City Council - September 16, 2024

Members favor no-action airport plan but leave room for a limited runway study

Palo Alto City Council members broadly favored the no-action alternative for the city’s airport long-range plan, pushing back on runway shifts, an additional taxiway and other changes that could enlarge the airport’s footprint. Several members nevertheless supported further analysis of a possible 100-foot runway extension or other modest work if staff can show it would improve safety and reduce go-arounds, noise or pollution without increasing capacity. No motion, vote or formal Council direction was recorded.

The five alternatives range from retaining existing conditions to runway shifts and lengths of 2,600, 3,000 or 3,500 feet. Council members focused on whether Alternatives 2 through 5 would encroach on Baylands wetlands or dedicated parkland and whether undedicating that land could require voter approval. Staff said the federal planning process requires the City to study alternatives but does not require construction, and that further legal and land-designation analysis was needed.

A related debate centered on whether wider or longer airport facilities would constitute safety improvements or capacity expansion. The current airport was described as serving Group 1 aircraft with wingspans up to 49 feet, while alternatives beyond no action would accommodate Group 2 aircraft with wingspans up to 79 feet. Staff said the classification is based on aircraft already using the airport and nationwide design standards, but said it had no airport-specific safety data showing greater danger under existing conditions. Members asked staff to distinguish improvements needed for particular aircraft from those likely to increase capacity.

Public testimony was predominantly against expansion. Opponents cited Baylands habitat, wetlands, parkland, aircraft noise, lead pollution and environmental justice concerns for East Palo Alto and Belle Haven. Pilots and airport stakeholders who supported modernization argued that a modest runway extension, parallel taxiway, solar facilities and terminal work could improve safety and emergency-response capacity without necessarily increasing operations.

Staff is expected to use the discussion to develop a preferred alternative, conduct more outreach and return to the Council. Follow-up work may address limited runway changes, go-arounds, aircraft mix, noise, emissions, sea-level-rise risks, electric vertical-takeoff-and-landing aircraft and parkland questions. Staff also plans to continue work on the transition from leaded aviation fuel, explore fuel and electrification requirements in the next fixed-base-operator agreement, and develop a local lead-monitoring proposal if no statewide study proceeds.

Electric Caltrain launch will bring more California Avenue service

Caltrain told the Council that full electric service between San Francisco and San Jose was scheduled to begin Sept. 21, followed by a revised weekday timetable Sept. 23. The agency planned free rides during the launch weekend and a public celebration at Palo Alto Station.

Caltrain said it would continue operating 104 trains under the revised schedule rather than immediately expanding beyond that level. The electric fleet provides 20% more service capability, and service could eventually increase to six trains per hour if ridership recovers. California Avenue Station was expected to gain 30 weekday trains from its current 60, while trips from Palo Alto and California Avenue to San Francisco could become six or seven minutes faster.

The agency reported that ridership was nearing 40% of pre-pandemic levels and projected an average annual deficit of $77 million. Caltrain said it would examine cost controls, non-operating assets, member-agency options and a possible regional ballot measure, with a business-plan update expected next year.

Primary sources

Watch the meeting on YouTube · Read the official meeting agenda