CCMIN040604 - Laserfiche WebLink

This will not address the types of issues and complaints raised by Pleasanton residents. It is not the 24-hour averaging noise Pleasanton residents object to, but it is the single event noise created not only fi.om the very noisiest planes but what airplanes of all types do repeatedly when they do not follow the handout that the City of Livermore prepared at the City of Pleasanton's request. Most eomplaiuts related to noise are created when the aircraft is flying lower than desirable, when the aircraft is not flying in the flight path that is desirable, and when the landing pattern shifts. Mayor Pico opened the hearing for public comments. Mark Lauer, 3618 Trenery Drive, announced that the Livermore Planning Commission meeting was postponed this evening due to the large turnout and the need to try and accommodate everyone. The next proposed Planning Commission meeting date is May 4, 2004. The Livermore Planning Commission indicated that it would continue the period to receive public comments on the Negative Declaration. He believed the Livermore City Attorney stated that the Planning Commission would extend the period for oral comments, as they are normally part of the CEQA process, but the written comments still had to be in by April 8th. He thanked Council for its support. He encouraged Council to get its written comments in regarding the EIR to the City of Livermore within the next few days. He pointed out that the City of Livermore has indicated in its EIR that there will be no impact due to the expansion of the airport. The City of Livermore did not consider the City of Pleasanton. The City of Livermore's General Plan was silent as it related to the increase of noise due to the increase of jets. He pointed out that property values would decrease in Pleasanton, particularly those in the flight path of the airport. He urged Council to oppose the expansion of the Livermore Municipal Airport. Anne Fox, 2866 Garden Creek Circle, pointed out that the Th-Valley Transportation model anticipates that in the year 2025, traffic levels of service will be at F in order to accommodate traffic and potential cut-through traffic to the airport from the planned extensions of Stoneridge Drive to Jack London. She noted that many people who are trying to get to the airport during the weekends using Stoneridge Drive, and are not aware that the road ends. She pointed out that SB 352 was passed and signed into law October 3, 2003. This bill prohibits schools from being built within 500 feet of a busy roadway. If Stoneridge Drive connects to Jack London and the weekend, as well as weekday, traffic increases so that it is classified as a busy road, the City of Livermore will be breaking the law according to SB 352 because Mohr Elementary School is within 400 feet of Stoneridge Drive. Though the law does not address air pollution in terms of jets and noise pollution, she sees these planes flying over Mohr Elementary School and was very concerned. She was also concerned about any furore development in this area, and the potential impact of the area next to E1 Charro Road as the homes will be located in the direct flight path of the airport. She was mainly concerned about the increase in the number of jet flights and also the number of jets based at the airport. If the City of Livermore does not agree to prepare an EIR, she strongly encouraged Council to take some legal action to ensure that it gets done. She pointed out that one of the reasons the City of Livermore wants to extend the second runway is because there is a lot of air Pleasanton City Council 15 04/06/04 Minutes