidates:
I say, "our environment is our environment!"

6.    Adopt annual Spring reporting and fulfillment of reorganization requirements for all City Commissions and Committees, report/resolution.  a) Resolution 33-2013, (rescinding Resolution 21-2013).
Communications.  Public (oral), City Council, City Staff.  Public Hearings, none.

Public Hearings
 7.    Appeal Planning Commission approval to construct a  2-story 1,698 sq. ft. addition, a patio area, a deck, and an uncovered parking area, and replacement of one heritage tree to an existing 3,503 sq. ft. single-family residence:  674 Corona Drive (APN 022-210-090), report.  a) Draft City Council resolution denying the Appeal, and upholding the Planning Commission's approval, 2/5/18.  b) Appeal concerns. c) Planning Commission report with attachments, pdf pages 123). d) Planning Commission resolution and meeting minutes. e) proper drainage graphic.
Consideration
8.    Appointments to the Beautification Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission, report.  Applicants: a) Beautification Advisory Committee. b) Planning Commission. c) Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission. 

Adjourn.     Note: photograph, 674 Corona Drive, 1 of 29 slides from Redfin; graphic, "in person" from City of Abilene, Texas/Boards and Commissions.

Posted by Kathy Meeh

Palo Alto hates airplane noise

The following is in regards to a meeting in Palo Alto, not Pacifica -

CALL TO ACTION: Come to City Hall Council Chambers on Monday April 9! At 5:30 pm, and/or at 9:30 pm. Airplane noise is scheduled at two separate times on the Agenda: 5:00-6:30 PM Closed Session CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-POTENTIAL LITIGATION Subject: Noise and Other Impacts Arising From Management of Aircraft in the Northern California Airspace Authority: Potential Initiation of Litigation Under Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) (One Potential Case, as Plaintiff)” Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 9:30-10:30 PM “Policy and Services Committee and Staff Recommendations on Next Steps Related to Airplane Noise.” Please show on Monday to support our speakers! If you are unable to attend, write to Council members a few comments on the items that follow: PACC Contact info: liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org, eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org, greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org, Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org, tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org, karen.holman@cityofpaloalto.org, cory.wolbach@cityofpaloalto.org, Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org,  greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org Negative impacts brought about since 2014 need to be corrected: Palo Alto City Council must bring attention to the unanimous Select Committee recommendations (crafted together with FAA) to assess alternatives to address the problematic Menlo waypoint and vicinity; including to assess new waypoints to use the Bay for SFO arrivals, and recommendations to design new procedures to correct the severe noise problems brought about since 2014. Adequate environmental reviews are imperative: FAA mandated environmental reviews are meant to consider modeled noise increases/decreases in communities before FAA takes airspace actions which can impact the natural and human environment. When these analysis are done without the right tools and with inadequate information, it results in FAA documenting determinations such as "no impact," which then allows FAA to look no further at the impacts of their actions, or to consider alternatives to minimize negative impacts. The Select Committee was convened to address the problems with FAA’s actions and flawed environmental review that took Palo Alto and neighbors by surprise in 2014, yet FAA appears to continue to “surprise” the public by taking actions without adequate environmental assessments (see below). Inadequate analysis which fails to consider impacts on the City’s environment, schools, neighborhoods, natural habitats, health and the quality of life of its citizens must be taken up Palo Alto City Council (whose pledge is to defend Palo Alto), and Council actions to ensure compliance with environmental statutes is critical. Deadlines to file petitions for review cannot be missed: A victory was recently handed to FAA when Georgetown was deprived of having the courts look at the merits of their case due to missing the 60 day deadline to file a petition for review. An excerpt from the court’s opinion, written by Judge Tatel: “The FAA’s efforts to inform the residents of Georgetown about the evaluation of the D.C. Metroplex were hardly a model of sound agency practice. But neither the FAA’s stumbles nor those of its contractor excuse Georgetown’s failure to timely file a petition for review given that the agency provided adequate notice of the EA process and never indicated that it might change its position. Filing deadlines, replete throughout the United States Code, promote prompt and final judicial review of agency decisions and ensure that agencies and affected parties can proceed free from the uncertainty that an action may be undone at any time” The court’s opinion puts on notice any city that fails to meet a deadline for filing a petition for review or choosing not to challenge the FAA in a timely manner. The courts guarantee  FAA the ability to proceed "free from the uncertainty that an action may be undone at any time" or free from the uncertainty that prior actions can be questioned. Last week FAA reached out to various news outlets in the Bay Area about SERFR 3, a procedure published on March 29th (the 60 day clock started on this date for SERFR 3). To publish SERFR 3, FAA chose to apply a Categorical Exclusion. A three page Memo, starting on page five of thislink basically states that there is nothing to register, in terms of environmental impacts. SEFR3, and various actions have obvious negative impacts unresolved from the 2014 actions such as concentration of impacts, and low altitudes. To determine the potential for noise impacts (and to arrive at their CATEX decision), FAA did not do the environmental analysis with FAA’s mandated AEDT tool. Instead, FAA used a “MITRE Guidance noise screening Lateral Movement Test (LAT Test).” Future actions will use this basis (a memo) for future determinations, and the public still has no information about what the "MITRE Guidance" test is or what inputs or criteria were used. The Mitre test is not mentioned in Order 1050.1F, which guides FAA environmental reviews. In our communication last month, we shared FAA’s announced plan to involve communities in PBN procedures design, which has specific steps to improve the way the public is kept informed and engaged. Clearly there is a disconnect between what FAA is communicating about PBN community involvement (to have communities engaged early on before changes are made) to what is happening with the various and impending actions affecting Palo Alto and neighbors. FAA has the brief 60 day deadline to their advantage; keeping affected people busy talking in forums like roundtables and committees while running out the clock seems to work best for FAA but not so for the affected public. Congressional representatives wrote to FAA to request an update on FAA’s Initiative to address noise concerns, and to ask about environmental review and to respond by March 15, but FAA did not respond by the requested deadline. An industry journal Aviation Noise Report has reported that they reached out to FAA to ask about the Bay Area situation, and FAA responded (to ANR) stating that they “expect to provide an update soon.” On Monday April 9th, we need Palo Alto City Council to be focused and clear that COUNCIL must lead on taking on this problem with FAA, and with officials at all levels of government.

News and Updates

SJC South Flow Ad Hoc Committee - Meetings and Audio Recordings. Victory for East Hampton - The FAA has ruled that the town can use airport revenue to fund a legal defense in the ongoing helicopter noise battle. The Baltimore Washington International (BWI) Roundtable produced its first annual report in mid-February. See the Conclusion: "The DC Metroplex BWI Community Roundtable was created at the insistence of the FAA to act as the vehicle for addressing the harmful noise issues associated with the NEXTGEN/DC Metroplex project. Unfortunately, it appears to be a largely unsatisfactory approach. At this time, we believe there must be a change in approach in order to achieve broader results. " Press release: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has denied petitions from the Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition (LAAHNC) The First Round in Petitioners' Challenge to the SoCal Metroplex Project "Because the Federal Aviation Administration’s (“FAA’) airspace redesign projects throughout the United States have apparently negatively impacted hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people, and because we have received a number of requests for a discussion of the bases for the currently pending challenge to the FAA’s SoCal Metroplex airspace redesign project, a copy of the Opening Brief of Petitioners City of Culver City, California; Santa Monica Canyon Civic Association; Donald Vaughn; and Stephen Murray in Benedict Hills Estates Association, et al. v. FAA, et al., D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 16-1366 (consolidated with 16-1377, 16-1378, 17-1010 and 17-1029) can be accessed by clicking here. Also filing briefs as Amici Curiae, or friends of the court, in support of Petitioners are the City of Los Angeles and the West Adams for Clear Skies. "

MOST IMPORTANT: Report intrusive jet noise! Use any of these methods:  The APP stop.jetnoise.net EMAIL sfo.noise@flysfo.com SFO PHONE 650.821.4736/Toll free 877.206.8290. ONLINE: SFO traffic: click here for the link SJC traffic: click her for the link Other airports: click here for more info Spread the Word! Share Sky Posse updates and this LINK with your neighbors to join the efforts to reduce jet noise.  Thank you! Sky Posse Palo Alto  Submitted by Jim Wagner