SAY NO TO LIVERMORE, CA (LVK) AIRPORT EXPANSION and REDUCE THE NOISE

Your involvement made a difference - Kaiser 737 Jetport defeated.  Thank you!

​

Next Up: July 10th Livermore Airport Development Policy - Most PUBLIC COMMENTS IGNORED

 

July 10th 7 pm - Livermore City Council Meeting -- Staff to present for Approval
(please email your comment ASAP - see emails addresses below)
 

Signup on our website for more info coming:  https://www.livermoreairportnoise.org/
 

July 2023 Livermore Airport Development Policy Changes - Still NOT listening to the citizens
 

Amended Policy, some progress –  Still Ignores Many Critical Public Comments --
 

https://www.livermoreca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/9957/638215679640430000

 

Key issues with Actions for council's consideration in the latest draft:

 

1. Noise controls not “aggressively”  implemented in the policy. These are easy to implement, and will lower noise. For example, the Airport Development Policy should add:

   1.  All tenants and their leases,etc will attend a semi-annual training on noise mitigation including flight paths, procedures etc (when safe)

   2. All tenants will in writing acknowledge the voluntary curfew and suggested flight paths and mitigation procedures  (when safe)

   3. All tenants will be required to sign a "good neighbor pledge" to the above.   (there may be no legal recourse if they "break" the pledge -- but it sends a clear signal that noise is taken very seriously by Livermore and be part of our community).

   4.  If a tenant violates the voluntary night curfew more than X times, they will have additional training.  3rd time around a meeting with the airport manager/director etc. 5th time the Mayor.

   5. All tenants must have a 20” x 34” sign clearly visible in each building/hanger with the noise mitigation recommendations by the Airport Management (i.e. curfew hours, best practices, recommend flight paths (when safe)) 

   6. Tenants (and all planes)  that violate the voluntary curfew will be published monthly in the livermore airport monthly newsletter.
      
      Council Member Barrientos – you asked – what can be done about noise? – putting the above would be a good step in the right direction.
       

2. MOU process keeps public completely in the dark with little recourse afterwards.:

   1. After MOU with City leaders, all focus is on passing and getting the “deal done”, with NO incentive to impartially assess the deal.  Full transparency required at onsite of approaching the city.

   2. Document secrecy: Language should be inserted: 
      - Other than financial documents, all documents and communications will be available to the public.  Otherwise we will have another “Kaiser situation” where all documents were deemed “NDA” – no transparency.

   3. Public comment – the public has no vehicle to provide input that can result in any action (other than at the council meeting). 
      
      The airport commission is not an unbiased, fair commission that has EVER revised any policy, or direction from non aviation public comment in the past 25 years.
      
      There needs to be another vehicle for public comment that is unbiased and not directed by the aviation industry and takes into account the 300,000 impacted citizens.

 

1. Council Member Branning requested that allowing “small air cargo” in section 1.2 be taken out of the document.  Staff instead took out all instances of air cargo – including in section 2.9 – where large air cargo was previously a reason to reject an application! Now,  large air cargo is no longer a reason for rejection?
   
   Q: Why did airport management now have that large air cargo is not a valid reason for rejection?  Council member did not ask for this.
    

2. Removes the requirement for “existing” demand requirement

   1. in the same section 1.2 – applicants no longer have to show “existing” demand, just demand – which could be future demand created by the actual project i.e. build an FBO facility so that it will attract cargo traffic?  This is also inconsistent with the 2010 resolution that states “existing demand”
       

3. “Discourage applications not consistent with the 2010 resolution” - Council member Branning (?) requested this language – this is strong language
   
   Instead the new version is: “Encourage development consistent with the ….2010 resolution”
   
   Why did staff change this to “encourage”?  This has a very different meaning...and impact.
    

4. Deleted in section 7.5 where applicant was asked to:

     "Please provide a detailed description as to how the proposed

      development/redevelopment meets the following objectives [2010 resolution and more]

This is a very big change – why isn’t the applicant providing this anymore?
 

5. Lead Poisoning of our Children is ignored in the Policy

Why? How much are our children worth to the City of Livermore?
 

 

Send your comments to:  LivermoreCityCouncil@LivermoreCA.gov, smlanphier@livermoreca.gov , mmusca@livermoreca.gov , cityclerk@livermoreca.gov , citycouncil@cityofpleasantonca.gov , council@dublin.ca.gov , editor@pleasantonweekly.com , editor@independentnews.com ,  lacg@livermoreairportnoise.org , arhescher@LivermoreCA.gov

• Signup on our website for more info coming:  https://www.livermoreairportnoise.org/