I am really curious how the airport comes to 152k takeoffs and landings a year. That number seems outrageously inaccurate. I live in EPA close to the airport and there are literally hours and even days (rain & windy days) without any action. The only time the airport is busy are sunny weekends, later afternoons after work, and the occasional mid-afternoon. During our recent rainstorms, for instance, entire days went by without planes taking off. 152,000 takeoffs and landings means there is an average of 34 flights or landings per hour for every daylight hour of the year. While busy times meet or exceed this number, hard to imagine that this number is in anyway accurate. The airport is hardly used after dark.

More delusions of grandeur. More noise. Why isn't cutting the noise that keeps us up every night a top priority since more of us try to sleep than fly private planes! Isnt "mental health" supposed to be a top priority here? And how about the fact that CA is unlikely to be able to "sustain" a 15-fold demand for more electricity?

"As the City Council and airplane administrators pondered on Monday the next phase of airplane improvements, the common sentiment was: sky's the limit.

No longer content to simply have an airport that serves a useful regional function and doesn't bleed money, the council and city staff are looking at making Palo Alto Airport a world leader when it comes to sustainability. "

PAo is a scourge to the residents of East Palo Alto, who endure not only the constant noise from near continuous take offs and landing due to the multiple flights schools there, but the majority of the aircraft there, including the flight schools, still used leaded gas.

Our airport is a jewel that is finally getting the care-and-feeding necessary. Located between the city and the bay, it is far enough from residential areas to have low impact yet close enough to serve residents and businesses in our city and our region. Most arriving and departing traffic flies over the bay to reduce noise. Due to the predominant winds, departing aircraft have a higher noise impact on EPA than on PA. Efforts to find ways to mitigate the noise for EPA residents still further should continue to be pursued. I'm very glad to see the City Council recognizes the value and potential of the airport. PA has always strived to lead the way and we have an opportunity to do that in aviation thanks to recent support and investments. A small amount contributed from the airport's operating profits gets a huge amount contributed from the FAA. The City Council needs to support more of that for future projects because they create the infrastructure for startups, education, and sustainability that have made our city great. Thank you to PA Online for covering the meeting thoroughly and accurately.

Nonsense. Many of the flights take off after 10PM so Californians can make their East Coast morning meetings. Some nights and early mornings, the flights take off every 15 minutes. You can hear them loud and clear on Middlefield.

I don't get the hypocrisy of singing the Sustainability Song while to everyone else but sure, it's ok for US to sit here in the cold and dark when OUR power goes out because there are birds on the wires and balloons in the air because the city doesn;t care enough to make it a priority to underground our wires or upgrade our grid,

(Actually I do get the hypocrisy. Money talks and @(Q$*@@()# walks.)

I see my tax dollars are hard at work creating a playground where the rich can practice their expensive hobby. Meanwhile, Cubberley continues to rot and serves as community storage, rather than as a functional facility for community services for everyone.

Latest Cubberley update: Cubberley Gym has been closed due to water intrusion that caused the floor to buckle--another impact of forty years of active neglect of basic maintenance.

Money talks.

Since you mention it, I agree Cubberley is a GEM and prime central location and it deserves to be a new, modern, fully functioning public school and/or public community center.
The airport I am neutral on as long as flights don’t go over us.

The Palo Alto Airport runway, at just 2,500 feet, limits use to small, less noisy aircraft. Flight patterns largely over the Bay are added benefits. The Stanford Life Flight helicopter has been based here, and saving lives, since 1984. Excellent management by the City these past 9 years is paying big dividends. Moving toward unleaded fuel and, eventually, electric aircraft are leadership positions to be proud of, as will be a large solar-power field. The Palo Alto Airport is a City success story, thanks to Council votes over the past 20 years.

Thanks for the article.. I wanted to respond to a few of the comments above.. First, fuel without lead hasn't been available anywhere in the Bay Area until brought to Reid Hillview by pilots in 2020. With the arrival of UL94 at Palo Alto in May, the vast majority of operations will be lead-free, and unleaded hundred octane fuel is coming to California this year, which will enable a complete elimination of lead from aviation gasoline, and eliminate that excuse for wanting to close airports. The activity count is maintained by the FAA Control Tower, and reflects each takeoff or landing. Those numbers are verifiable through the FAA. And planes aren't taking off at night to fly to the eastern US, as the short runway means planes aren't likely to travel more than a few hundred miles at a time. More likely is that they are training flights required by the FAA to be conducted after dark. And the airport isn't for
"rich hobbyists".. It is a critical transportation gateway to Palo Alto, Stanford Hospitals and local businesses, as well as a training facility for careers and a hub for emergency services.. The Federal money supporting the airport is only available for airport capital projects, and could never be diverted to Cubberly.. As aviation goes electric and urban air mobility becomes reality, the airport will become increasingly important to the community.

The problem with Palo Alto accepting FAA funding is that it gives up its ability to control many airport operations - including what fuel may be sold, permissible altitudes, fee structures, and whether or not the airport should remain open. The FAA is currently harassing the County of Santa Clara for its decision to ban leaded fuel at Reid-Hillview and San Martin Airports (after a study showed alarming blood levels of lead in children living nearby) and intent to close the airports by 2030. Although the EPA banned leaded fuel for cars decades ago, the FAA for years has blocked efforts to do the same with respect to aircraft; it has only itself to blame for the delayed availability of unleaded aviation gas. Contrary to one comment, many if not most take-offs are over East Palo Alto, and arrivals occur over Palo Alto neighborhoods, with final descents over Bixbee Park and its ecosystem. The 152,000 of operations include 'touch and go's,' where planes repeatedly take off and land, flying around and around the airport. I do applaud Council's desire to reduce lead emissions and noise. And maybe the new focus on sustainability and solar/electric aircraft leadership will reap measurable rewards, but maybe not. I think the City should provide details about who uses/benefits from the airport. But to date, a convincing case has not been made for why the City should continue to subsidize the airport, subject surrounding areas to noise and emissions, and bind itself to FAA control.

My question has to do with where the electricity is going to come from? Saying that it is solar doesn't really work when solar doesn't work at night (when many planes would want to charge) or in cloudy weather!

Palo Alto can't keep reliable service for its customers already and the increase in buildings and the increase in EVs as well as the so called call to convert all homes from gas appliances and heating means that the drain on our electricity supply is already being questioned. On top of that, many of us remember the 10 hours plus of no power due to one power tower being hit in the Baylands. East Palo Alto, in February, was without power for more than 2 days and part of the fix was to close down 101 in both directions. In summer days, we are told to charge our devices overnight and to refrain from using electricity when we arrive home in the evenings to protect the grid. If the grid is that susceptible from failure, why advocate for a bigger drain on it?

Can we first fix our electricity supply reliability before we try and become leaders in anything?

Stop this toxic dumping of noxious fumes and fine particulate matter over me and my family. We don’t live in Palo Alto to be under the large jets flying into SFO OR the small planes into PAO. Isn’t there hypocrisy that the CC has been trying for 7+ years to speak with FAA about lessening noise and fine particulate matter from opeeeeations flying into SFO all the while working hand in hand with the FAA to maximize operations with the FAA here in our City. DONT BUILD A NEW CONTROL TOWER to increase what is now the 4th largest airport h we’re in the B as y Area!! where are our once quiet, peaceful, clean skies……….

I just have to respond to PA Resident above who urges the City to stop "subsidizing" the airport. Apparently they did not read the article closely, as it states clearly that the airport is generating a $600,000.00 profit in revenue greater than expenses.. That sounds to me like a community asset that should be appreciated.. And the people complaining about pollutants from airline aircraft into SFO and small aircraft into Palo Alto must somehow be oblivious to the 4 lanes of polluting automobile traffic chugging up and down the Bayshore freeway next to their homes.. Those worried about airborne pollution should actually read the EPA and BAAQMD and UC Berkeley studies around lead and air pollution, which found Reid Hillview harmless and lead levels a long way below "alarming". In fact, the county's own data shows higher levels of lead in blood in children in several zip codes far from airports, attributable to the real problem: lead in paint and plumbing...

I think this is great. This is what Palo Alto is famous for, working to be on the leading edge of technology.

This is also classic Palo Alto online comment board, always finding something to complain about. "But what about Cubberly!" "Loud planes!"

"First, fuel without lead hasn't been available anywhere in the Bay Area until brought to Reid Hillview by pilots in 2020."

Unleaded fuel has been available at the San Carlos Airport since 2014. In fact, San Carlos Airport was for some time the only airport west of the Mississippi that sold unleaded aviation fuel.

PAO is primarily for rich hobbyists who either fly around site seeing or do thousands of ‘touch and go’ operations to log hours. Talk about a waste of fuel! Training should/is mostly done in simulators. Training centers should be away from populated areas.

I am fine with the airport being used for Life Flights and Helicopter refueling. But these make up a tiny portion of the operations at PAO.

A big irritant to me is the joy riding stunt plane (striped wings you can see from the ground). It is outrageously loud, louder than any other plane. Tracking shows it either circles around or goes to HMB for the afternoon. Why can’t there at least be limits to such exceptionally loud airplanes? There is no effective complaint system at PAO. Complaints get canned responses ‘we can’t tell pilots what to do’. All noise abatement is ‘voluntary’.

The FAA is a captive agency to airline interests. As stated by others, taking FAA money obligates the city to keep the airport open and a number of other requirements. The city has given up control.

The phase out of leaded fuel has been discussed for 10 years and is way overdue.

Yes, use the PAO land for solar. But this doesn’t require air traffic. How about affordable housing on that land? Electric planes are a ways off (Web Link and the first ones will be commuter planes for short flights – guess what, bigger (and probably noiser) planes. May not even be able to land at PAO under current conditions. It’s unlikely we’ll see electric ‘one and two seaters’ any time soon. I’m sure we can all afford this ‘Air’ plane from Israel: Web Link

I’d like to see a list of who actually uses the airport. I’m sure it’s a small number of people, imposing their noise and pollution.

The airport is a nuisance, biological disaster.

The baylands are one of the most biodiverse areas in the country.

End the airport licenses and close it down. Restore the baylands to their natural condition.