![\"A](\"https:\/\/oaknorth.wpenginepowered.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/oak1.jpg\")
Delta Airlines employee Suni Oldie <\/p>\nImagine hearing the whine of heavy machinery, metal groaning and bulldozers rattling within earshot of your home, an area that already has significant environmental pollution.\u00a0<\/p>\n
This may be the reality for residents who live near the Oakland San Francisco Bay Airport, where a five-year expansion has been proposed. The project, which is still in the planning phase, includes modernizing terminals 1 and 2, building more than 1,000 new parking spaces, upgrading ground equipment, and adding 16 gates to the 29 currently in use.\u00a0<\/p>\n
While the project is intended to meet an anticipated growing demand for air travel in the Bay Area and create thousands of construction jobs, resident and environmental groups say it would be harmful to those living near the airport, primarily, East Oaklanders. The Port of Oakland, which oversees the airport, says the project would improve the passenger experience. But residents and community groups are concerned about an increase of air, car and freight traffic.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Three lawsuits are challenging the proposed development plan. The cases \u2014 by Communities for a Better Environment and the Sierra Club, the Stop OAK Expansion Coalition, and Advocates for a Better Environment \u2014 were consolidated and are scheduled for trial on Tuesday in Alameda County Superior Court. They say the airport\u2019s environmental impact report is lacking, especially in its assessment of how the project will affect the community\u2019s health.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In its suit, Communities for a Better Environment said the inadequacy of the report is troubling because of the many environmental stressors already in East Oakland, \u201ca predominantly Black and Latino low-income community that due to racist zoning and planning policies has experienced decades of heavy pollution from aviation, industrial facilities, freeways, and more.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
The expansion is expected to possibly double the number of travelers using OAK. The existing terminals were designed to accommodate 8 to 10 million annual passengers. However, more than 13 million annual passengers traveled through the airport in 2019.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The project has not reached the design and build phase, so a preliminary cost is not yet available. According to Kaley Skantz, the airport\u2019s spokesperson, no timeline has been disclosed either, because the proposal will need to go through an environmental review process. The next step would be getting the project approved by the Board of Port Commissioners.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Travelers are divided on the need.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Oakland Airport is becoming outdated,\u201d said Tammie Gipson, of Stockton, who was waiting for her husband inside the airport on a Friday in February. \u201cThere\u2019s limited natural light and minimal open gathering spaces. I think an expansion would be great if it provides more jobs for the community.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Diana Ortiz, traveling to visit her granddaughter last month, said the airport\u2019s size makes it easy to get through security, but the shared drop-off and pick-up area gets congested during high-traffic hours, when cars, shuttles and pedestrians can create gridlock. Ortiz, of Patterson, said the cost of a flight is what factors most in her decision to use an airport.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cI think the only advantage of an expansion is bringing in more flights and carrier options,\u201d she said. \u201cBut if we can\u2019t bring in new airline carriers with what we currently have, the expansion is going to be a waste of money.\u201d<\/p>\n
For Paola Bustos, of San Francisco, a wider variety of restaurants, stores and bars would make OAK her primary travel option.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Delta Airlines employee Suni Oldie <\/p>\n
\u201cIf they are strategic and intentional with the expansion, I think it can really be beneficial for travelers and the economic growth of the bay,\u201d Bustos said.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Others said they are not convinced that bigger means better.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019ve been traveling here for years,\u201d said Suni Oldie, a Utah resident and Delta Airlines employee. \u201cIt would suck if this were another SFO, because San Francisco\u2019s airport is pretty busy. I like how it is now, it\u2019s more quiet.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cOAK airport never overstimulates me the way that SFO does,\u201d said Joshua Barba, a Patterson resident who was picking up his aunt. \u201cWhen I\u2019m in SFO, I feel like I have to walk a distance before arriving anywhere.\u201d<\/p>\n
Protecting Alameda<\/p>\n
In its development plan, the airport says regional passenger levels<\/a> are expected to reach 105 million by 2038 without an expansion, but plaintiffs in the lawsuit say there is little evidence showing an increase in passenger traffic.\u00a0The airport\u2019s monthly activity report <\/a>shows total passenger traffic, both departing and arriving, was about 15% lower in 2025 than in 2024.<\/p>\n The Port of Oakland used passenger traffic volume from 2019 as its baseline to predict future growth. That baseline was not adjusted to reflect changes following the COVID-19 pandemic, when business travel declined in favor of virtual meeting spaces, the plaintiffs say.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe Port abused its discretion by continuing, without explanation, to use a 2019 baseline for OAK passenger levels when new post-pandemic data showed that OAK Passenger behavior had fundamentally changed,\u201d the Stop OAK Expansion Coalition argued in its 2024 lawsuit against the project.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Port reached a settlement with Alameda and Citizens League for Airport Safety and Serenity in March 2025 over noise control during the construction phase. This also gave Bay Farm residents and Alameda officials a voice in some modernization decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n Under the agreement, construction will hold off during evenings and early mornings. Traffic control measures will address congestion in Alameda and direct airport traffic away from that city. Air quality will be monitored and reported to mitigate pollution concerns.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe are deeply appreciative of the continued partnership with CLASS and the City of Alameda and the joint commitment to finding common ground,\u201d Kristi McKenney, executive director of the Port of Oakland, said in a March 2025 news release<\/a>. \u201cThis is an important step as we seek to modernize the airport and be responsive to the needs of our local communities.\u201d<\/p>\n East Oakland was left out of the agreement, according to Communities for a Better Environment, which has been trying to get the airport to address noise levels there.<\/p>\n \u201cThe settlement included protections for the wealthier, more white community residents while including no protections for those residents who are Black, brown and deep east,\u201d said Ruby Acevedo, a senior staff attorney for Communities of a Better Environment.\u00a0<\/p>\n Asked to address the group\u2019s concern, port spokesman Justin Berton said, \u201cNo changes that would impact East Oakland or Fruitvale have been recommended or put forward by OAK.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n East Oakland in flight path<\/p>\n Since 2013, noise abatement procedures agreed to by the port instruct pilots taking off to the northwest to turn toward San Leandro Bay, which routes flights over the Fruitvale and East Oakland neighborhoods.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cFor years they had been already abusing East Oakland and Fruitvale to avoid making noise over Alameda,\u201d said David Foecke, a member of the Stop OAK Expansion Coalition, \u201cNow the CLASS organization and the city of Alameda have managed to make the Port\u2019s environmental injustice legally enforceable.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The lawsuits demand that the Port conduct a health impact assessment before beginning construction. The project\u2019s Environmental Impact Report<\/a> included a health risk assessment, but environmentalists point out it was conducted by an engineering firm rather than public health officials.\u00a0<\/p>\n According to the lawsuit that was filed by Communities for a Better Environment, the Port\u2019s Environmental Impact Report violates the California Environmental Quality Act and fails to disclose health impacts associated with the project\u2019s air emissions.\u00a0<\/p>\n The coalitions say the project amounts to a multitude of environmental injustices including the Port\u2019s failure to adequately analyze the health impacts to East Oaklanders.\u00a0<\/p>\n In a community where pollution is already high, the project could double airport emissions.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIf the project is approved and increases flights to the levels projected in the [draft] EIR, the project would nearly double passenger enplanements at OAK from 2024 to 2038. The accompanying pollution would also massively expand,\u201d Communities for a Better Environment said in a 2024 report<\/a>.<\/p>\n Community health hazards <\/p>\n Cut off by redlining and divided by freeways, Sobrante Park is one of the most vulnerable neighborhoods of East Oakland because of its proximity to the airport, which is eight minutes away by car. Its residents contend with higher levels of soot in the air because of Interstate 580 and 880, along with numerous industrial facilities.\u00a0<\/p>\n Dr. Mark Jacobson, a clinician, educator, and researcher from UCSF, explained that exposure to departing and landing jets poses the greatest threat to those who work nearby or live under the flight paths of Oakland airport. This is because aircrafts release significant amounts of ultrafine carbon particles<\/a> through their exhaust.\u00a0<\/p>\n According to Jacobson, these particles enter the body through the lungs and reach the bloodstream, which eventually leads to all organs. Exposure induces cough, worsens asthma, and causes systematic inflammation.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cBecause prevailing winds in East Oakland go from west to east, much of that jet exhaust is going primarily over East Oakland,\u201d said Jacobson.\u00a0<\/p>\n East Oakland has some of the highest rates of asthma in California, and the Stop OAK Expansion Coalition says the proposed expansion would dramatically increase toxic pollutants from planes, heavy-duty trucks, cars, airport equipment and fuel storage pipelines.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Final Environmental Impact Report <\/a>states that the project would generate significant and unavoidable health impacts to airport workers, which the Port has proposed mitigating but \u201cdoes not have authority to regulate.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n In December, OAK reported receiving 2,609 noise complaints, with 2,012 coming from Oakland, the highest among all communities. Air traffic is projected to rise with an expansion, which would lead to greater noise exposure. Lockwood Gardens, Havenscourt, Arroyo Vista, Castlemont, Eastmont and Webster receive the brunt of the nighttime noise.\u00a0<\/p>\n Jacobson noted that noise affects sleep. He said that increases the risk of diabetes and heart disease. That\u2019s important, he added, because East Oakland neighborhoods have a high rate of heart attack deaths.\u00a0<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/oaknorth.wpenginepowered.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/oak2.jpg\")
Oakland San Francisco Bay Airport (All airport photos by Natalie Villanueva)<\/p>\n![\"Oakland](\"https:\/\/oaknorth.wpenginepowered.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/oakland-skyline-1200-1024x683.jpg\")
Oakland skyline with the port and Bay Bridge in the background (file photo)<\/p>\n