21 SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

LIVE ®RE NLIFORNIA COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE Commenter#31 ' irr C120 April 7,2023 Ms.Marianna Marysheva City Manager City of Livermore 1052 S.Livermore A venue Livermore,CA 94550-1052 Via email RE:City of Pleasanton Comments on the Airport Development Policy and Hanger Waitlist Policy Dear Marianna- Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the City of Livermore's (Livermore) Draft Airport Development Policy and Hangar Waitlist Policy. Please find below the City of Pleasanton's comments regarding the draft policies. As you are aware, Pleasanton and public concerns are most focused on expansion of airport activity and noise etc.associated with flight activity that may occur with such expansions. As such, it is important that Livermore's policies continue to adhere to the limitations established in Resolution 2010-058,and that there is transparency and appropriate analysis of any project with the potential to increase flight activity. While we appreciate the more detailed and comprehensive planning and approval approach reflected in the policies,the City of Pleasanton(Pleasanton) is concerned that the policies do not adequately utilize or reflect the 2010 Livermore City Council Resolution as it relates to expansion of airport activities and associated impacts, nor thoroughly articulate how the public and interested parties will be provided notification of major improvements or other planned expansion. Pleasanton's specific comments of the Draft Policies are as follows: R120 See R7 Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. C121 Comment: 1. The Draft Policy does not adequately tie the basis or rationale for approval of improvements to the specific parameters outlined in Resolution 2010-058. As you are aware,the Resolution generally seeks to limit the expansion of airport operations and additional flight activity, base any expansion solely on the basis of existing demand and "tangible evidence"thereto;to control noise,and more specifically,to limit certain expansions such as the extension of runways or development of large air-cargo operations. R122 See R7 Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. C123 Comment: 2.In Section 1.2,the bullet list of objectives used to evaluate proposals is deemed to"reflect the Airport Development Priorities" in Reso 2010-058. It further notes they will be "used as criteria for evaluating proposals for Airport land lease/development, as further explained in this document." However, the relationship between the(somewhat generic)objectives,and the very specific guidance of the Resolution is unclear,and the Policy does not in fact provide any further explanation or reference to the Resolution, other than attaching the Resolution as an appendix.For example,the policy does not actually directly cite or use any of the criteria stated in the Resolution(e.g.determination/findings that improvement necessary to support existing demand,versus supporting expansion/increase in capacity or size of aircraft that can be accommodated).Explicit compliance with the Resolution is not called out in Section 1.4(Compliance), nor in the review procedures in Section 2.2 with respect to new leases, or Section 3 .3 with respect to provision of improvements. R123 Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. Comment Compilation and Response 26 City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023)