Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-16 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 17 Regular Meeting September 16, 2024 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 5:30 P.M. Present In Person: Burt, Kou, Lauing, Lythcott-Haims, Stone, Veenker Tanaka Arrived at 5:34 PM. Present Remotely: None Absent: None Call to Order Mayor Stone welcomed all to the meeting. The clerk called roll and declared six were present. Special Orders of the Day 1. Resolution in Support of Build the Future Santa Clara County Item Removed Off Agenda and Deferred to a Date Uncertain Mayor Stone announced that Resolution in Support of Build the Future Santa Clara County had been removed from the agenda and deferred to a date uncertain. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Ed Shikada reminded Council that there was to be a time-sensitive closed session this evening. Public Comment Mayor Stone informed the public that virtual speakers were not allowed. Total speaker time was capped to 30 minutes. He covered a few ground rules, which included this being a safe space and the First Amendment right to express views. Jennifer L. thanked Council Member Tanaka and the City Auditor for speaking at the August 13 P&S meeting concerning the City’s procurement process. She suggested there be a performance-based approach taken regarding various City goals. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/16/2024 Avram F. spoke of a headline reading Leaders Pull Out of 911 Vigil, which he associated with censorship. He voiced why he appreciated the organizer of the vigil, and he thanked Council Member Lythcott-Haims for attending. He opposed to tasers and supported reparations for the African-American community. Tom H. had written an email asking for support of middle school athletics and requested there be a discussion. He asked that the season be saved for JLS cross country athletes. He appreciated the Council members who had and were scheduled to meet with him, and he would email requests to meet with the remaining Council members. Noel S. protested the Middle East conflicts and requested that Council speak out. Sarit S. voiced her disagreement with CAIR being a sponsor at a multi-faith picnic in front of City Hall. She thanked Council and the HRC Chair and Vice Chair for their actions. Alan spoke of the recent 911 event and thanked Council and the HRC for their work in keeping Palo Alto a place of unity and belonging for all. He hoped the community could commemorate 911 next year. Council Member Questions, Comments, and Announcements Council Member Veenker reminded Council that on September 25 at noon at Skyline College there would be a luncheon sponsored by the Peninsula Division of the California League of Cities on climate change and sea level rise, and she encouraged attendance. Council Member Kou announced to Council and staff that on October 11, 2024, at Santa Clara Convention Center from 9 to 12:15 PM, Valley Water would host a summit that would report out and address the impacts of encampments along waterways. There was also a Zoom option, which was on Valley Water’s website. Mayor Stone invited the community of all age groups to attend an AAPI youth mental health event opening intergenerational conversations on September 17 at Palo Alto High School from 7 to 8:30 PM. Study Session 2. Caltrain Electrification and Local Coordination Updates NO ACTION Caltrain Executive Director Michelle Bouchard introduced the topic. She thanked Council Member Burt for his work and support. They had soft launched the electrification project. The full launch would be on Saturday September 21, and she was thankful for the hosted party. She thanked Palo Alto for supporting the railroad. An access policy had been passed, which they wanted to feature. The COVID epidemic continued to affect Caltrain ridership and the financial SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/16/2024 situation. They were nearing close to 40 percent of pre-pandemic ridership. She looked forward to seeing everyone at the event on Saturday. Caltrain External Affairs Manager Brent Tietjen displayed slides. He provided some context on the Caltrain train service, including mileage, number of stations, etc. He discussed what was being done to increase ridership and the history of Caltrain trains, and he outlined the key milestones that had been completed. They would continue getting new trains through early 2025. He outlined the tours that occurred and provided an overview of the electrification benefits. He voiced that they would be able to provide 20 percent more service and 26 percent more service would be provided to equity priority stations. There would be at least half-hourly service on the corridors. They partnered with Peninsula Clean Energy and San Jose Power to provide zero carbon for the system. Fact sheets could be found at caltrain.com/servicebenefits. A lot of public outreach had been done related to safety. They would be happy to attend a school organization or event to provide information. There would be an event on September 21 from 2 to 6 PM and free Caltrain transit and parking that weekend. The event would occur again at the San Mateo station on Sunday, September 22. More could be found at caltrain.com/launchparty. Folks could sign up for updates at caltrain.com/get-involved. He discussed cities being key partners, and a city partner toolkit had been created, which was located at caltrain.com/citypartnership. He spoke of the partnership models, which were listed on their website. They would be happy to provide more detail on the Caltrain-City principles to the Rail Committee. Caltrain Government and Community Affairs Officer Navdeep (Navi) Dhaliwal addressed the Station Access Policy, which had been updated. She defined access. She outlined and defined the policy’s purpose statement and goals. She detailed the eight next steps to support the application of the Station Access Policy. She wanted it to be clear that the ongoing access improvement project would continue and parallel. Some of those projects would be discussed at the Rail Committee meeting on September 17. The processes were iterative, so there would be an emphasis on engagement with jurisdictional partners along the corridor. She detailed what was included in the Station Access Toolkit. She anticipated additional discussions with the City at Rail Committee and the jurisdictional partners along the corridor. Council Member Kou thought there should be discussions about security and safety policies and procedures at the stations. She asked how Caltrain planned to address the $77M annual deficit they were facing. Executive Director Bouchard answered that the possible $77M annual deficit was an active conversation at Caltrain and in the region. To derive the $77M, they initially looked at a 10-year strategic financial plan that tried to account for the hoped for revenues and what the future cost would be. Next year would be very informative and give a firm baseline of costs. They were also anticipating growth in ridership. They had been working with the region and JPA members to determine funding source options. They were trying to ascertain if a regional measure could be put on the ballot to help many if not all agencies facing a fiscal cliff. In the meantime, they would identify efficiencies and look at capping cost increases. They would also investigate SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/16/2024 driving more revenue through nonoperating assets. The primary focus was the regional measure. Council Member Burt provided some supplemental reporting on behalf of the Caltrain Board and the Rail Committee. Lower noise levels had been observed with electric trains. There had been progress in improvements at the University station. There would be a Rail Committee meeting on September 17 at 2:30, and updates would be presented and there was to be discussion related to access. He discussed why Caltrain access and increasing ridership was valuable to Palo Alto. Council Member Veenker inquired if regional coordination and coordination transfers referred to busses or light rail. External Affairs Manager Tietjen replied that they were coordinated with Stanford and VTA. They were working to coordinate with VTA for light rail as well. Council Member Lythcott-Haims queried what the events of the September 21 event would be. External Affairs Manager Tietjen detailed the happenings of the September 21 event. Council Member Tanaka questioned what stations had scooter shares. He noted that Palo Alto was the second busiest city, and wanted staff to address the scooter share program. He asked about the timeline for level boarding. External Affairs Manager Tietjen did not have the scooter share information at the meeting, but he did not believe there were many outside San Jose and San Francisco. There was a study in progress for level boarding, but he did not know the timeline. Vice Mayor Lauing commented that it was important to coordinate the entire region with representatives from the entire corridor. He urged folks to ride the trains. Mayor Stone inquired if the lower ridership had changed the plans to expand the number of trains. External Affairs Manager Tietjen responded there were currently 104 trains and there were no plans to expand service at this time. Once ridership increased to a level demanding it, they would increase service to six trains an hour. Public Comment Mark S. (Zoom) was concerned that there were no overhead bars to hold onto in the bike cars. Rebecca E. expressed her personal gratitude and support for electrification. Stephen R. (Zoom), a member of Reconnect Palo Alto, supported the viaduct for grade separation. He asked what Caltrain’s grade crossing policy was. He did not consider Caltrain and SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/16/2024 Palo Alto to have a partnership with regard to grade crossings and requested that Caltrain’s policy of cooperation be examined. Council Member Burt spoke of current and pre-COVID ridership and number of trains running. He commented that a Clipper card could be activated through Apple Wallet. 3. Update and Receive Council Input on Airport Long-Range Plan Project NO ACTION Public Works Director Brad Eggleston furnished slides. He noted that this type of plan followed an FAA process. It did not impose a requirement on the City to approve any modification at the airport. The primary goal at this meeting was to get Council feedback on the alternatives so a preferred alternative could be developed. He had placed the components into three categories, which included potential improvements to prepare the airport for a more sustainable future, runway improvements responding to FAA safety criteria, and unleaded fuel and the draft transition plan that had been developed and which was beginning to be implemented. Airport Operations Manager Michael Luetgens presented slides. He spoke of the steps that had been completed to date. He detailed how the forecasted operations had been developed. He provided slides listing the potential improvements that could be made at the airport. The alternatives had been developed based on FAA criteria, and it was a requirement that it be shown how the airport could meet the improvements, and two of the alternatives met all potential improvements described. However, there were constraints in meeting the improvements, which included the space on the airport and impacts on wetlands outside the airport. They had also reviewed the layouts to efficiency and impact to surrounding communities, and while alternatives were developed on those potential improvements, they were not requirements. He provided details related to Alternatives 1 through 5. They had done significant outreach and there had been extensive interest from organizations, including the City of East Palo Alto, etc. A survey had been conducted over the summer, and the community most preferred Alternative 1 with 43 percent and Alternative 4 the second most preferred with 22 percent. The community’s highest focus area was to maintain harmony with the Baylands. There had been two petitions requesting signers to protect the Palo Alto Baylands from airport expansion, which received over 1,100 signatures. Airport Manager Andrew Swanson supplied an update on the transfer to unleaded fuel plan. They had drafted a three-phase process, which he outlined. Director Eggleston added that the uptake on unleaded fuel had not been good to date and was less than 1 percent of the avgas sold at the airport. They would receive Council feedback at this meeting, and they had interest from neighboring cities for presentations to their City councils, so they would plan to pursue that. They would take input to work on development of a preferred alternative and plan additional public outreach. Then they would return to Council for review of the preferred alternative. It was important to make progress on the fuel transition plan. They were interested in feedback related to the preferred alternative as it related to a SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/16/2024 sustainable airport future, runway safety standards that could be accommodated within the footprint, and guidance on the runway lengths. Council Member Burt queried if Alternatives 2 through 5 would intrude into dedicated parkland and if it would require a vote of the people to un-dedicate. He voiced that his feedback on this would be very dependent on the dedicated parkland issue. He questioned why there had not been a return to Council after the presentation in March 2023. He supported the airport being sustainable and transitioning to lead-free and electrified aircraft, but the process was creating a backlash in the community. He did not think the FAA requirements had been framed well enough for the community. He asked what the buffer requirements were. Airport Manager Swanson confirmed that all the alternatives would intrude into dedicated parkland. Most of the buffer area was required to meet requirements. It basically extended to the Bay Trail, but they made sure to protect the trail. Director Eggleston believed Alternatives 2 through 5 would require a vote of the people to undedicated parkland. He had also heard there were potential complexities about the designation of some of the lands. An analysis had not yet been done because they wanted Council feedback. He explained why they had not returned to Council after the March 2023 meeting. Council Member Kou inquired how much parkland would have to be undedicated for each of the proposed alternatives. Airport Operations Manager Luetgens answered that they had not calculated how much land would need to be undedicated on the golf course for Alternative 3, but it would be 3½ acres for Alternative 2, 10½ for Alternative 4, and 6½ for Alternative 5, which included the wetlands. Council Member Kou requested that on return information related to the golf course land be provided. She wanted to ensure that with all the alternatives there would be a 320-foot buffer for birds. She questioned if the changes described in Alternatives 2 through 5 were mandated by the FAA. Consultant Kim Fabend stated she would have to return with an answer related to the buffer length. Airport Manager Swanson replied that the changes described in Alternatives 2 through 5 were not mandated but were recommendations in the standards. Building out was not a requirement. Vice Mayor Lauing commented that they were trying to increase parkland on the Bayland side of the airport, so this was going in the wrong direction. He questioned if sea rise and levees and raising the runway was relevant to this discussion, if an Assembly Bill was needed to mandate un-leaded gasoline, if the intent was to create solar to help operate the airport or if the solar SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/16/2024 could be shipped elsewhere, what the intent was for adding more hangars, and if the five-foot width was because some planes had different wingspans. Director Eggleston responded that it had been concluded that there was no federal interest in moving forward with a project to raise runways because sea level rise would not be significant for a number of decades. They were still trying to better understand that. Federal grant assurances did not allow ceasing the sale of a particular fuel, and there were provisions in the FAA Reauthorization Act for daily fines for doing it. There was a deadline in the legislation that stated airports could stop selling the fuel if there was not a replacement by 2030. If there was not a replacement by 2026, staff planned on returning to Council for further discussion. They were not sure how SB1193 would apply. A letter of support for the Bill had been sent. Airport Manager Swanson answered, regarding un-leaded gasoline, that federal grant assurances had to be followed. Assembly Bill SB1193 requested that it be phased out in California in 2026, at which time they could return to Council. The hangars were for the current planes at the airport. An additional five feet was needed to accommodate the Pilatus PC-12 because design standards had changed. Airport Operations Manager Luetgens replied that they were looking into what the airport could support with solar on the airfield, including supporting the treatment plant next door and electric charges for vehicles that could return to a person’s home to supply power. The five-foot related to the potential improvement for the Pilatus PC-12 currently using the airport. Council Member Lythcott-Haims queried what percentage of current trips into and out of the airport involved a Pilatus PC-12, where the airport ranked nationally on red pollution, and what cities were within a half mile and a mile radius of the airport. Airport Operations Manager Luetgens replied that in 2022 there were approximately 850 IFR instrument flight rules at the airport. He did not have information on how many visual flight rules there were, but there were at least 850. Less than 1 percent of flights involved a Pilatus PC-12. Based on FAA criteria, design renovations had to be made for the most demanding aircraft currently using the airport with more than 500. Airport Manager Swanson needed to return with an answer concerning where the airport ranked nationally on red pollution. East Palo Alto and Menlo Park were the neighboring cities for the majority of flights out of the airport. Council Member Lythcott-Haims questioned approximately what percentage was Palo Alto versus Menlo Park or East Palo Alto when looking at the circle defined by the radius. She asked if eVTOL devices were electric. Airport Manager Swanson [inaudible]. Council Member Burt confirmed that the eVOTL devices were electric. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/16/2024 Council Member Veenker was concerned with leaded gas, environmental justice issues, and sea level rise. She commented that SB1193 had been amended and would not take effect until 2031, so she indicated that Palo Alto needed to move forward and not depend on that. She inquired if the FBO lease expired in June 2025 instead of 2024 as indicated in the Staff Report, and if at that time a new contract lease could provide an FBO lease for unleaded fuel. She requested information on the lead-monitoring program and encouraged that to be investigated. She observed that three of the Alternatives would provide flight paths and approaches further away from neighbors. She asked to what degree those Alternatives could improve the situation. She questioned if Option 1 could be integrated into levee systems to address sea level rise. Airport Manager Swanson confirmed that the FBO lease would expire in June 2025, and they would look for new leases to bring unleaded fuel to the field. The biggest problem had been availability. Regarding the lead-monitoring program, they were researching whether there would be a statewide study. If that was not taking place, staff would look into a program and return to Council with a proposal. At this time, he did not know to what degree the Alternatives that provide flight paths and approaches further away from neighbors would improve the situation. Option 1 being integrated into levee systems to address sea level rise could be part of the project and funding taken advantage of. Council Member Tanaka asked if Palo Alto had any control over the flight path, if there was a fee for taking off and landing at the airport, if there could be a charge for flying over Palo Alto, and how much profit this would bring to the City. He wanted to compare current and future profits and the economic impact. He found it interesting that the airport was built in 1935 and that East Palo was incorporated in 1983. He asked how helicopters differed from eVTOL. Airport Manager Swanson responded that there was a voluntary noise abatement procedure, and they had a new software program that would help monitor it. They could not control the flight paths. There was a fee for taking off and landing. The airport could not charge a tax for flying over Palo Alto. They were researching how much profit this would bring to the City. Design standards were different for helicopters and eVTOL ports. City Manager Ed Shikada voiced that there was no profit from the airport from a fiscal perspective. It ran as an enterprise, and the City had traditionally subsidized the operation. Economic impact would be a larger study that was not a part of this item. Mayor Stone inquired if Alternatives 2 through 5 would allow for Group-2 aircraft and if there would be discretion to reject certain planes from landing once capacity was expanded. He was concerned that building an expanded airport would result in larger, more frequent planes. He queried what data there was on collisions and close calls and why the report raised safety concerns. Airport Operations Manager Luetgens answered that Group-2 aircraft was currently operating at the airport. He did not know the percentage of the flights. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/16/2024 Consultant Fabend stated that the only data they had to consider for operation information for each flight was IFR. While there were 160,000+ operations, only a percentage was tracked to identify the type of aircraft, which she elaborated on. There were 842 PC-12s out of 5,002, so 16 percent of the operations data they had for actual aircraft. PC-12 was considered a Group-2 aircraft. Airport Manager Swanson confirmed that once capacity had been expanded there would not be discretion to reject certain planes from landing. Airport Manager Swanson responded, regarding safety, that aircraft design standards had changed, so it was a concern. The data was collected from across the nation. They did not have specific data for the Palo Alto Airport. The design standards were outdated, but there was no evidence to show planes being more dangerous than they were previously. Public Comment Emily R. had sent a letter dated September 8 regarding the long-term planning for the airport. She noted that Baylands Master Plan had a policy to maintain the current airport footprint and level of operation. She requested adoption of Option 1. Enid P. felt strongly about protecting the natural Baylands and spoke of the Baylands Master Plan. She requested that Option 1 be adopted. Darlene Y. on behalf of (6) Don J., David R., Brian T., Deborah S., Gayle L.M. (presentation) spoke of many aviation impacts. She outlined the aircraft that could operate at the Palo Alto Airport Category 1 airport. She requested that EVTOL be suspended until the impacts were evaluated. She supported Alternative 1. Avroh S. on behalf of (8) Talya, Floyd, Emily, Anika, Aiden, Om, Phoebe (presentation), attending in his role as a co-lead of the Outreach Committee at PASCC, discussed why the Baylands should be protected, and he would present a petition with 1,792 signatures. He asked that noise pollution be addressed, that incentives be provided for not using leaded fuel, and that the airport not be closer to historical buildings, the duck pond, or neighbors. Shani K. on behalf of (6) Laura M. Margaret H. Merar V., Linda R., Rani F,. with the Santa Clara County Bird Alliance, explained that jurisdictional wetlands were part of mitigation put in place by the Army Corp of Engineers. She opposed moving infrastructure into open space and expanding runways. She was surprised to see that the Baylands Nature Preserve and the public park had not been referenced more than they had been in the Staff Report. Dashiell L on behalf of (6) Lilian W., Nina G., Humphrey W., Steve G., Nancy F., Conservation Coordinator for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter and who also represented the Chapter’s Bay Alive Campaign, spoke of the Baylands being a precious resource for the community and wildlife. They opposed any action to expand the airport’s footprint, increase air traffic, or encroachment on the Baylands or dedicated parkland and strongly preferred Alternative 1. He SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/16/2024 hoped the letter they had sent in collaboration with 13 other organizations had been reviewed. They supported placing solar panels over existing paved areas and actions to expedite a ban on the sale of leaded fuel. Vincent W., a pilot, thanked Council for not making hasty fuel decisions. He supported a slightly longer runway and upgrades to the terminal tower and hangars. Jennifer L. requested that the FAA’s vertiport be called a second airport, that the citizens oversee airports and grants, that Sky Posse Palo Alto’s suggestions related to noise be responded to, and that noise level exposure issues go to voters. Sally T. addressed the Baylands. She opted for removing the airport entirely, but she saw it continuing within its current constraints as a compromise. She urged that the airport not be expanded. Alan M., an environmentalist and private pilot, considered the Baylands and the airport to be critical resources. He opined that the runway was critically short and a safety issue and that 100 feet to the length would make a difference. Cecilia T. hoped that a public comment she submitted on the website had been read. She asked that an assessment be done on the emissions impact on communities under the flight path and neighboring communities and that there be a limited flight or no-fly zone on days with bad air quality or extreme heat. Andrew B. addressed balancing aviation, environment, safety, and federal laws. He requested that Council rely on deep answers and dismiss simple priority proposals. As a pilot, he sought a lengthened runway and benefits to the community, such as observation areas. He valued the Bay area. He would happily use unleaded fuels and quieter electric aircraft as soon as available and within his means. Thomas M. expressed why lengthening the runway even a little would be beneficial. Andrew P., Manager of Advantage Aviation, indicated that the airport business community was not seeking an expansion of the airport nor for an increase in the number of operations or the types of aircraft using the field. They had three objectives, all achievable within the current airport boundaries, which were to improve efficiency, safety and sustainability, which he outlined. Ben H. did not support Option 1 because he felt it was a missed opportunity to access federal funds to enhance safety and efficiency and reduce noise. Vicky R. echoed comments related to pollution and health issues. She added that the parks promoted mental health. She suggested there not be flights on high-pollution days. She supported airport safety. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/16/2024 Deborah L. was disappointed with the amount of outreach done in East Palo Alto. She respectfully asked Council to deny any expansion of the airport at this time as there were disadvantages. Piotr U. supported Option 1. He was dissatisfied with the amount of research that had been done regarding community impacts. Alec M. urged Council to support Alternative 1 and to consider the impacts of airport expansion. He discussed the Baylands being a benefit to the community and wildlife. Matt S. declared that Carol K. and Ian I. could not attend, and he held a sign they had asked him to display. He was concerned about the climate crisis and strongly urged banning the expansion of the airport. He requested that the Baylands and wetlands be expanded. Chris T., Board Member of the Palo Alto Airport Association, spoke on behalf of the President of the Association. He discussed the airport and its possible expansion being an important community asset. The Association endorsed a modernization plan, which he detailed. Stuart B., a pilot and environmentalist, stated it was unclear whether parkland needed to be undedicated to enhance the airport. The points made about the Baylands were valid. He spoke of the advantages of the airport, PC-12 aircraft, and eVTOLs. Q. S. agreed with speakers 1 through 18 with special emphasis for speakers 3, 4, 12, and 17. She asked that people and safety be considered, not money. Rebecca E. suggested closing the airport. She discussed pollution and lead poisoning. Or C. voiced that separating the runway from the taxiway would be safer. He did not consider the numbers related to the PC-12 to be accurate. He supported eVTOL ports. Diane M. spoke of recent upcoming events in support of children and their families, electrification, and clean air. Due to pollution, noise, and danger to wildlife, she did not want airport expansion to be considered. Faith B. was disappointed with publication of the meetings related to the airport. She voiced that there was one duck pond and one Bayland area but several surrounding airports. She urged Council to not make any changes to the Baylands or the pond. Mark D. did not consider the airport to be a good neighbor due to noise, pollution, and danger. He was dissatisfied with the outreach to East Palo Alto. He was concerned with lengthening the runway to 3,500 feet. Carol Muller wanted the Baylands to be treasured and stewarded. Albert H. stated that Palo Alto and East Palo Alto, to be compatible with continued operation of the airport, needed reduction or elimination of exhaust emission from fossil fuel, complete SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/16/2024 elimination of lead emissions, and reduction of noise and that the major impediment to achieving these were the FAA rules. He recommended that there be a stop to receiving FAA money, which would allow the City to set rules regarding noise, hours of operation, etc. Michael M. stated, in response to a previous comment, that East Palo Alto was incorporated in 1983 and the airport had been a part of what was called Ravenswood until the Corp of Engineers redirected the creek. Regarding comments related to East Palo Alto and East Menlo park not being included in the discussion, he noted there had been two meetings in East Palo Alto and one in Menlo Park concerning this item. Karen P. believed the only viable option was Alternative 1, and she did not want operations expanded. She spoke of noise and air pollution, specifically lead emissions. Marie-Jo F. opined that the airport was safe, and she opposed a redesign. She requested a study of eVTOL impacts, more transparency, a more effective noise abatement program, promotion of unleaded fuel, and that fuel sales be reported. Alice M. spoke of the Palo Alto Airport Joint Community Relations Committee and there having been face-to-face discussions between the neighbors and the airport in the distant past and people not knowing about these five choices until recently. Ruben A. was concerned with noise pollution and plane crashes in East Palo Alto. Nina G. (Zoom) opposed destroying wetlands in favor of aircraft. He spoke of noise affecting wildlife. He requested that the populus be considered, not necessarily the pilots. David S. (Zoom), a pilot, spoke of safety issues at the airport and wanted to discuss expanding the length of the runway. He indicated that unleaded fuel was available in Louisiana. Mark S. (Zoom) voiced why he did not support upgrading the airport and asked that there be no changes. Valerie D. (Zoom) did not want airport expansion. She wanted to shrink the airport’s impact on the community and stop pollution. She understood that the expansion would ruin an existing natural flood barrier, destroy property values, and increase insurance rates. Deborah G. was disappointed that there was not an option to completely shut down the airport and hoped it would be considered. Mila B. (Zoom), co-lead of the Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action’s Nature-based Solutions team, urged Council to not approve a plan that would expand the airport, increase air traffic, or move existing runways. Mani B. (Zoom), a co-lead of Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action’s Nature-based Solutions team, requested that the airport’s footprint and operations not be expanded. An increase in pollution from leaded fuel and air traffic concerned him. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/16/2024 Alice S. (Zoom) had written letters to Council. She opposed there being a solar farm at the Baylands and impeding bird survival. She wanted the airport removed and to return the lands to wetlands. She requested that any proposed design near the Baylands be reviewed to ensure bird safety. Jenny B., Vice President of the Ravenswood City School District, spoke on behalf of the residents of East Palo Alto, Belle Haven, and East Menlo Park. She opposed extending the runway and supported closing the airport. Obadiah B., who was seven years old, did not want to expand the airport. She spoke of noise affecting wildlife and people. Grace P. discussed why she urged Council to not extend or elevate the runway. She asked that East Palo Alto be prioritized in the discussions and that noise mitigation boundaries begin at the start of East Palo Alto’s residential area. Prince S. (Zoom) voiced that compromising wetlands increased flood risks, which impacted property values and insurance needs, which he wanted to be factored in on any future expansion calculations and for the City to ding the airport for the use of unleaded fuel. Baris K. (Zoom) wanted the effects of losing 3½ acres to be studied as it related to the animals. He asked why jets were being landed in an endangered species area. Eileen M. (Zoom) represented the Citizen’s Committee to Complete the Refuge. They were consigner of the 13-group joint letter and supported letters and public comments by Emily R. She discussed the wetlands providing protective natural infrastructure and needing protection. Stephen R. (Zoom) did not consider the airport to be a benefit but instead to be a producer of noise and pollution, and he supported closing it. He spoke of the airport being subsidized by the City and questioned how the City benefitted from that. Cade Cannedy (Zoom), Director of Programs at Climate Resilient Communities, opposed any proposed expansion or alternations of the airport and requested that it be closed. He stated that they only found out about the project at their last meeting. Julian (Zoom) agreed with Cade Cannedy’s comments. She supported closing the airport or Alternative 1. She spoke of communities and nature being affected. Uhila M. (Zoom) echoed previous speakers’ comments related to impacts to people and the environment. He supported Alternative 1. Steven P. did not view the airport to be a nuisance or public hazard but instead to be a regional and national asset. He claimed that unleaded fuel currently available was not usable to most airplanes and that usable fuel should be available within two years, which would put the leaded SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/16/2024 fuel issue to rest. He asked that the airport and environmental issues be studied further, which he could assist in. Antonio L. acknowledged that there was public outreach at Bloomhouse in August. He wondered how the concerns of pollution and noise and priorities of East Palo Alto were being addressed. In moving forward with any of the proposed alternatives, he asked that impact fees commensurate with the level of noise and air pollution be considered. Mark C. did not think the Baylands golf course would be too impacted by an expansion. He supported runway expansion and increasing safety margins. He discussed noise, safety, etc., with regard to Mopeds and particular automobiles. Martha B. (Zoom) did not support expanding the airport, especially due to safety concerns and noise pollution issues expressed by earlier speakers. She was concerned about traffic during the construction period and more traffic and pollutants coming to the area afterward. Carol M., a private pilot, did not think pilots were looking to expand the airport but instead for a land-use plan that would allow for modernization of the airport so current planes could perform safely. She did not believe any of the plans put forth should be considered but that something entirely different should be done or parts of the plans used. Joe K., a flight instructor, was interested in safety. He indicated that the lighting was poor and the runway was short. Maria R. (Zoom) opposed expanding the runway and further development. She voiced that environmental justice was about preserving land and protecting people. Filiberto Z. (Zoom), the environmental justice campaign organizer at Youth United for Community Action, was completely against any type of airport expansion due to pollution, environmental racism, and hazards to the habitat of the marshlands. He refused to have this implemented near his community. Moana K., the senior youth organizer at YUCA, did not support expanding the airport at all. She stated it would increase pollution. Alexander M., an environmentalist, thought everyone agreed that increasing the runway would improve safety. He spoke of the airport’s positive impact to the economy, etc. He discussed training pilots for well-paying jobs outside the tech industry. He asked that any option which would increase runway length and reduce noise be adopted. Elliot W. disagreed with previous comments related to the incorporation of East Palo Alto and the Ravenswood City School District. He did not agree with increasing the number of aviation flights. He recommended no expansion, but he stated safety was needed. [The Council took a 10-minute recess] SUMMARY MINUTES Page 15 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/16/2024 City Manager Shikada recommended that Item 4 and the city manager comments be deferred. Regarding Item 3, he suggested that staff return with feedback to Council’s questions. Council Member Kou appreciated the public commenting, which was valuable. She felt the report provided insufficient information and that there may not have been enough community outreach. She discussed her support of the Civil Air Patrol, the Bay Area Urban Eagles, etc. She was concerned that the City would have no control over the airport if the FAA was involved. She discussed noise pollution and carbon emissions. She did not support lengthening, shifting, or raising the runway or building an additional taxiway or more hangars. She supported protecting the Baylands. She wanted to understand the potential impacts of eVTOL before committing to a new vertiport. If solar panels were to be installed and maintain infrastructure, she did not want the airport footprint changed or operations increased. She wanted more transparency from the airport on types of users and operations, more effective noise abatement procedures, and actions to reduce the use of leaded fuel. She requested more information related to CNEL for noise in three locations and that a sensitivity analysis be done on the volumes and mix of aircraft. She selected Alternative 1. Council Member Veenker thanked the public commenters, which was valuable. She clarified that there had not been a call for airport expansion from Council, staff, residents, or the aviation community. She cared about the natural environment, environmental justice, climate impacts of GHG emissions, and health impacts of lead emissions. She preferred Alternative 1. She understood that increasing the runway by 100 feet would help in safety, so she wanted to know why 4 of the alternatives increased the runway beyond that. She understood that the short runways resulted in more go-arounds. Under Alternative 1, she wondered if 100 feet of runway length could be added without un-dedicating parkland; if it would decrease the number of airport approaches, thus decreasing noise and GHG and lead emissions; increase safety; and if it would interface with sea level rise mitigation in the absence of the Army Corp of Engineers interaction. She requested more analysis on discontinuing leaded fuel, how the airport might be modernized without increasing the airport footprint, and how there could be more outreach to Menlo Park and East Palo Alto. She did not want additional flights over the Baylands or an increase in the use of leaded fuel. Council Member Burt voiced that the tarmac had wiring underneath that could support tapping into solar generation and could provide electricity for charging throughout the area of the airport to a great degree, which could position Palo Alto to be a leader in transitioning away from leaded gas and internal combustion engine pollution and could provide revenue streams, and he wanted that to be accelerated. He wanted to transition to a more sustainable airport that would be healthier and safer, which meant removing lead, working toward less noise, and reducing the risk of crashes. He wanted those principles more strongly incorporated. He may support a nominal extension of the runway within the current airport footprint to improve safety and asked staff to return with information related to the change that would be needed and pros and cons of doing it. He wanted to accelerate adoption of unleaded fuel. He was interested in increasing the leaded fueling flowage fee and decreasing the unleaded fueling flowage fee. He added major issues, such as this, needed to be framed more carefully to the SUMMARY MINUTES Page 16 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/16/2024 community and that Council and the public should weigh in at an earlier stage. He understood that most of the airport users were not asking for an increase in the size but that they wanted to make it cleaner, safer, and more efficient. Vice Mayor Lauing substantially agreed with Council Members Burt and Veenker’s comments. He felt that safety should drive this, although he voiced that could be used to manipulate some decisions, such as runway length. He supported doing repairs for safety. He did not currently have enough knowledge to judge if increasing runway length could reduce go-arounds and noted that a pilot had said an additional taxiway could also provide an advantage. He thought such could be considered, although it could add more aircraft. Related to sea rise, he did not think it needed to be studied. He wanted to consider vertical rising aircraft but thought it could be looked at more specifically in year 10, and he wanted more information related to how it would affect the environment and noise. He asked what was the justification for needing a new terminal. He referenced Staff Report Page 6 and he did not know what integrate facilities with the adjacent Baylands Golf Links and Nature Preserve meant, as he had heard public comment stating they were already too integrated. Some of the items on that page seemed to be outliers and not what he was hearing from the public or Council. He wanted to take action on leaded fuel ASAP. Council Member Lythcott-Haims thanked the public for their comments. She thought everything done should be consistent with the climate goals or a good reason why the goals would not pertain. She was concerned with designing this for critical aircraft, such as the Pilatus PC-12 and asked what kind of fuel they used. She had not been convinced that the safety issues warranted some degree of expansion, but she supported looking at a modest runway extension, which would possibly reduce noise and lead as it related to circle-back-around flights. She did not think the issue regarding un-dedicating parkland had been framed in the materials, so she wanted a clear understanding of that soon. As a matter of environmental justice, she explained why she did not think racial and ethnic groups, who had been historically redlined, should be exposed to noise and lead pollution from the airport. She felt the environmental impact on those neighbors should be addressed and that there should not be a conversation about expanding or increasing the number and size of planes without facing who would be impacted by such changes. Airport Manager Swanson answered that the Pilatus PC-12 used Jet A fuel. Mayor Stone asked if the runway being expanded by 100 feet would address safety concerns but still not place the Palo Alto Airport in Group 2 categorization and if there was room to do that within the existing footprint and without expanding into dedicated parkland. Related to airplane noise, he found it unconscionable that Palo Alto had no official seat at the SFO table. It seemed that most of the control Palo Alto had over the airport would be lost to the FAA if there was an expansion. He did not want more noise, safety, and leaded fuel impacts, and he could not support a plan that would worsen impacts on health, safety, and quality of life in Palo Alto and neighboring communities. He stated that converting to electric or other unleaded fuels would take a very long time. Un-dedication of parkland was a nonstarter for him and he was SUMMARY MINUTES Page 17 of 17 City Council Meeting Summary Minutes: 09/16/2024 certain it would be for Palo Alto voters too. He spoke of the importance of open spaces on mental health. Airport Manager Swanson replied that changing the group and the category went back to the aircraft using it, so it was a design standard and was what was being considered for safety. The PC-12, which was the group and category, was using the airport today, so the shift to make the improvements, it would still be the Group 2 category because that was the identified aircraft of over 500 operations. Director Eggleston understood that safety improvements were desired but without increasing capacity. He was not prepared to answer what the additional 100 feet to the runway would entail. As part of the follow-up work, they would look at which types of improvements would be safety improvements for types of aircraft and which would likely increase capacity. Council Member Tanaka thanked the public for attending. He voiced that there could have been more communication. He agreed with Council Member Veenker’s proposal regarding extending the runway length. He did not know if staff could investigate that. He wanted to explore eVTOLs. Mayor Stone thanked the public. City Manager Comments City Manager Ed Shikada recommended there not be any comments and to proceed with adjournment. Closed Session 4. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS Authority: Cal. Gov. Code section 54957(b)(1) Titles: City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk Agenda Item Number 4 Not Heard and Deferred to a Date Uncertain. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:34 PM