The City of Boulder and Boulder County are nearing the finish line on a sweeping update to their shared land-use plan, but a last-minute fight over how to describe Boulder Municipal Airport could reignite a broader debate over the facility’s impact on surrounding communities.
At issue is a proposal to acknowledge lead pollution, noise and other impacts from Boulder Municipal Airport on nearby mobile home communities. The Planning Board and Boulder County commissioners approved the change, but the Boulder City Council rejected it, potentially prolonging a planning effort nearly two years in the making.
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, a long-range land-use document shared between the city and county, guides growth and development and is updated every five to 10 years.
Officials expect to adopt the updated plan this summer, but the airport dispute is one of several issues that must still be resolved. The city council must also reconcile disagreements with county commissioners over a proposed land-use map change in areas surrounding the city, as well as with both the Planning Board and county commissioners over language related to affordable housing.
The airport debate centers on language approved earlier this month by the Planning Board that would identify “inequitable impacts of airport operations” on neighboring communities. The proposed change also states that the city and county will “provide education and outreach to residents most impacted by aviation lead.”
Aside from beginning the process of making unleaded aviation fuel available, the city has taken few concrete steps to address aviation lead. Acknowledging its impacts in the comprehensive plan could mark one of the city’s strongest policy statements yet on the issue.
Dozens of homes sit within a half-mile of the airport, including the Vista Village and San Lazaro mobile home communities, which researchers have identified as disproportionately Latino and low-income. Planning Board Chair Laura Kaplan and others have long raised concerns about the health effects of lead pollution.
Studies from Michigan, California and Colorado have found statistically elevated blood lead levels among children living near general aviation airports that serve small piston-engine aircraft burning leaded fuel, such as Boulder Municipal Airport. No dedicated blood lead study has been conducted on children near Boulder’s airport. Health officials say no level of lead exposure is considered safe for children, and that even low-level exposure can affect brain development and learning.
“This facility, that is a city-run and city-owned facility, has incredibly inequitable impacts on the people who live closest to the airport,” Kaplan said at a recent Planning Board meeting. “They are inequitably impacted by lead pollution, they are inequitably impacted by noise pollution.”
Kaplan, who championed the proposal, also helped lead a 2024 campaign to repurpose the airport into a mixed-use neighborhood. She said many of the proposed amendments were about describing the airport “in a more balanced way” and “calling attention to the fact that we care about equity.”
The Planning Board approved the changes 5-2. The vote came as a condition, meaning the council would have to approve the language or send its preferred language back to the Planning Board. The Board of County Commissioners also approved the change.
Kaplan said the Planning Board “does not want to get into a battle royal with city council,” but said she did not want the changes dismissed.
City officials said they preferred keeping the existing airport language but acknowledged the proposed language would “not implicate future actions, budget or methods of on-going support for the airport and surrounding communities.”
The Boulder City Council did not support the change.
During a special meeting June 25, the council informally voted to reject the Planning Board’s language and keep the original draft. The decision sends the matter back to the Planning Board before revised language can return to the council.
Councilmember Matt Benjamin, an airport supporter and former pilot, called the change a “last-minute binding condition” and proposed language supporting the transition to unleaded aviation fuels. His proposed change did not mention lead impacts.
“The process by which these changes were introduced, without public engagement or prior discussion, is itself a reason for rejection,” he wrote in a Hotline post to colleagues.
In response, Kaplan, Planning Board Vice Chair Claudia Hanson Thiem and board member Mark McIntyre wrote to city officials and the council requesting that the City Attorney’s Office affirm that the Planning Board’s actions related to the comprehensive plan were “legally sound.”
Separately, after the Planning Board vote, Jan Burton, a former councilmember and outspoken airport supporter, filed a code of conduct complaint against Kaplan, citing the airport language specifically.
The dispute comes as the council debates the airport’s long-term future. Some residents want to close it and repurpose the land for housing. Others see it as a valuable community asset. The council plans to hold a public hearing on the airport July 23.
Facts matter! Testing blood for levels of lead would provide clear evidence one way or the other. Requiring non-lead based fuel seems to make sense. I do not live near the airport but support its existence as long as it is not a danger to people’s health.
Carol
I agree, testing would bring some real data to the discussion. I’ve been hanging around general aviation airports for 40 years, and I’ve worked at Boulder Airport 5 days a week for the past 8 years. I’ve breathed in the air and fuel fumes at the airport, I’ve fueled aircraft, I’ve had avgas on my hands, and had it splash into my mouth and eyes, so I guess I can say I’ve been exposed to whatever lead is being produced by general aviation aircraft, yet, when I get myself tested, my blood lead level is not elevated, not even close to being elevated. If my blood lead content isn’t elevated, then I seriously doubt that residents around the airport are experiencing elevated lead levels from aviation.
Note how it is a Planning Board Member who is sounding the alarm here over what she calls equity issues. If lead is really the problem, where are the City / County / State health professionals who are charged with investigating these issues? The truth is that lead from aviation is not even on their list of sources of lead to be mitigated. Why? Because it is not a significant source of lead in our environment. They are focused on things like lead paint, or abandoned lead mines, or even dark chocolate, cinnamon, and cosmetics (look it up in Consumer Reports) that turn out to be sources of lead in our environment that are a bigger problem than lead from aviation.
Unleaded aviation fuel will be available at Boulder Airport soon, something the aviation community has been advocating for years. Within a few more years I predict that the leaded aviation fuels will simply stop being produced, so this is an issue that is already being mitigated and will become a non-issue in the relative near term.
Any council member supporting any rule, regulation and/or comprehensive plan that does not IMMEDIATELY eliminate LEAD pouring down on Boulder’s children and communities, needs to be thrown OUT of office. The airport and its usage (the vast majority by pilots and planes you see do not park or reside in Boulder, but use the airport because it’s free) MUST be regulated locally for noise, pollutants, and overuse. The airport is city land and a city obligation, and our city leaders are obligated to do what’s right for the city, it’s children, and not hobby pilots! Nearly 15,000+ people live directly over the flight path of 70,000+ annual take-offs and landings that at times torment residents. This is a simple two-step process: Ban all lead-fueled airplanes (can’t believe I even have to write that in Boulder). And charge airport touch-and-go fees so taxpayers can stop pouring millions of Boulder tax dollars into the airport just to support a handful of uber-wealthy hobby pilots! This is not even a debate, and only further proof our city council is utterly failing the community and a city legacy that supports our children and health first.
Let me correct some misinformation here because it is often repeated while being false:
(1) Airport users are not “a handful of uber-wealthy hobby pilots” – e.g. the Soaring Society has approx. 170 members. They include students, fire-fighters, retirees, regular people. They reflect the Boulder population at large.
(2) The City cannot simply “Immediately Eliminate Lead” – However, it can provide unleaded fuel which Boulder pilots have been asking for. Thanks to the new airport manager, unleaded fuel is finally coming to the airport next month. The city can and should also use federal and state grants to accelerate its adoption.
(3) The City has not been “pouring millions of Boulder tax dollars” into the airport. In fact, thanks to revenues from airport users as well as federal and state grants, the Boulder airport has been self-sufficient for many decades without ANY support from local taxpayers. But if the City were to continue to refuse federal and state grants (which is what airport opponents demand) the airport WILL indeed become a major burden for local taxpayers going forward.
And let me respond to your lies and gaslighting:
Believing its “ordinary people” that can afford pilot training, a plane, the time, and all the associated fees is insulting to those of us who can’t. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (your people) estimate renting a plane for MINIMAL flight time is at least $20,000/yr, owning $40,000 (after purchase) and up. That’s an expensive hobby and does not “reflect the Boulder population at large”, where 50% of the city residents rent a home.
The city CAN and SHOULD immediately eliminate all sources of lead at the airport. The council has authority to adopt ordinances governing the city’s airport because the airport is a city-owned facility. The authority is Chapter 11-4, “Airport,” of the Boulder Revised Code (1981), which governs operation of the municipal airport. Within that chapter, 11-4-6 (“Regulations Affecting City Airport”) authorizes regulation of airport operations and rule-making to the city manager. Great that the airport is banning lead (proving my point — a serious health problem). But most planes come up from Rocky Mt. Airport to practice landing/take-offs. So, critically NO PLANES BURNING LEAD SHOUDL BE ALLOWED TO DO “TOUCH AND GOES” AT THE BOULDER AIRPORT. Otherwise, the problem is not solved.
Re: millions in taxpayer money. Absolutely! The city of Boulder has invested on the order of $15 million of local resources in the municipal airport over the past two decades — excluding federal and state grants.
Google it. Ai it. Look it up. All the above is all there.
To be clear, not advocating closing the airport. Just get rid of the lead NOW because it’s poisoning CHILDREN. And manage the traffic, because its relentless noise from pilots, and of those pilots do not live in our community.
Last point: the tail is wagging the dog here for far too long. The city council needs to wake up and represent the 15,000+ citizens feeling the very real impact of an airport run by a tiny handful of rich hobby pilots, claiming a grave, and false, injustice.
Jon, I’m sorry that you believe I’m lying. I’m not.
(1) You do not have to be wealthy to be an active glider pilot. A youth membership with the Soaring Society of Boulder costs just $60 per year. Full adult members pay less that $500 per year. A full day of flying (tow, glider rental, plus 5 hours in the air) costs about $150. Most pilots fly between 10-20 days per year, so the annual costs may run around $1500-3000. I’m not claiming that this is cheap but it is far less than you think. (Compare it to skiing and it’s likely that you’ll find gliding to be more affordable.) Btw, the vast majority of our members do not own a plane.
(2) Re: your claim about lead I can only try to assure you that Boulder pilots including the Soaring Society have been asking for unleaded fuel for years and we are very happy that it is finally arriving at the Boulder airport.
(3) Re: your claim about $15 million in local tax payer money having been spent on the airport, can you please let me know where this comes from? To the best of my knowledge, the cost of the airport has been fully covered by the Airport Enterprise Fund (which itself is funded by airport user fees as well as state and federal grants) for decades, without any contributions from local taxes. But it is true that the airport will need to be heavily subsidized by local taxpayers going forward if the city continues to reject federal and state grant, which are essential to keep airport expenditures covered.
Finally, it sounds like we’re on the same page about wanting to keep the airport, and we also share the same desire to get rid of unleaded fuel as soon as possible. As president emeritus of the Soaring Society I want to assure you that we will do what it can to help make this happen. 🙂
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Source of financial assessment is two decades of city budget data that has been aggregated and put thru Ai analysis. This is an effort being undertaken by a local group that is examining actual costs and bringing the TRUTH to light about the airport, as so many are making false claims or misleading claims, like its use for wildfires, promises of lead free skies, and failing management of reasonable flight times and usage — especially around touch and goes.
The data includes city contributions, support and cost share matching over two decades that include maintenance, rehabs, lighting, drainage, enviro work and more.
Re: the leaded fuel, appreciate the advocacy of the Soaring Society, but candidly after DECADES of spewing lead while KNOWING lead’s impact on the people, and only recently making the change and advocacy, any moral high ground around this issue is lost.
Also, you’re ignoring the fundamental issue that the vast MAJORITY of planes using Boulder’s airport and skies, and buzzing our neighborhoods, will STILL be spewing lead and noise as these planes come from other airports. Why do these pilots fly to Boulder? Because Boulder Airport has been left totally open, completely unregulated, and 100% FREE to ANY hobby pilot who wants to do relentless touch and goes, regardless of impact on OUR community peace or our children’s health.
The city must tighten control as the airport is being overrun and has become out of control. We must ban all lead spewing airplanes from using the airport unless its an emergency. Monetize touch and goes. The city charges me for parking my car downtown, between certain hours, etc. They can tell when and where to park. I violate those rules, I get a ticket. So we can surely limit and charge hobby pilots — who are flying in from across the front range — to use our airport for 100s of touch and goes in a single day. Ban touch and goes before 8 am and after 5 pm, weekends and holidays. Pilots break those local rules, they get a ticket. Unleash the market forces. Yes, plow that money back into the airport for professional management, keeping it off tax payers backs. Put the peace and health of Boulder and its children first. Codify it in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
These are all reasonable rules. And it would be great to get the Soaring Society support for it.
Meantime, anyone doubts where the planes are coming from, or the relentless touch and goes, you can track it all LIVE here: https://bouldercolorado.gov/boulder-airspace-live-map
Clemens, thank you for that clarity.
There are legitimate concerns here, but a lot of this misses how aviation actually works. Cities cannot ban aircraft by fuel type. The FAA regulates airspace and aircraft operations at the federal level, full stop. Boulder’s authority is over what fuel is available on the ground at its facility, which is exactly what they began acting on in 2025 with a formal plan to eliminate leaded avgas by 2030. That transition is already in motion, and it is being driven by a combination of local policy, FAA pressure, and the industry’s own shift toward unleaded alternatives. Nobody credible is arguing for keeping lead in fuel.
The ‘hobby pilot’ framing is just wrong. General aviation airports serve flight training, air ambulance operations, search and rescue, and disaster response. Boulder Municipal was a critical staging hub for aircraft during the 2013 floods when roads were gone and helicopters were the only way in or out of affected areas. Calling it a subsidy for a handful of wealthy hobbyists is a rhetorical move, not a serious accounting of who uses the facility or why.
The health concern near Vista Village and San Lazaro is real and worth sustained pressure on. It just deserves arguments grounded in how jurisdiction and aviation fuel policy actually work. The city is not ignoring it. The debate right now is about specific language in a planning document, not about whether lead exposure is acceptable.
Boulder airport is an important part of the community and will continue be going forward as we transition away from leaded fuel. Unfortately things don’t happen overnight in aviation but changes are coming.
Nick, well stated.
Boulder can challenge the FAA on lead, control and regulations. Santa Monica (CA), Naples (FLA) and other hobby airports have and are doing so across the country.
Boulder is a thought-leader and these hobby airports, and their health, noise and fiscal impact on communities, need to be challenged time to time. That is happening. Now is such a time. The city needs to step up.
Not advocating closing airport. Your fear mongering on emergency response (which is a bit exaggerated but will let that go) is more of the same talking points by a handful of pilots to deflect, and not to tackle, new and very real issues, including the LOOP HOLE now being built to allow lead-fueled planes flying in from other airports to still spew lead over Boulder; who use Boulder airport relentlessly for touch and goes (100s in a single day); who overuse and abuse a significant BOULDER-OWNED resource for FREE! Literally a few dozen pilots are impacting negatively 10,000s of Boulder residents. That just doesn’t make sense.
You can’t be poor, and afford to own, rent, and/or fly an airplane.
It’s a public use airport, you can’t just restrict folks from using it. It’d be akin to Bow Mar trying to put up gates on a public roads. Simply doesn’t work that way and there is no need to.
And yes, you can be poor and do flight training. I fly professionally and have worked with folks of all backgrounds. I put myself through flight school by working construction and student loans.
You are misinformed at best and at worst just tailoring the facts to fit a conclusion you already reached.
Unleaded fuel will be available at Boulder Airport next month, and a full phase-out of lead is widely expected industry-wide well before 2040.
That timeline matters. Any repurposing of the airport could not happen until after 2040 at the earliest — and the FAA’s position is that the city is already obligated to maintain the airport in perpetuity, making closure legally uncertain even then. Either way, there will be no lead exposure long before any land-use change could possibly take effect.
The fastest path to protecting Vista Village and San Lazaro residents is already underway: transitioning to unleaded fuel, which can be further accelerated by federal and state grants. That delivers real results within the coming year — not sometime after 2040.
In any case: closure would do absolutely nothing for lead exposure. The timeline simply does not work.
Calling BS here. Most planes flying over all these communities fuel at Rocky Mountain. Easily looked up. Lead showering on our children will continue until ALL planes with lead fuel are banned.
Rocky Mountain Metro has had unleaded aviation fuel available for a while now. Most trainer aircraft can use unleaded aviation fuel, but we have no insight into which do and which don’t. Jon, you can see more at the RMMA link: https://www.jeffco.us/5127/RMMA-Unleaded-Fuel-Transition
I’m sad and frustrated by this decision, but not entirely surprised. I think it reflects where Boulder currently is that the city will deny that lead is a serious public health issue in favor a small number of wealthy interests.
There are over 2 grams of lead deposited on us for every gallon of fuel that is burned. This lead does not just disappear and resident have a right to stop this pollution. I fully understand the equity argument, but this is also about standing by our values and not polluting ourselves, our neighbors and wildlife.
Eliminating leaded fuel is something that we can do, but only if the city controls the airport. Let’s be clear about a facts regarding the FAA and lead fuel. The FAA has no hard deadline for eliminating lead and we are currently required to supply as much leaded fuel as pilots want beyond the aspirational date of 2040.
Simply offering unleaded fuel does not mean that leaded fuel use will decline.
It’s also ironic that the Chamber types talk about the airport as center of innovation when we are struggling to transition to fuel that been available since the 1970s!
Most aircraft generally do not use the same type of gas that a car uses. It has different ingredients and different regulations that define it. The FAA has a program, running now for several years, to develop a universal unleaded replacement for 100 Low Lead, the most common type of aviation gas. The biggest challenge has been developing a gas that didn’t cause engine failure. They are getting close to a solution, and several potential replacements are in the testing stages. If you’d like to know more, Jefferson County has a FAQ sheet on unleaded aviation fuel: https://www.jeffco.us/DocumentCenter/View/40772/Aviation-Fuel-FAQs
I am appalled that our airport still sells leaded gas.
The Boulder airport users have been lobbying the City for years to make unleaded fuel available. To me the main reason for the stalling seemed to have been that the lead issue was good politics for those wishing to shut down the airport. Through heroic efforts by our new airport manager the Boulder airport should finally have unleaded fuel available in the next few weeks. The federal gonverment has set a goal of 2040 for having unleaded aviation fuel available throughout the US. The unleaded aviation fuel system being installed at Boulder airport is a step in that direction.
How much does it cost to test a person’s blood for lead levels?
Google’s AI says (perhaps incorrectly): “The cost to test a person’s blood for lead levels typically ranges from $10 to $100 out-of-pocket, but it is fully covered by most insurance plans and Medicaid when ordered by a doctor.”
Doing such a simple scientific test on even a small population at or near Boulder’s airport would allow everyone to understand whether fears about lead from avgas there are founded here or not.
Until some fact-based, rational science happens, everything else is just going to be more political noise, hysteria, and defensiveness on all sides.
See my reply to Carol at the top of the comments. Here is a sample of one for your study. I spend more time at the airpot than the average bear, I breath the exhaust, and the fumes while fueling aircraft, and I’ve had 100LL splashed on my skin, and in my mouth and eyes. I’ve had myself tested, paid for by insurance, and I don’t test high for lead in my blood, rather well below the level that might be of concern. It is only logical that others who do not have the exposure that I have would probably have less lead in their system than I do. There is a reason that aviation sources for lead are not on the priority list of the Departments of Health. On the other hand, read up on elevated lead levels found in dark chocolate, cinnamon, and cosmetics, and then think about what you are eating, or feeding your kids. There are far higher sources of lead to worry about than lead from aviation. Its not that the aviation community isn’t concerned about lead, (we are the ones who’ve brought unleaded to Boulder Airport after all), but if you really want to make an impact, you’ve got to prioritize the sources.
from Consumer Reports
https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/lead-and-cadmium-are-common-in-chocolate-especially-organic-a1042224604/
https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-contaminants/high-lead-levels-in-cinnamon-powders-and-spice-mixtures-a4542246475/
https://www.consumerreports.org/product-safety/some-eyeliners-contain-potentially-harmful-levels-of-lead-a9866282808/
I think we can all agree that lead should be eliminated from aviation fuel. Recall that lead was present in automotive gas for 73 years (from 1923-1996). The aggregate amount of lead that automobiles produced during that period is orders of magnitude more than all the lead aircraft have produced since the dawn of aviation. That lead exists in the soils near roads and produces a background of lead in our environment. Every time the soil is disturbed for construction or maintenance the lead is back in the air. Regardless, the point is to reduce the risk as low as is reasonably achievable which means phasing out lead in aviation gas. That’s why the FAA and EPA have set a hard limit on leaded fuel in aviation: “Lead in aviation gasoline is targeted for a complete phase-out by December 31, 2030, for the contiguous United States, with an extended deadline of 2032 for Alaska ” source FAA. The exciting development in aviation is the emergence of electric training aircraft which don’t use fossil fuels, are nearly silent, and reduce the cost of training a factor of roughly five. The Boulder airport is one of the first airports in Colorado to have chargers for these small electric trainers. We should be celebrating the efforts of the Boulder airport to make the transition to clean flight (the gliders already fly without fuel, although do need a tow to altitude by a powered aircraft-which could be electric).
On the studies of lead near airports, it is interesting that some studies report higher lead levels downwind of the airport, but none of the aircraft that fly from those airports use leaded fuels. Until a lead study near the Boulder airport is performed, we’re all just speculating. Given the phase out by 2030 it is likely not worth the effort. I congratulate the Boulder Airport as well for the delivery of the first UL94 aviation fuel yesterday, an unleaded fuel.