HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2408-3410CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Monday, September 16, 2024
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
3.Update and Receive Council Input on Airport Long-Range Plan Project Petition, Public
Comment, Presentation
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: STUDY SESSION
Lead Department: Public Works
Meeting Date: September 16, 2024
Report #:2408-3410
TITLE
Update and Receive Council Input on Airport Long-Range Plan Project
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council receive an update on the Airport Long-Range Planning process
and provide input to support development of a preferred alternative.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since March 2023, staff has been engaged in developing the Long-Range Facilities and
Sustainability Plan (Long-Range Plan) for the Palo Alto Airport. This initiative aims to align
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) criteria with other City of Palo Alto planning documents,
including the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Baylands Master Plan, and Sustainability and Climate
Action Plan. The project is also intended to prepare the airport for an expected transition to
electrified aircraft, taking advantage of opportunities for solar electricity generation and
underground infrastructure already installed during the multi-year apron reconstruction
project. This project is federally funded by the FAA and adheres to federal guidelines for
updating the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and overall airport planning. The ALP is the guiding
document that depicts future projects at the airport, and is an FAA required document.
The project began with a comprehensive assessment of the current airport conditions and
facilities. This was followed by forecasting airport operations to project demand over the next
20 years and identifying the critical aircraft for the airport. Based on these forecasts and the
critical aircraft, potential facility improvements were developed based on FAA criteria. The
potential improvements include extending the runway length from 2,443 feet to 3,500 feet.
Additional FAA criteria highlighted a deficiency in runway width by 5 feet and a shortfall in
runway-to-taxiway separation by 100 feet. Although the FAA criteria suggest considering a
second runway due to current operational levels, the City of Palo Alto’s 2030 Comprehensive
Plan restricts the airport to a single runway, and thus, a second runway was not evaluated in
this project.
Five alternatives were developed with the FAA criteria and potential improvements in mind.
While the City is not obligated to adopt a plan that meets the FAA criteria, the Long-Range Plan
process is required to develop and consider alternatives that include them. The alternatives are
intended to facilitate conversations, illustrate various impacts, and gather community and
Council input.
As part of the alternative development, staff reviewed the possibility of solar and the
accommodation of eVTOL (electric vertical takeoff and landing) aircraft to support the
transition to alternative fuels and a more sustainable future of aviation. Airport and Utilities
Department staff are currently working to evaluate solar and microgrid technology on the
airfield.
Staff does not have a preferred alternative at this time. One will be developed after Council
input from this Study Session. The preferred alternative will be presented at additional public
meetings and presentations to neighboring jurisdictions before coming back to City Council for
acceptance. Environmental review will follow.
Community engagement and public information sharing included five public meetings, a
dedicated project website, opt in to an email list sharing regular updates, and an online survey.
Input was solicited at the public meetings and through email. A 94-octane unleaded fuel option
has been available at the airport since January 2024, but not all aircraft based at the airport can
use it. Since that time, staff has been working on a plan to promote that fuel and safely
transition to a 100-octane unleaded fuel as soon as possible.
Staff seeks input from the Council on the proposed alternatives, next steps, and other elements
before developing a preferred alternative. Specific questions of interest include
Councilmembers’ support or lack thereof for extending the runway, implementing runway
safety improvements, relocating the terminal building, providing a vertiport location to support
future eVTOL operations, and transitioning the airport to a generator of renewable energy to
support an electric future.
BACKGROUND
On March 6, 2023, staff conducted a study session1 with the City Council that provided a
comprehensive airport update. This update included information on the Long-Range Plan
project that was beginning. Council provided feedback on topics including the airport’s
voluntary noise abatement program, opportunities with solar and microgrid, potential release
of airport land for parkland dedication, and community benefits of the airport.
1 City Council, May 17, 2023; Agenda Item #4; SR#2302-0948,
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/palo-alto-airport/information-study-report-
airport-march-2023-1.pdf
To date, the Long-Range Plan project team conducted five public meetings. The Long-Range
Plan project web page2 includes summaries and presentations from each of the meetings.
The first public meeting on May 17, 2023 at the Palo Alto Art Center introduced the project
goals and steps. The meeting gathered feedback through comment cards and an online form.
Key topics included the need for an Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) holding spot, potential
expansion or extension of the runway, and diverse land uses like homes on the hangars.
Attendees also requested better public access for community events, improved noise
abatement, and addressing sea level rise. Concerns were raised about maintenance and
funding. Suggestions also included integrating conference spaces with the terminal, ensuring
availability of alternative fuels, and maintaining airport operations.
The second public meeting was held on August 24, 2023 in East Palo Alto at Bloomhouse. Due
to limited participation, the same information was shared at additional meetings in Menlo Park
and East Palo Alto on September 21, 2023. The second meeting provided an overview of
existing conditions and inventory at the airport, the forecast of future operations, and the
selection of the critical aircraft. An interactive exercise was included, asking participants to
consider aspirational news headlines for the airport in 10 years. Proposed headlines included
“Commercial Service is Brought to PAO”, “Airport Closes and Baylands Expands to Address
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise”, “PAO Is a Hub for Innovation Aviation” and “Welcome
Community – It’s a Public Airport.” Key topics from the meeting included East Palo Alto’s
inclusion in the Long-Range Plan, environmental concerns such as pollution and noise, the
relationship between the airport and the Baylands, and proposals for new hangars and
extended runways.
On October 18, 2023, the project team hosted the third public meeting at the Baylands Café to
outline the FAA criteria and facility needs. Attendees participated in a visioning activity where
they picked their top two sustainability priorities for the airport's long-term goals. Key priorities
identified included electrification, noise reduction, a new terminal, remodeled hangars,
potential runway extension, amenities like a restaurant and observation deck, solar panels, and
addressing climate change and sea level rise. Public questions addressed topics such as the
future of Reid-Hillview Airport, project funding, runway safety margins, and the role of the City
of Palo Alto in the process. Concerns and suggestions from attendees included the need for
more vehicle parking, alternative fuel options, wider roads, a new terminal with community
amenities, solar implementation, and the potential impact of Long-Range Plan projects on noise
and public engagement.
On November 14, 2023, the project team conducted a sustainability charrette with
stakeholders of the airport including community members surrounding the airport. The
charrette was designed to allow a broad range of airport stakeholders an opportunity to
provide input and feedback on airport sustainability objectives and visioning to date, as well as
2 Long-Range Plan web page, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Palo-Alto-Airport/Palo-
Alto-Airport-Long-Range-Facilities-Sustainability-Plan-LRFSP
brainstorm new sustainability goals and possible strategies for implementation that are
consistent with the airport’s vision and long-term planning. Participants were provided in
advance with a briefing document and some key questions for discussion at the event. Key
components included a flooding simulation, a brief overview of aviation sustainability, a
brainstorming exercise, and a roadmap of next steps. Participants engaged in interactive
breakout sessions where they were guided through the four-pronged Economic, Operational,
Natural Resources, and Social (EONS) approach to aviation sustainability. Participants were
asked to brainstorm sustainability goals for each category of EONS and identify actionable steps
to achieve each goal. The workshop outcomes3 were shared with stakeholders and participants
in a summary document via email.
The fourth public meeting was held at the Palo Alto Art Center on February 21, 2024. Initial
alternatives were introduced with various runway lengths demonstrating how the airport could
potentially meet FAA criteria. The meeting also introduced the Vision, Mission, and Goals of the
airport and the results of the sustainability charrette. Discussion focused on the benefits of the
airport to nearby communities, such as emergency services and economic impacts, and
concerns about the critical aircraft definition and its implications for airfield operations. Public
meeting comments covered a range of issues including noise control, preferred runway options,
environmental documentation, and considerations for helicopter and eVTOL (electric vertical
takeoff and landing vehicle) aircraft. Suggestions included banning high-noise private aircraft,
expediting the shift to unleaded fuels, and integrating rotorcraft and eVTOL planning.
Participants also proposed improvements like better parking solutions, facilities for technical
support, and increased hangar space, alongside a more comprehensive approach to noise
mitigation and environmental impact.
On June 20, 2024, the project team conducted the fifth public meeting to share updated
alternatives based on comments received at the fourth meeting. Attendees voiced a variety of
strong concerns and questions. Key issues included a need for better maps highlighting the
airport's proximity to East Palo Alto, and dissatisfaction that local concerns, such as historic
sites and pollution from leaded fuel, were not fully addressed. Some residents questioned the
rationale behind proposed levee plans and the FAA and National Environmental Protection Act
(NEPA) processes, expressing mistrust and confusion. There was a call for clearer explanations,
particularly about flight operations, the difference between vertiports and heliports, and
alternative plans that avoid major runway changes. Additionally, attendees expressed concerns
about increased aircraft operations, noise impacts, and the airport's effects on neighboring
communities that do not have jurisdiction over airport decisions. Requests included better
communication overall, including through social media, additional meetings in East Palo Alto,
and more accessible information about environmental and noise impacts. There were also
3 Sustainability Charrette Summary, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/palo-
alto-airport/lrfsp/pao-sustainability-charrette_whatweheardsummary_nov2023_final_1.pdf
specific comments about vertiport placements, potential noise from new aircraft types, and the
need for cost transparency and environmental considerations.
ANALYSIS
The Long-Range Plan process for the Palo Alto Airport has the following key objectives:
Assess the airport's issues, opportunities, and constraints.
Evaluate the effects of recent national and local aviation trends.
Determine the capacity of existing airport infrastructure.
Identify the need for new improvements.
Estimate costs and explore potential funding sources.
Develop a timeline for implementing proposed projects.
Ensure compliance with federal, state, and local regulations.
When completed, the Long-Range Plan will include a detailed report on current and anticipated
conditions, an Airport Layout Plan (ALP), and a schedule for prioritizing improvements and
securing funding. The FAA requires the City to keep the ALP up to date at all times, and a
current ALP is one of the requirements for grant funding. Any City-approved projects will need
to be depicted on the ALP and receive FAA approval from the standpoint of safety, utility, and
efficiency of the airport.
An economic impact analysis was conducted to identify the economic impacts of aviation
activity on the airport and surrounding community. Activity by aviation and non-aviation
employers on the airport creates jobs, payrolls, and revenues. PAO serves as a dynamic hub for
a range of valuable services and contributions that extend beyond numerical metrics. These
include emergency services, medical transportation, education, and air mobility. Analysis
completed demonstrated a total economic benefit of 176 jobs supported, and an annual output
of $37.8 million. Direct on-airport economic benefits resulted from the activity of 12
businesses, City of Palo Alto staff, FAA Air Traffic Control Tower staff, and capital improvement
projects. Direct on-airport output was determined to be $27.7 million, with support for 129
jobs.
This initial phase of long-range planning for Palo Alto Airport focuses on gathering and
organizing information about the current state of the airport and its surrounding community. It
includes an overview of existing airport facilities, the surrounding airspace environment, and
the airport's role within the broader aviation network. Additionally, it provides a
comprehensive inventory of airside, landside, and support facilities, as well as details on airport
access, wayfinding, and parking. The information collected during this initial phase serves as the
foundation for further analysis and planning.
This initial phase considered other City plans such as the Baylands Master Plan, the 2014
Airport Layout Plan, the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030, the draft Baylands
Comprehensive Conservation Plan, the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, and the 2006
Palo Alto Airport Master Plan developed by the County of Santa Clara.
Key issues and needs were identified through the inventory of existing conditions and
discussions with airport staff, users, stakeholders, and the general public, and are summarized
below:
Sea level rise and levee obstructions may require a shift in the ultimate runway
configuration.
Analyze locations to site permanent helipad/vertiport.
Demand for additional hangar space
The possibility of the closure of nearby Reid-Hillview Airport may impact the demand
and capacity for airside infrastructure at PAO.
Need for a more permanent and user-friendly airport terminal.
Repairs or upgrades to Building 17 to make it more attractive to tenants, possibly
incorporated with new terminal facility.
Create dedicated and permanent space for the Civil Air Patrol, Palo Alto Airport
Association, and CalDART.
Provide additional parking at the airport, as it is currently near capacity.
Use existing airfield electrical infrastructure to support solar panels.
Assess opportunities for Electric Vehicle (EV) and eVTOL charging stations.
Confirm existing easements in place at the airport.
Enhance airport’s community relations and better establish its role as a community
resource/amenity.
Continue the growth and branding of the airport as a hub to EV/tech companies.
As per individual contracts, all airport tenants are billed for utilities by the City of Palo
Alto, through the airport, which charges each tenant a specific percentage. Meter all
facilities so that tenants will be charged for exact usage.
A fire rescue boat and electric truck with emergency response capabilities will better
enhance the safety of airport fire rescue operations.
Provide more wayfinding signage for the airport; particularly, co-locate airport signage
with existing municipal signage for Baylands Golf Links.
Incorporate bicycle racks for tenants.
Integrate facilities with the adjacent Baylands Golf Links and Baylands Nature Preserve,
both of which are also city-owned.
Aging equipment in the electrical vault may need replacement.
Forecast
The Forecast projects the future aviation demand for the airport through 2042, based on
standards set by the FAA. It is an evaluation of historical trends in activity, industry trends, and
local socioeconomic trends to understand what the demand on the airport could look like in 20
years. The forecasted activity is not intended to suggest a specific growth target or activity level
for the airport, but to serve as a guide for future planning.
The forecast estimates a 1.13% annual increase in the number of based aircraft at the airport
over the 20-year planning period. With 330 based aircraft in 2022, this would rise to 413 by
2042, though still below the historical peak of 527 aircraft in 2007.
For airport operations, the forecast predicts a 1.07% annual increase during the first decade
(2022-2032) and a 1.5% annual increase during the subsequent decade (2032-2042). This would
result in operation levels reaching 181,995 by 2032 and 220,372 by 2042. The ten-year intervals
are designed to account for potential future technologies that may utilize the airport, such as
eVTOL companies, and to allow the airport flexibility in adjusting its plans for the second
decade. The growth rate aligns with national trends at towered airports, and planning for this
projection will enable the airport to accommodate the expected growth. Even with this
projected growth, the forecasted levels would remain below the historical peak of 232,789
operations in 1992.
As part of the forecast, the critical aircraft of the airport was determined to be the Pilatus PC-
12, which is a single engine turboprop aircraft. The airport’s critical aircraft, or design aircraft,
represents the largest or most demanding aircraft currently using the airport facilities regularly
for at least 500 operations annually. The Pilatus PC-12 had 842 IFR operations in 2022. There
were more flights from the PC-12 under Visual Flight Rules (VFR), but those operations are not
currently tracked. The airport has entered into a contract to use flight tracking software that
will allow tracking of all flights. The critical aircraft influences key design aspects, including the
sizing of runways and taxiways, as well as the placement of aircraft parking areas, hangar
facilities, and protected airspace surfaces.
Potential Improvements Based on FAA Criteria
The Potential improvements were developed by analyzing the forecast, critical aircraft, and
existing inventory to determine the facility and infrastructure improvements that should be
made at the airport. This process involves evaluating the potential improvements across several
major components, including airfield, airspace, landside facilities, general aviation, airport
support facilities and equipment, utilities and infrastructure, and environmental impacts,
shaping the alternatives development process by addressing the anticipated demands for each
of these key areas.
The review shows that the airport is currently operating at 71% of capacity and is expected to
reach 96% of its capacity by 2042. Normally, the FAA would encourage an additional runway at
those levels, but due to geographic constraints and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan the project
team did not evaluate alternatives for a second runway.
Based on the criteria applicable to the critical aircraft, it was determined that that runway was
5 feet deficient in width and 1,057 feet deficient in length. Additionally, the runway safety area
currently does not meet the 300-foot recommendation at the end of each runway. The runway
to taxiway separation is also deficient by 100 feet.
The airport has a demand for additional hangars, vehicle parking spaces, and a larger terminal.
The airport should also work to integrate itself with the City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan4.
Alternatives
Staff developed five alternatives to demonstrate how the airport could incorporate the
potential improvements based the FAA criteria for critical aircraft and address future demand
as projected by the forecast. Other City plans such as the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and
Sustainability and Climate Action Plan were also incorporated, and potential Santa Clara County
Water District (Valley Water) and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) projects were
considered.
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan states that the airport should be limited to one runway and only
minor expansion should be considered to meet Federal and State airport design and safety
standards. None of the alternatives evaluated an additional runway, but longer expansions
were evaluated to show how the airport could meet FAA safety standards. The Plan also advises
relocating the terminal away from the runway clear zone. Alternatives 2 through 4 relocate the
terminal away from the runway protection zone. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the S/CAP
include protection for sea level rise. Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 raise the runway to the new levee
height to protect the City from sea level rise. The alternatives also attempt to meet the
potential future demand of eVTOL aircraft by identifying potential locations for a vertiport,
positioning the airport to transition to alternative fuels when those aircraft become
operational.
To support a more sustainable future of aviation, the alternatives review the potential location
for solar systems at the airport. Staff is exploring the possibility of a microgrid at the airport
with a backup power system to keep essential services available during power outages. The
alternatives also explore the potential location of vertiports to support the transition to eVTOL
aircraft when available. Staff has met with several companies interested in partnering with the
City to introduce eVTOL aircraft at the airport. Other companies have approached the airport in
support of eVTOL operations by providing sustainable alternative fuels like charging stations
and possibly hydrogen. These companies have identified the Bay Area, and specifically the
airport as an ideal location for eVTOL operations in the future.
The alternatives were developed to meet the needs of the airport today and over the next 20
years. The range of alternatives shows various levels of balancing FAA criteria with airport and
4 CoPA Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan,
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/transportation/projects/bicycle-pedestrian-transportation-
plan_adopted-july-2012.pdf
City goals, environmental constraints, and implementation feasibility. Not every alternative will
address all FAA criteria, but some show the 3,500 foot runway length resulting from the criteria.
The alternatives also look to plan for increased operations, whether they be eVTOL or at the
runway, a dual taxiway system to increase efficiency at the runway, and to locate a new
terminal near the Air Traffic Control Tower to handle transient aircraft in a more efficient
manner. The alternatives were developed with FAA criteria in mind. However, those criteria are
not requirements. The alternatives are intended to assist with Council decision-making,
promote community engagement, and gather input from users and the public, as well as to
illustrate various impacts. The airport does not have a preferred alternative at this time.
Alternative 1 (Exhibit A) is also known as the no-action or no-build alternative, which is required
for evaluation purposes. This alternative assumes no improvements are made to the airport
other than what is required for maintenance and ongoing operations. This alternative would
not address any standard or safety issues on the airfield, does not address sea level rise or
support sustainable operations, does not provide additional aircraft storage facilities, or
provide dedicated facilities for eVTOL activity. There would also be no increase in construction
or operational impacts to environmental assets and costs would be limited to maintaining
existing facilities.
Alternative 2 (Exhibit B) shifts the runway northeast to allow for the FAA-recommended
separation between the runway and parallel taxiway and allows for a second parallel taxiway to
decrease congestion. It also increases the runway length from the current 2,443 feet to 2,600
feet by displacing thresholds and uses the follow-on taxiway as additional runway pavement,
requiring approximately 3.5 acres of fill (excluding proposed levee alignment from the Army
Corps 2021 study) within the lagoon area adjacent to the duck pond to meet FAA grading
standards. The runway would be raised to integrate into a new levee system as previously
proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers in 2021 (shown in green on the drawing). This
alternative does not provide the full runway length resulting from the FAA criteria, but does
help to address sea level rise, shifts the runway farther from surrounding neighborhoods,
provides an area designated for eVTOL activity, and increases aircraft storage capacity.
Alternative 3 (Exhibit C) includes a 3,500 foot runway with a parallel taxiway on each side that
has been shifted southwest to avoid impacts to the lagoon area off the RW 31 end, adjacent to
the Duck Pond. However, this alternative requires acquisition of land from the off-airport golf
course. While this alternative provides the runway length resulting from the FAA criteria, it
would not integrate with the proposed levee system, shifts the runway approaches more over
surrounding neighborhoods, divides the tie-down apron increasing taxi times and airfield
inefficiencies, and would most likely require additional obstruction mitigation. The alternative
does include a proposed area for eVTOL activity, an increase in aircraft storage capacity, and
maintaining an adequate number of tie-downs.
Alternative 4 (Exhibit D) includes a 3,500 foot runway with a parallel taxiway on each side,
shifted northeast of the existing runway. It would impact the lagoon area adjacent to the Duck
Pond and other facilities in that portion of the Baylands. This alternative would require
approximately 10.5 acres of fill (excluding proposed levee alignment from the Army Corps 2021
study) in the lagoon area. The runway would be elevated to integrate into the levee system and
the shift would provide the recommended separation between the runway and existing parallel
taxiway. This alternative has the greatest impact on the lagoon area near the Duck Pond, but
shifts the runway farther from surrounding neighborhoods, provides an area designated for
eVTOL activity, and increases aircraft storage capacity.
Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 5 (Exhibit E) shifts the runway northeast to allow for the
recommended separation between the runway and parallel taxiway and allows for a second
parallel taxilane to decrease congestion. It increases the runway length from 2,443 feet to
3,000 feet. This alternative would require approximately 6.5 acres of fill (excluding proposed
levee alignment from the Army Corps 2021 study) in the lagoon area adjacent to the Duck
Pond. The runway would be raised to integrate into a new levee system. This alternative helps
to address sea level rise, shifts the runway farther from surrounding neighborhoods, provides
an area designated for eVTOL activity, and increases aircraft storage capacity.
The airport has received numerous comments expressing concern that FAA criteria used in the
development of planning alternatives may require the City to make changes like lengthening
the existing runway, and that the runway alternatives include filling in the Duck Pond.
The alternatives were developed with FAA criteria in mind. However, those criteria are not
requirements. The alternatives are intended to assist with Council decision-making and
community engagement/input and to illustrate various impacts. The airport does not have a
preferred alternative. Each alternative has differing conditions to consider.
None of the runway alternatives being evaluated include filling in the Duck Pond. Alternatives 2
– 5 included the levee location considered by Valley Water and the USACE as part of the South
San Francisco Bay Shoreline Phase II Investigations. However, in April 2024, the USACE
concluded that there was no federal interest5 in the project. No levee alignment option has
been advanced by the Council to date. This was included on the airport alternatives exhibits to
demonstrate potential impacts considering the various adjacent projects in the vicinity. Some
alternatives do include possible impacts to the area adjacent to the duck pond.
During the study session on March 6, 2023, there was a question regarding land identified in
the 2006 Santa Clara County PAO Master Plan as being designated for a second runway. There
was a question about whether that land could be relinquished because a second runway is no
longer being considered. Since 2006, FAA standards have changed and the runway to taxiway
separation is currently deficient by 100 feet. The alternatives identify a shift of the runway to
the east to meet the current FAA standards. The land east of the runway would most likely be
5 USACE South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Phase II Investigations,
https://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Projects-and-Programs/Current-Projects/SOUTH-SAN-FRANCISCO-BAY-
SHORELINE-PHASE-II/
needed for the runway safety areas. This will be evaluated further as a preferred alternative is
developed.
Online Survey Results & Other Community Input
Staff conducted a survey6 to gather public input on various alternatives for the airport. The
survey was open from June 10, 2024 through August 10, 2024, and received 1,523 responses. It
asked respondents to rank five alternatives, select a preferred runway configuration, and
choose a preferred vertiport location. Additionally, participants were invited to comment on
their rankings and selections and rank five focus areas for the Long-Range Plan.
The alternatives listed in priority order:
1. Alternative 1 – No Action
2. Alternative 2 – 2600 foot Runway with displaced thresholds and Northeastern shift
3. Alternative 4 – 3500 foot Runway with Northeastern shift
4. Alternative 5 – 3000 foot Runway with Northeastern shift
5. Alternative 3 – 3500 foot Runway with Southwestern shift
However, when looking at respondents first choice of alternatives the alternatives are ranked
according to the table below. Of the 1,523 respondents, 1,328 provided answers, while 195
abstained from this question. Among those who ranked the alternatives, 43.3% chose
Alternative 1 – No Action as their preferred option, while Alternative 4 – 3,500 FT Runway with
Northeastern Shift was the second most preferred with 22.1%.
Table 1. Survey Responses to Answer 1
Title Rank 1 %Key Findings and Comments
Alternative 1: No
Action 660 (1st)43.3%
Strong preference for preserving the Baylands
and Duck Pond.
Significant opposition to airport expansion
due to environmental and community
concerns.
Calls for minimal changes or alternative
community uses for the airport land.
Concerns about increased noise from more
operations were prevalent.
Alternative 2: 2600
foot Runway 174 (2nd)11.4%Concerns about the environmental impact of
shifting the runway.
6 2024 Long Range Planning Survey Results, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/public-
works/palo-alto-airport/lrfsp/palo-alto-airport-survey-results_1.pdf
Seen as a compromise that improves safety
while keeping the airport small.
Worries that a longer runway could attract
larger or corporate aircraft.
Increased noise pollution from larger aircraft
was a concern.
Alternative 3: 3500
foot Runway SW
shift
62 (5th)4.1%
Emphasis on protecting the Baylands and
Duck Pond.
Provides a balance between meeting FAA
safety recommendations and minimizing
environmental impact.
Criticized for complexity and potential
disruption to the apron.
Alternative 4: 3500
foot Runway NE
shift
337 (3rd)22.1%
Preference for meeting FAA
recommendations and modernizing the
airport.
Support for readiness for future electric
vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL)
operations.
Alternative 5: 3000
foot Runway NE
shift
95 (4th)6.2%
Seen as a balance between FAA
recommendations and maintaining the
current aircraft fleet.
Concerns that a 3,500 foot runway might
attract larger jets.
Emphasis on balancing airport needs with
environmental and community concerns.
No Answer 195 12.8%
Strong preference for preserving the Baylands
and Duck Pond.
Strong preference for closing the airport.
Total 1,523
When asked which alternative contained their preferred runway length and location without
consideration for the rest of the elements, 51.2% of the responders chose Alternative 1 – No
Action as their preferred alternative, and Alternative 4 – 3500 foot runway with northeastern
shift was the second preferred alternative with 23.8%.
When asked what other improvements should be considered or shown in the alternatives, the
following is a partial list of comments received:
Eliminate lead fuel
Consider large solar panel installation over apron
Additional noise abatement measures
More room for the vertiport area
Additional aircraft hangars
Aircraft maintenance facilities
Charging infrastructure for vehicles and aircraft
Consider space for hydrogen refueling facility
Identify power requirements for electric vehicles and aircraft
Improve security and fencing
Seaplane dock or ferry dock in the Baylands
Additional community/viewing areas associated with the airport
Incorporate a fire station
Install an LPV (localizer performance with vertical guidance) approach
Better transit connections to the airport
Increase vehicle parking
Of the five sustainability and resilience focus areas presented for consideration, Maintaining
Harmony with the Baylands received the most number 1 (or most important) votes at 51.4%
with Operational Excellence (31.2%) and Our Communities and Our People (24.9%) getting the
second and third most first-place votes, respectively.
Note: Values do not add to 100% due to some respondents providing the same ranking to
more than one focus area.
Petition
On July 23, 2024, a petition was started on Change.org to save the Palo Alto Baylands from
Airport Expansion. The petition calls for the protection of the Palo Alto Baylands and duck
ponds and strongly opposes any runway extension.
Unleaded Fuel
The airport is committed to reducing the use of leaded aviation fuel (avgas) in a safe and
efficient manner, while adhering to federal regulations that prohibit restrictions on the sale of
leaded fuel. This is governed by both FAA Grant Assurances and the FAA Reauthorization Act of
2024. Despite these constraints, PAO continues to explore alternative strategies to minimize
the reliance on leaded fuels.
On May 16, 2024, the FAA Reauthorization Act7 was signed into law which required the sale of
100LL until December 31, 2030 or until a replacement is widely available. The FAA
Reauthorization Act places a $5,000 fine per day on airports that restrict the sale of 100LL.
As part of the EAGLE program, the FAA has outlined a safe transition to unleaded avgas, with a
key component ensuring that 100LL is available for aircraft throughout the transition. The FAA
has outlined 2 pathways8 for fuels to receive FAA authorization. The first path is through the
Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) process. The STC process does not necessarily need
industry standards through the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). There can
be a significant cost when pilots apply for the STC through the FAA that includes the application
cost from the fuel manufacturer which can range from $100 to $600.
The second process is the through FAA Fleet Authorization, established by Congress. This
process, initiated through the FAA and participating OEMs, is designed to meet the PAFI
requirements for fuel. Any fuel that receives fleet authorization must also have the ASTM
standards. Additionally, there would be no application cost as there is with the STC process.
Currently there are two approved unleaded avgas products approved: 94UL and G100UL. Both
have received approval through the STC process. Airport staff regularly communicates with the
two FBOs on the field, and requests that they bring a 100-octane unleaded fuel when they are
able to purchase it.
The airport has been developing a plan to transition away from unleaded fuel. Below is a draft
graphic that depicts the airport’s current path to phasing out leaded fuel. An important next
step is to evaluate the ability to initiate a Request for Proposals for an FBO that would be
required to sell an unleaded fuel option. The current FBO leases expire on June 30, 2024, and a
new contract could be entered into with a company to provide an unleaded fuel option as well
as the necessary infrastructure for eVTOL aircraft.
7 S. 1939 – FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-
bill/1939/text/is
8 FAA Authorization for New Fuel Pathways, https://flyeagle.org/fuel-developers/
Next Steps
Following the study session, the project team will develop a preferred alternative based on the
collected feedback and information received to date. A subsequent public meeting will be
scheduled to present this draft preferred alternative and gain community input. An additional
survey may be conducted to gather further input on the preferred alternative.
The project team will also prepare informational reports for neighboring City Councils to solicit
their review and feedback. Revisions to the preferred alternative will be made in response to
community and City Council input before the final proposal is presented to the Palo Alto City
Council for acceptance. After the acceptance of the preferred plan, the CEQA and NEPA review
will be conducted for the preferred alternative. Once the environmental review has been
completed the final plan will be brought to Council for their approval.
In parallel, airport staff have submitted a grant application for the environmental review and
design process for a new terminal building, in alignment with the City Comprehensive Plan
2030. This new terminal would be relocated to the east side of the airport to reduce taxiing
distance for transient pilots, thereby saving fuel. An FAA grant application has been submitted
under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to support this project, which is not typically funded by
the FAA.
Additionally, airport and Utilities Department are assessing the feasibility, size, and potential
funding sources for a solar installation with battery backup and microgrid capabilities. This
initiative aims to power the airport, support the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, and
provide electric vehicle charging stations.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
This is an informational report, and there is no fiscal impact at this time. Investment in the
airport will require additional funding though the amount and source are to be determined
based on the direction and design.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Community and stakeholder input has been vital throughout the project. Airport staff have
hosted 5 public meetings to gather input from the community. A survey of the alternatives was
advertised and open from June 10, 2024, to August 10, 2024 to gather community interest in 5
alternatives for the airport. After this study session, it is anticipated that the project team will
host another public meeting to gather input on a preferred alternative. Also, informational
reports will be provided to neighboring City Councils for their input and feedback.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental review will begin after the City Council has accepted the draft plan and
preferred alternative. Acceptance of the draft plan does not represent final approval of the
document, and staff will bring the final plan to City Council for their approval after CEQA and
NEPA review is completed.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Alternative 1
Exhibit B: Alternative 2
Exhibit C: Alternative 3
Exhibit D: Alternative 4
Exhibit E: Alternative 5
APPROVED BY:
Brad Eggleston, Director Public Works/City Engineer
X
ROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFARO
F
A
RO
F
A
ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA
RO
F
A
RO
F
A
RS
ARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSA
RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA
Alternative 12,443 FT Runway, No Action
Palo Alto Airport Long-Range Facilities & Sustainability Plan (LRFSP)
400'400'0'200'
NORTH
DRAFT
Legend
Existing Runway, Taxiway, & Apron
Existing Airport Property Line (ALP, 2017)
Future Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
Future Runway Safety Area (RSA)RSA
Future Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)ROFA
Future Horizontal Levee
Existing Baylands Trail
Challenges
·Does not address sea level rise with the integration of
higher ground or levees
·Does not provide infrastructure needed to support
sustainable aviation operations
·Does not shift runway approaches away from
neighborhoods
·Does not address deficiencies outlined in FAA Advisory
Circular recommendations
··Additional Runway Length +1,057FT
··Additional Runway Width +5FT
··Additional Runway to Taxiway Separation +100FT
·Does not replace infrastructure that is at the end of its
life cycle, increasing operational cost
Opportunities
Alternative Description
This layout maintains the airport in its current configuration.
·Low up front cost
·No impacts from new construction
Existing ATCT
Existing Fuel Facility
Existing Terminal
Em
b
a
r
c
a
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Em
b
a
r
c
a
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
RSA
RSA
RSARSARSA
RSA
RSA
RSA RSA RSA
ROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFA
RO
F
A
RO
F
A
ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA
RO
F
A
RO
F
A
RS
ARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSA
RS
A RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA
X
EQP
B
L
D
FUEL
F
A
R
M
TERM
I
N
A
L
ROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFARO
F
A
RO
F
A
ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA
RO
F
A
RO
F
A
RS
ARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSA
RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA
Alternative 22,600 FT Runway with Displaced Thresholds and Northeastern Shift
Palo Alto Airport Long-Range Facilities & Sustainability Plan (LRFSP)
Source: C&S Engineers, Inc.
400'400'0'250'
NORTH
DRAFT
Challenges
·Addresses sea level rise with the integration of higher
ground and levees
·Provides vertiport needed to support sustainable aviation
operations
·Shift runway approaches farther from neighborhoods
·Addresses some FAA recommendations
··Increases runway length by 157FT
(15% of recommendation)
··Increases runway width to 75FT
··Increases runway separation +100FT
·Replace infrastructure that is at the end of its life cycle,
lowering operational cost
·Provides additional taxilane to increase safety
Opportunities
Alternative Description
This alternative raises the elevation of the runway to integrate it into a new levee system. Additionally, this alternative shifts
the existing runway northeast to reach the FAA recommended taxiway separation. Runway length is increased from 2,443
feet to 2,600 feet by displacing thresholds and utilizing the follow on taxiway as additional runway pavement. This increase in
runway length results in the addition of 15% of the FAA recommended runway length.
·Does not fully address deficiencies outlined in FAA
Advisory Circular recommendations
··Only increases runway length by 15% of
recommendation (+157FT of +1,057FT)
Existing Fuel Facility
Existing Terminal
Proposed Eqp. Storage
Existing ATCTExisting RWY 13-31
(To Be Removed)
Em
b
a
r
c
a
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Em
b
a
r
c
a
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Proposed Aircraft Maintenance /Office
Proposed Large Conventional Hangars
Pro
p
o
s
e
d
V
T
O
L
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
n
g
a
r
s
Legend
Existing Pavment
Existing Airport Property Line (ALP, 2017)
Future Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
Future Runway Safety Area (RSA)RSA
Future Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)ROFA
Future Horizontal Levee
Existing Baylands Trail
Proposed Building
Proposed Photovoltaic Array (Micro-Grid)
Proposed Airfield Pavement
Proposed Deconstruction
Proposed Levee (Army Corps, 2021)
Proposed Fill Area
Existing Runway Location
Proposed Vehicle Pavement
Proposed Small Conventional / T- Hangars
Proposed Terminal
Proposed ATCT
Existing ATCT
Proposed Large Conventional Hangars
& Flight Education
Proposed Vertiport (eVTOL)
Proposed Parking Structure
& Ultimate Vertiport
RSA
RSA
RSARSARSA
RSA
RSA
RSA RSA RSA
X
EQP
B
L
D
FUEL
F
A
R
M
TERM
I
N
A
L
EQP B
L
D
FUEL
F
A
R
M
TERMINAL
ROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFARO
F
A
RO
F
A
ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA
RO
F
A
RO
F
A
RS
ARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSA
RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA
Alternative 33,500 FT Runway with Southwestern Shift
Palo Alto Airport Long-Range Facilities & Sustainability Plan (LRFSP)
Source: C&S Engineers, Inc.
400'400'0'200'
NORTH
DRAFT
Proposed Terminal
Proposed Eqp. Storage
Proposed Vertiport (eVTOL)
Proposed Hangars
Existing ATCT
Existing Fuel Facility
Challenges
·Provides vertiport needed to support sustainable aviation
operations
·Addresses all FAA recommendations
··Increases runway length by +1,057FT
(100% of recommendation)
··Increases runway width to 75FT
··Increases runway separation +100FT
·Replace infrastructure that is at the end of its life cycle,
lowering operational cost
·Provides additional taxilane to increase safety
Opportunities
Alternative Description
This alternative does not raise the runway elevation in a way that can be integrated into a new levee system. This alternative
shifts the existing runway southwest away from proposed levees. This shift south allows the runway to reach 100% of the
FAA recommended runway length and avoid extending into the dock pond area. Runway length is increased from 2,443 feet
to 3,500 feet. Taxiways are constructed on both sides of the runway to decrease airfield congestion and increase safety.
·Does not integrate runway within proposed levee
system
·Requires the reconstruction of entire airfield
·Requires property acquisition from neighboring golf
course
·Brings runway closer to nearby neighborhoods
·Splits airfield increasing taxi times and carbon
emissions
·Requires additional obstruction mitigation
Existing ATCTExisting RWY 13-31
(To Be Removed)
Em
b
a
r
c
a
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Em
b
a
r
c
a
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Existing Terminal
Legend
Existing Pavment
Existing Airport Property Line (ALP, 2017)
Future Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
Future Runway Safety Area (RSA)RSA
Future Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)ROFA
Future Horizontal Levee
Existing Baylands Trail
Proposed Building
Proposed Vehicle Pavement
Proposed Airfield Pavement
Proposed Deconstruction
Proposed Levee (Army Corps, 2021)
Proposed Fill Area
Existing Runway Location
Proposed Vertiport (eVTOL)
RSA
RSA
RSARSARSA
RSA
RSA
RSA RSA RSA
X
EQP B
L
D
FUEL
F
A
R
M
TERM
I
N
A
L
ROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFARO
F
A
RO
F
A
ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA
RO
F
A
RO
F
A
RS
ARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSA
RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA
Alternative 4
Palo Alto Airport Long-Range Facilities & Sustainability Plan (LRFSP)
Source: C&S Engineers, Inc.
400'400'0'200'
NORTH
DRAFT
Proposed Terminal
Proposed Eqp. Storage
Proposed Hangars
Existing ATCT
Existing Fuel Facility
Challenges
·Provides vertiport needed to support sustainable aviation
operations
·Relocates runway farther away from nearby
neighborhoods
·Addresses all FAA recommendations
··Increases runway length by +1,057FT
(100% of recommendation)
··Increases runway width to 75FT
··Increases runway separation +100FT
·Replace infrastructure that is at the end of its life cycle,
lowering operational cost
·Provides additional taxiway to increase safety
Opportunities
Alternative Description
This alternative raises the elevation of the runway to integrate it into a new levee system. Additionally, this layout shifts the
existing runway northeast to reach the FAA recommended runway to taxiway separation. Runway length is increased from
2,443 feet to 3,500 feet, to provide 100% of the FAA recommended runway length. Two parallel taxiways are constructed on
both sides of the runway to decrease airfield congestion and increase safety.
·Requires significant fill within duck pond area to
implement (more fill than any other Alternative)
·Requires the removal of trees within ROFA.
Proposed Vertiport (eVTOL)
3,500 FT Runway with Northeastern Shift
Existing ATCTExisting RWY 13-31
(To Be Removed)
Obstruction to
Proposed Runway
Em
b
a
r
c
a
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Em
b
a
r
c
a
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Existing Terminal
Legend
Existing Pavment
Existing Airport Property Line (ALP, 2017)
Future Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
Future Runway Safety Area (RSA)RSA
Future Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)ROFA
Future Horizontal Levee
Existing Baylands Trail
Proposed Building
Proposed Vehicle Pavement
Proposed Airfield Pavement
Proposed Deconstruction
Proposed Levee (Army Corps, 2021)
Proposed Fill Area
Existing Runway Location
RSA
RSA
RSARSARSA
RSA
RSA
RSA RSA RSA
X
ROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFAROFARO
F
A
RO
F
A
ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA ROFA
RO
F
A
RO
F
ARS
ARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSARSA
RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA RSA
EQP B
L
D
FUEL
F
A
R
M
TER
M
I
N
A
L
Alternative 53,000 FT Runway with Northeastern Shift
Palo Alto Airport Long-Range Facilities & Sustainability Plan (LRFSP)
Source: C&S Engineers, Inc.
400'400'0'200'
NORTH
DRAFT
Existing Terminal
Proposed Terminal
Proposed Eqp. Storage
Proposed Hangars
Existing ATCT
Existing Fuel Facility
Proposed Vertiport (eVTOL)
Proposed Terminal
Proposed Eqp. Storage
Proposed Hangars
Existing ATCT
Existing Fuel Facility
Proposed Vertiport (eVTOL)
Challenges
·Fully integrates runway into levee system
·Provides vertiport needed to support sustainable aviation
operations
·Relocates runway farther away from nearby
neighborhoods
·Addresses majority of FAA recommendations
··Increases runway length by +557FT
(53% of recommendation)
··Increases runway width to 75FT
··Increases runway separation +100FT
·Replace infrastructure that is at the end of its life cycle,
lowering operational cost
·Provides additional taxilane to increase safety
Opportunities
Alternative Description
This alternative raises the elevation of the runway to integrate it into a new levee system. Additionally, this alternative shifts
the existing runway northeast to reach the FAA recommended runway to taxiway separation. Runway length is increased
from 2,443 feet to 3,000 feet, to provide 53% of the FAA recommended runway length. A taxiway and a taxilane are
constructed on the southwestern side of the runway to decrease airfield congestion and increase safety.
·Requires significant fill within duck pond area to
implement
·Does not provide full runway length as recommended by
FAA (+ 1,057FT)
Existing ATCTExisting RWY 13-31
(To Be Removed)
Em
b
a
r
c
a
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Em
b
a
r
c
a
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Legend
Existing Pavment
Existing Airport Property Line (ALP, 2017)
Future Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
Future Runway Safety Area (RSA)RSA
Future Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)ROFA
Future Horizontal Levee
Existing Baylands Trail
Proposed Building
Proposed Vehicle Pavement
Proposed Airfield Pavement
Proposed Deconstruction
Proposed Levee (Army Corps, 2021)
Proposed Fill Area
Existing Runway Location
given 100% discretion by all federal judges. That massive discretionary power let manyfederal "experts" run amok in callous arrogance. They got used to 40 years of making tall
paper piles and to shove them down the throats of citizens who could never get their day incourt to challenge such expert opinions.
Our JCRC did more than interact with federal government experts. We led the effort to expose
the "double books" kept on our airport while under Santa Clara County management whichdid not like having to keep all profits earned at our Airport to stay at our Airport required by
the City's long lease with the County. Siphoning that revenue stream to other County airportstook many years and political education to expose.
JCRC members also spearheaded bringing Palo Alto Bayland's ranger's ideas to airport
management as well as inviting many nature advocates from falconers to theEnvironmental Volunteers to bring free displays to the annual Airport Day our committee
started. The first Open House in the 1980s was a poster display in a hangar to inform CityCouncil members our City owns the Airport, not the County. When I gave Environmental
Volunteers (EVs) Baylands tours to school children for many years I made sure the EVs wereinvited to Airport Day.
l'm sad to report at least one nature group invited to participate at the September 29, 2024
Airport Day has declined to attend. Goodwill and trust are no longer smooth between theAirport community and all its neighbors. Perhaps it is time to bring back the JCRC if only
informally. I know many at the monthly Palo Alto Airport Pilots Association which runsAirport Day would welcome ideas and help from all our neighbors.
l've read closely many of the community comments submitted for today's Council meeting. I
see a lot of agreement such as a possible consensus that solar panels at the Airport could be agood idea. I've not seen any opposition to getting rid of the current mobile home terminal
building by the Baylands and move it to a new permanent structure co-located with a newFAA Tower both placed further away from the Baylands. Those are good discussion items to
start conversations together.
Regards,Alice Mansell
P.S. I urge everyone to go inside the Airport terminal at the end of Embarcadero Road and see
the framed photos on the walls showing the evolution of both the Airport and Baylands sincethe 1930s. In particular, please see how the relocation of San Francisquito Creek to the north
left a cut-off creek bed remnant pilots call due to its twice a day unnatural black color the"Black Lagoon" between the runway and Duck Pond. At least one Terminal photo shows the
dredge pulling up sediments from that lagoon to make new dry land where the terminal and itsparking lot sits. Perhaps if airport and Baylands supporters can work creatively together we
could restore more marshlands as well as improve airport safety.
From:mrpicasso2
To:Council, City
Subject:Do not expand Palo Alto airport
Date:Monday, September 16, 2024 10:08:46 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Palo Alto City Council,
I request that you do not expand the Palo Alto airport, add any
additional pavement for parking or runways there, or in anyway disturb
the wetlands near the airport. As a San Jose resident, and employee of a
company located near the airport, I frequently visited the Baylands
Nature Preserve, the Duck Pond, and Byxbee Park. The birds and other
wildlife in the area are a wonderful asset to have so close to
residential and commercial areas. Such biodiversity is critical to all
of our health and well-being.
Given the natural attractiveness of he area for many bird species,
expanding the airport activities will increase the risk of bird-aircraft
collisions and further harm the esthetics of the area. Already, the
noise and lead pollution from the airport and aircraft are harmful to
nearby Palo Alto and East Palo Alto residents and workers. We do not
need any further attacks on our well-being.
Please do not expand the airport operations.
Thank you.
Mike Beggs
San Jose, CA 95112
From:Shannon Griscom
To:Council, City
Subject:Airport Expansion
Date:Monday, September 16, 2024 9:57:08 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
I have lived in Palo Alto since 1965, and I value the parks and especially the bay lands. I object to the expansion of
the airport, and the displacement of wildlife and facilities. I use the bay lands several times a week for walking and
recreation. The number of planes is increasing at an alarming rate. Please do NOT expand that airport.
Shannon Griscom
meetings and release of the environmental review document. E-mails can be sent to
jmark@openspace.org.
Sincerely,
Jane Mark
Jane Mark, AICP
Planning Manager
Pronouns: She/her
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
5050 El Camino Real, Los Altos, CA 94022
(650) 625-6563
openspace.org
From:Bette Kiernan
To:Council, City
Subject:environmental impact of aircraft on wetlands - Google Scholar
Date:Monday, September 16, 2024 8:39:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links.
Honorable City Council Members:
I respectfully request that you review the following paper which is easily available on GoogleScholar It describes the detrimental impacts of aircraft on wetlands.
A vitally important environmental concern rests in your hands as expanded aviation into theBaylands is now on the table
Sincerely,
Bette Kiernan
Palo Alto Airport Study Session Community Input Grace Popple
I also ask that you include the people of East Palo Alto, and their
elected officials, in discussions about and decision-making on what
should be done with the Palo Alto Airport and its impact.
Presently noise reports from the airport focus on mapping the source of only those reports that come
from residents of the City of Palo Alto - there is no equivalent map from East Palo Alto households even
though they are much closer to the flight paths and the airport itself:
(Source:2022 noise report)
Takeoff rules focus on how high the aircraft should be after the aircraft has passed over Highway 101:
However almost all departures that will eventually fly over 101 cross East Palo Alto or Menlo Park first:
9/15/2024 Page 2 of 5
Palo Alto Airport Study Session Community Input Grace Popple
East Palo Alto is also overflown by the Peninsula Side Pattern for training flights (often “touch-and-go”s)
which don’t reach the 101.
It would make sense for The City of Palo Alto to involve the immediately adjacent Cities in its
planning. When the airport was started, East Palo Alto was a part of Palo Alto. Since our setup as an
independent City in 1983 we have been cut out of having a valued voice on this matter.
Why the FAA process should not be driving the master plan for PAO
The FAA process focused on the “critical aircraft” calculated here to be the Pilatus PC-12, a relatively
loud turboprop plane which made 842 operations last year at PAO. There were 163,620 operations
overall so this aircraft accounts for about 0.6% of them. Assuming a normal distribution of operations by
types of plane around some median plane type by weight, this is just not the typical plane here:
9/15/2024 Page 3 of 5
Palo Alto Airport Study Session Community Input Grace Popple
Other considerations for the Master Plan
● I am interested to see Palo Alto also support the development of smaller, lighter and quieter
eVTOL aircraft and I can believe that investment in charging infrastructure and more
landing pads at or near the Terminal may be needed for that.Let’s keep the passenger
Terminal where it is now - on the far side of the airport from our homes.
● I would like to see a fast migration to unleaded fuel and thoughtful preparation to migrate to
non-fossil-fuel energy sources.
● I would like to see far more data collected and made available for the community for
analysis, including operational data about the airport as well as compliance with noise
mitigation guidelines and rules.
● I would like to see noise mitigation boundaries that start at the edge of the populated areas
of East Palo Alto and do not wait for the visual feature of Highway 101 (and the more expensive
homes of Palo Alto) to require the pilot to attain 1500 feet of clearance. Ignoring the needs of
residents to north and east of 101 is unacceptable.
Thank you for listening to those on the ground impacted by these operations at the boundary of earth
and sky.
Grace Popple
9/15/2024 Page 5 of 5
From:a hamilton
To:Council, City
Subject:Say no to airport expansion
Date:Sunday, September 15, 2024 7:22:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Councilmembers — regarding the proposed expansion of the PA airport, please put the priority on protecting
the health and our city’s wonderful natural resources. Please remove any alternatives that include eVTOL
preparation (electric vertical take-off aircraft’s). These air taxis will benefit a few wealthy people at the expense of
regular everyday people. Thank you for protecting all the people in our city.
From:Gary Bailey
To:Council, City
Subject:Airport
Date:Sunday, September 15, 2024 5:03:53 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from tigergary@earthlink.net. Learn why this isimportant
Dear Mayor Stone and council:
Far more people use the Palo Alto golf course and nearby parks and open spacethan use the Palo Alto airport. So do not sacrifice the many for the few. And most
of the wetlands around the bay have already been destroyed. These wetlands are
critically important for protection from sea level rise, and for migrating birds andlocal wildlife. So do not let the airport encroach on wetlands, parks or other openspace.
Also, some other nearby airports are eliminating leaded fuel, which is a major
health issue. Please consider stopping the use of leaded fuel at the airport.
Thank you,
Gary Bailey
3. No amount of protections that the FAA or Congress offer to call everything a Finding of NoSignificant Impact will hold for a potentially serious airport capacity change, and with barely
understood aircraft in the new world of the Supreme Court rulings which end the FAA's finalword in NEPA challenges. You could already plan for an EIS, which the FAA avoids or will
never ever do. Also, I wonder what would be acceptable mitigations for anyone to withstandthe noise. The FAA and airports always claim that technology will reduce noise - eVTOL isnot in the noise reduction vehicle category and I hope you will not expect anyone to believethat.
4. The City does not have the infrastructure to adequately address noise concerns. I encourage
you to take the suggestions from Sky Posse to do that with any alternative.
Please establish an understanding with the community about how the City
plans to assess, track, and report noise - and who will pay for this. It is
your fiduciary duty to plan for all potential costs; credible noise assessment
being essential to be responsive and transparent with residents and neighbors.
Thus our request for the City to present a feasibility and cost analysis of what
modern day noise assessments and permanent noise tracking options can provide. Many of the questions from the community at the airport’s June public
outreach meeting were about noise impacts. At the time, the City's consultant
said an FAA process in future would address our concerns about noise but this
is misleading, and it is why we also ask the City to provide a regulatory review that would establish a framework for addressing noise issues.
One of my biggest concerns is that the public is being misled about eVTOL. In an
atmosphere where the public has no idea about the risks. And the biggest issue is that the airspace procedures - the ones which will decide how planes fly only happen
AFTER the airports build neat things on the ground. This should be disclosed to the
public. Basically planning for changes on the ground is inappropriate without airspace
procedures details.
I know that it's the way the FAA does things. I cautioned at the March 2023 study
session, will the City be using the FAA's disco era planning guide? Here we are and
instead of doing things differently, the CIty is defending the FAA's and disco era airport practices.
Please do not use the name "preferred" alternative without community support, and
only after you do so in an Action Agenda.
Best,
Jennifer
PC-12 – The ultimate aerial SUV
Most versatile and valued business aircraft in the world
Executive seats feature full recline, taller seat backs, and even more seated headroom.
Fine European leather, custom hand-stitching, and a wealth of designs to appeal to a
multitude of personalities.
You’ll appreciate the Swiss craftsmanship and attention to detail presented in the form
of custom hand-sewn leather, exclusive hardwood cabinetry and fine upholstery that
abound throughout the aircraft.
Designed to allow a fork-lift to load a standard size pallet directly into the cabin, it can
surely fit your luggage, your motorbike, and your surfboard.
Expanding to a 3500 ft runway will also open up the airport to these additional jet aircraft
(https://simpleflying.com/top-business-jets-short-runways/) and contribute to an inexorable
march toward more annoying jet traffic:
7 passenger HondaJet (3500 ft required)
7 passenger Cessna Citation M2 (3210 ft required)
7 passenger Embraer Phenom 100 (3190 ft required)
10 passenger Pilatus LPC-24 (2900 ft required)
The community survey result was that 43.3% chose the ‘No Action’ alternative, with
Alternative 4 a distant second at 22.1%. When asked which alternative contained their
preferred runway length and location without consideration for the rest of the elements,
51.2% of the responders chose Alternative 1 – No Action
Of the five sustainability and resilience focus areas presented for consideration, ‘Maintaining
Harmony with the Baylands’ received the most number 1 (or most important) votes at 51.4%
Alternatives 2 – 5 included the levee location considered by Valley Water and the USACE as
part of the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Phase II Investigations. However, in April 2024,
the USACE concluded that there was no federal interest in the project (too few people
affected).
There were no cost estimates for any of the alternatives.
Please support the ‘no action’ Alternative #1 that the vast majority of residents desire.
Sincerely,
Lee Christel
Midtown
fiduciary duty to plan for all potential costs; credible noise assessment being essential
to be responsive and transparent with residents and neighbors. Thus our request for
the City to present a feasibility and cost analysis of what modern day noise
assessments and permanent noise tracking options can provide. Many of the
questions from the community at the airport’s June public outreach meeting were
about noise impacts. At the time, the City's consultant said an FAA process in future
would address our concerns about noise but this is misleading, and it is why we also
ask the City to provide a regulatory review that would establish a framework for
addressing noise issues.
Lastly, City staff compiled City policy statements and guiding documents to ensure
that the airport planning process is consistent with various City positions, but there
are also City guiding principles about aircraft noise. Namely the statement at the top
of the City’s Regional SFO Airport Coordination/Airplane Noise, link here.
The City is committed to working with our citizens, Congress, the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), SFO, SFO’s Community Roundtable,
neighboring city and county agencies, regional airports, noise groups,
and all stakeholders associated with air traffic in Silicon Valley to find
solutions which restore the quality of life of our community.
This type of commitment is missing from the airport planning staff reports and the City
should not have double standards for how to address aircraft noise concerns. Noise
does not happen in siloes, or airport by airport. All airspace related actions - from
safety to noise - are interrelated and interdependent. Furthermore, there are regional
policy positions on aircraft noise that were voted on during the Select Committee, by
three counties and accepted by three Congressional districts that should also be
incorporated in the planning process.
Please ensure that the City’s positions on aircraft noise are added to the
documents guiding airport planning,
Thank you,
Sky Posse Palo Alto
On Monday September 16, there is a Council study session where City staff “recommends
that Council receive an update on the Airport Long-Range Planning process and provide
input to support development of a preferred alternative.” The staff report is here. The Palo
Alto Weekly has published a story on the topic, here.
Our review of the staff report is that the current planned “next steps” and commitments from
the City sideline noise by not presenting how the airport will address and manage arguably
one of the most problematic concerns from airport operations - noise.
The staff report reveals that eVTOL planning on behalf of commercial interests may be a
key driver for the pursuit of FAA grants to change the airport. eVTOL noise is comparable
to helicopter noise. And the FAA and airports ignore, among other things, their low
frequency vibrations which is critical to consider because these vehicles are being sold for
taxi services, portending traffic levels and lower altitudes that can very negatively affect
residential neighborhoods and the natural environment.
Per the staff report,
"Staff has met with several companies interested in partnering with the City to introduce
eVTOL aircraft at the airport. Other companies have approached the airport in support of
eVTOL operations by providing sustainable alternative fuels like charging stations and
possibly hydrogen. These companies have identified the Bay Area, and specifically the
airport as an ideal location for eVTOL operations in the future."
eVTOL companies lobbying our local officials are a formidable lobby, some with former
FAA Administrators on their boards. The Palo Alto Weekly quotes the president of the
California Pilots Association who helps airports acquire federal grants suggesting,
misleadingly, that “the city is already considering the environmental impacts of any
alternatives and that it would be required to fully assess these impacts before any
construction occurs.” Per the staff report, the City has no steps to consider noiseimpacts in planning; if the retort is that FAA’s environmental rules for noise are being
followed, that also means that they are not considering noise impacts because even brutal
levels of noise such as the Nextgen noise problem get a Finding of No Significant Impact
from the FAA. Moreover, the 1.07% forecasted annual increase in operations for Palo Alto
Airport is NOT an indication of potential noise impacts. For example, Nextgen noise erupted
in Palo Alto when SFO operations were down, and a historical assessment commissioned
by the City in 2015 showed that SFO operations grew by 9% over an eight year period, or
roughly 1% annually but the increase in levels of noise in that time frame, and the growth in
number of people affected is massive.
Council must consider that it is premature to plan for eVTOLS for PAO, or for the
City’s name to be used to promote these vehicles. It is Council’s duty to first thoroughly
understand how inviting eVTOLs would permanently bring NEW noise that is not mitigated
even by physical barriers. The flaws with Nextgen implementation show that aviation
companies, the FAA, and airports have not modernized their tools or metrics to evaluate
noise impacts. At the same time, there are various options and metrics to assess noise; it is
reasonable to ask for progress on assessments to better communicate about aviation
noise, and before launching new problems.
Before committing to a plan that incorporates aviation and eVTOL priorities, the City
needs to have an understanding with the community about how the City plans toassess, track, and report noise - and who will pay for this. It is a fiduciary duty to plan
for all potential costs; credible noise assessment being essential to be responsive andtransparent with residents and neighbors. Currently, Bay Area airports escape expenses to
“fully assess” noise with artifacts such as the FAA’s 65 DNL. Thus our request for the Cityto present a feasibility and cost analysis of what modern day noise assessments and
permanent noise tracking options can provide. Many of the questions from the communityat the airport’s June public outreach meeting were about noise impacts. At the time, the
City's consultant said an FAA process in the future would address our concerns aboutnoise but this is misleading, and it is why we also ask the City to provide a regulatory
review that would establish a framework for addressing noise issues.
City Policy statements for managing aircraft noise:
City staff has compiled City policy statements and guiding documents to ensure that the
airport planning process is consistent with various City positions, but it disregarded thebody of position statements and guiding principles about aircraft noise. Namely the
statement at the top of the City’s Regional SFO Airport Coordination/Airplane Noise, linkhere.
"The City is committed to working with our citizens, Congress, the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), SFO, SFO’s Community Roundtable,neighboring city and county agencies, regional airports, noise groups, and
all stakeholders associated with air traffic in Silicon Valley to find solutionswhich restore the quality of life of our community."
This type of commitment is missing from the airport planning staff reports and the Cityshould not have double standards for how to address aircraft noise concerns. Noise does
not happen in siloes, or airport by airport. All airspace related actions - from safety to noise- are interrelated and interdependent. Furthermore, there are regional policy positions on
aircraft noise that were voted on during the Select Committee, by three counties andaccepted by three Congressional districts that should also be incorporated in the planning
process.
The City’s various positions on aircraft noise need to be added to the documents guiding
airport planning, including Council’s joint advocacy with the Town of Los Altos Hills, Cities
of East Palo Alto, Los Altos, Menlo Park and Mountain View to among other things replace
the DNL metric with the NAbove metric.
From:Diane McCoy
To:Council, City
Subject:Preserve the preserve!
Date:Saturday, September 14, 2024 2:30:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links.
Sent from my iPhone
From:C Schryver
To:Council, City
Subject:PA Airport Expansion
Date:Saturday, September 14, 2024 1:48:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Hi,
Please do not expand the airport. There is so much peace and wildlife at the Palo Alto Baylands. I and many others
often enjoy walking the area.
With so much focus on expanding the salt marshes to offset rising tides I can’t fathom why this one would be
diminished, especially given the impact to endangered species such as the Salt Marsh Harvest mouse and Ridgeway
Rail.
All of the above are far more valuable than some additional planes that benefit very few.
Thanks,
Cristina Schryver
CC: Members, Palo Alto City Council
601 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 250
Washington, D.C. 20001 T. 202-853-7513
C. 916-761-3519
www.aopa.org
A I R C R A F T O W N E R S A N D P I L O T S A S S O C I A T I O N
September 3, 2024
Hon. Greer Stone, Mayor City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA, 94301 SUBMITTED VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION RE: Study Session Item #3 – Support for Palo Alto Airport
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) is the largest general aviation membership
organization in the world, representing over 300,000 pilots and aircraft owners, and write to express
our strongest support for the Palo Alto Airport and the positive improvements proposed for its future.
The Palo Alto Airport has been a vital part of the community for almost a century, and it continues to
play a crucial role in the Bay Area region. It serves as a hub for testing and developing the future of
aviation, cementing its position as an essential part of the city. Furthermore, the airport's expansion
and growth offer numerous economic opportunities that will greatly benefit the residents and
surrounding communities. These opportunities include creating jobs and providing a platform for the
next generation of aviators and entrepreneurs, while also generating additional revenue to support
high-quality services for the city’s residents.
Aside from its obvious benefits, the airport plays a crucial role as an emergency services center
during natural disasters and has a zero-density footprint, making it ideal for environmentally
sensitive areas. Without the airport, these natural habitats would be vulnerable to development.
Therefore, the airport plays a vital protective role for these areas and acts as a necessary buffer for
the city's growth. Finally, the aviation industry is making significant progress towards sustainability
through alternative fuels while also supporting the continued preservation of zero to low-density
land-use through the preservation of airports.
For these reasons, AOPA urges the Palo Alto City Council to maintain its support for the airport and
its smart growth options. Embracing the airport as a hub demonstrates forward thinking and is
essential for ensuring the airport's safety, modernization, and its role as a vital component of the
community's prosperity.
Respectfully, Jared Yoshiki Western Pacific Regional Manager – AOPA
Thank you,
Renee Punian
From:Connie Nelson
To:Council, City
Subject:Oppose Expansion of the Airport
Date:Friday, September 13, 2024 6:01:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Mayor Stone and City Council Members:
As a well known hotspot for birds and other wildlife, I visit the Palo Alto Baylands Preserve and Byxbee Park
multiple times a month to walk the trails and go birding. These parklands and wetlands provide critical habitat for
hundreds of local and migratory bird species, and provide a natural buffer against sea level rise.
Expanding the Palo Alto airport runs counter to the current goals to restore wetlands around San Francisco Bay.
Habitat loss is already having a huge impact on wildlife. The current noise levels are an annoyance so any
expansion will only make it worse.
Please keep the existing footprint of the airport and runway: do not expand or move them closer to the wetlands and
do not add more asphalt!
Sincerely,
Connie Nelson
Concerned Residents of Palo Alto
Filiberto ZaragozaEnvironmental Justice Campaign Organizer
Youth United for Community Action
Violet Wulf-SaenaFounder and Executive Director
Climate Resilient Communities
Lauren WestonExecutive Director
Acterra: Action for a Healthy Planet
Alice KaufmanPolicy and Advocacy Director
Green Foothills
Mila BerkeleCo-Lead, Nature Based Solutions Team
Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action
Eileen McLaughlinBoard Member
Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge
Judy FenertyConservation Chair
CNPS Santa Clara Valley Chapter
Cheryl Weiden350 Silicon Valley Steering Committee
Andrea Gara
Co-leader350SV Palo Alto Climate Action
Hilary Glann
Co-leader350SV Palo Alto Climate Action
Zoe Jonick
Lead Organizer350 Bay Area
Our organizations therefore oppose planning elements that would allow the airport to expand in space
or air traffic (including eVTOL) or even move the runways north, as this would increase conflicts with
birds and other wildlife in the adjacent wetlands. Palo Alto should not un-dedicate parkland, fill
wetlands, increase the risk to birds or the need to deter them from using the adjacent wetlands,
exacerbate noise, or perpetuate lead deposition and greenhouse gas emissions. We are supportive of
adding solar panels over existing asphalt areas, and of creating a path to reduce the footprint, both
physical and operational, of the airport in the future.
Protection of Palo Alto’s Baylands is the most popular option with the public
Responses to the online survey as noted in the staff report1 show clear preference for the No Action
Alternative (Alternative 1). Many responses chose not to choose an alternative, instead expressing a
“strong preference for preserving the Baylands and Duck Pond” and a “strong preference for closing the
airport.” When Alternative 1 and the No Answer votes were combined, more than 58% of votes in the
survey expressed a strong preference for preserving the Baylands and opposing airport expansion.
Furthermore, of several “Focus Areas” presented for consideration, “Maintaining Harmony with the
Baylands” received the most votes with 51.4% of the votes.
It is surprising therefore that the words “Baylands Nature Preserve” (and within it the word “nature”)
appear only once in the staff report. Identified Key Issues and Needs include, “Integrate facilities with
the adjacent Baylands Golf Links and Baylands Nature Preserve, both of which are also city-owned.” The
word “Park” also appears only once. It seems that preservation and protection of parkland and the
nature preserve are not recognized as a Key Issue or Need despite the overwhelming concern expressed
by the community in the Airport survey, in letters to the City Council over the past few months, and in
grassroots petitions2 and outreach efforts. In all these communications the community expressed strong
opposition to airport expansion.
Due to the potentially significant impacts of encroaching into the Baylands and of increasing airport
operations on wildlife and Bayland ecosystems, the impacts on neighboring communities, and the strong
preference of community members to not expand the airport, our organizations recommend that City
Council direct staff to proceed with alternative 1 (no-action/no-build). Airport operations should not
encroach upon the Baylands directly or indirectly, and parkland should not be paved to accommodate
the airport.
2 Diane McCoy collected 300 signatures from visitors to the baylands on a petition asking the City not to expand.
Over 1500 people signed the Palo Alto Student Climate Coalition’s petition
https://www.change.org/p/save-the-palo-alto-baylands-from-airport-expansion?utm_medium=custom_url&utm_s
ource=share petition&recruited by id=0c77e730-a48d-11ea-9049-bf7deb9d000a
1 Staff Report for Agenda Item 3:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/api/compilemeetingattachmenthistory/historyattachment/?historyId=0f6f33b
e-6159-42d0-980f-a62dfcea2bac
Please consider the following points in your direction to staff.
1.Please do not allow the airport to expand into dedicated parkland3. It is surprising to us that
the outreach conducted by the airport has not disclosed to the public that all the expansion
alternatives (2,3,4,5) would require the un-dedication of parkland and therefore require a vote
of the people. Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 would fill wetlands in the Baylands Nature Preserve, and
Alternative 3 would encroach into the Golf Course.
2.Please do not encroach on wetlands at the Baylands Nature Preserve (Alternatives 2,3,4,5).
Palo Alto’s Baylands are critical wildlife habitat for migratory birds. Two hundred eighty bird
species have been recorded in the Palo Alto Baylands Preserve, which is the longest checklist for
any birding hot spot in the country. Some of these species depend on the combination of
habitats that is available at the lagoon, including imperiled rail species, the lovely Common
Yellowthroat, and the Alameda Song Sparrow. Encroaching into this habitat by filling the
wetlands and/or by moving airport activity and operations closer to their habitat (Alternatives 2,
3, 4, and 5) would harm these species and the many others who rely for their survival on Palo
Alto’s preservation of the Baylands.
Palo Alto’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan calls for the City to act in accordance with the 2008
Baylands Master Plan (BMP), protecting open spaces as vital sources of public health, natural
beauty, and enjoyment. The plan emphasizes the importance of preserving and protecting the
Bay, marshlands, sloughs, creeks, and other wetlands as functioning habitats and elements of an
interconnected wildlife corridor.
The 2008 BMP expressly forbids intensified airport use or significant intrusion into open space,
including the Duck Pond and lagoon. As noted by the Honorable Emily Renzel (letter to City
Council dated August 8, 2024), loss of wetlands not only contradicts this plan but also
undermines the City's long standing mitigation requirement for historical fill of wetlands by the
City of Palo Alto: (BMP on page 67-68).
In 1976, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) granted permission to continue operations and
expand the footprint of the landfill. That permission included mitigation measures that are
described in the Environmental Impact Report for the Palo Alto Refuse Disposal Area. The lagoon
3 In 1965, Palo Alto dedicated the Baylands as conservation parkland. Article VIII of the Palo Alto city
charter stipulates that dedicated parkland cannot be sold, disposed of, or its use abandoned or
discontinued without a majority vote of the electorate. It further states,"No substantial building,
construction, reconstruction or development upon or with respect to any lands so dedicated shall be
made except pursuant to ordinance subject to referendum.”
that envelopes the Duck Pond (and where fill is proposed) is an important mitigation area4,
intended to serve in perpetuity to mitigate unpermitted fill of wetlands at Byxbee Park decades
ago. It currently provides open water and mudflats and supports a native plant community that
supports migratory birds and locally endangered species.
The Palo Alto Airport, like all airports, must adhere to a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan
(WHMP) mandated by the FAA, which allows for the removal of birds and wildlife from the
airfield using lethal methods if necessary. Currently, a 320-ft buffer separates the runway from
the lagoon and wetlands, enabling birds to use the nearby duck pond and lagoon while still
allowing public enjoyment from the San Francisquito Creek Trail. However, WHMPs also prohibit
enhancing habitats that could attract birds to the runways. Shifting the runway, as proposed in
Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, would necessitate a new WHMP, likely leading to increased efforts to
deter birds from the Palo Alto Baylands, which would be detrimental to birds and other local
wildlife. To avoid worsening conflicts between aircraft and wildlife, and to preserve the natural
habitat, we strongly oppose relocating airport infrastructure towards the Baylands Nature
Preserve.
3. We support the placement of solar panels on existing paved areas.
Adding solar panels over existing paved areas will not expand the footprint or operational
capacity of the airport while providing a sustainability benefit.
4. Please do not expand the operational capacity or increase the air traffic of the airport.
Expanding airport operations could exacerbate existing impacts of the airport on nearby
ecosystems and communities. Increased air traffic could lead to increased noise pollution, air
pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. We are concerned about the impacts of airport
operations on communities such as those in East Palo Alto and Menlo Park’s Belle Haven
Neighborhoods. We also have concerns with eVTOL aircraft, as the frequent use of this aircraft
could lead to increased disturbances for local birds and other wildlife, as the majority of eVTOL
operations will occur at lower altitudes where bird strikes are more common.
We believe that Palo Alto must start moving infrastructure away from the Bay. Land near the Bay,
including the airport, should transition over time and serve to protect the community from the
impacts of sea level rise, and to provide upland habitat to allow migration habitat for native
species of plants and animals.
4 The “Lagoon Mitigation Project” was a required mitigation for the fill of wetlands. It installed two
culverts underneath Embarcadero Road to allow tidal flow into the lagoon in order to sustain its
ecological function and to restore wetlands impacted by previous developments. This mitigation is
mentioned multiple times in City records. For example, on page 28 of the City Council Minutes of Oct 21,
1974, in reference to the Solid Waste Disposal.
5. Palo Alto should expedite a ban on the sale of leaded AVGAS in anticipation of the State and
Federal Government legislative process.
The sale of leaded aviation fuel may be banned in California beginning in 2031 under a bill
approved by the legislature and headed to Gov. Gavin Newsom. A federal ban could come as
soon as 2030. The Palo Alto Airport should ready itself for a regulatory environment in which
leaded aviation fuel is illegal. The negative human and environmental health impacts of leaded
aircraft fuel are well known,5 and Palo Alto has the opportunity to be a global trailblazer in
pollution standards by expediting a leaded AVGAS ban and by promoting aviation fuel
alternatives.
Respectfully,
Hon. Enid Pearson
Palo Alto Councilmember 1965-75
Former Palo Alto Vice Mayor
Hon. Emily Renzel
Palo Alto Councilmember 1979-91
Baylands Conservation Committee
Matthew Dodder
Executive Director
Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance
Susan DesJardin
Chair, Bay Alive Campaign
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Avroh Shah
Head of Outreach
Palo Alto Student Climate Coalition
Darlene Yaplee
Co-founder
Concerned Residents of Palo Alto
5
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-determines-lead-emissions-aircraft-engines-cause-or-contribute-a
ir-pollution
Filiberto Zaragoza
Environmental Justice Campaign Organizer
Youth United for Community Action
Violet Wulf-Saena
Founder and Executive Director
Climate Resilient Communities
Lauren Weston
Executive Director
Acterra: Action for a Healthy Planet
Alice Kaufman
Policy and Advocacy Director
Green Foothills
Mila Berkele
Co-Lead, Nature Based Solutions Team
Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action
Eileen McLaughlin
Board Member
Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge
Judy Fenerty
Conservation Chair
CNPS Santa Clara Valley Chapter
Cheryl Weiden
350 Silicon Valley Steering Committee
Andrea Gara
Co-leader
350SV Palo Alto Climate Action
Hilary Glann
Co-leader
350SV Palo Alto Climate Action
Zoe Jonick
Lead Organizer
350 Bay Area
From:City Mgr
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City
Subject:City Council Bundle_September 12
Date:Thursday, September 12, 2024 3:55:19 PM
Attachments:image001.pngimage002.pngRE Dangerous crosswalk at Charleston and Sutherland + proposed solutions.msgRE Unleaded Aviation fuel at PAO.msgRE EPA announces violation of airborne lead standards at two California airports yet continues to delay action ontoxic effects of lead in aviation fuel.msgRE Churchill Intersection.msgRE Parklet Encroachment at 281 University Avenue.msgRE Road repair.msgRE Uncontrolled (unsafe) intersections along Suggested Routes to school.msgRE Manufactured Housing.msgFW Unhoused on Clemo Avenue Juana Briones Park.msgRE Churchill ave construction closure - photos of student backup.msgRE Continued Lack of Gas Leaf Blower Enforcement.msg
Importance:High
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please see the attached staff responses to emailsreceived in the City.Council inbox through September 12.
Respectfully,
Danille
Danille RiceAdministrative AssistantCity Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation(650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@cityofpaloalto.orgwww.cityofpaloalto.org
From:jeannie duisenberg
To:Council, City
Subject:Airport expansion
Date:Thursday, September 12, 2024 10:05:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear City Council,
Please consider voting against the expansion of the PA airport. It is really of no benefit to the vast majority of PA
dwellers. Why would we want to increase air traffic when we have had so little satisfaction with the FAA in
tamping down the air traffic noise inflicted on us for the last decade?
No on airport expansion.
Thank you,
Jeannie Duisenberg
Channing Ave
From:Emily Renzel
To:Council, City
Subject:My more complete letter to you re Airport
Date:Wednesday, September 11, 2024 6:54:17 PM
Attachments:CC re airport.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Mayor Stone and City Council: I just re-sent you a letter I wrote about a month ago, but now realize that itwas a draft. The FINAL version is attached below. Please limit any new airport activities to the current site. Thanks.
Emily Renzel, Councilmember 1979-91
August 8, 2024
Dear Mayor Stone & Members of the City Council:
I have just read Alice Mansell’s letter to you with her perspective on Palo Alto’s
decisions about our treasured baylands. There is considerable mixing of facts and
opinions and I would like to straighten out the record a little.
First of all, when John Fletcher Byxbee, City Engineer, set out to acquire some 1900 acres
of Baylands, he regarded all of it as potential reclaimed land. Due to similar thinking all
around the Bay, over 90% of the Bay’s wetlands were lost. With each loss, the options
to restore the natural areas were reduced. Each City Council had fewer options to
course correct. Highway 101 became known as the “Bayshore Freeway”.
The City of Palo Alto owned a lot of land that was in San Mateo County and to correct
that, the City re-routed the San Francisquito Creek, then considered the County bound-
ary, to bring the Palo Alto owned land into Santa Clara County. Grand plans for the
Airport and the Yacht Harbor were too expensive for Palo Alto, so the city leased those
facilities to the County of Santa Clara. Re-routing of the Creek created some remnant
sloughs. One of these is the lagoon that still envelopes the Duck Pond.
In 1964, the Voters of Palo Alto, by a 90-10 margin, approved the Park Dedication
Charter Amendment. Parklands may not be converted to other uses without a vote of
the public. There have been fewer than 10 such amendments in subsequent years. One
of these amendments undedicated three parcels to allow expansion of the airport.
The City also kept expanding the “dump” into 126 acres of wetlands. By the early
1970’s the approved footprint of the dump was completely filled. The City, however,
continued to fill new wetlands. By that time the Clean Water Act had been adopted by
Congress and there was a new permit process required to fill wetlands. In 1975, the
City was required to mitigate unpermitted fill by 1) installing pipes to one remnant of
San Francisquito Creek (now commonly known as the Lagoon) to improve water
quality and create a marshy fringe, and 2) installing a flexible tide gate in the 600-acre
Flood Basin to also improve water quality and create marshland. Those mitigation
requirements are a permanent obligation of the City of Palo Alto.
Also in 1975, the 109 Boaters berthed in the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor were seeking to
dredge the channel to the Bay. They argued that re-routing the Creek had caused the
harbor to fill in. In fact, the Harbor was filling in because with each dredging, wetlands
-1-
were filled and the natural twice daily tidal prisms that kept the channel open, were
obstructed. The Bay Conservation and Development Commission had jurisdiction and
required a Comprehensive Baylands Master Plan as part of that approval. The City
spent a couple of years to adopt the Baylands Master Plan which was subsequently
revised and adopted in 2008. The Yacht Harbor was closed around 1980 and through
natural tidal action, at least 20 acres of wetlands have been restored.
Since the 1970’s, the City has recognized the environmental value of having a nearby
natural marshland and has resisted additional fill and incompatible uses.
The 2008 Adopted Baylands Master Plan proscribed expansion of the Airport and also
acknowledged the protected areas surrounding it. The three parcels that were
undedicated in 1969 were incorporated into the airport and the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant. The airport paved some of this land for parking cars and airplanes. But
much of that land remains unpaved. The City should consider rededicating this land
as parkland instead of allowing the airport to expand.
Byxbee’s vision of a Salt water swimming pool did not last long as it became a haven for
the Bay’s wildlife and soon became the beloved Duck Pond. It continues to be a
favorite place to take children for an outing. The lagoon that envelopes the Duck Pond
continues to provide important habitat for migratory birds as envisioned in the 1975
mitigation.
There have been many policy decisions made in the last fifty years, each with more and
more constraints. Councils have done their best but not every decision was perfect.
The 2008 Baylands Master Plan provides a comprehensive history of each of the
major areas of the Baylands and I urge you to respect its conclusions - especially
those protecting and enhancing wetlands.
Please protect our very special Baylands and encourage the Airport to operate within
the confines of its existing footprint and flight limitations.
Sincerely,
Emily M. Renzel, Planning Commissioner 1973-79 & Councilmember 1979-91
P.S. The 2008 Baylands Master Plan is available at <https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/
files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/file-migration/current-
planning/forms-and-guidelines/baylands-master-plan.pdf>
-2-
From:Emily Renzel
To:Council, City
Subject:Please reject Airport expansion
Date:Wednesday, September 11, 2024 6:03:53 PM
Attachments:CC re airport.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Dear Mayor Stone and members of the City Council:
Please limit the Airport operations to those which can be reasonably accommodated on its existing footprint. TheAirport already has a significant impact on the surrounding park and open space and the ability of Palo Altoresidents and our native wildlife to enjoy the tranquility of this nearby habitat.
Attached is a letter I sent you a few weeks ago regarding the legal basis upon which you should reject expansioninto our natural Baylands. Thank you.
Emily M. RenzelCouncilmember 1979-91
Palo Alto, CA 94301
From:Tom Bria
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Airport
Date:Monday, September 9, 2024 4:01:03 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
Greetings.
I have flown out of your airport for over 50 years and have always enjoyed the beautiful and safe facility your city
has provided.
Although I understand how easy it is to complain about its presence, for you to bend to these pressures and close
your excellent airport would be a terrible shame.
Respectfully,
Thomas Bria
In 2020, San Francisco voters passed Supervisor Walton's Proposition D, which resulted in theformation of the Sheriff's Department Oversight Board and the Office of the Inspector General. Theprimary function of these entities is to provide independent oversight for the Sheriff's Office. On
December 20, 2023, the board appointed Inspector General Wiley, who officially assumed his role onJanuary 8, 2024.
We appreciate your patience and support as Inspector General Wiley builds the Office of the
Inspector General to become operational. While the Inspector General seeks funds through thebudget process to serve the people of San Francisco and deliver on the promise of Proposition D, the
Department of Police Accountability will continue to provide independent investigations into
complaints of serious misconduct against San Francisco Sheriff deputies and in-custody deathspursuant to existing agreements.
Please stay tuned for updates about the transition of this work.
San Francisco Office of the Inspector General website: Office of the Inspector General | SanFrancisco (sf.gov)
Manage your preferences | Opt Out using TrueRemove™Got this as a forward? Sign up to receive our future emails.View this email online.
1 South Van Ness Ave 2nd Floor None | San Francisco, CA 94103 US
This email was sent to abjpd1@gmail.com.To continue receiving our emails, add us to your address book.
Long-Range Facilities and Sustainability Plan
Palo Alto Airport
September 16, 2024 www.cityofpaloalto.org
1
INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE
•March 23, 2023 – Council Study Session
•FAA planning process
•Looking at the next 20 years for the airport
•Seeking feedback and input on alternatives
•Preparing for electric aircraft/renewable energy future
•Runway safety standards
•Runway length alternatives
•Unleaded fuel status update and draft transition plan
2
STEPS COMPLETED TO DATE
•Organized Sustainability Charrette
•Held five public meetings
•Completed Airport inventory
•Forecasted future operations and based aircraft
•Determined critical aircraft
•Most demanding aircraft with at least 500 annual operations
•Determined potential improvements based on FAA criteria
•Developed planning alternatives incorporating potential
improvements
3
FORECAST & CRITICAL AIRCRAFT
2042 Forecasted Operations (takeoffs and
landings): 220,372
Historical High in 1992: 232,798
7-9 Passenger Turbo-Prop Aircraft
Critical Aircraft
4
POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS – RUNWAY SAFETY
Element Existing Potential Improvement Sufficiency?
Runway Width 70 FT 75 FT No - 5 FT deficient
Runway Safety Area
(RSA)
Width = 120
Length Beyond Runway = 240
FT
Width = 150 FT
Length Beyond Runway = 300
FT
Width = Yes
Length beyond Runway = No - constraints due to
grading/water
Runway Object Free
Area (ROFA)
Width = 250
Length Beyond Runway = 240
FT
Width = 500 FT
Length Beyond Runway = 300
FT
Width = No - would impact TWY Z, taxi-lanes,
apron, wind cones, segmented circle, and AWOS
Length Beyond Runway = No - Constraint s due to
grading/water
Runway - Taxiway
Separation 140 FT 240 FT No - Separation from TWY Z is 100 FT deficient
Runway Protection
Zone
RPZs based on current runway ends meet standard, but locations may change based on the how other issues are
addressed.
Runway Length 2443 FT 3500 FT No - 1,057 FT deficient - Constraints due to
grading/water
5
POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS – OTHER ISSUES
•Relocate Terminal building
•Provide for future eVTOL
•Solar and microgrid locations
•Increase hangar spaces
•Levee alignment
6
ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
•Mandated by FAA to develop alternatives incorporating
potential improvements based on FAA safety criteria
•Runway configuration and length
•Developed with potential improvements in mind
•Efficiency, safety, and impact
•Try to incorporate City plans
•No preferred alternative yet
7
ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION
8
ALTERNATIVE 2 – 2600 FT RUNWAY
Future Vertiport
9
ALTERNATIVE 3 – 3500 FT RUNWAY W/ SW SHIFT
Future Vertiport
10
ALTERNATIVE 4 – 3500 FT RUNWAY W/ NE SHIFT
Future Vertiport
11
ALTERNATIVE 5 – 3000 FT RUNWAY W/ NE SHIFT
Future Vertiport
12
COMMUNITY INPUT
•Interest from City of East Palo Alto, City of Menlo Park,
Midpeninsula Open Space, Save Our Bay, California Pilots
Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
•Survey
•1523 Responses
•Petitions
•Save the Palo Alto Baylands (change.org)
•Preserve the Palo Alto Baylands
Alternative 1 - No Action 43.3%
Alternative 2 - 2600 FT RWY with NE Shift 11.4%
Alternative 3 - 3500 FT RWY with SW Shift 4.1%
Alternative 4 - 3500 FT RWY with NE Shift 22.1%
Alternative 5 - 3000 FT RWY with NE Shift 6.2%
No answer provided 12.8%
Alternative Ranking
13
UNLEADED FUEL TRANSITION PLAN (draft)
15
•Receive Council feedback to inform
preferred alternative development
•Neighboring City Council presentations
for consultation and feedback
•Develop a preferred alternative
incorporating input received
•Plan additional public outreach, as
appropriate
•Review and consider preferred alternative
with City Council
•Implement fuel transition plan
NEXT STEPS
16
COUNCIL FEEDBACK REQUESTED
•What should be included in a preferred alternative?
•Areas for feedback:
•Preparing for electric aircraft/renewable energy
future
•Runway safety standards
•Runway length alternatives