Oakland’s Port Commission unanimously voted to change the Metropolitan Oakland Airport’s name to the San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport on Thursday. Controversy over the plan had simmered for weeks after Port Commission Chair Barbara Leslie aired a social media post hyping the proposal. The institutional apparatus involved with San Francisco’s airport reacted in unison: The San Francisco Airport issued a press release opposing the change; the County of San Mateo, which derives millions in revenue from the airport located in its jurisdiction but named after another County, voted for a resolution condemning the move. San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors did likewise, and SF’s City Attorney sent the Port a letter threatening potential legal action if San Francisco is added to the name, claiming trademark infringement.
Name Change Driven by Port of Oakland, Not City Leaders
Oakland’s Port, which oversees the airport, is run as an agency distinct from the City with a governing Commission—the latter is appointed by the Mayor and ratified by the City Council. The Port by its own rules can only change the airport’s name through an ordinance vote held after a public hearing. The proposal for the name change comes from the Director of the Port Agency, Danny Wan and the Port’s Interim Aviation Director, Craig Simon. But early on, several Commissioners, like Leslie and Michael Colbruno, communicated their support for the change on social media. Oakland’s Mayor and at least one Council member also communicated their support for the idea, despite having no input into the actual proceedings. CM Noel Gallo appeared during the public comment period of the hearing to voice his support, though areas that abut the airport geographically are in D6 and D7, not D5.
Wan and Simon argue in their report to the Commission and in their comments to the body, that the airport has lost more routes than it gained since 2008 at the Municipal Oakland Airport, though the report lacks thorough data comparisons or sourcing. The Port argues that the problems in travel engagement at the airport stem from traveler's lack of geographical knowledge of the bay area or Oakland’s proximity to other bay area cities. Putting the term “San Francisco Bay”, Wan and Simon argue, will cure the issue:
“Incorporating “San Francisco Bay” in a name that also maintains the name “Oakland” will, over time, increase the visibility of OAK flights when “San Francisco Bay Area” or similar terms are used in consumer online searches, aiding in the overall retention of flights and destinations….a modification of the Airport name to reference the San Francisco Bay would accurately anchor OAK to the geographic region that OAK serves and where it is physically located. The proposed modification will allow OAK to be more identifiable through common search phrases and improve searchability online.”
Several East Bay and Oakland community groups oppose the change, but on distinct grounds. The NAACP opposes the change, as a body both locally, and according to their representative at the meeting, Ces Butner, at the statewide level.Butner, a former Port Commissioner, told Commissioners that he appeared on behalf of NAACP President Cynthia Adams. Butner said he also represented the views of the state chapter of NAACP as well. Butner complained that the Port only recently communicated with the NAACP on the changes and had not done enough outreach to Oakland’s African American community and characterized the change as driven by concerns about crime in the area around the airport.
“Replacing Oakland with San Francisco Bay…further disrespects Oakland. Contrary to what Director Wan has said, it makes the community feel that the port is trying to remake itself considering the increase in crime on the Hegenberger corridor…the NAACP Oakland branch is concerned about the potential loss of identity of Oakland and its rich civil rights history. The concerns raised about the measure, the erasure of Oakland history and identity are valid,” Butner said. Butner asked for the Board to continue the name change proposal until the board members had a conversation with community members mediated by the NAACP.
While the NAACP’s argument has more to do with the loss of a cultural touchstone, several community and environmental groups, collectively identifying as the Stop Oak Expansion Coalition also oppose the name change as part of a larger battle against the Port’s proposed expansion project. In a press release, the Coalition argued that the Port’s push for an expansion lacks an actual rationale, as traffic hasn’t increased at the airport, despite predictions made several years ago that undergirded a proposed expansion. Rather the name change is an attempt to poach passengers and airlines from the SF airport in an attempt to justify an expansion now that OAK has failed to meet its marks.
“This proposal is part of a larger and ill-conceived strategy to expand the airport by increasing the number of gates by 55%, adding a new terminal, and more,” the document claims.
At the meeting, Sarah Small, of Communities for a Better Environment, one of the Coalition members, argued via Zoom that the name change should have required a CEQA analysis, as its successful implementation would cause an increase in aircraft pollution if its goals—increasing traffic—are met.
“The Port failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act by indicating this is not a project…under CEQA, a project includes quote, an activity which may cause a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The whole logic for the name change as in the Agenda Report is to increase flights through OIC which would lead to increased jet fuel pollution, GHG emissions, ground traffic and more. These are reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts and the court must conduct a study under CEQA,” Small said.
A representative of SFO reiterated the concerns at the meeting and was joined in opposition by SF based hotel and tourism boards that argued the change would confuse travelers and cause chaos.
“We believe that the proposed name change will create confusion for visitors leading to frustration and logistical challenges which will negatively impact the visitor experience and will ultimately cause reputational damage for both San Francisco and Oakland,” Cassandra Costello of the San Francisco Travel Association told Commissioners.
On the other side, over a dozen spokespersons from airlines, hotel and tourism and travel boards spoke out on behalf of the change. Representatives from Visit Oakland, Visit Berkeley, the Tri Valley Innovation Leadership Group, Volaris, Spirit, Southwest, and others that would stand to benefit from more travel to Oakland all spoke in favor.
Almost every Commissioner took a moment to voice their enthusiastic support for the change and seemed to agree that the change would add necessary flights and convenience to OAK. Commissioner Cluver's remarks echoed most of the Commissioner views.
“We all want to travel out of Oakland airport. In fact, you know, I do a lot of international travel, my family's both on my parents side and my wife's side are all overseas. We travel internationally. And the first place I look is Oakland airport, what's the flights coming out of Oakland to international digital destinations. I'll even pay a premium for that. But there are none.” said Commissioner Andreas Cluver, who also argued that increased travel would mean more jobs and increased economic impact for Oakland and the East Bay.
Volunteer Commission Has Several Appointments That Benefit from Port Actions
The Commission is a “volunteer” Commission, none of the Commissioners are paid for their roles. But being placed on the Commission is also a prized appointment for Oakland's political and economic actors. Nearly half of the Commissioners occupy influential political roles in their day jobs:
—Leslie is the Chair of the Oakland Chamber of Commerce, which runs an influential Political Action Committee, the funds from which have been used to affect Oakland’s political races.
—Colbruno is a lobbyist with influential firm the Milo Group. His partner in the firm has been the Chair of the OCC PAC for years.
—And Cluver is the long-time Secretary/Treasurer of the Alameda County Building Trades.
Cluver, Leslie and Colbruno have often used their role in the Commission to advocate for issues that benefit their constituencies and affect the City as much as the Port—Cluver especially has been influential in pushing project labor agreements at the City level in an attempt to tap into Oakland development funding for the construction trades in his group. Both Cluver and Colbruno used their positions in the body to push for a potential A’s ballpark at Howard Terminal, leading ALCO Supervisor Carson to complain of potential abuses in Cluver’s dual role. Leslie’s organization successfully stalled Oakland’s progressive business tax in its original form, which would have brought an estimated $40 MM in additional revenue from Oakland’s biggest companies, and created pressure to decrease its revenue when it finally did go to the ballot.
Commissioners and Port staff mostly dismissed the substance of the opposition in their deliberation. When Wan was asked by Commissioners to respond to the arguments against, for example on the confusion, Wan repeated claims that there would be no confusion without apparently elaborating further.
“There is no confusion, I fail to see the confusion there…it's an industry in which having the same common geographic name is very, very common,” Wan said.
Wan also dismissed concerns about the relationship of the name change to the expansion project.
“The projection of airport volume for that project is based on a 35 year horizon. And it is based on projections based on historical sort of flight patterns and patching patterns and projected into also the Bay Area expansion itself as a whole bay area, not just airport specific. And so has nothing to do with what we're talking about today, which is marketing and rebranding our airport image in order to attract port routes, more diversity and option of service to the airport. It is not in itself an environmental inducing proposal,” Wan said.
After the vote, Leslie asked for the second vote required for the ordinance to come later in May, to give Commissioners time to hear from community members. Although bodies rarely reverse on a second vote confirmation, it is potentially possible.
Worried Public Safety Committee Grapples with Historically Low Academy Yield, Graying Police Force, Extended Leave
The Council’s Public Safety Committee appeared visibly alarmed at news from OPD on Tuesday that the current OPD academy has only 14 trainees left a month before graduation. The low academy yield follows a pattern of small class graduations over the past three academies. A month ago in a similar briefing, the Committee was told that the class had 17 trainees, down from a starting class of 22. But since then, trainees have left at a rate of 1 per week.
Council Member Treva Reid said the current academy enrollment was one of the lowest numbers she could remember.
“That's a very low graduating class, I feel like it's the lowest graduating class that we've had. And I don't know if that's a potential trend that we should anticipate with those on medical leave and potentially retiring. But that certainly is a concern,” Reid said.
The number is so low, that freshman CM Janani Ramachandran wondered aloud if it was a product of an official policy change.
“Was there a policy shift in your understanding that made us recruit smaller classes for any reason? Or because this is quite a shift from 30 to 40 plus graduates we had before,” Ramachandran asked OPD staff.
OPD’s Kiona Suttle was up front about the issues facing police recruitment.
“We along with other law enforcement agencies have had a difficult time recruiting people into our academies,” Suttle said.
The trend has been notable in OPD’s recent recruitment and spans administrations. The last four OPD academies have graduated an average of 19 officers, significantly lower than academy graduations in previous years that were often in the high 20s and 30s. The current graduation is, as Reid noted, even significantly lower than that, and may end as one of the lowest academy graduations in the past decade. While the OPD representatives and Committee members characterized the current number as the final graduating class number in their calculations for staffing, trainees may still drop out before now and the date of graduation and the number could get even lower before the academy graduates in May.
OPD is also encountering an increasingly graying force building up potential retirements. Last year, the number of officers who had reached retirement age was 84, this year, it’s 91, according to Tuesday's OPD report. And at any time, about 10% of OPD’s police force are on administrative, medical, personal or medical leave.
Regardless of the low graduation count, OPD may still end up with more staff than it is currently budgeted for. Mayor Sheng Thao’s budget called for–and Council supported—an uncharacteristic lowball staffing level with the potential for low yield academies.
In 2021, a mass catastrophic attrition by OPD officers, many fleeing a mandatory Covid vaccination policy, caused pushback against Council’s budgetary decision to lower the number of academies given the high cost of each academy and lower yield over the past several years to four—each academy costs around five million per year, and the addition of two potential academies in 2021 added about $11 MM to the OPD budget according to statements from former City Administrator Ed Reiskin.
Comments ()