OTHER ARTICLES IN THIS SECTION
5/22/2003
- Hundreds watch firefighters battle to save piece of history
- Healthcare district fills vacant seat
- Senator hopes to clean dirty school bathrooms
- Deficit snooze
- Merger stirs fears at Adult School
- Senate to look into ruling on North Coast logging
- House, Senate strike deal on tax cut
- Woman testifies man invaded home
- Arrested men intended to hijack plane
- EXPLOSION RATTLES YALE
- Whitman's rocky tenure at EPA to end in June
- With SARS cases down, China to reopen some schools
- Bush nets $22 million for GOP campaigns
- Oregon prepares to offer tuition to illegal immigrants
- Algerian quake kills hundreds
- Ruben Studdard croons to victory in 'American Idol'
- The County
- Animal rescuers charged in probe of tiger deaths
SFO kills runway project
Airport director blames demise
By Justin Jouvenal, STAFF WRITER

SAN FRANCISCO -- After five years and $75 million, the politically charged and controversial plan to fill up to a square mile of the Bay for new runways at San Francisco International Airport is dead, airport officials announced Wednesday.

The project, which environmentalists called an ecological disaster and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown looked on as his legacy, was a victim of the airport's financial woes and heavy political turbulence.

Airport Director John Martin said he would shut down the Airfield Development Bureau at the end of June after a panel of scientists reviews the quality of environmental studies and engineering on the project. Martin will not request any money for the project next year.

"It has become evident that neither the political will nor economics exist to pursue the Airfield Development Program at San Francisco International Airport at this time," Martin wrote in a letter to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

The move came as San Francisco's budget

analyst released a scathing management audit of SFO's Airfield Development Bureau that called for its dissolution.

The report found:

- The bureau paid out "questionable fees" to a number of consultants, including a telephone bill of $4,686.60 for one person for one month, a flight between SFO and Washington, D.C. costing $4,252 and $1,039 for gifts on a trip to Asia.

- The bureau tried to sway public opinion in favor of building runways when it should have been presenting objective data on the runways in literature and at public meetings.

- The bureau paid $100,000 for a report titled "Situation Analysis Report on Santa Clara County" that Rose wrote "appears to be a form of opposition research, which offers strategies for promoting the expansion of the airport."

- The airport withheld and delayed critical information from the audit team.

San Francisco Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who pushed for the audit, had strong words for the airport. He said the bureau had spent like "drunken sailors."

"(The runway project) became a feeding frenzy for consultants and political hacks," Peskin said. "This is the kind of thing that public agencies that are accountable to the people should not be engaged in. It is inappropriate to use private funds to sell a political agenda."

Peskin plans to hold a hearing on the management audit. Kandace Bender, a deputy airport director and former spokeswoman for the runway project, strongly disputed the findings of the report.

"I think it's very difficult to make an assessment of a project of this magnitude in such a short period of time," she said.

She said the $4,600 phone bill arose when the airport was making daily conference calls with a number of consultants on the runway project. One consultant charged all the calls on his credit card.

And she denied the airport tried to sway public opinion toward runways, saying "To this day, the airport has never expressed a preference for runways."

Increasing fire

The runway project had come under increasing fire in recent months. At a budget hearing Friday, San Francisco Supervisors all but told Martin they would not fund the project next year. Martin had asked for $5 million in funding over the next two years to finish scientific studies.

But in the wake of the turbulent hearing and discussions with airport commissioners, Martin decided it was time to shelve the project.

Supervisors said it became increasing hard to justify spending millions of dollars on the runway project as SFO's finances dove into the red and airport traffic plummeted from 40 million passengers a year in 2000 to about 32 million today.

Supervisors also chafed at what they called lavish spending for consultants, which touched off the management audit.

Peskin said it's time to reassess the airport's finances, as SFO faces mounting debt. He said nearly 60 percent of the airport's roughly $580 million budget goes toward debt financing.

As if to underscore Peskin's point, Fitch Ratings downgraded the airport's credit rating on $4.2 billion in bonds Wednesday because of the drop in passenger traffic and the United Airlines bankruptcy.

SFO began the runway project in 1998 as the airport faced some of the nation's worst airport delays. In bad weather, SFO must shut down one of its narrowly spaced arrival runways for safety reasons.

Consultants were studying a handful of different runway configurations, as well as "no build" alternatives that included new technology and cutting flights to ease delays.

Continued division

From the start, the project touched off sharp disagreements. Business groups said the airport's growth was necessary for the continued economic growth of the Bay Area. But environmentalists said the project would be incredibly destructive to the fragile ecosystem of the Bay.

The divisions continued Wednesday.

"What's the $75 million legacy?" asked David Lewis, executive director of Save the Bay. "It makes it harder for the airport or any other developer to get approval for massive landfill in the Bay."

Others said the move to end the project was shortsighted.

"There's still no long-term solution to delays," said Michael Cunningham, vice president of transportation for the Bay Area Council. "I hope no one has forgotten how bad it was a couple of years ago because that's what we're headed back to."

Martin did leave the door open to restart the runway project in the future.

"It is my personal and professional belief that the demand for greater capacity at SFO will return," Martin wrote to the Board of Supervisors. "When and if this occurs, the airport will return to the Board of Supervisors to commence environmental work on airfield development."