Outreach to Representative Eshoo and to City Attorney Molly Stump
:
TWO emails
,
take any of the points below, to compose your message.
#1
Representative Anna Eshoo
Subject: Request for Update
To: Representative Eshoo,
Thank you for your leadership in the effort to alleviate jet noise and emissions in the region. We would appreciate an Update on the Select Committee efforts, and your intervention with the FAA on the following:
Select Committee Recommendation 2.5 R5
- Please urge FAA
to review this recommendation (to explore alternative southerly approaches to SFO, including to use the full length of the Bay) to determine how this item can be refined to receive FAA endorsement. FAA provided technical support in formulating the committee recommendations, and this is one of the proposals they were willing to work with, pending regional deliberations. FAA suggested during the Select Committee that the sooner a body can be convened to follow up on this work, the better.
A response to
Mayor Gary Waldeck's letter
is needed.
We strongly support Mr Waldeck’s advocacy to find regional solutions and point to the committee’s recommendation for the need to identify and develop a better procedure and path (than SERFR or Big Sur) for southerly arrivals.The sooner this effort happens the better.
Night time flights and BDEGA rebalancing:
The committee gave emphasis to these recommendations upon compelling public testimony about impacts on sleep, with real consequences to public health and productivity. FAA Phase Two Reports deem these items largely as "addressed." However, the problems persist.
Please advise on next steps.
____________
#2
City Attorney Molly Stump, Palo Alto
Subject: Legal review of FAA actions
To Ms Stump:
The City of Palo Alto's investment in the regional collaborative to address aircraft noise with congressional leaders is very important. However, this should not supplant the priority for the City and Council to defend and protect the City's natural environment, and impacts on the community from adverse FAA actions, through legal action if, and when necessary.
There are only 60 days to react to FAA actions, Council deliberations and analysis of legal options need to be completed in advance. We would like to see your office and Council work to
commission a legal report by expert aviation counsel on the three major SFO approaches impacting the City of Palo Alto
. Each has a distinct history of inadequate impact reviews; each case needs to be documented, and also Nextgen actions on Palo Alto, as a whole reviewed.
In the last few months, new information has come to light about actions which may not have been considered in the 2014 NorCal OAPM EA, as well as
new impending actions
, including plans to use a new waypoint impacting the City, reported to begin February 1st, but we hear now postponed to March 29th, for which we have not found the environmental screening (required for all FAA actions).
For FAA impending actions, we ask that you pursue for the statutes of limitations to be tolled.
60 days is insufficient time to fully evaluate impacts
, as has been learned from the various Nextgen actions around the country. Or please advise why the City would not take this step.
We look forward to your response, as soon as possible.
