top of page


Help us reduce airplane noise and increase safety in our communities by joining us against the Airport and Livermore City Expansion plan!
Keep the airport small and lower the noise.


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

Next Up: June 2023 Livermore Airport Development Policy PUBLIC COMMENTS IGNORED

Signup on our website for more info coming:
Critical Dates for plan approval -- Please attend with your comments:
June 5 - Airport Commission Meeting to approve  6:30pm - William H. Mendenhall Community Room
June 26 - Livermore City Council Meeting -- Staff to present for Approval

(please email your comment ASAP - see emails below)

Amended Policy Ignores Most Critical Public Comments:

Given the 100’s of comments on the policy, it appears that the majority were ignored by the Livermore Airport Staff.

“Noise” is now mentioned briefly; fails to specify any standards, limits, metrics.


The Policy continues to ignore the 2010 resolution. Same as last draft: nothing regarding only existing demand, nothing regarding no large cargo operator, nothing regarding no extending the runways, nothing regarding aggressive noise reduction. Section 1.2 claims it supports those objectives, then the Policy proceeds to ignore them.

Repeated requests to Livermore Airport Staff to review comments/responses to the policy have been ignored?


Send your comments to:, , , , , , , ,


  • Fails to implement the Livermore City Council Resolution of March 23, 2010 "The city will AGGRESSIVELY FOSTER the REDUCTION of aircraft NOISE" (emphasis mine)

  1. There is nothing in the Airport Development Policy about this. Nothing. Just pointing to the resolution is not an implementation plan/policy.

  2. How will review of development proposals evaluate noise impacts, how will the new development proposals aggressively foster the reduction of aircraft noise?

  3. What are the standards, the requirements, the goals?

            The Airport Development Policy doesn't have a single implementation policy about this.

            Mayor Marchand – you approved the 2010 resolution as a councilor – staff are explicitly not putting in steps to implement the policy – is that your expectation?


  • Public is in the dark, little transparency:

    • Section added on applicant providing some vague way to inform the public (undefined). Completely subjective and far too late in the process – and inform only – no comments or input from the public allowed!

    • Also, the policy requires it only for “a project that would noticeably increase aircraft activity, vehicle traffic, noise to surrounding neighbors” – who decides? How? Based on what? Not specified. “Noticeably” is vague and subjective. The incentive for airport and applicant is to deem a project does not noticeably increase noise, whereupon this policy says there’s no notification requirement.

      • The June revision section 2.4 says the applicant submits a Public Engagement Plan to the City of Livermore. It does not specify what criteria the City will use to accept or reject the plan. What is acceptable public engagement? What is required? Not specified.

    • Public should be notified and COMMENT at every stage of the process (Interest, MOU, Concept Plan, etc) and able to provide feedback at that time. 

      Otherwise by the time it gets to the Airport Commission or Council the whole deal is already done.

    • Information Secrecy: All information must be provided publicly without NDA/confidential at all stages ( except for any financial information ).  We saw this with the Kaiser deal where all documents were not made public or “missing”.


      June revision section 2.6 still there

  • Noise impacts:  ignored in the document, although new policies and guidelines are provided on garbage cans – No new noise mitigation plans are required for applicants and how they will “aggressively foster reduction in noise”  This is the big issue!

    • June revision adds mention of noise but provides no standards, no specifics. Pretends that the existing noise is OK. Thus no reduction goal, at most a hand-wavy goal not to increase. Still fails to support the 2010 resolution, which calls for aggressive reduction. It’s also placed under Social not Environmental, which is minimizing: noise is an environmental issue, not just happy talk.


      June revision Section 2.9. Possible Grounds for Rejecting an Application or Proposal: still has a dozen reasons to reject a proposal but not one of them mentions noise.


      Overall, the June revision adds brief mentions of noise; it still has more to say about garbage cans. It’s still specific on what’s acceptable for garbage cans. It is real vague about what’s acceptable for noise.

  • The City Initiative:  (where the city can put out an RFI/RFP/RFQ) is worded whenever there is “land/improvement available” – this is in direct contradiction to the 2010 City resolution that explicitly indicates only when “existing demand” with “tangible evidence” - and the city does not make this determination – it is the Airport Advisory Commission that does. Likewise “Encourage imaginative and innovative development of land” (section 1.2) is hardly consistent with meet existing demand. And yet they claim in that same section “The above objectives reflect the Airport Development Priorities established by the Livermore City Council in 2010 through Resolution number 2010-058”; no, they do not.

  • Your voice is critical – please send your comments to:

  • Signup on our website for more info coming:

Take Action Today!

Please Subscribe to stay informed and get updates.

(Your email info will not be given out)

Thanks for submitting!



Make a Difference Today

Livermore Airport Citizen's Group (LACG) is an organization comprised of concerned Tri-Valley residents. The group is dedicated to helping residents in Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton have a voice in the decision making process for  Livermore airport expansion plans. 

LACG's objectives are two fold

1) Stop expansion of Livermore airport which includes addition of new Fixed Base Operators (FBOs)/Large Jet Operations

2) Alleviate noise and flight path concerns of residents by working on a community outreach program with local small plane pilots.



As LVK is a public use airport the number of flights, time of flight etc cannot be restricted. Preventing a new FBO is the only way to stop further expansion. Once approved the carrier gets to decide if they want to follow guidelines voluntarily or change their mind at a later date.

Other carriers may also follow once the FBO is built and there is nothing that can be done to stop this once approval goes through. Currently even though B737s are allowed at the airport, no B737s or other large jets call LVK their home due to lack of hangars, maintenance facilities etc. The approval aims to change just that. Once facilities are built, Livermore may become an attractive option compared to OAK or SJC. 


There are plenty of studies showing ill effect of noise on people, especially our children. The 737s have tested at 89 DBs which is higher than city, state and CEQA limits. 89 DBs is considered as harmful to humans. As there are no restrictions on number of flights that could be imposed we could be subjected to this throughout the day and weekend. The California noise control act sets noise above 80 DBs as considered harmful to humans. Click here for a study showing effects of noise pollution.


Several studies have shown negative correlation between property values and growth of an airport. On average property values decreased 5-9% and sometimes by larger amounts. While the charter company is able to save and increase their profits the taxpayer will suffer by losing value on her/his home, a major investment for many. The airport commission being a public interest organization is planning without input of residents who will be most impacted by this change


It is very clear that the airport's approach towards resident's concern of noise management is "live with it". Even though flight paths clearly showing neighborhoods to be avoided has been established years ago it is rarely followed or enforced.  Noise abatement measures, noise studies, proactively working with residents to make our towns more pleasant is virtually non existent. The airport meeting minutes speak for themselves.  We have requested help but there has been zero outreach from the airport to mitigate current issues. 

If Livermore airport is unable to manage noise for a small number of planes and keep the neighborhoods pleasant, how can we trust them to manage larger jets which can have a worse impact on quality of life?


In 2020 Livermore airport had several safety issues and near misses (all available in meeting minutes). Near misses are not a lagging but a leading indicator. History of non adherence to previously established flight paths and B737 seems like a bad combination in case of any emergency over our schools and homes


The airport commission is a public interest organization, yet behaves like a privately run business. The impacted people are not being involved and decisions are made without their knowledge. The residents of Tri-Valley already expressed their views firmly more than a decade ago - "No further jet expansion" and yet here we are years later. The sad truth is that many of us would have never found out about this had it not been for excellent reporting by The Independent, KPIX (CBS) San Francisco, KRON4 and East Bay Times.



We have to spread the word to a lot of people within a limited amount of time. Volunteer to help spread the word within your neighborhood or a block or even your street

Click here if you would like to volunteer. Thank you for your consideration


To get in touch with the Livermore Airport Citizen's Group, please fill out the form to the right or email:

Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page