Council also approves body-worn camera software, Swimming Pool Association lease, and amending Rules of Order
On October 3, City Council and Alameda residents commented on the City’s draft response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report [1] (DEIR) for Oakland Airport’s Modernization and Expansion Program. The project calls for modernizing existing terminals and adding a new terminal. Council and nearly all public speakers asked for a more strongly worded and comprehensive response to include expert analysis of project impacts, especially on noise, air quality, and traffic.
[2]Council also voted to approve a software subscription for automated body-worn camera footage review, a lease agreement with the Alameda Swimming Pool Association for Franklin and Lincoln Park pools, and amending its Rules of Order.
Oakland Airport Modernization and Expansion plans
On July 17, the Port of Oakland released a DEIR for its proposed Oakland Airport Modernization and Expansion Program. The City has until October 16 to comment. The proposed project includes modernizing Terminals 1 and 2, consolidating passenger processing functions, expanding international arrival facilities, relocating cargo and support facilities, improving the roadway and parking, and building a new terminal.
The new terminal would be an approximately 830,000-square-foot facility north of Terminal 1 with a connector building between the existing and new terminals. The new terminal would include up to 16 new aircraft gates, passenger processing, and other support functions. The Port projects that passenger capacity will nearly double from approximately 13 million annually to nearly 25 million by 2038.
City staff drafted a 2-1/2 page response [3] [link will download document] suggesting the DEIR had not fully disclosed or taken responsibility for project impacts on noise, air quality, safety, and transportation. It questioned the report’s assumptions and the project’s relationship to existing noise mitigation programs.
Public comment
Twenty-three community members spoke, the vast majority of whom were representatives of homeowners associations and residents of Bay Farm/Harbor Bay, who passionately urged the City to be more forceful in its response and to include expert analysis. Larry asked, “How can the City explain not seeking expert-based scientific and technical data in preparing this letter?”
Michael called the draft response wholly inadequate. “This expansion is going to send jetliners straight over the main part of the island, [where they’ll] turn right on the West End.” Alfredo added, “This is not an issue where reasonable people can disagree. This is a quality-of-life issue that will impact us dramatically.”
Sam, a retired physician, cited a study that found increased exposure to airplane noise is associated with insomnia, especially in children, resulting in mental health decline, among other issues. Emma, a Harbor Bay resident, spoke of her house being coated with black dust from jet fuel. Becky, an Alameda business owner, predicted increased noise would cause declining property values.
James Johnston of the Stop OAK Expansion Coalition [4] questioned the need for airport expansion, noting that California is building high-speed rail and has an Amtrak system that can be expanded with less environmental impact.
However, Madlen Saddik, president of the Alameda Chamber and Economic Alliance [5], argued that having a successful international airport nearby is vital to Alameda and its businesses. She noted that the Port and Airport are economic engines, employing up to 1,520 Alamedans.
Diego Gonzalez, Government Affairs Manager for the Port of Oakland, encouraged anyone wanting to participate in the EIR process to submit comments [6] by October 16 at 5 p.m.
Council comment and vote
Vice Mayor Tony Daysog called the Oakland Airport expansion the most critical matter facing Alameda, given the strong potential for a negative impact on the quality of life for all, “not just zip code 94502.” He added that the Port has failed to adequately explain the necessity and impacts of adding nearly 900,000 square feet of new facility space.
Daysog argued that the City needs to dramatically change course within days by submitting detailed comments with analysis and testimony by noise and airport planning experts. He noted that the Port will respond to comments in their final EIR. If the City has problems with those responses, the City could pursue litigation—but only if the City has substantively raised concerns in the first place.
Other Councilmembers concurred. Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft called the letter “too polite,” adding, “We have the right to the quiet enjoyment of our property. We’re not asking permission.”
Council unanimously voted to have staff hire outside experts to help prepare a more detailed analysis and circulate a revised response to Council before the submission deadline.
[7]
Other Council business
Council also voted to:
- Authorize a five-year Truleo Inc [8]. software subscription for Alameda Police Department (APD) for automated body-worn camera review and analysis. Truleo’s software sifts through thousands of hours of audio footage, flags high-risk incidents, and then prompts supervisors to watch and evaluate. APD will encourage supervisors to use their assessments of these incidents to coach and manage performance.
- Authorize a lease agreement for 59 months with Alameda Swimming Pool Association [9] for operation and maintenance of the Franklin and Lincoln Park pools.
- Amend the Rules of Order to allow Councilmembers to offer brief statements or questions on Consent Calendar [10] items without pulling the item for full discussion. A Councilmember wishing to discuss a Consent Calendar item may pull the item, and it will be heard after Regular Agenda items, at which point the public may comment.
Contributing writer Karin K. Jensen covers boards and commissions for the Alameda Post [11]. Contact her via [email protected] [12]. Her writing is collected at https://linktr.ee/karinkjensen [13] and https://alamedapost.com/Karin-K-Jensen [14].