Facing widespread concerns about noise, pollution and impact to the Baylands, the Palo Alto City Council quickly shot down on Monday proposals to extend the runway in the Palo Alto Airport.
Dozens of speakers, including pilots, conservationists and elected leaders from East Palo Alto and Menlo Park, addressed the council to weigh in on the long-term plan for Palo Alto Airport, a project that the Public Works Department launched last year to guide the airport’s changes over the next 20 years.
Some of these changes are by and large benign, or even welcome. The city is eager to make the switch to unleaded fuel, install solar panels and make the airport welcoming to electric vertical takeoff and landing (EVTOL) aircraft, technology that is starting to take off. Yet council members also made it clear that these changes would have to be made within the airport’s current footprint. The airport will not be expanded.
The debate was prompted by a set of alternatives that Public Works Department staff had developed as part of the planning effort. Three of the alternatives would extend the runway such that it would infringe into the lagoon area near the duck pond, an iconic feature of the Baylands. Another would extend the runway into the golf course. Then there’s the option that gained the most traction both in the community and on the council: Do nothing.
Staff has been pursuing the effort to comply with a Federal Aviation Administration requirement that airports submit such plans. The FAA also has criteria for runway lengths, though it doesn’t actually require airports to meet its standards. To meet the FAA standard, Palo Alto would need to expand the airport’s existing 2,433-foot runway to 3,500 feet.
Local pilots welcome a longer runway. Tom Myers, board chair of the West Valley Club, which offers flying lessons, said that a longer runway would, somewhat counterintuitively, be good for the immediate environment. That’s because newbie pilots would be less inclined to circle numerous times before they could land on the existing undersized runway.
“If we had a longer runway, even slightly longer, we could cut down significantly on the number of go-arounds,” Myers said. “That keeps more planes waiting to land, it keeps more planes waiting to take off. That means we can decrease the airport’s footprint on the environment and the world by lengthening the runway even a little.”
Other pilots similarly suggested that the city embrace and improve the airport. Alan Marcum, a pilot who conducts Angel Flights for people with medical needs, called the runway “critically short” and a safety issue.
“Even 100 feet of runway length would make a difference,” Marcum said. “We need to keep the airport viable and live well with the Baylands.”
Most of the speakers at Monday’s meeting agreed that the best way to do that is to keep the airport out of the Baylands. Avroh Shah, a Palo Alto High sophomore, presented the council with a petition signed by 1,792 people urging Palo Alto leaders to protect the Baylands from any potential airport expansion. Shah, a member of the group Palo Alto Student Climate Coalition, urged the council to reject all of the alternatives that would infringe into the Baylands.
“We don’t want to bring the airport closer to the duck pond where people visit on a daily basis and we don’t want to bring the airport close to our East Palo Alto neighbors,” Shah said.
Shah had plenty of allies in this effort. A coalition of nonprofits that includes the Sierra Club, Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance, Acterra and Green Foothills, submitted a letter asking the council not to allow the airport to expand into dedicated parkland. Â
“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,” the letter states.
The organizations note that 280 bird species have been recorded in the Baylands preserve. Some of them, including the common yellowthroat, the rail and the Alameda song sparrow, depend on the lagoon habitat.
“Encroaching into this habitat by filling the wetlands and/or by moving airport activity and operations closer to their habitat … would harm these species and the many others who rely for their survival on Palo Alto’s preservation of the Baylands,” the letter states.
Others expressed concerns about inequity. Numerous residents from Palo Alto and East Palo Alto characterized the airport as a playground for the rich whose activities cause harm — most notably, noise and air pollution — to the surrounding communities. East Palo Alto Mayor Antonio Lopez said he often hears complaints about noise from residents who live near the airport. The convenience of air travel, he said, should not come at the expense of the residents of East Palo Alto and Belle Haven in Menlo Park.
“We’re talking about historic sites of pollution of leaded fuels, we’re talking about the joggers the cyclists, the families in East Palo Alto whose health are (at) such disparity. How are we going to jeopardize that with this expansion?” Lopez said, speaking as a resident and not his capacity as mayor.
Menlo Park Mayor Cecelia Taylor offered a similar concern and requested that as part of the planning effort, the city conduct an emissions study and consider establishing a no-flight zone on days with extreme heat or poor air quality.
A survey that the city had conducted prior to the Sept. 16 meeting also showed little appetite for a bigger runway. When asked for their top option, 43.3% of the respondents chose the “no action” alternative. Alternative 4, which creates a 3,500-foot runway and shifts it northeast, finished second with 22.1%.
After hearing from more than 70 speakers, some of whom represented larger groups, the council agreed that nothing — or something like it — is the best course of action. Council members generally supported modest expansion of the runway — 100 feet or less — but nothing that would require infringing into the Baylands.
“Let’s be clear. There was no call for an airport expansion form council, staff, residents or even from the aviation community that triggered this analysis and proposals,” Council member Vicki Veenker said.
It could have been the case, she said, that over the course of the analysis some residents or airport stakeholders would express support for a bigger airport. But, with certain limited exceptions, that did not happen, Veenker said.
“In fact, the opposite happened as the community rallied around our beloved Baylands,” Veenker said.
Mayor Greer Stone said he would oppose extending the runway into the Baylands, a move that would require a vote of the public to “undedicate” the preserve and allow an alternative use. That vote, he suggested, would have little chance of passing.
“Undedication of parkland is going to be a non-starter for Palo Altans,” Mayor Greer Stone said. “It is for me, and I’m almost certain it will be for Palo Alto voters. And once we undedicate the land and expand the airport, we lose that space for the next several generations, if not forever.”
Veenker and Council member Pat Burt both suggested that it may be worthwhile to explore a “nominal extension” to the runway, though both favored the “do nothing” option over any of the others. Burt argued that the focus shouldn’t be to make the airport larger but to make it greener and safer.
“I want to see us transition into a more sustainable airport that is healthier and safer, particularly for adjacent communities,” Burt said.
City of Mountain View partners with school district on $3.6M fix for crumbling creek banksDecember 24, 2025 12:12 pm
Mountain View Whisman considers laying off at least 15% of district office staffDecember 23, 2025 12:44 pm