21 SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

LIVEP ®RE CALIFORNIACOMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE Commenter#1 Cl General Comment:Please note my letter was sent directly to the following people via e-mail:Livermore City Council;Pleasanton City Council; Scott Lanphier Director of Public Works;Michael Musca,City of Livermore Airport Manager as I was not able to download it into this document. Thank you. RI Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. C2 April 17,2023 To: Livermore City Council Livermore Airport Commission Scott Lanphier,Director of City Public Works Michael Musca,Airport Manager Re: Proposed changes to City of Livermore Airport Development Policy We are writing you because we have questions and concerns about the proposed new City of Livermore's Airport Development Policy(February 17,2023) We moved to east Pleasanton in 1992 and at the time of purchasing our house our realtor notified us about the City of Livermore's Airport. It was noted that the airport was created in 1965 as a small recreational airport for small airplanes and was not designated for any other purpose.There was little airplane traffic over our east Pleasanton neighborhood for several years. In early 2000, landing and take-off pattern changes were made at the airport which directly impacted east Pleasanton including homes and schools. At the time,we voiced our concerns without success. Today, we regularly have small jets flying over our neighborhood in both take- off and landing maneuvers. We regularly report those planes operating outside approved business hours. Our concern is for the safety of our neighborhood, including the impacts of noise, air pollution and possible accidents. After the public outcry of possibly expanding the airport with a Kaiser Air contract,we appreciated your desire to re-evaluate and update the airport's policies and procedures. However, as we read the proposed new, City of Livermore Leasing and Development Policy for the airport,we are disappointed in the recommendations. R2 Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. C3 • The proposed policy includes an objective on Social factors-"To maintain and enhance a compatible relationship between the airport and the surrounding community". There are no clear action steps/definitions on what this means...what level of noise is agreed upon,hours of operations,definition of air pollution standards,definition of community,opportunity for community input. R3 See R4 and R5. C4 •There is no reference in this document about public input and review of the proposed changes.After the outcry about Kaiser Air expansion, we are shocked that there was no interest to include public participation in the development of the proposed policy and on-going changes at the airport. R4 To address the question regarding public involvement a new section has been added to the document as follows: Section 1.7 Public Engagement Requirements An entity proposing to develop a project that would significantly increase aircraft activity,vehicle traffic, and/or significantly intensify existing land use(s), will be required to develop a comprehensive public engagement plan (PEP) designed to inform the public as to the scope and scale of the proposed project. The PEP is subject to review and approval by the City. The requirement to develop a PEP is at the sole discretion of the City. Comment Compilation and Response 3 City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport(06/05/2023)