News

UPDATED - County approves spending $1 million to search for airport noise solutions

Current work plan does not include curfew for San Carlos Airport users

More than $1 million in spending over three years has been approved by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors as part of a multi-pronged plan crafted in response to a wave of complaints about noisy aircraft at the San Carlos Airport since Surf Air began using the airport in 2013.

"We're trying to fix a severe problem caused by Surf Air operations," Supervisor Dave Pine said. Before Surf Air began using the airport for regularly scheduled fights, the airport was considered "a good neighbor," by the community, he said.

A 'considerable issue'

Supervisor Don Horsley said county officials have met with thousands of people affected by the noise from Surf Air's turbo-prop PC-12 planes over the four years since Surf Air began using the airport. "We're not talking about a handful of people," he said. "This is a considerable issue."

The Board of Supervisors on June 27 unanimously approved funding for: an airport communications specialist to work with the public and pilots; hiring a contractor to investigate new air routes that avoid residences; and putting in place an automated flight tracking system tied to the noise complaint system.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

All are funded for three years, with a total cost, including authorizations to adjust the contracts, of $1.03 million.

County Public Works Director Jim Porter said that while he hasn't added up how much money the county has already spent responding to Surf Air-related problems at the airport, it is "several hundred thousand dollars."

No curfew

Mr. Porter outlined a proposed noise-management program for the airport. Conspicuously absent from the plan is the curfew earlier proposed by the county, which would have limited flights at night and early mornings. Many residents and the Atherton City Council had supported the curfew.

"There is a curfew on the table that the county believes will hold up in court," North Fair Oaks resident Adam Ullman told the supervisors. "Please put the curfew in place," he said. "We need relief now. Take a look at those other options concurrently."

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

All Atherton's City Council members signed a June 23 letter asking the county to take these immediate actions: submit to the Federal Aviation Administration proposed county ordinances that would create a curfew on flights and limit the number of scheduled flights per operator at the San Carlos Airport; and adopt a resolution declaring the airport has a "noise problem" and send the resolution to the California Department of Transportation.

Atherton Mayor Mike Lempres said the council asked that the proposed ordinances be submitted to the FAA because council members understand such regulations must be approved by the FAA. However, "the town would be happy to be wrong on that one," he said.

Surf Air actions

In the meantime, Surf Air spokeswoman Angela Vargo says the airline is making a number of changes that should reduce the noise from its planes, including flying over the Bay whenever possible to avoid homes on the Midpeninsula. The company is also seeking permission to increase the flying altitude over neighborhoods such as Sunnyvale and Cupertino, which it passes over when using the Bay route. Surf Air has asked to increase its altitude from 3,000 feet to up to 6,000 feet, when conditions allow.

Surf Air pilots have also been told to use minimum engine power as they arrive at the San Carlos Airport, she said.

Fake news?

There appears to have been a political campaign against a flight curfew, even though a proposal for a curfew wasn't on the supervisors' agenda. A group called "Keep San Mateo Flying" recently bought Facebook ads urging people to go to a website that sends automated emails to the supervisors.

"A recent county ordinance is singling out one locally owned business! Act now!" the ad says.

Clicking on the ad took readers to a page asking them to oppose something that hadn't been proposed. "Oppose the county proposal that would shut down air service at San Carlos Airport," it said. The message said that the "San Mateo Board of Supervisors is considering restricting Surf Air’s aircraft operations at the San Carlos Airport," although nothing on the supervisors' agenda would have had that effect.

The website appeared to have no requirement that actual names, addresses, phone numbers or email addresses be used in order to send the automated message.

Supervisor Horsley said his office had received about 350 of the auto-generated emails by June 27.

The work plan

Mr. Porter said that within the next six months, the county wants consultants Hughes Aerospace to look at new flight paths "that minimize flights over residential neighborhoods" for all aircraft, even under conditions that require instrument flights, such as fog or rain.

Within six months, the county also wants to: develop new procedures that could minimize noisy arrivals and departures; expand voluntary noise procedures for helicopters (which residents have also been complaining about); hire the communications specialist and put the tracking system into place; and come up with incentives for pilots who comply with a voluntary curfew.

It could take more than year, however, Mr. Porter said, to get Federal Aviation Administration approval of new flight paths.

A tortuous process

"In my experience, working with the FAA is a tortuous process," said Supervisor David Canepa, who previously served on the San Francisco International Airport Roundtable working on SFO-related noise issues.

Supervisor Canepa predicted it could be two or three years before new routes could be approved, but Mr. Porter said the county hopes to "fast track" the proposals and get FAA authorization within 18 months.

The county is also considering charging landing fees on charter operators (which includes Surf Air) and purchasing mobile noise monitors that could be placed in residents' yards, Mr. Porter said.

The new communications specialist will help relieve other county employees who have been dealing with the complaints about Surf Air.

"We haves been overwhelmed with complaints," Mr. Porter said.

Sunnyvale's complaints

One issue the consultants examining new routes for the airport will have to consider is the complaints that have been made about Surf Air from residents of Sunnyvale and Cupertino.

When Surf Air uses an alternative route that takes it over the Bay, avoiding most Midpeninsula homes, flights go over parts of Sunnyvale and Cupertino.

The flights are at between 3,500 and 4,000 feet in altitude when they pass over those communities, while they are about 1,200 feet when they pass over Menlo Park, Deputy Director of Airports Rochelle Kiner said.

How many flights?

Exactly how many Surf Air flights now use the San Carlos Airport has been remarkably difficult to determine. The airline does not publish its schedule. Ms. Kiner said the airline has 19 round trips on weekdays, but Surf Air spokeswoman Angela Vargo said in a press release on June 27 that the airline has 22 round trips on weekdays.

On June 29, however, Ms. Vargo provided July flight numbers for the San Carlos Airport. She said Surf Air will have 20 round trips each weekday, five on Saturday and nine on Sunday, for a total of 114 round trips (or 228 flights) each week.

Ms. Vargo said additional flights will be added "based on demand."

She said the earliest scheduled departure from San Carlos is at 6 a.m. and the latest arrival is at 10 p.m.

--

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow AlmanacNews.com and The Almanac on Twitter @almanacnews, Facebook and on Instagram @almanacnews for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

UPDATED - County approves spending $1 million to search for airport noise solutions

Current work plan does not include curfew for San Carlos Airport users

by Barbara Wood / Almanac

Uploaded: Thu, Jun 29, 2017, 12:02 am

More than $1 million in spending over three years has been approved by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors as part of a multi-pronged plan crafted in response to a wave of complaints about noisy aircraft at the San Carlos Airport since Surf Air began using the airport in 2013.

"We're trying to fix a severe problem caused by Surf Air operations," Supervisor Dave Pine said. Before Surf Air began using the airport for regularly scheduled fights, the airport was considered "a good neighbor," by the community, he said.

A 'considerable issue'

Supervisor Don Horsley said county officials have met with thousands of people affected by the noise from Surf Air's turbo-prop PC-12 planes over the four years since Surf Air began using the airport. "We're not talking about a handful of people," he said. "This is a considerable issue."

The Board of Supervisors on June 27 unanimously approved funding for: an airport communications specialist to work with the public and pilots; hiring a contractor to investigate new air routes that avoid residences; and putting in place an automated flight tracking system tied to the noise complaint system.

All are funded for three years, with a total cost, including authorizations to adjust the contracts, of $1.03 million.

County Public Works Director Jim Porter said that while he hasn't added up how much money the county has already spent responding to Surf Air-related problems at the airport, it is "several hundred thousand dollars."

No curfew

Mr. Porter outlined a proposed noise-management program for the airport. Conspicuously absent from the plan is the curfew earlier proposed by the county, which would have limited flights at night and early mornings. Many residents and the Atherton City Council had supported the curfew.

"There is a curfew on the table that the county believes will hold up in court," North Fair Oaks resident Adam Ullman told the supervisors. "Please put the curfew in place," he said. "We need relief now. Take a look at those other options concurrently."

All Atherton's City Council members signed a June 23 letter asking the county to take these immediate actions: submit to the Federal Aviation Administration proposed county ordinances that would create a curfew on flights and limit the number of scheduled flights per operator at the San Carlos Airport; and adopt a resolution declaring the airport has a "noise problem" and send the resolution to the California Department of Transportation.

Atherton Mayor Mike Lempres said the council asked that the proposed ordinances be submitted to the FAA because council members understand such regulations must be approved by the FAA. However, "the town would be happy to be wrong on that one," he said.

Surf Air actions

In the meantime, Surf Air spokeswoman Angela Vargo says the airline is making a number of changes that should reduce the noise from its planes, including flying over the Bay whenever possible to avoid homes on the Midpeninsula. The company is also seeking permission to increase the flying altitude over neighborhoods such as Sunnyvale and Cupertino, which it passes over when using the Bay route. Surf Air has asked to increase its altitude from 3,000 feet to up to 6,000 feet, when conditions allow.

Surf Air pilots have also been told to use minimum engine power as they arrive at the San Carlos Airport, she said.

Fake news?

There appears to have been a political campaign against a flight curfew, even though a proposal for a curfew wasn't on the supervisors' agenda. A group called "Keep San Mateo Flying" recently bought Facebook ads urging people to go to a website that sends automated emails to the supervisors.

"A recent county ordinance is singling out one locally owned business! Act now!" the ad says.

Clicking on the ad took readers to a page asking them to oppose something that hadn't been proposed. "Oppose the county proposal that would shut down air service at San Carlos Airport," it said. The message said that the "San Mateo Board of Supervisors is considering restricting Surf Air’s aircraft operations at the San Carlos Airport," although nothing on the supervisors' agenda would have had that effect.

The website appeared to have no requirement that actual names, addresses, phone numbers or email addresses be used in order to send the automated message.

Supervisor Horsley said his office had received about 350 of the auto-generated emails by June 27.

The work plan

Mr. Porter said that within the next six months, the county wants consultants Hughes Aerospace to look at new flight paths "that minimize flights over residential neighborhoods" for all aircraft, even under conditions that require instrument flights, such as fog or rain.

Within six months, the county also wants to: develop new procedures that could minimize noisy arrivals and departures; expand voluntary noise procedures for helicopters (which residents have also been complaining about); hire the communications specialist and put the tracking system into place; and come up with incentives for pilots who comply with a voluntary curfew.

It could take more than year, however, Mr. Porter said, to get Federal Aviation Administration approval of new flight paths.

A tortuous process

"In my experience, working with the FAA is a tortuous process," said Supervisor David Canepa, who previously served on the San Francisco International Airport Roundtable working on SFO-related noise issues.

Supervisor Canepa predicted it could be two or three years before new routes could be approved, but Mr. Porter said the county hopes to "fast track" the proposals and get FAA authorization within 18 months.

The county is also considering charging landing fees on charter operators (which includes Surf Air) and purchasing mobile noise monitors that could be placed in residents' yards, Mr. Porter said.

The new communications specialist will help relieve other county employees who have been dealing with the complaints about Surf Air.

"We haves been overwhelmed with complaints," Mr. Porter said.

Sunnyvale's complaints

One issue the consultants examining new routes for the airport will have to consider is the complaints that have been made about Surf Air from residents of Sunnyvale and Cupertino.

When Surf Air uses an alternative route that takes it over the Bay, avoiding most Midpeninsula homes, flights go over parts of Sunnyvale and Cupertino.

The flights are at between 3,500 and 4,000 feet in altitude when they pass over those communities, while they are about 1,200 feet when they pass over Menlo Park, Deputy Director of Airports Rochelle Kiner said.

How many flights?

Exactly how many Surf Air flights now use the San Carlos Airport has been remarkably difficult to determine. The airline does not publish its schedule. Ms. Kiner said the airline has 19 round trips on weekdays, but Surf Air spokeswoman Angela Vargo said in a press release on June 27 that the airline has 22 round trips on weekdays.

On June 29, however, Ms. Vargo provided July flight numbers for the San Carlos Airport. She said Surf Air will have 20 round trips each weekday, five on Saturday and nine on Sunday, for a total of 114 round trips (or 228 flights) each week.

Ms. Vargo said additional flights will be added "based on demand."

She said the earliest scheduled departure from San Carlos is at 6 a.m. and the latest arrival is at 10 p.m.

--

Comments

Richard Arrigo
Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jun 29, 2017 at 8:23 am
Richard Arrigo, Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jun 29, 2017 at 8:23 am

What a waste of money. These entitled people in Atherton make me sick.


pvrez
Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Jun 29, 2017 at 9:21 am
pvrez, Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley
on Jun 29, 2017 at 9:21 am

$1.03 million down the tubes to placate a-town whiners - sweet


Jetman
another community
on Jun 29, 2017 at 10:38 am
Jetman, another community
on Jun 29, 2017 at 10:38 am

Political jujitsu. This is how politicians pretend to do something while accomplishing nothing practical except turning the public against the people they are supposed to be helping by wasting money.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jun 29, 2017 at 10:56 am
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jun 29, 2017 at 10:56 am

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jun 24, 2017 at 7:02 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.
There are three stupid things being done by local governments with out tax dollars:
1 - This effort by the County to count something that it cannot control
2 - The PA Council's decision to install post mortem cameras on the CalTrans right of way
3 -The Atherton Town Council's pursuit of it own tiny fire department in a vain attempt to replace the best fire agency in the country.


Michael G. Stogner
another community
on Jun 29, 2017 at 12:33 pm
Michael G. Stogner, another community
on Jun 29, 2017 at 12:33 pm

AGILE AIRPORT COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST at $150,000 per year.

That sounds like Mike Brosnan's position. Human Trafficking Coordinator 1st year $140,000 2nd year Carlos Bolanos and Supervisors bumped him to $280,000. Nobody knows what he does.


AircraftUser
another community
on Jun 29, 2017 at 12:34 pm
AircraftUser, another community
on Jun 29, 2017 at 12:34 pm

Measure/monitor noise level of all aircraft takeoffs/landings. Institute stiff landing fees which which pay in full for mitigation studies and other work. Adjust fees: more noise from specific aircraft means higher fee. Reward quiet operation and quiet aircraft. Electric/hybrid aircraft under development should eliminate most takeoff/landing noise.


Lydia
Woodside: other
on Jun 29, 2017 at 1:01 pm
Lydia, Woodside: other
on Jun 29, 2017 at 1:01 pm

Consider moving Surf Air to the Pali Alto airport. There are fewer residential neighborhoods there on the takeoff an landing patterns!


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jun 29, 2017 at 1:17 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jun 29, 2017 at 1:17 pm

"Consider moving Surf Air to the Pali Alto airport. There are fewer residential neighborhoods there on the takeoff an landing patterns!"

The runway isn't long enough.


Peter F Carpenter
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jun 29, 2017 at 1:23 pm
Peter F Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jun 29, 2017 at 1:23 pm

"Consider moving Surf Air to the Pali Alto airport. There are fewer residential neighborhoods there on the takeoff an landing patterns!"

Of course, just dump your noise over East Palo Alto!!


Candra
Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jun 29, 2017 at 2:00 pm
Candra, Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jun 29, 2017 at 2:00 pm

Has anyone actually measured the sound and disturbance from this? Why are we just told there is a noise problem when I don't hear any? Motorcycles, trains, lawnmowers, leaf blowers, and noisy cars are a problem but not airplanes.

What proof does anyone have or is this just subjective? If my dog barks or my neighbor plays drums at midnight and police show up, there is proof. Why don't we have proof these airplanes are really a disturbance beyond the cars, motorcycles, leaf blowers or anything else?

And exactly how many pepole are really complaining? Is it half of all the thirty some thousand that live in MP? 90% of us? 1000 people is not very many.


A wise guy
Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jun 29, 2017 at 2:14 pm
A wise guy, Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jun 29, 2017 at 2:14 pm

Hey Candra, you are so right. I was just wondering that myself, but it was about aircraft noise flying into and out of Palo Alto, Hayward, Moffett and OAK. I don't hear it, never bothers me, so not clear why they keep complaining. Same with freeway noise. Never hear it, never disturbs me. What's the problem? I even occasionally read about people in Woodside and Los Gatos complaining about barking dogs. I never hear those either. It's kinda weird, but I think noise doesn't exist if I can't hear it. And I'm with Peter C, if it doesn't bother me, it shouldn't bother anyone else. So I wish everyone else would just stop complaining. What I think is what counts, and should form the basis of all public policy. 'cause I'm right and everyone else is just plain wrong.


SA Noise
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jun 29, 2017 at 3:14 pm
SA Noise, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jun 29, 2017 at 3:14 pm


A big

Thank You to the Supe's for taking action.




SA Noise
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jun 29, 2017 at 3:19 pm
SA Noise, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jun 29, 2017 at 3:19 pm


As I have said 100 calls a day to Surf Air offices directly and they will work with the county and the residents post haste.

500 would be better.

Every citizen has the right to complain about every flight that bothers them.

It wouldn't take long to get to 500.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jun 29, 2017 at 3:22 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jun 29, 2017 at 3:22 pm

"Has anyone actually measured the sound and disturbance from this?"

Yes - and it was hard work and not done with an iPhone.

IF you really want to know here is the excellent report:


Web Link -- my home is the one identified as "Deodora".


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jun 29, 2017 at 6:08 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jun 29, 2017 at 6:08 pm

"What I think is what counts, and should form the basis of all public policy. 'cause I'm right and everyone else is just plain wrong."

Which is EXACTLY what the few complainers are asking to happen. Let's destroy a business and set public policy because 1000 people are bothered by noise. Brilliant.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jun 29, 2017 at 6:13 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jun 29, 2017 at 6:13 pm

SA Noise:

if you honestly think repeated phone calls from a few disgruntled people is going to make any difference you are sadly mistaken. Everyone knows that the 30,000 complaints are from the same 1000 people. 1000 out of hundreds of thousands that couldn't care less. Just another example of how our society has become consumed by entitled people that think their opinions, wants, desires, etc. are more important than everyone else's. You don't want noise? Move to a place in the country where there isn't traffic, overflying aircraft and all of the other attendant noise that comes from living in a large urban area.


casual observer
another community
on Jun 30, 2017 at 3:50 pm
casual observer, another community
on Jun 30, 2017 at 3:50 pm

Maybe convince the customers to not spend their dollars on SurfAir? If there is less demand, the airline will provide fewer flights. If there is no demand, the airline will go out of business or sell to another company.

As long as people are willing to pay (and I'm guessing these customers live very close to San Carlos Airport), the airline will continue to operate and maybe even grow.


gb
Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jun 30, 2017 at 4:21 pm
gb, Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jun 30, 2017 at 4:21 pm

Interesting that Surf Air now has fake ads on Facebook- if they aren't concerned about being shut out- why lie and post FAKE ads- to the supervisors- advertising: Oppose the county proposal that would shut down air service at San Carlos Airport...The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, which oversees airport operations, is considering a proposal that would restrict aircrafts from operating at the San Carlos Airport, due to a small group of residents near the airport have complained about aircraft noise.

The proposed ban would force San Mateo residents to use SFO or travel across the bay to other airports, forcing residents to endure more traffic and unnecessary travel delays, while also restricting the use of necessary aircraft during specific hours. Despite the flaws in the proposed ordinance, the San Mateo Board of Supervisors is considering restricting Surf Air’s aircraft operations at the San Carlos Airport.
Judging by the lies they've fed the County, Atherton and locals it shouldn't be surprising that the post FAKE ADS- lying has been their forte for 4 years.


SA Noise
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jul 1, 2017 at 12:45 am
SA Noise, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jul 1, 2017 at 12:45 am

MV,

It doesn't matter how many people complain, or are bothered, or sigh petitions, or attend meetings, or propose solutions, or what the noise level is, or what the curfew is, or what the FAA says, or how many customers SA has, or where the people who complain live, or how much money the county puts into studies and consultants, or that the county takes money from the Feds for the use of the airport.

You're missing the point, It's not how many people yell, scream, complain, etc.

You see when Surf Air first started 4 years ago they bragged as do many millennial startups do about how proud they are to be "Disruptors". Sort of an Uber of the air.

but I digress,

The obvious point that your missing is that so few people could bring SA to a screeching halt, enough to scare the pants right off the, friends and families, angels, round A's,' round B's' and so on with the simple dial up of a phone,

Everyone has been told to call the airport which directs you to public works, don't ask me why, except to make it difficult and discourage people from calling.

In addition to calling public works, call SA directly, put it on speed dial, and every time you get buzzed at 800' at 10:00 at night, call and leave a message, then call during business hours to make a personal formal noise complaint. You're entitled.

Surf Air has been lying to us for 4 years, the county has tried, the FAA could care less. The solution to bringing them to the negotiating table or putting them out of business is in your right hand. 1-200 calls a day directly to SA will keep them so busy they won't have time to book flights.

At the risk of repeating myself the investors will get nervous and when that happens, people start to bail, and the rest is history,

ball is in your court SA.

200 legitimate complaint calls a day could be disruptors. With a thousand people on the petition it shouldn't take long,


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jul 1, 2017 at 6:37 am
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jul 1, 2017 at 6:37 am

The proof of the pudding is that the small number of disruptors has been and wii be insufficient to impact SurfAir - who has far more customers than there are disruptors.


Enough
Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Jul 1, 2017 at 9:17 am
Enough, Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Jul 1, 2017 at 9:17 am

Peter, enough with your statements that there are a "small number of disruptors". That just is not true. Not everyone has the time to sit at their computer and fill up the comment section with words. Surf Air is a problem. Surf Air needs to be removed from our neighborhood skies, but NOT by spending county tax dollars to do it.


Peter F Carpenter
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jul 1, 2017 at 9:31 am
Peter F Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jul 1, 2017 at 9:31 am

I stand by my statement - The proof of the pudding is that the small number of disruptors has been and wii be insufficient to impact SurfAir.

The proof is that not only does SurfAir continue to exist but it is expanding.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jul 1, 2017 at 10:17 am
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jul 1, 2017 at 10:17 am

SA:

you talk at cross purposes. You say it doesn't matter how many people call SA a day just that they do it and 200 times a day. Then you say SA doesn't care who it's disrupting. You're right about the latter and wrong about the former. SA won't care how many phone calls they get a day complaining about noise as long as the money and customers keep rolling in the door. And it does. They have a waiting list of people that want to give them their money. So you can keep wasting your time calling SA and those with common sense will realize they have better things to do than tilt at windmills.

People with common sense will also realize that this "plan" by the supes is nothing more than political theater so they can claim they are "doing something" about SA. There is NOTHING they can do about SA as it is up to the FAA, NOT them or anyone else. The supes are WASTING one million tax payer dollars. Think about that for a minute. What could be done with one million dollars that could ACTUALLY make a difference in our county? This sure isn't it.

Any chance the supes had in some day being able to have some control in this situation went out the window when they yet again took federal money for the airport. That money keeps control out of the county's hands for another twenty years. Yeah, the supes are really interested in "doing something" about this problem. NOT.


Michael G. Stogner
Registered user
another community
on Jul 1, 2017 at 2:26 pm
Michael G. Stogner, another community
Registered user
on Jul 1, 2017 at 2:26 pm

Has the AGILE AIRPORT COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST been identified yet?


A wise guy
Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jul 1, 2017 at 3:37 pm
A wise guy, Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jul 1, 2017 at 3:37 pm

Michael G. Stogner, yes, Peter C has been identified as the most likely candidate that should do it. Everyone else is too scared (smart?) to take it on fearing the wrath of the community.


Michael G. Stogner
Registered user
another community
on Jul 1, 2017 at 4:44 pm
Michael G. Stogner, another community
Registered user
on Jul 1, 2017 at 4:44 pm
bemused
another community
on Jul 1, 2017 at 5:47 pm
bemused, another community
on Jul 1, 2017 at 5:47 pm

@Lydia, please no more jet noise over EPA. The implementation of Nextgen has already dumped the SFO traffic on us. And it's significant. At multiple times during the day there will be over an hour of jets every 2-5 minutes at 4,000 feet.


SA Noise
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jul 1, 2017 at 11:30 pm
SA Noise, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jul 1, 2017 at 11:30 pm


MV,

"what could be done with one million dollars"

Not much,

For a million dollars you could buy 1 fixer upper starter home in the low rent part of Redwood City.

Doesn't quite put a dent in low income housing, any other ideas.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jul 2, 2017 at 8:40 am
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jul 2, 2017 at 8:40 am

SA:

it may not buy a fixer upper but it would sure feed a lot of hungry people. A far better use than the waste that it is spending it on this ridiculous political theater.


SteveC
Registered user
Menlo Park: Downtown
on Jul 4, 2017 at 10:58 am
SteveC, Menlo Park: Downtown
Registered user
on Jul 4, 2017 at 10:58 am

the goodie feely waste of money.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jul 5, 2017 at 7:35 am
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jul 5, 2017 at 7:35 am

Lest anyone still have the illusion that the County can do anything about limiting SurfAir's operation please note the 26 Jane Supreme Court decision regarding East Hampton's attempt to impose noise controls and curfews:

"On June 26 the justices refused to review an appellate court ruling that invalidated restrictions on late-night and early-morning flights and thus noise — noise that opponents like Ms. Currie describe as a roaring, buzzing, round-the-clock nuisance, sometimes waking them up, sometimes shaking their houses."

Web Link


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jul 5, 2017 at 8:11 am
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jul 5, 2017 at 8:11 am

"“This decision reaffirms the longstanding policy that America has a national aviation system, not one subject to a patchwork quilt of local regulations,”


Thoughtful
Atherton: other
on Jul 17, 2017 at 1:19 am
Thoughtful, Atherton: other
on Jul 17, 2017 at 1:19 am

Here's an idea for Atherton residents: stop opposing high speed rail and electrification of Caltrain. Fast, quiet rail service would easily put a dent into Surf Air's business.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jul 17, 2017 at 7:01 am
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jul 17, 2017 at 7:01 am

The facts do not support all the complaints.

Here is the latest noise map - note the relatively quiet zone South of San Carlos airport:

Web Link


Rational
Menlo Park: University Heights
on Jul 17, 2017 at 8:12 am
Rational, Menlo Park: University Heights
on Jul 17, 2017 at 8:12 am

Peter Carpenter wrote: "The proof is that not only does SurfAir continue to exist but it is expanding"

I'm not sure why you keep making this point. One has nothing to do with the other. It's equivalent to saying Company XYZ's sales are growing which proves that child labor isn't a problem. Something can be popular with some people but be a big problem for others.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jul 17, 2017 at 9:23 am
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jul 17, 2017 at 9:23 am

Just exactly how does SurfAir use child labor?


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jul 17, 2017 at 6:18 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jul 17, 2017 at 6:18 pm

"It's equivalent to saying Company XYZ's sales are growing which proves that child labor isn't a problem. Something can be popular with some people but be a big problem for others."

Straw man.


Rational
Registered user
Menlo Park: University Heights
on Jul 18, 2017 at 6:48 am
Rational, Menlo Park: University Heights
Registered user
on Jul 18, 2017 at 6:48 am

Peter wrote: "Just exactly how does SurfAir use child labor?"

[Part removed.] It's an analogy, as I'm sure you well know.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jul 18, 2017 at 7:09 am
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jul 18, 2017 at 7:09 am

If it is analogy then what specific laws has SurfAir broken?


Rational
Registered user
Menlo Park: University Heights
on Jul 18, 2017 at 11:27 am
Rational, Menlo Park: University Heights
Registered user
on Jul 18, 2017 at 11:27 am

Child labor isn't illegal in some places.

You seem more interested in nitpicking my analogy than addressing the point that I spelled out very clearly above: "Something can be popular with some people but be a big problem for others."


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.