given 100% discretion by all federal judges. That massive discretionary power let many federal "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 in court 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 which
did 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 airports took 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 the Environmental 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 City Council 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 were invited 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 the Airport 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 runs Airport 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 a good 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 new FAA 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 since the 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 its parking 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 [email protected].
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 opening attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable City Council Members:
I respectfully request that you review the following paper which is easily available on Google Scholar
It describes the detrimental impacts of aircraft on wetlands.
A vitally important environmental concern rests in your hands as expanded aviation into the Baylands 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)
T akeoff 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 [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Dear Mayor Stone and council:
Far more people use the Palo Alto golf course and nearby parks and open space than 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 and local wildlife. So do not let the airport encroach on wetlands, parks or other open space.
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 No Significant 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 final word 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 withstand the noise. The FAA and airports always claim that technology will reduce noise - eVTOL is not in the noise reduction
vehicle category and I hope you will not expect anyone to believe that.
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 noise impacts 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 to assess, 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 and transparent 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 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 the 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.
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 the body 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, 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.
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 opening attachments 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 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
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 parkland 3. 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 CityCouncil 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.png
image002.png
RE Dangerous crosswalk at Charleston and Sutherland + proposed solutions.msg RE Unleaded Aviation fuel at PAO.msg
RE EPA announces violation of airborne lead standards at two California airports yet continues to delay action on toxic effects of lead in aviation fuel.msg
RE Churchill Intersection.msg
RE Parklet Encroachment at 281 University Avenue.msg
RE Road repair.msg
RE Uncontrolled (unsafe) intersections along Suggested Routes to school.msg RE Manufactured Housing.msg
FW Unhoused on Clemo Avenue Juana Briones Park.msg
RE Churchill ave construction closure - photos of student backup.msg RE 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 emails received in the City.Council inbox through September 12.
Respectfully,
Danille
Danille Rice
Administrative Assistant
City Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation
(650) 329-2229 |
[email protected]
www.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 it was 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.
The
Airport already has a significant impact on the surrounding park and open space and the ability of Palo Alto residents 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 expansion into our natural Baylands.
Thank you.
Emily M. Renzel
Councilmember 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 the formation of the Sheriff's Department Oversight Board and the Office of the Inspector General. The primary 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 on January 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 the budget 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 deaths pursuant 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 | San Francisco (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 [email protected].
To continue receiving our emails, add us to your address book.