Satellite terminal discussion paper (August 2026)

A discussion paper asking for a preliminary feasibility assessment of a landside satellite terminal on the US-101 corridor, attached to a submission to General Plan Sonoma on August 31, 2026.

A satellite terminal in Sonoma County as an alternative to STS expansion, subtitled A local gateway to a larger airline network, prepared by Malcolm Crawford and dated August 2026. Twenty-six numbered pages carrying an executive summary and nine numbered sections, with 37 footnotes.

The paper sets out a landside satellite terminal on the US-101 corridor south of Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, at which passengers would check in, check baggage, and clear TSA security before boarding a secure bus to Oakland San Francisco Bay Airport (OAK), which would deliver them to the secure side of the airport without re-screening. It cites as precedent the remote terminal at Framingham, Massachusetts, operated by TSA, Massport, and Landline, which serves Boston Logan on the same model. Rohnert Park is used illustratively throughout the text, which states that candidate locations should be compared on their merits.

The cover describes the document as a discussion paper and states that it proposes no capital project and requests no construction funding. The request the paper does make is for a preliminary feasibility assessment and exploratory discussions among Sonoma County, potential host jurisdictions, the Port of Oakland, TSA, potential airline partners, and a ground-transportation operator.

The paper revises a version sent by post to Supervisor Lynda Hopkins on August 14, 2026. The version hosted here was attached to the Submission to General Plan Sonoma of August 31, 2026, as the fourth of that submission's four requests.

Note on citation

The PDF is 29 pages. The cover and the two contents pages are unnumbered, so a #page= link is three ahead of the printed page number: printed page 1 is #page=4, and printed page 26 is #page=29.

Footnotes are numbered in order of occurrence, and a source cited more than once is renumbered at each occurrence rather than referred back to its first note. Of the 37 footnotes, 29 are distinct; eight repeat an earlier note. A note number therefore does not mark a first appearance, and citations to this paper should quote the source rather than refer to a note number.