On behalf of Communities for a Better Environment (CBE), I write to inform the City Council that the proposed OAK expansion will significantly harm the health of East Oakland residents and that the Port is misleading the City Council and the public about the true impacts.
The Port has not modeled the full health impacts of the project, which would have enormous human and financial cost. On slide 14 of the Port’s presentation, the Port statements about human health risk findings are not factual. The Port’s human health risk study only includes toxic air contaminants and excludes criteria air pollutants that make up most airport emissions. The Port has not reported the health impacts of nitrous oxides (NOx). In 2019 OAK emitted more NOx than the Chevron Richmond Refinery and the Port states the expansion would increase NOx by 63%. NOx causes and worsens respiratory disease and residents closest to the airport are already in the 100th percentile of asthma rates in California. Even for contaminants included in the existing study, the Port omits key data and methodology, and independent experts have stated the findings are nonsensical. This is just one example of the reckless path the Port is pursuing at the cost of human life.
For more information on health, climate, and labor impacts of the proposed expansion, please see report co-authored by CBE and SEIU-USWW https://www.cbecal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Final_Pollution-for-Airline-Profit-Report_English.pdf

Please consider the children in your life when deciding to expand the airport. Do you want them to have a livable future? The airport expansion will increase air pollution by adding toxic contaminants and ultrafine particles to the air. It will also encourage the use of flying and the subsequent burning of fossil fuels. Scientists the world over have confirmed that fossil fuels are the major contributor to climate collapse. We are already seeing the beginning of that collapse and it is our responsibility to slow it down, not add to it. The creation of new jobs and positive financial impacts are no longer a useful criteria to move forward on a project that is guaranteed to make climate change worse and will harm all living things on the earth, including us. We have one beautiful planet, we need to prioritize it, not money.

I am an Oakland resident concerned about the proposed OAK airport expansion. I thank the City Council for asking the Port to explain the need for this project. The Port's money is essentially city money, and we should make sure it is spent wisely. The EIR doesn't talk about funding--is the Port planning to spend any of its funds on this project? If so, wouldn't it be better to address all of the pollution from trucks serving the Port that currently impact Oakland. Yes, the Port is making improvements in this regard, but there is a long way to go. Instead of trying to coax more people to fly out of Oakland, shouldn't we be working with other Bay Area airports to limit flights until a clean solution to air travel can be found? Please press the Port to prioritize reducing pollution and greenhouse gases rather than increasing them.

I am an East Oakland resident in D6. The Port's Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is flawed because it fails to include the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) study that the Alameda County Public Health Department (ACPHD) requested in their Oct. 16, 2023 Public Comment letter in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR.) ACPHD requested that a HIA be conducted in the FEIR despite the fact that the DEIR included a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA). One reason that ACPHD requested a HIA (by a public health agency), instead of the HHRA (conducted by an engineering firm), is that the HHRA in the FEIR finds that cancer and non-cancer risks from the expansion on East Oakland residents would be "less than significant" by ignoring the pre-existing health condition of East Oakland residents where, after generations of environmental injustice in the form of toxic contamination, including air pollution, the rates of asthma hospitalizations are the highest in all of Alameda County, and life expectancy is 12 years lower than in the most privileged parts of the County. The HHRA basically assumes that all East Oakland residents are currently healthy. The HIA requested by the ACPHD would force the Port to factor in pre-existing health conditions, and expose the fallacy in the Port's response to the ACPHD letter, which claims that a HIA would "provide similar conclusions" to the HHRA. I urge the Council to call on the Port to still conduct the HIA requested by ACPHD.

As an East Oakland resident, I am very concerned that a terribly flawed FEIR for the OAK Airport expansion was certified by the Port of Oakland Board of Commissioners. It is now up to the City Council to step up and protect the health of Oakland residents. Your action is urgently needed to prevent the most environmentally damaging aspects of this project: increased air pollution, especially PM 2.5 particles and Nitrogen Oxide; increased emissions that feed the climate crisis; and excessive noise, all of which will harm East Oakland, surrounding communities and the planet.

This expansion is requested at a time when passenger volume at OAK has actually decreased, exposing as completely bogus the Port argument that the expansion is needed to respond to anticipated higher demand. Their statement that the expansion will improve economic conditions in the local area is equally flawed, given the increases in medical expenses and the need for mitigation actions due to sea level rise in this low-lying area, and other climate disasters, that are inevitable if this expansion takes place.

Please show your leadership for the citizens of Oakland by rejecting this FEIR and making the Port do a less biased and more complete environmental assessment before starting this dangerous project.

put people before corporate profit. We oppose any increase in OAK aviation

As a Bay Farm Resident living in the trajectory of the North Field Runway that is currently in use occasionally whenever the main South Field Runway is in maintenance of due to weather conditions, I and my family and my neighbors are well aware of how loud the airplanes are. The expansion would increase the use of North Field Runway as another main runway to support the airport expansion and it is stressful for us when the noise of airplanes are SO LOUD and it's not just during the day, as we've had airplanes flying late in the night, midnight, and even early in the morning before dawn at around 3am, 4am. This is unreasonable and this impact our lives!

On top of that, with airplanes taking off in our trajectory, the level of Nitrogen Oxide is high, and many reputable studies have shown how detrimental this is on top of the particulate matters that are generated to our health. This is not a small thing, but our health is at risk at the cost of increasing traffic, business and money for the Port of Oakland with the expansion of the airport. When do citizen lives take a backseat the cost of financial gains for the city? Other urban airports are designed to have runway away from homes and some have clear restrictions on when airplanes would even fly so that a curfew is established, and fines are in place should airplanes decides to take off outside of curfew. Why is it not a consideration here just so to increase traffic and money?

I live, pay taxes and vote in Oakland. I’ve read much of the lengthy Environmental Impact Report for the airport expansion project. In it, the Port argues for economic benefits to Oakland from its expansion. But expanding OAK will not improve the Oakland economy long term and it will not boost the tax base Oakland so greatly needs.

Increasing flights and thus flight emissions will increase costs for both the city and its residents. Residents are already paying more for home insurance, food, flood cleanup etc from the climate disruption impacts the jets contribute greenhouse gases to, but the city will also have costs for sea level rise infrastructure, insurance cost increases etc.

Jet fuel burned on more flights overhead also emits ultrafine particles which cause serious chronic illnesses. Residents, especially in the flatlands already inequitably burdened, suffer, but the city also incurs insurance costs and loses taxes when people can’t work and spend money at local businesses.

Adding more flights to the airport will harm Oakland. I urge you to be responsible to your constituents and oppose airport expansion.

I am a citizen of Oakland and am deeply concerned about the proposed airport expansion and its potential to exacerbate the already serious health risks faced by East Oakland residents. The recent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certification occurred despite the testimony of dozens of community members, including physicians. The health and well-being of our communities should be a top priority, but it doesn't not seem to be. Additionally, as we face the growing threat of climate change, we must consider the long-term environmental consequences of expanding a major airport, including the increased greenhouse gas emissions that will result from this expansion. Modernization *can* happen without expansion! It is crucial that the City Council prioritize the health of its residents and the urgent need for climate action over short-term economic gains. Please reconsider this expansion, and take the time to properly address the legitimate concerns of the community.

I am a citizen of Oakland & share these thoughts. Given that the present technology for flight involves the burning of hydrocarbons with all of the problems that entails, it is simply poor judgment to increase the amount of air travel until such a time as we have a superior technology without all of these negative consequences. Modernizing the airport to make for more efficient operation is fine, but Increasing the capacity for airplanes burning carbon-based fuels is a mistake. Using so-called sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is not a solution, as it too is carbon-based. I oppose any increase now in Oakland airport’s capacity with its consequent increase in air pollution, climate heating emissions, and noise. We need the Oakland City Council to do everything that it can to protect the health of Oakland residents and prevent the most environmentally damaging aspects of this project. We need to be thinking now about transforming our form of air travel & replacing it with a more environmentally friendly method, as opposed to increasing it. We need to have fewer flights now not more. Thank you very much. David F. Gassman

As President and Co-founder of the Aviation-Impacted Communities Alliance (AICA), representing over 90 groups nationwide, I urge you to oppose the proposed airport expansion. The outdated DNL 65 standard cited in the Draft EIR underestimates the true impact of increased aircraft noise events and their intensity on communities. This flawed DNL 65 fails to reflect the lived experiences of communities who will face greater harm.
The Draft EIR’s assertion of no substantial increase in aircraft noise is directly contradicted by its projection of a 33% increase in flights—a significant increase that will cause widespread impacts. The FAA’s 2021 Neighborhood Environmental Survey already exposed the inadequacy of DNL 65, showing that annoyance levels are far higher than previously reported. While the FAA new noise policy is in progress, it will not apply retroactively.
Approving this expansion now would lock communities into long-term harm based on the outdated DNL 65. I urge you to delay any decision until the FAA finalizes its noise policy allowing for an accurate and fair evaluation of the true noise impacts. Let’s ensure that community voices are truly heard and that future development aligns with modern noise policy. Thank you.

As a resident of Oakland District 4 I urge the City Council to listen to the community members and experts who have studies the proposed expansion of OAK carefully and can provide important information to you that the Port will not. I do not oppose modernization of the airport- that's a good idea. But I do oppose building a new terminal and expanding the number of gates by 55%. This is totally inconsistent with the need to protect public health and address climate change. At the meeting where the Port approved this expansion, several Port Commissioners noted that the plan does not require the expansion and that they can scale it back. This seemed to be the basis of their vote for the plan. As our elected representatives we are counting on you to hold them accountable and let them know they need to drop the expansion.

Port of Oakland is transferring noise from departing aircraft during the nighttime hours of 2200 to 0600 to Oakland neighborhoods. Aircraft go around Alameda and head for Oakland and San Leandro. They also transfer large passenger and cargo aircraft noise be having them fly over San Leandro neighborhoods and land on the North Field. The North Field supports the South Field arrivals and departures. The Quiet Hours program and the departure programs on the South Field at night transfer noise around Alameda to other Bay Area Cities and areas. This noise transfer is illegal and terribly unfair to the residents of the East Bay. Adding more flights and capacity on the South field moves the noise and pollution to the residents in the immediate area and also transfers the noise and pollution to underserved minorities in Oakland and other East Bay cities. The Quiet Hours program as written by the Port of Oakland, is a noise and pollution transfer. The Instrument departures for the South Field, as adopted by the FAA, is also a noise and pollution transfer to minority and underserved residents in the East Bay.

I am Dr. Jane Perry, retired teacher and researcher with UC Berkeley, an expert in child development and a member of 1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations. I hope you and your loved ones are safe and healthy with everything you need. I am deeply grateful for your public service.

Neighborhoods closest to OAK are in the 100th percentile of asthma rates in CA, the 91st percentile of low birth weight, and the 85th percentile of cardiovascular disease, compromising essential developmental experiences children can only get in robust, safe and healthy outdoor experiences. Those of you who are aunties and uncles and parents know this.

The Warriors game from Denver 12/3, an NBA Cup game, saw “I fly OAK” advertising on Denver’s parquet floor. The Port is working hard to create the market demand that they claim is "Significant and unavoidable". The Port is a government agency and serves the people of Oakland, not corporate interests. Please put pressure on the Port to take responsibility for Oakland’s health and conduct a health impact ASSESSMENT as requested by the Alameda County Health Department, rather than relying on the Port’s own health RISK measures.

There is an environmental, climate and community duty to oppose this expansion. The city of Oakland needs to serve its community, not corporations and airline shareholders. The pollution impacts will be devastating for the air, the land, and the people. I urge you to make the morally correct choice and stop this expansion.

I’m an Oakland Property Owner and realtor. I oppose expanding the airport. I recognize the importance of business and I’ll be honest a lot of my customers arrive through OAK, but I’m also a scientist by training and I recognize what’s happening to our climate and I’m concerned about the high altitude effects of burning hydrocarbons in our troposphere. I disagree that there are hordes of would be air travelers who will rush the gates regardless of whether the expansion happens or not. Government has the legal and moral authority to regulate pollution and green house gas emissions for our safe future. We have a climate emergency, 99.9 percent of climate scientists agree, and the 0.1 percent who don’t are in the employ of fossil fuel companies. How hot does it have to get? When are we going to stop, like when your house burns? Look at all of the climate fueled wildfires. We need to connect the dots and burning more fossil fuels or even burning a little bit of so called sustainable aviation fuel is not going to make it any better. In fact, it will make it worse.

I'm an architect in Oakland and I'm always sad to go visit our completed affordable housing building projects in East Oakland and see they are covered in grimy soot. I know this particulate matter is going into our lungs as well. Jet pollution produces NOx that makes smog. Air quality in East Oakland is some of the worst in the state and residents have very high asthma rates. Ultra Fine Particulate Jet Pollution which is so tiny it enters the blood stream can be traced miles from flight paths as studies show around airports in Seattle and Los Angeles. The pollution is not limited to the airport.
Taxpayers will pay billions to manage climate change impacts (sea level rise, disasters, etc) and treat all the illness caused by pollution. The social cost of carbon for just existing flights at OAK is $437 million per year; over 50 years that is $22 billion. Expanding with more gates and more parking will induce more flights. Why not save money, just modernize, and cap flights at current levels, to show a real public commitment to health and climate?

I am a lifelong East Bay resident and physician, writing to urge the Oakland City Council to reject the Port of Oakland's certification of the flawed, incomplete FEIR for the proposed airport expansion, and urge the Council to compel the Port to conduct a Health Impact Assessment of this project, as the community, the Public Health Department, and experts have demanded. It is dangerous and irresponsible to approve a project without knowing how it will affect our health and the health of our bioregion, migratory birds, and bay. With our planet in a climate and biodiversity crisis, the city of Oakland has an opportunity to lead us in making a just transition away from fossil fuel burning transportation like flying and protect our collective health and future.
--Dr. Nishanga Bliss

I am writing to call on Oakland City Council to challenge the Port of Oakland's recent certification of its Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the planned 16 gate OAK airport expansion. The Port did not engage community stakeholders to develop a modernization plan for the airport that protects public health and looks to an environmentally sustainable future. The current (now approved) report is potentially in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is inconsistent with state and local policies to address the harms of climate change and air and noise pollution. Additionally, the FEIR does not include a Health Impact Assessment as requested by the Alameda County Public Health Department (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60adba8e808fae694eba4fd9/t/65b92d743ff4f73633b6321a/1706634612677/231016_Alameda+County+Public+Health+Department_+Kimi+Watkins-Tartt+and+Nicholas+Moss.pdf). The Port needs to do a much better job of serving its immediate neighbors and the entire Bay Area.
Thank you for your attention,
Joan Starr