Like it or not, airport moves toward EIR Like it or not, airport moves toward EIR (September 03, 2004)

by Jeb Bing

T he carefully crafted Livermore Airport Advisory Committee is in danger of coming unglued after just two meetings, and with good reason. Organized by the Livermore City Council to sort through and reconcile differences among its own residents and the cities of Pleasanton and Dublin to a major airport expansion proposal, the committee is becoming increasingly polarized over procedures, mission and membership. The committee started out with four members from each of the three cities, with the Livermore Council also hand-picking as co-chairs its own Councilwoman Lorraine Dietrich and insurance executive Cecil Brewer, who represents the business community. Then it added a few more of its own, including five pilots, raising the number of committee members to an unwieldy 21. The Council asked for a recommendation on the expansion plans by early December.

So far, there's been mostly commentary, including Brewer's quick rebuff of a motion by Pleasanton Councilwoman Jennifer Hosterman, who called for a vote on her recommendation to ask the Livermore Council to conduct a new environmental impact report on the expansion plan. Once the impact of more jets and propeller-driven smaller planes over housing in the three cities has been determined by an independent study, the advisory group could reassemble to fine-tune the expansion plan. Brewer ruled that Hosterman's bid was out of order and refused to call for a vote, but Hosterman plans to try again at another committee meeting scheduled for next Wednesday. Actually, Hosterman's plan makes sense. The Pleasanton Council has already threatened legal action to block any airport expansion before an EIR is conducted, something Livermore Mayor Marshall Kamena and his Council have rejected as being too costly and time-consuming, Besides, they have argued, not much has changed since the last EIR 20 years ago.

Those of us who have sat through these lengthy, argumentative meetings wonder what the rush is all about. Although the expansion plans call for more hangars, another long runway and more airport-related businesses to serve an annual number of flights projected at 370,000 by 2020, the volume of traffic at Livermore has steadily been declining. Livermore's peak year was more than a decade ago in 1993 when annual flights at this municipally owned airport numbered 282,621. Last year, actual operations totaled 191,952. With jet fuel approaching $3 a gallon at Livermore Airport and the average business jet getting less than 2 miles per gallon, some companies are selling off or cutting back on corporate owned planes. Advisory Committee member Alie Shargh of PeopleSoft said his company doesn't need jet space at Livermore. Like other large companies in the Tri-Valley, PeopleSoft relies increasingly on teleconferencing and e-mail to save executives and vendors the cost and time of travel.

Still, the expansion plan as detailed in the airport's new Master Plan raises concerns. Contra Costa County's Buchanan Field could be moved; Reid-Hillview in Santa Clara County is overcrowded; companies with business jets and the increasingly popular corporate jet rental services at Oakland, SFO and San Jose are always looking for hangar space at less crowded airports. The Livermore expansion plan also calls for the development of nearly 400 acres for more hangars and airport related businesses, including at least one hangar that could be up to 160 feet tall, as big as some of the largest hangars at the Oakland airport. And by taking federal money to fund the expansion, Livermore could also come increasingly under the control of the FAA, losing some of its independence as a municipal airport. Completing a new EIR is the best way to analyze these impacts so the Tri-Valley communities and their leaders know exactly what we are getting into.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.