In the most comprehensive take-down of the Oakland Airport’s planned expansion to date, the city of Alameda has posted a damning 110-page critique blasting the port’s environmental impact report as “insufficient,” “legally inadequate” and a “failure.”
In the extensive manifesto, Alameda officials argue the airport failed to analyze impacts to safety, include noise studies, or consider congestion, among a litany of other problems. The response also includes emails from concerned Alameda residents, highlighting worries ranging from climate change to air quality to noise pollution. It argues against the addition of any new airport gates, and asks for the Port of Oakland, which manages the airport, to produce a new environmental impact review that addresses the issues raised.
Port of Oakland officials say the expansion is necessary to modernize and meet growing demand. In July, they published a draft environmental report outlining their plans for what they described as a long overdue effort to reimagine an airport that hasn’t received significant upgrades in decades. The plan includes the construction of a new 830,000-square-foot terminal building, upgrades to existing facilities and the addition of 16 gates. There has not yet been a cost attached to the project; in 2008, the airport underwent a $300 million Terminal Improvement Program.
Alameda’s opposition to the expansion is something of a reversal for the city, which had not formally voiced opposition until just a few days before the environmental comment period closed on Monday evening. In September, Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft was among the elected officials who gathered at the Oakland Airport to lavish praise on the Port of Oakland after a presentation highlighting the airport’s economic impact.
But on Oct. 3, Alameda Vice Mayor Tony Daysog raised an alarm about the expansion at a city council meeting, saying, “This expansion represents a profound negative impact on the quality of life of all of Alameda. It is imperative that we leverage the (environmental review) process to get Oakland Airport to scale down from its proposal.”
The city has a stake in the airport expansion because some of its communities lie in the flight path. North Field, a smaller runway, is currently used by smaller aircraft and leads to noise complaints on Bay Farm Island. If the airport were to expand, Daysog expressed concern that the runway could also eventually be used for commercial aircraft as well.
Alameda’s response was created hastily following the council meeting and filed on Friday; previously, the city was set to submit only a short one-page document highlighting a few potential concerns the expansion might raise.
In Daysog’s view, it was vital that the city of Alameda was able to get these concerns on the record now. As part of the environmental review process, the Port of Oakland will be required to respond to each of its questions or face a potential lawsuit. The city has grappled with the port on a few other occasions, including lawsuits in 2001 and 2002 when the port was last embarking on airport expansion.
“Hopefully it won’t come to litigation, but we need to lay down our key points,” Daysog said in an interview with this news organization.
In recent weeks, the airport expansion plan has also faced blowback from community and environmental groups. The Stop OAK Expansion Coalition has raised concerns about climate change and the impact of air pollution caused by ultra-fine particles in jet fuel, which is known to cause decreased lung function, inflamed airways and other adverse health effects. Meanwhile, members of the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, an eco-activism group, have argued that, beyond health concerns, the airport modernization plan is also a poor investment for financial reasons. They said the port may be making the same mistake at the airport that they made with its shipping terminals two decades earlier — investing in dramatic expansions and ending up with a stranded asset if the projected growth doesn’t pan out.
Still, the city of Alameda’s response is the first instance that the opposition had reached beyond advocacy groups, and into the halls of city government.
Port of Oakland officials framed the response as a standard part of the environmental impact report comment period.
“The Port of Oakland appreciates all comments and input received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and will review and respond to comments received by today’s deadline,” Roberto Bernardo, a spokesperson, wrote in a statement. “We also value the continued collaboration with the City of Alameda and other stakeholders on this potential Airport Terminal Modernization & Development project.”
The number of people traveling through the Oakland Airport jumped from approximately 8 million in 2021 to 11 million in 2022 and the port projects that number will grow to 24 million visitors per year by 2038. At the same time, it’s also considered changing the name of the Oakland airport, arguing that not enough people nationally know where Oakland is.
In recent months, the port has touted its economic contributions to the region, which they believe the airport expansion will only enhance.