SFO's secret runways
Why can't the public see key environmental reports on the airport's expansion plans?

By Rachel Brahinsky

The federal government is refusing to make public draft reports on San Francisco International Airport's runway expansion plan – even though environmentalists say the documents are covered by the city's sunshine law.

The reports – paid for in part by the city – examine how the plan could affect air quality, traffic patterns, and recreational activities and are supposed to measure the impacts of new runways by environmental justice standards.

The fight over opening the documents is central in the pitched battle over whether to expand the runways, which could require filling in 1,000 acres of the bay – an area twice the size of Treasure Island. The draft reports could influence public support for the runway proposal – and the decision on whether to release them could also set a precedent for how freely the federal government can exercise its will and enforce secrecy when it participates in local projects.

Proponents of the expansion argue that new, larger runways are the only remedy for fog-induced delays at the crowded airfield. But green-minded opponents say technological fixes and coordinating with other Bay Area airports could solve the delay problem with less negative impact.

The reports, which might provide crucial evidence in that debate, are being prepared by San Francisco-based consulting firm URS Corp. on behalf of a multiagency task force that includes SFO officials and representatives from the city's Office of Environmental Review and the Federal Aviation Administration. The final draft is expected in the fall.

The Alliance for a Clean Waterfront and San Francisco Baykeeper contend that they need to see the environmental reports now, in early draft form, because they can't trust the government to publish an honest final version.

"My experience with government agencies when they do environmental reviews is that they understand the political implications and that senior management massages what it should say," said attorney Alan Ramo, director of the Environmental Law and Justice Clinic and attorney for the environmental coalition. "So our concern is that there may be important scientific information that reveals the flaw of the proposed project that will never see the light of day unless we see the original documents."

The city, however, has deferred to the FAA, which contends that under an agreement between the city and the FAA, the records belong to the federal government. Federal law allows agencies broad discretion over what are called "pre-decisional" documents, such as the draft reports. The local sunshine law is more liberal and allows public access to early drafts to encourage maximum participation.

However, Ramo and his clients won a key ruling April 23 from the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, which agreed that the city law applies. The sunshine panel demanded that the city release the draft reports in five days.

Central to its decision was the question of ownership. Task force member Joshua Koltun asked why the FAA could claim the documents belong to that agency, even though the city is paying part of the bill. According to airport spokesperson Kandace Bender, the city is paying about $2.5 million for the URS research; the FAA, she said, is paying $7.5 million. The city is spending a total of $23 million on all of the required airport studies, some of which have been released to the coalition.

City officials could not clarify why the records belong to the FAA, other than to say that it was true because the FAA said so. "The FAA has repeatedly instructed SFO that they aren't to release the records," deputy city attorney Dorji Roberts told the sunshine task force.

Under pressure from the sunshine panel, the city sent a letter to the FAA April 26 urging it to "reexamine this issue and rescind its directive that the city not release the documents." But FAA spokesperson Jerry Snyder indicated that the agency doesn't believe the sunshine task force has the authority. "It has been determined through our Freedom of Information Act process that those documents are exempt from disclosure, and we'll maintain that position," he told us. "I'm sure this will go further into a matter of litigation."

Any ruling could have a major impact on city and federal policy, Ramo said. "The city [specifically the airport and the Planning Commission] tried a way to run around the Sunshine Ordinance," he told us. "The maneuver is to use the federal agencies to basically launder the documents so they are no longer releasable. If that maneuver is successful, they will do it every time. Every major polluter in San Francisco in one way or another is covered by federal law and has to deal with a federal agency. Every major project affects the air or the bay and needs a federal permit." That includes the bridges, the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, and the Potrero Hill power plant expansion proposal.

If FAA officials remain staunch and the city won't defy them, Ramo said, the coalition might ask to send the matter to the San Francisco district attorney or the state attorney general for investigation. Another option is to take the feds to court.

Wherever the case goes, both sides will likely have to determine who created the multiagency task force to see which open-access laws are implicated, California First Amendment Coalition general counsel Terry Francke told us. "If the airport commission created the task force, then there would be a very forceful argument that either the Brown Act [the state open-meeting law] or the Sunshine Ordinance [applies]," he said. "Unless it's required by law, the FAA may be an important and vital partner, but it may not be the FAA's show."

At the same sunshine task force meeting, there were two other hearings. The task force issued determinations that the city's Recreation and Park Department has violated the sunshine law on several occasions and asked the Ethics Commission for an investigation. The panel also heard complaints against the Library Commission and agreed that the commission has violated the sunshine law repeatedly but is now in compliance. E-mail Rachel Brahinsky at rachel@sfbg.com.