|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A proposed policy for the Livermore Municipal Airport remains under consideration following the most recent City Council meeting, with city staff being directed to make revisions and continue discussions on the matter at a future meeting.
Following nearly two hours of discussion on the draft airport development and leasing policy on Monday (June 26), Livermore councilmembers voted unanimously to continue discussions on the item at a future meeting and to incorporate some revisions to the proposed policy.
Livermore city staff first recommended that the council approve the proposed policy on June 5, prior to being requested to attend a Pleasanton City Council meeting on June 6 for additional feedback on the policy and ongoing debates surrounding the airport.
The proposed policy on the table at this week’s Livermore council meeting included revisions spurred by extensive feedback on a draft policy that was made available to Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin residents between March 6 and April 23, which included 120 comments from 30 residents, as well as input from all three city councils.
Revisions included addressing concerns with noise and airport growth, and bolstering environmental review and public input requirements, according to city staff.
Airport manager Michael Musca presented the most recent proposed policy on Monday evening, ahead of a public comment period and discussion from the council resulting in their decision to continue talks at a future meeting.
Musca emphasized that the item on the table that night was a policy document only — aimed at guiding future development and changes at the airport, rather than initiating any substantial changes itself.
“There’s no development proposed at the airport and the policy does not change zoning or the airport master plan, and it does not call for or allow for airport expansion,” Musca said. “The policy provides clear goals, objectives and development criteria to evaluate development proposals. It requires consistency with the 2010-058 resolution. It requires public outreach, Airport Commission review and of course City Council approval.”
“It also discourages large-scale air cargo operators,” Musca continued. “There is no runway expansion proposed, and it does include noise reduction efforts. There are additional revisions that are included in the supplemental to address noise, leaded fuel, and public participation issues.”
The public comment portion of the meeting following Musca’s presentation included 18 comments that extended for more than an hour.
While concerns continued to center on the use of leaded fuel, as well as other ongoing points of contention from critics of the airport including noise, some voiced support for the municipal airport and its role supporting private pilots and pilots in training.
“You don’t know what a great asset we have with the Livermore Airport out in this valley,” Bob Tucknott said in a public comment. “I’ve been flying 50-plus years. I’ve been in a lot of airports. I’ve been a tenant at the port of Oakland airport, Hayward and Livermore. Livermore’s the greatest. And we have interest from some really great benefits that would come to this valley. Cal Fire would like to locate here. We could sure use those when we have the fire season going on. East Bay Regional would like to get their helicopter out of Hayward along this side because we have so much better weather.”
Tucknott emphasized the importance of small airports such as Livermore’s for training pilots with cuts by the U.S. military to pilot training programs and continued demand for private and commercial flights, and the potential for a future training program via Las Positas College.
While city staff attempted to address concerns in the latest version of the proposed policy, speakers during the public hearing by and large called for additional measures to be implemented, and for the policy to be considered further before being adopted by the council.
“I think it is overwhelming that you should do what the speakers are urging you to do, and that would give the residents of Livermore more time to consider what they should suggest,” Livermore resident Michael Ferucci told the council.
Many agreed with Ferucci’s call to extend the discussion, and continued to voice concerns over the same issues that staff had sought to address in the most recently revised draft policy.
“The policy is inconsistent with the 2010 resolution, there are numerous environmental issues, and the policy was rushed through without adequate notice,” Sunil Hariani said.
Approximately one hour of council questions and comments ensued following the public comment period of the meeting and ahead of the vote to extend discussions on the proposed policy.
Councilmember Evan Branning requested that the policy be updated to include language discouraging incompatible development projects at the airport under an additional bullet point on project compatibility.
“Something along the lines of ‘the development policy will discourage development inconsistent with the airport’s development priorities as stated herein and in the 2010 resolution,'” Branning said.
Mayor John Marchand asked that staff revise the proposed policy to remove language about supporting small air cargo operators, in order to better align with the policy’s goal of not encouraging new or larger operations, and to include language emphasizing that any proposed developments at the airport would be reviewed by the city’s airport commission — which holds meetings that offer opportunities for additional public comment.
“So yes it will come to the council, but there will also be the opportunity to have it be heard by the Airport Advisory Committee so that they can weigh in on the projects as well,” Marchand said.
City Manager Marianna Marysheva said that the revisions requested by Branning and Marchand were minimal, and that staff would be able to incorporate them into an updated draft policy in time for the next regular council meeting.
