Current Issue Archives Search Chapter Home Editor
The Loma Prietan
September 2001

San Mateo Supervisors Feel the Heat

by Richard Zimmerman

In a hot room packed with San Mateo County residents, two San Mateo County Supervisors learned first hand just how strongly their constituents oppose San Francisco International Airport’s plan to fill the Bay. At a forum held by SFIA, the people of San Mateo County spoke out against the proposed runways. One observer counted 90 out of 94 speakers opposed to the proposed runways.

Board of Supervisors President Mike Nevin and his colleague Mark Church moderated the July 30th Forum for SFIA. Nevin delivered a pro-runway introduction to start the evening. Supervisor Church managed a more balanced introduction, at least indicating that there might be some environmental impact from the proposed runways.

The forum panel consisted of a lone environmentalist, David Lewis, executive director of Save The Bay, SFIA paid consultants, and SFIA employees.

Kandace Bender, Director of Communications for the Airfield Development Bureau at SFIA, said at the forum that no “official decision” had been made on which alternative SFIA will choose. All the alternatives are being carried forward equally, according to Bender. Then she went on to say how many acres would be required and how much it would cost—five billion dollars.


Chapter SFIA/Bay Protection task force chair Richard Zimmerman (holding sign), leader of opposition to filling San Francisco Bay for new airstrips at San Francisco International Airport, talks with other chapter members arriving for San Mateo County’s public hearing last month.(Photo: Dale Mead)

Chapter asks Supervisors to “Stand up for San Mateo County”

At the San Mateo forum, the Bay Protection Campaign—a joint effort of the San Francisco Bay and Loma Prieta Chapters— asked San Mateo County supervisors to sign a pledge “to oppose any major runway extension and Bay fill construction project at SFO unless all alternatives to reduce delays are exhausted, and unless it is in the clear and compelling interest of the people of San Mateo County that such a project should be approved.”

All of the supervisors present—Supervisor Jerry Hill was in the audience—declined to sign the pledge. The Chapter will continue to circulate the pledge to elected officials in San Mateo County. The County may have the right to approve the runways. Its elected officials must not let San Francisco run over them again.


Loma Prieta Chapter executive committee member Mark Reedy, left, hands a flier to a new arrival at last month’s San Mateo County public hearing on proposed bayfill at San Francisco Airport. (Photo: Dale Mead)

Bay Vote Yes! campaign

In San Francisco, all 11 supervisors approved Supervisor Aaron Peskin’s Charter amendment that would give San Francisco voters final approval on City-sponsored bay fill projects requiring 100 acres or more of fill. The ballot initiative will be on the November 6 ballot.

The Charter amendment, if passed, would introduce a new level of approval for large bay fill projects in San Francisco. Currently, the runway project, for example, would only need approval from the SF Planning Commission and the Airport Commission. Mayor Willie Brown, an outspoken supporter of the runway project, appoints members of both commissions. Neither the Board of Supervisors nor the voters have a say on the project without the Charter amendment.

While the Bay Vote Yes! Campaign is a San Francisco-only campaign, it is critical that the amendment be approved by the voters. Not only will that give San Francisco voters a say on the runways but it will create a support for San Mateo County voters having the same rights.

Peskin said he expects heavy opposition from business and labor organizations. Chapter members can help out in a number of ways. The campaign is looking for volunteers to table and phone bank. Contact Michele Moss at or 415/242-0405.


Awaiting his public hearing appearance on proposed bayfill for San Francisco International Airport, Stanford University engineering professor and chapter member John Fox explains viable technology alternatives to Sierra Club staffer Jon Golinger. (Photo: Dale Mead)

New runway configuration

Saying they were listening to the public, on August 7 San Francisco International added a new configuration to the list of build alternatives and removed one.

While it would be nice to think that SFIA heeded the public outcry over the proposed runways, that does not appear to be the case nor does the change make a difference.

At a forum held by State Senator Jackie Speier (D-Burlingame), held in South San Francisco in January this year, Matt Mead of the Airfield Development Bureau indicated alternative F2 “probably would not work” due to air traffic interactions with Oakland airport. F2 was taken off the board on August 7.

And, given that Bender said just a week before that all alternatives, which included F2 at that time, were still being considered and treated equally, it is, at best, curious that SFIA changed alternatives at this time. One reason given for the change was that F2 would require moving a large pipe used to transport jet fuel to the airport. F2 was one of the alternatives included in the feasibility study completed in January 1999. It took a long time for SFIA to discover the pipe.

Reduced area not equal to reduced impact

While the area of the new alternative, 600 acres, is less than the discarded one, area is not a good indicator of the potential impact of the proposed runways. Tidal currents will be impacted by protrusions into the Bay. An extremely narrow wall would dramatically change the current flows even though the surface area of the wall would be relatively small.

Noise shift

Another stated reason for dropping F2 was that it would have shifted noise to the Hunter’s Point/Bay View areas. Since SFIA has pledged not to shift noise, they dropped that alternative, said Bender.

But the new alternative, called BX-6, places the starting point for takeoffs on Runway 1 close to the same point it is now. That means residents of Millbrae near the end of the runways would see little, if any, noise change should the proposed runways be built. Of course, increased air traffic would mean more take-offs that, in turn, would lead to more noise for Millbrae residents.

Technology on the cheap

In a move that telegraphs SFIA’s intentions, an independent technology panel was to release a report on August 13. While the report was not available at press time, the SFIA press release indicated the study cost $35,000. Contrast that with the $1.25 million spent on studying methods to build the runways. Clearly, non-build alternatives are being given short shrift at SFIA.

Learn about SFIA’s Plan to fill the Bay at Richard Zimmerman’s website: windrider@ProtectOurBay.com.