My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
21 SUPPLEMENTAL
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2023
>
060623
>
21 SUPPLEMENTAL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/6/2023 1:00:06 PM
Creation date
6/6/2023 12:59:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
6/6/2023
DESTRUCT DATE
20Y
Document Relationships
21
(Message)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2023\060623
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
71
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
LIVE ®RE <br /> NLIFORNIA COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE <br /> Commenter#31 ' irr <br /> C120 April 7,2023 <br /> Ms.Marianna Marysheva <br /> City Manager <br /> City of Livermore <br /> 1052 S.Livermore A venue <br /> Livermore,CA 94550-1052 <br /> Via email <br /> RE:City of Pleasanton Comments on the Airport Development Policy and Hanger <br /> Waitlist Policy <br /> Dear Marianna- <br /> Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the City of Livermore's (Livermore) Draft <br /> Airport Development Policy and Hangar Waitlist Policy. Please find below the City of Pleasanton's <br /> comments regarding the draft policies. As you are aware, Pleasanton and public concerns are most <br /> focused on expansion of airport activity and noise etc.associated with flight activity that may occur with <br /> such expansions. As such, it is important that Livermore's policies continue to adhere to the limitations <br /> established in Resolution 2010-058,and that there is transparency and appropriate analysis of any project <br /> with the potential to increase flight activity. <br /> While we appreciate the more detailed and comprehensive planning and approval approach reflected in <br /> the policies,the City of Pleasanton(Pleasanton) is concerned that the policies do not adequately utilize <br /> or reflect the 2010 Livermore City Council Resolution as it relates to expansion of airport activities and <br /> associated impacts, nor thoroughly articulate how the public and interested parties will be provided <br /> notification of major improvements or other planned expansion. <br /> Pleasanton's specific comments of the Draft Policies are as follows: <br /> R120 See R7 <br /> Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. <br /> C121 Comment: <br /> 1. The Draft Policy does not adequately tie the basis or rationale for approval of improvements to the <br /> specific parameters outlined in Resolution 2010-058. As you are aware,the Resolution generally seeks <br /> to limit the expansion of airport operations and additional flight activity, base any expansion solely on <br /> the basis of existing demand and "tangible evidence"thereto;to control noise,and more specifically,to <br /> limit certain expansions such as the extension of runways or development of large air-cargo operations. <br /> R122 See R7 <br /> Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. <br /> C123 Comment: <br /> 2.In Section 1.2,the bullet list of objectives used to evaluate proposals is deemed to"reflect the Airport <br /> Development Priorities" in Reso 2010-058. It further notes they will be "used as criteria for evaluating <br /> proposals for Airport land lease/development, as further explained in this document." However, the <br /> relationship between the(somewhat generic)objectives,and the very specific guidance of the Resolution <br /> is unclear,and the Policy does not in fact provide any further explanation or reference to the Resolution, <br /> other than attaching the Resolution as an appendix.For example,the policy does not actually directly cite <br /> or use any of the criteria stated in the Resolution(e.g.determination/findings that improvement necessary <br /> to support existing demand,versus supporting expansion/increase in capacity or size of aircraft that can <br /> be accommodated).Explicit compliance with the Resolution is not called out in Section 1.4(Compliance), <br /> nor in the review procedures in Section 2.2 with respect to new leases, or Section 3 .3 with respect to <br /> provision of improvements. <br /> R123 Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. <br /> Comment Compilation and Response 26 <br /> City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.