I'm a lifelong resident and grew up eagerly enjoying seeing historical aircraft and small planes flying in and out of our airport, but I am concerned that the new policy would create larger noise and pollution levels in our city.
I am concerned about the many demonstrated adverse health effects of increased pollution (especially in children) that increased air traffic would cause. In addition, an increase in noise levels would cause disruptions to sleep--even if flights are restricted to daytime hours, these noises can be hugely disruptive to the sleep schedule of night-workers and to the ambiance of our beautiful cozy town.
I urge you to reject this proposal. If it is not rejected, I request that you modify language to require airlines to use unleaded fuel to minimize the adverse effects on the population and include language strictly limiting noise emissions, especially with respect to new classes of airplanes such as 737s which may cause high noise levels. Thank you for your time.
As an air quality meteorologist, 40-year resident of Pleasanton, member of the Tri-Valley Air Quality Climate Alliance, I request City revise & include following language in 3.2. Environmental Quality of LVK Leasing_&_Dev_Policy_06_02_2023:
The City will give highest priority to projects that replace leaded aviation gas with unleaded, and that reduce or eliminate diesel and PFAS emissions from airport operations. Basis:
1. Airborne lead is hazardous to health at extremely low levels, especially to children. Commission should fund a lead study in a 1.5-mile radius of LVK.
2. 68% of the cancer risk in Tri-Valley is due to diesel particulate matter. Eliminate diesel emissions as soon as practical.
3. Eliminate PFAS emissions as they contaminate soil & groundwater.
Give high priority to Five Rivers Aviation proposals to:
a. Build a new unleaded fuel supply system in the next 2 years.
b. Complete a 60 MW Solar Hydrogen Project.
This statement represents my personal view only.
Three good reasons to reject the proposed Airport Development Policy:
1. It doesn't implement the 2010 Livermore City Council resolution.
The policy mentions the resolution, but implements almost nothing
it says. The resolution says development only for existing demand,
based on tangible evidence; no extending runways, no large cargo
operators; and aggressive action to reduce noise. You look at the
Policy, it's not there.
2. It ignores public comment
Public comments wanted the policy to limit noise, require public
input, and conform to the Resolution. Noise got two brief
inconsequential mentions. Public input: some plan later, all vague.
Conform to the resolution: it doesn't.
3. It doesn't protect residents
It's got no real protection on noise, on leaded fuels, on increased traffic.
Yet these things impact our quality of life every day.
I ask you to reject this policy, send it back for revision
that implements City goals, respects public input, and protects residents.
The airport development policy does not incorporate the Specific Requirements as outlined in Resolution 2010-058, nor does the policy clearly cite each of the 2010-058 Requirements where relevant in the specific policy sections, in order to provide clear and unambiguous guidance. The global reference to Resolution 2010-058 and its incorporation only as an appendix is inadequate and creates ambiguity and uncertainty as to Resolution 2010-058 intent; it falls well short of providing clear and actionable guidance for future airport development.
Livermore airport noise is a regional issue and affects all residents living in the larger Tri-Valley area; this area continues to grow in population and size, with more housing being planned. This LVK airport development plan does not do enough to involve all Tri-Valley stakeholders, to preserve the entire region’s quality of life.
Please reject the draft airport development policy and send it back to staff. It is not a good neighbor policy.
I'm a lifelong resident and grew up eagerly enjoying seeing historical aircraft and small planes flying in and out of our airport, but I am concerned that the new policy would create larger noise and pollution levels in our city.
I am concerned about the many demonstrated adverse health effects of increased pollution (especially in children) that increased air traffic would cause. In addition, an increase in noise levels would cause disruptions to sleep--even if flights are restricted to daytime hours, these noises can be hugely disruptive to the sleep schedule of night-workers and to the ambiance of our beautiful cozy town.
I urge you to reject this proposal. If it is not rejected, I request that you modify language to require airlines to use unleaded fuel to minimize the adverse effects on the population and include language strictly limiting noise emissions, especially with respect to new classes of airplanes such as 737s which may cause high noise levels. Thank you for your time.
As an air quality meteorologist, 40-year resident of Pleasanton, member of the Tri-Valley Air Quality Climate Alliance, I request City revise & include following language in 3.2. Environmental Quality of LVK Leasing_&_Dev_Policy_06_02_2023:
The City will give highest priority to projects that replace leaded aviation gas with unleaded, and that reduce or eliminate diesel and PFAS emissions from airport operations. Basis:
1. Airborne lead is hazardous to health at extremely low levels, especially to children. Commission should fund a lead study in a 1.5-mile radius of LVK.
2. 68% of the cancer risk in Tri-Valley is due to diesel particulate matter. Eliminate diesel emissions as soon as practical.
3. Eliminate PFAS emissions as they contaminate soil & groundwater.
Give high priority to Five Rivers Aviation proposals to:
a. Build a new unleaded fuel supply system in the next 2 years.
b. Complete a 60 MW Solar Hydrogen Project.
This statement represents my personal view only.
Three good reasons to reject the proposed Airport Development Policy:
1. It doesn't implement the 2010 Livermore City Council resolution.
The policy mentions the resolution, but implements almost nothing
it says. The resolution says development only for existing demand,
based on tangible evidence; no extending runways, no large cargo
operators; and aggressive action to reduce noise. You look at the
Policy, it's not there.
2. It ignores public comment
Public comments wanted the policy to limit noise, require public
input, and conform to the Resolution. Noise got two brief
inconsequential mentions. Public input: some plan later, all vague.
Conform to the resolution: it doesn't.
3. It doesn't protect residents
It's got no real protection on noise, on leaded fuels, on increased traffic.
Yet these things impact our quality of life every day.
I ask you to reject this policy, send it back for revision
that implements City goals, respects public input, and protects residents.
The airport development policy does not incorporate the Specific Requirements as outlined in Resolution 2010-058, nor does the policy clearly cite each of the 2010-058 Requirements where relevant in the specific policy sections, in order to provide clear and unambiguous guidance. The global reference to Resolution 2010-058 and its incorporation only as an appendix is inadequate and creates ambiguity and uncertainty as to Resolution 2010-058 intent; it falls well short of providing clear and actionable guidance for future airport development.
Livermore airport noise is a regional issue and affects all residents living in the larger Tri-Valley area; this area continues to grow in population and size, with more housing being planned. This LVK airport development plan does not do enough to involve all Tri-Valley stakeholders, to preserve the entire region’s quality of life.
Please reject the draft airport development policy and send it back to staff. It is not a good neighbor policy.