Criticism From Public and Council Members Spurs Decision
As the clock approached 11 pm, four long hours after the October 3rd City Council Meeting opened to the public, the Council unanimously approved a motion, primarily worded by Vice Mayor Tony Daysog and secondarily by Council member Malia Vella, to scrap the City’s Draft Response Letter (DRL) due to its lack of hard data based on expert analysis.
In its vote, the Council directed staff to go back to the drawing board and hire, in very short order, a variety of experts in fields related to create a robust and informed response.
The council directed staff to hire, or attempt to hire, an airport planner, airport traffic expert, airport noise expert and an airport legal counsel to review and provide testimony of Oakland’s draft EIR analyses along with staff and other informational attachments.
Council members will not hold a special Council meeting on Oct 14th, the deadline for the new inquiry to be completed, but its members will review the new DRL to be posted publically with attachments.
It will also request a 30 day extension for public comment on the Draft EIR in hopes of buying more time.
The DRL which took issue with a number of elements of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, turned out to be lacking in “vigor” as Council Member Tracy Jensen put it earlier in the meeting.
Council members got the first chance to inquire about the letter’s sufficiency, but it was the public comments , especially from those who reside on Harbor Bay Isle, that told the broader, more pointed part of the story.
A small parade of about 25 speakers took to the microphone at the podium or weighed in via Zoom to air their comments on the matter for just over forty seven minutes, notably on three broad topics city staff highlighted in its presentation about the DRL under the headings of “Impact Analysis and Mitigations: Noise, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. “
Many, as lay people, expressed garden variety complaints about of how disturbing and intrusive the noise is inside and outside their residences, with one stating that the mitigation of getting dual pane windows did not amount to much of a remedy.
Another recounted his belief that the residue from jet fuel that falls to the ground caused a new roof to decay after only five years.
The first in the public procession was Michael Robles Wong , President Of The Costa Brava HOA who led with a belly of fire after hearing the City’s overview and council member’s questioning of the DRL.
“You actually made me angry listening to this presentation. The raft response the city has shown us so far is wholly inadequate. None of you live on Harbor Bay… and you don’t know the Port Of Oakland,” he opined.
“They don’t play by our rules, they play by their rules, and we suffer for that, we hear that.
You are fooling yourselves, if you think that having an MOU with the Port of Oakland, that they’re going to play with the Queen’s Rules,” he warned if the city were to rely on post deadline submissions or negotiations with The Airport.
Following Wong was Matt Pourfarzaneh, President of The Citizens League for Airport Safety and Serenity (CLASS) who took a different approach, expressing concern about the “extensive expansion that is planned” versus proposed upgrades to the terminal and other facilities at the airport, which CLASS supports.
In a foreshadow of the hot topic and Council vote to come that evening –one that surfaced earlier when Council Members began to question the Draft Response Letter (DRL) — Pourfarzaneh said that CLASS’ primary request was for the city to hire expert consultants beyond those his group has worked with.
He expressed concern that the impacts of increased airport flight traffic were not present in the DRL, despite The Airport’s predictions that passenger loads – and therefore flights needed to handle them—could increase from 12 million per year to as much as 24 milllion.
The DRL only addressed added flights in the context of noise, not with respect to air traffic safety issues., a topic that did not get much attention from anyone that evening. “The noise analysis must also discuss the impacts from frequency of overflights,” the DRL reads.
Increases in the number of planes aloft and those which must take off and land raises the potential of an increased danger of mid air or on ground aircraft accidents, rather than noise and air pollution or ground traffic impacts.
Near collisions of aircraft are typically referred to with the euphemism “near misses, ” and have been the subject of much national discussion. The New York Times reported that a non-public data base overseen by NASA showed almost one “near miss” a day in the U.S. over a twelve month period. There is also the issue of the waning number of overburdened FAA Air Traffic Controllers when it comes to air traffic safety and the number of planes coming and going from airports.
THE CALL FOR MEANINGFUL SCIENCE POKES MORE HOLES IN THE DRL
“What I Have Seen Here Is Basically A Joke”, Jason Chu In Public Comment
What prompted the most scientific and data based recrimination of the DRL came from Jason Tsu who identified himself as a researcher on air pollution and noise at UC Berkeley.
Tsu, as did several Council members following the City’s presentation on the DRL, seized upon a part of the report presented by Allen Tai, Acting Director of the City’s Planning, Building and Transportation Department.
During his report to the Council Tai intimated that the DRL was scant on scientific or technical data and contained other quantitative omissions, saying that “our concerns are mainly qualitative. Our comments on this EIR might be a little different than our comments on some other EIRs like a housing development EIR, for example. This is very different than a housing development EIR where the actual data and numbers are very critical.”
To Tsu, and many others in the room, whether on the dais or in the audience seats, those numbers were quite essential, as EIR’s related to various forms of pollution and other impacts are supposed to be deeply grounded in hard science.
“ What I have seen here (referring to the City’s proposed response letter to the Oakland Airport Draft EIR) is basically a joke. No technical aspects,” he said.
“You have these monitoring stations” that are too far from Oakland Airport to have any relevance to airport based emissions..
Tsu went on to effectively scold those who prepared the letter for a substantial error related to understanding the dynamics of measuring air quality as it pertains to the Draft EIR.
“You are using emissions (measures) to represent concentration, which is totally wrong to assess air quality impact on us,” he said.
Tsu asserted that even the nearest air quality measuring station, located in East Oakland, is of no relevant value with respect to air pollution environmental impacts originating from Oakland Airport.
The nearest air quality monitoring station, Oakland East, is located 2.3 miles from North Field and 3.6 miles from South Field according to Kristina Chu of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in an interview with ANN.
Tsu said that with respect to nitrous oxide emissions, for example, “at the most 500 meters away (just under 1/3 mile), it is gone.”
According to Kristina Chu of The Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the distance of the closest monitoring station renders the value of its readings to nothing, if Tsu’s analysis is correct.
Even if it were much closer, its readings would not shed much light on the impact of jet aircraft emissions from Oakland Airport.
“Typically, a specially-designed air monitoring study or data analyses would be needed to separate the contribution of airport emissions from other nearby sources to the overall level of each pollutant. Modeling of emissions data can also provide information about how the emissions from the airport disperse in nearby areas,” Chu said.
Tsu went on to claim that at least one more assumption in the City’s draft letter was scientifically flawed. “You are using emissions to represent concentrations, which is totally wrong to assess air quality impacts on us. That’s virtually impossible.,” adding that people absorb concentrations of such pollutants, not the emissions themselves.
“I don’t know who did that, but it’s totally wrong,” he chastised.
He began to fault the letter on the basis of its not incorporating parts per billion indices related to jet aircraft pollution admissions, but his two minutes of speaking time elapsed before he could elaborate.
Tsu was not the only one to raise concerns regarding the lack of scientific or other quantitative data in the Draft Letter.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PUT THE DRL UNDER SCRUTINY
“The letter raises substantial claims about the methodology in The EIR” Allen Tai, Acting Director Of Planning, Building and Transportation Board
Following Tai’s presentation — of which a broader overview will be found later in this story– Council member Trish Spencer was first of the evening to raise questions about the matter, after Mayor Ashcraft –mindful of the numerous speakers who had been “waiting patiently”–indicated that Council Persons would have up to five minutes each to speak or ask questions, part of the agenda protocols.
Spencer asked for the names of “airport experts” City Staff consulted in working up the DRL.
Tai responded that “we have not gone out for outside counsel, but that’s something we are planning to do with The City Attorney’s Office and The City Manger’s Office,” after tonight.
Then things began to turn a bit strained, accentuated by a back and forth exchange involving Spencer, City Manager Jennifer Ott and City Attorney Yibin Shen.
Spencer asked Tai why no airport experts had been consulted, to which he responded, “We have been trying to identify airport experts. It is a highly specialized field,” adding that, “we believe that there is someone who can help us.”
He noted that the letter already “raises substantial claims about the methodology in The EIR.”
At that point, Ott , attending virtually due to having to be out of the City, indicated she wished to make comment.
The Mayor provided time for Ott, putting a pause on Spencers’ inquiry.
Ott said that “We are happy to have outside counsel take a look at our letter, that we haven’t missed anything, but I do want to acknowledge that Acting Director Tai has been serving as a staff member on the Airport Noise Forum for many years, and we have staff that are highly trained in CEQA (California Air Quality Act) compliance.”
Ott stressed that “We do think we have raised some of the major key issues that we expect the Port (Oakland Airport) to respond to in their final EIR.”
With Tai indicating that he was done, Spencer then asked Ott why the city had not already retained airport experts, given the short window of time left to finalize a response to the Draft EIR.
Ott deferred at that point to City Attorney Yibin Shen who said that his department was prepared to engage with experts in law, but that he “could not speak to other experts that the Council Member (Spencer) may be referring to,” adding that he aqlso could not speak to whether or not “the Council member is referring” to scientific experts..
We are looking to hire experts that have expertise in reviewing EIRs” and that those attorneys would rely on statistical and scientific input” from whomever provides them the data “to do the legal work,” said Shen.
That prompted Spencer to ask if that meant that whatever the process might entail, would preclude the Council time for further review or submission of new information challenging the draft EIR.
Shen then turned the question back to Ott, who acknowledged that, given the deadline of 10/16, there would not be time for further Council review but that if the Council directs, “We can retain professional consultants that can provide additional technical analysis.”
The extent to which that process has taken place and its degree of success is the subject of a follow up story to this one.
Ott criticized Oakland’s Draft EIR overall for not adequately evaluating impacts of plans for growth of the Airport and said that whatever expert evidence the city might find could be later added as an additional matter raised with The Airport and as part of an MOU with them , and that “We would expect the Port to collaborate with us just as they have for the last twenty years.”
Council Member Jensen then inquired about noise levels, bringing Tai back to the podium, returning to the theme of the session: the adequacy of the DRL.
“If all the technical issues are not addressed, …or if we don’t send a very robust letter…could we in the future take action, comment or litigate against something” that the DL does not contain? ”asked Jensen.
That brought to the fore, Selena Chen, Chief Planning Counsel for The City Attorney’s Office, who said that any submissions after the deadline of comment or other key response information related to the Draft EIR could be brought up in future litigation but that the Port Of Oakland “may” but would not be “required” to respond.
That statement would resonate later when Robles-Wong brought up his analogy to Oakland Airport not necessarily playing by “The Queen’s Rules,” a key element related to the level of trust both The City and The Port Of Oakland have in their interactions and negotiations.
This back and forth between Council and Staff paved the way for the public comments, especially Tsu’s, and fueled the Council’s decision to require Staff to try and round up experts needed to beef up the DRL before Oct. 14.
It is not clear at this time how the Council will have say over the contents of the revised DRL as it decided not to hold a special City Council meeting so as not to burden staff with having to prepare for one, according to Ashcraft just before the vote on the DRL.
A CLOSER LOOK AT THE CITY’S DRL PRESENTATION
“We have questions around the metrics of how they studied noise” Allen Tai
During his power point presentation to the Council, long before they made the decision to send the letter back for major revision, Tai, said that staff mainly questioned some of Oak Airport’s assumptions.
He noted an inconsistency in the position of Oakland Airport’s views on the necessity of expansion, stating,“they’re saying the existing airport can accommodate the existing growth that’s already stated. But they’re also saying, ‘no’, their facilities are somewhat lacking and you need the project to modernize. Is it true that those baseline assumptions are adequate ” for example with regard to the supposed need for sixteen new gates? he asked.
He said that such assumptions were what staff question and that those ”drive the remainder of the analysis in the EIR, related to the number of flights and noise. Without providing any data or recommending next steps forward, he said “ We have questions around the metrics of how they studied noise; they used an average standard, whereas when we perceive airplanes it is about the event.”
The Draft Letter at issue that night provides some additional detail on noise measurement, saying that, “The noise analysis must also discuss the impacts from frequency of overflights, single-event noise levels, the altitude of aircraft, the hours of operation, and impacts from low frequency noise”
Tai expressed concerns raised by staff related to how expansion might impact existing “noise programs” spurred by an anticipated increase in the use of the North Field, much closer to HBI.
The Airport says that the flight paths for North Field departures will be much the same as those of the South Field, and more or less head over SF Bay, but as people living on HBI well know, the general aviation aircraft and corporate jets heading for the blue skies routinely fly over the southern residential area.
Overall, The City Staff presentation noted increases in noise and air pollution if the expansion occurs, along with increased traffic along Ron Cowan Parkway if a 2075 car parking lot on Maitland is added.
Mr. Tai closed by requesting the Council, after review of the letter, to authorize staff to enter into a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) with The Airport, in part to negotiate with it to commit to “memorialize the noise program” which is not included in the Airport’s Draft EIR,
Without to referring to specifics he had in mind, he also said that the MOU should “update any metrics or procedures that have evolved” over the past 20 years “ since the settlement agreements have been established,” with The Airport.
He asked to negotiate as soon as possible, given the looming 10/16 deadline for submitting comments on the Draft EIR, as “we want to have clarity around the project and the Airport’s commitment to our noise concerns.”
Just as his time ran out, he mentioned that “The City Attorney’s Office is in the process of consulting with airport experts to do a peer review,” leaving open the door as to what elements of law or policy are at issue, who those experts are, or how far along in conversations the parties are.
Clearly, those assurances did not successfully convince enough people in the room about the adequacy of the DRL.
Given the Council’s decision, City Staff will likely be scrambling to identify and retain the kinds of experts called for, to get their data, and amass those findings into a coherent revised EIR response letter and package it in such a way the Council members and the public have a chance to review it before submission on Oct. 16.