HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 Livermore Citizens Advisory Committee AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 22, 1989
REPORT PREPARED BY: Rod Barger, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Final Report on the Livermore Airport Citizens
Advisory Committee to the City Council
Livermore and Pleasanton
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: Excerpts from the Final Report of
the Livermore Airport Citizens Advisory
Committee
Attachment l: Extended Planning Area Map
showing impact of 3000' set back from I-580 on
Dublin/East Dublin
/17
RECOMMENDATION: I�1) Hear Staff presentation.
2) Identify all Council questions pertaining
to the Final Report on the Livermore
Airport Citizens Advisory Committee.
3) Direct Staff to write a letter to the City
of Livermore specifying all Council
questions and concerns.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Undetermined
DESCRIPTION:
I. BACKGROUND
Livermore Mayor Dale Turner submitted to the City (for review and
comment) the Final Report of the Livermore Airport Citizens Advisory Committee
to the City Councils of Livermore and Pleasanton. Staff has read the report
and is providing the Council with a summary of the document, inclusive of
pertinent excerpts for consideration.
The Livermore Airport Citizen Advisory Committee was formed early in
1988 by Pleasanton's Mayor Ken Mercer and Livermore's Mayor Dale Turner.
Their intent was to form a committee that could address noise and land use
issues applicable to the Livermore Airport and its surrounding environs.
Each mayor appointed four citizens from their respective cities to make
up the Committee. Once formed, the Committee determined that its duties
should be:
1. to recommend measures to mitigate existing noise and land use
problems; and
2. to recommend measures to prevent future noise and land use
problems.
II. ISSUES
The Committee held a number of meetings to discuss issues relating to
airport land use and noise. The Committee concluded that control of land use
is essential in order to prevent future noise problems. Consequently, the
Committee' s report make two significant recommendations that impacts Dublin.
These are:
------- -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------
ITEM NO. :( COPIES TO: File
1. Establish a regional airport advisory committee (reporting
directly to the Livermore City Council) to address issues
involving the airport and the surrounding region. The Committee
would be made up of:
- one member of the Dublin City Council
- one member of the Livermore Airport Commission-
- one member of the Pleasanton City Council
- one member of the San Ramon City Council
- the Alameda County Supervisor. from this district
- one member of LAFCO
Staff notes the following questions when considering formation of
this airport advisory committee:
- How is the Dublin Council person selected?
- When will the advisory committee be formed, their first meeting
convened and subsequent meetings take place?
- What powers will the airport advisory committee have and how
will they effect the East Dublin area?
- How does the airport advisory committee interact with the
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission?
- How long could the airport advisory committee be in operation?
- What process will be used to allow affected jurisdictions to
review, comment and respond to the actions of the airport
advisory committee and any subsequent actions taken by the
Livermore City Council?
- Will the City of Livermore be formally contacting Dublin
regarding recommendations included in the report?
Staff posed these questions to Livermore' s Public Works Director.
He indicated that he could not provide answers to them at this
time because Livermore's City Council should consider them first
and hopefully provide responses. Staff recommends that these
questions be forwarded to Livermore's City Council for
consideration. If the Council has other questions it should state
them.
2. The City of Livermore should encourage the City of Dublin to
exclude residential development on properties 3000 feet north of
Highway I-580 bounded by Santa Rita Road and Collier Canyon Road.
Staff notes that this issue could create significant problems in
the future for Dublin. At this time, the East Dublin planning
effort is considering land use alternatives for the entire General
Plan Amendment Study area. It is almost certain that each of the
three alternatives presented to the City Council will include
residential land uses of varying densities within 3000 feet of I-
580 (between Santa Rita and Collier Canyon Roads) . If this
recommendation is somehow enforced, it could negatively effect the
entire East Dublin planning effort. In addition, it would be
contrary to our General Plan in that our Extended Planning Area
map shows consideration of residential development within 3000
feet of I-580 (see Attachment 1) . Staff recommends that the
Livermore City Council and the Regional Airport Advisory Committee
(once it is formed) be fully advised of Dublin's planning
intentions for the East Dublin area and informed of how this
recommendation is contrary to our plans for the future.
It appears that the Airport Citizen's Advisory Committee would like to
maximize the activities of the airport disregarding development potential for
the East Dublin area. It also appears that the Committee has not taken the
time to contact the City of Dublin to obtain useful information regarding the
future of the East Dublin area. In short, Dublin should resist this 3000 foot
limitation and call for more acceptable solutions.
III CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Council review the excerpts from the Final
Plan, identify its questions and concerns and direct Staff to write a letter
to the Livermore City Council, specifying those questions and concerns.
-2-
FINAL REPORT
OF THE
LIVERMORE AIRPORT CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TO THE CITY 'COUNCILS
' OF LIVERMORE AND PLEASANTON
— W r—
a�,,t�Pr.�;w; pSYre��A1
Lc,-t tam
i
AC; ""lj
PL�sTa,uta�S
_ NOVEMBER
mid
FAA designates the airport air traffic control zones. However,
the noise abatement procedures recommended in this report are
acceptable to the FAA.
The subcommittee flew various traffic patterns, including the
proposed 45 degree departure pattern, at the Livermore Airport in
order to evaluate their recommendations. To test the patterns as
accurately as possible, the plane used was a typical general
aviation aircraft and was fully loaded with four passengers. It
was a very warm day (which makes it more difficult to gain
altitude) , but there was also a brisk wind from the west (which
helps an aircraft to gain altitude) . The Committee's proposed
traffic patterns were very easy to fly and posed no safety
problems during any of the departures. At the end of -our test,
we were fully satisfied that our recommendations are realistic and
can be adhered to by aircraft that use the Livermore Airport.
After re-work of the recorliuendationS by the subcommittee, a final
working meeting was held by the Committee. Prior to the meeting,
a copy of the recommendation was sent to all Committee members,
together with a voting sheet for all items. Replies were receive_=
from all but one Committee Member. All replies received were
favorable. A mew minor chances were made at the meeting and all
present approved the reco.L Uendations.
The Committee reco::m-mends teat a noise abate=ment ordinance be
developed by t_e-Ci tv c= Li ve_::more. The Committee believes that
i" j r r —n-l j v pilots
ti.c m:main wc�% �.:� m�i1_2 C... a?1C` fr0:., L 1s for the polZL?Cc_
subdivision that ocerates the airport adcpt an ordinance with ou-_-
T"`w'PtY tive measures for those that refuse to cooly. section
il. oo.
. 1
Noy tive measures 30 c=
Livermore Municipal Code provides sucz puni
(? "�^: �� A��C�` Q^ �VC,e_-r A,O R_'eJ:. -O � v. \
A,4 1'k.PAr;4S M 4-
Discussions were also held concerning land use issues. The Ccni:71tt==
concluded that control of land use is essential in order to preve-Z
future noise problems . Recommendations were made which related tc
Dublin's and Pleasantcn's land uses. The City of Livermore stated
that it has no Mans for development that would be adversely irmpacc
by the Airport. As a result, the Committee's recommendation relat_c
to Livermore lard uses was confined to the purchase of land west c.
the airport and hat this lard be zoned for agricultural uses.
W kA t\57 b4a\%641_�IAN,S
The final revised recom�.nen atlons were prepared showing the chance_ `
that were made and again were mailed to all Cc-=ittee ne-abers, to-
gether with a sheet to vcte on all items and return to City Hall in -:.
stamped self-addressed envelcpe. other than one member abstaining
two items where he felt a conflict of interest, all members vote:;
unanimously for the recommendations, esce:.-t *Martin Inde_bitzen,.
wrote a letter giving his reasons for not vctinc. His letter
er with the Coerdinater's response are included in the Addendum tc
this report. Aster a second request, a vote response was receive`
from Martin Inderbitzen on September 13 , 1 9SS and is included in
-5-
• �•• f?,trbZ'�uC.'L1pNS 5�,�4►ti -Y� �L, �_.
RED_AHENDATIONS OF AIRPORT Comt,_,.TEE
The Committee considered all items broucht before it. There was
great deal of discussion, education, and give and take by all the
Committee members. They all worked together in a pleasing, and
constructive manner. The Committee felt that since the Airport put
restrictions on some property's use, that the Airport and its use=s
should be a good neighbor and accept some restrictions on their
operations . The recommendations reflect this position.
The Committee also considered Section 5 cf the City of Pleasanton's
Resolution No. 22-117 regarding a need to update the 1925 EIR and
concluded that if all recommendations as set forth in the report N=_-=
adopted, an update would not be necessary.
The Livermore Airport Citizens Advisory Committee recommends the
following:
1. Runway 25R, 7L, should be extended 1,250 feet as present?-_:
planned to improve safety for landings and departures
reduce noise for east departures. This will result in
easthound aircraft taking Off sorter, relative to the
current runway, than aircraft do
2 . That a 1000 ft. displaced thre-s1acid be constructed on t =
east end Of runway 25R to facilitate noise abate_nent cn
west der-art.:ures . Deo'uire all j and large tw -_
i n-enci..
aircraft and FirilI Fighter Tvp'e to USE the
displaced threshold of Runway 25 . This will result in
shorter take-offs relative to t-he current runway. This
extension be conditioned on. F.==_ a_proval, and maintainin
the existing east clear zone.
See Exhibit "D"
3 . That a regional airport advisory co=-:ittee be establ i=_
to be concerned with and report to the Livermore City �-
council- concerning issues involving the airpor� and t :_
surrounding region. The coMMittee should consist o':
One Me:,ber of Livermore hirzcrt coali-nissicn
One Liver ore City Council Person
One Pleasanton City Counci 1 Person R�
One Dublin City Council Person
" Ar.Ac•.�;�n .
One San Ra:�on City Council Person
la-eda County Supervisor from this district
One Member o: L:kFCO (Lcc-=i a" ncy Fe �� •` `'
c° rmation
C=ission)
The Co ttee to T-neet at the call of the chair. ( }a.l U:;1,,,�
hew =1oEJ !T
-6-
• 4 . The tower is requested to have the base leg for runway 7:
at or prior to El Charo Road, traffic permitting.
5 . The tcwer is requested to have traffic arriving from the
west for runway 7L to proceed via the Santa Rita overpass=
weather and traffic permitting.
6 RecorLmend that LAFCO add an Airport noise element as a
factor in determining a sphere of influence, when
appropriate.
7 . That the Airport be encouraged to communicate with valle
jurisdictions and developers to promote compatible
development near the Airport.
8 . That the County of Alameda and the City of Pleasanton he
encouraged to exclude any residential development east
_ resident ` _
c=
ial ,develo:ren r (the Meadows area) =
_-
the exist in g
safety and noise reasons:
9 . Tha� L_ve?�1Qre, i n conjunction with_ the FAA, P urchase t'c
-
�x; land between the Airport and F1 C;I__ Road and main -:
that urccerty as agricultural c: other open space uses.
10 . That t_^.e City of Liver-more ercc,._=_e the City of Dublin =_
exclude res i ce_ntial development_ on the property 3 ,000 f z.
sort_^. of hiCn aV 7-580 bounder hy Santa Rita Pcad and
Collier Canyon _Goad.
i 41-
results c� L ' 1 , -
,Z 11. Tha: :._ resu_�s of these re� �_:ca�zons be eva_Lated
prior to rurthe= consideration c_ az FAA 150 or other
V noise study 7 With time delays ?n..c_ent In FAA noise
studies, other possible remedies should be attemiptec
.F
first.
12 . That the City of Pleasanton re-onsicer the development c=
the twen.-v homes currently prczcs_d east of the exzst?'c_
resice 'ial development (Cali=cr:,;a Place) .
13 . That 1--he a i rcort COMMission adc_l a prcgra-i o: pilot'
education related to noise abate ment procedures and
•K
practices .
14 . That this Ccmmi ttee meet six r::c;,;`:s after implemental;c-
these recommendations to review the effects and re_ncrl.
the Citv Councils of Livermore and Pleasanton.
M
A
-7-
P
McNichols, Mqr'ann;
• Seibel & Inde, Izen Ali '
18 Crow Canyon Court, Suite 395 File NO.:
Post Office Box 346
San Ramon, California 94583-0346 Rep;y To: Pleasanton
Telephone 415 838 7600
Telecopier 415 838 75�16 CD
Vi;!iiarn C;
August 21 1988 erlan 0 S�
Airport Advisory Commit-tee
c/o John Hines
City of Livermore
Public Works Department G'
1052 S . Livermore ,`.venue
Livermore, CA 94550
Gentlemen:
I apo 1 os i z e for my inability to attend th last Airport Adv i s or y
ccmmittee meetinc . Unfort-unately, the ree:-lnc Cate con-Elict e
with my lonS s an d.i n c orior o b 1 i q a c tc Valley "emorial
Hospital .
I am concerned that we have nct properly our duties and
any y of t
therefore, unatle to suppo-"- s Cr
the proposed orcinance -
our task should have been to c-ather facts anA analyze dz�= 0. t*-=
1: - - &.- n the
basis of objective infor T,-i;-= 6,ion and therz—= mi=ke appropriate
recommendations -L-o-- the continued supervzsicn and covernance c=
the airport and airport activities , our information
have been totally subjective corning to us pr;.-aarilv from air-port
personnel and/o: airport users . The mo-st cb.4-ective in-!-o:ma,.-ior,.,
a Noise Assessn, =-nt Study, h-= -c been reje-,:=-'--: -w*-i-c*,- , in jry o0inicn ,
would be the v ery basis for any that might be
made .
ial F'u h e rm o r e C Uf a Z 0 r 0 aC 7 h= z been rc assume ma
XimIzinz
activities for tine air,)c-rt in disrega-r.,; Lo-r surrounding 1 E n C:
uses , i . e . to the e x"e-.t possible, i-; L
M'* ��- 0.1 prevent 6 preve
development . ;'et , we have no atte.mp: to obtain information
frog; surrounding 1-and owners or ap'prop:i-=:e covernmental agencies
with recard to �L*iese issue_ ( for example, th-'-,e is an ),la.raec-=
e
County Aicport Lund Use Ccm:-.is-sion which s:! c if;-c-=11 looks at
these issues an-4 we have 11--a-:- n-- input f'-07 �-=t acencv) .
Pleasanton Office: San jose oi'lice:
C,2 'NoSt Nell
r!e.,sxton. cawornia 5,1-1 R-0. C'*'�Itow'a
CITY OF LIVERMORE -
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 16, 1982
TO: All Airport Employees
FROM: Airport Superintendent G_7 '
SUBJECT: policy for Handling' of Citizen Copplaints on Low Flying
Aircraft and Aircraft Noise
A policy for handling citizen complaints on _ow flying aircraft
and noise has been in effect for many years. it has always been
our objective to be courteous and responsive to the com_ulainant,
with a solution cr •resolution to thd-,problen.
There have been score minor changes to t^e handling of the
complaints in the past year sucz as legging 'he complaint in a lec
book. Therefore, I as listing the complaint handling procedure as
the current approved policy:
1. Receive call, politely listen to c=taint, ask questions
.as needed and then ask for nalne, address and phone_ number
of complaining party.
2 . L-og informa ion in Complaint Loc Ecck to include nature
of complaint, any information about the aircraft, th,e
information on the complaining rar-,.v, initials of the
employee taking the complaint and the date and time cf
the incident.
3 . Investigate the complaint, attem=t to identify the
aircraft and attempt to contact :::° pilot. If contact is
made, nctifv pilot of complaint ,n a courteous manner,
inform him of the rcise abatement- prcgram efforts at
Livermore Airport and listen to his explanation of the
incident a"d lcc that infor:Aaticn into the Complaint Lcc
Book.
4 . After all efforts are made to r-sclve the problem, the
emplovee will call the complaininc party and inform the-
f- of the disposition c- the complaint.
5 . Every rmcrning, check the phone recorder for pcssible
complaints from the previous nic,t and handle t:-:en as
above er attempt to contact the ccn laming party if here
information is neede�.; .
.i:e a:tit'):"`v r__ *Prccc" _` i7 C� �. __ _..�' ._..— any _ ,lLlc i i1.1 1C1a ?t
i
require deviation, but in every case, complete information must be
logged into the Leg Book.
EXHIBIT "G"
I
Dublin General Plan
d,
G� GUIDING POLICY
Consider residential development
proposals(including support facilities)
�(, (1A r•• an moderate slopes•with mua7-lamly
�G \n dunsrties rlpically considorod on fhrtwe
�',� \ •:;•;•;.}:•:-••:•a., hind and noxf to busuross park areas.
Creek I IMPLEMENTATION POLICY
:'.Ilrr/iunal Park}� C the location,u+font and donsrty
• :•:'::':':•:::;:;:;:;;•,•:•.'.•:'.•.•.•.•.' nt II-SWenti nl dcvu lrrpm oil t will to
:I'nrks•f lcsava;•}j•:•;•;•;•;•:•:';:.':'.'.'. .fe t lcfruninodwhennurnicipalscrv,ccs
•1 onus'fraLdnrl. •;r�- .� can bo pruvrdu,l.nal uvough("O"wal
Alva• —(7 I'!nn Iohnumenf snn/pus.
GUIDING POLICY ! `)
Consider rusrticnhal development y `•:•.•:`..•..••.••':' N
n. rc... �;u,l:r Ilihl. t
proposap lrnchrrGng suppurl lu•:ihuusJ •� 71 ur \ lluhnbililalirn,Conler
onmodurafe:lrrpu,,walr fill ru s ( 1 - _ .. j U \JV• �-; •.�.'.•.•.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.,
dcn5racs 7)•prr:rny consrrlcrurl an twitur j O ¢ rf.•;• { j�'i'
land. <' "/_ =i �.\ `\ ut•.•:•:•:':':':':':':' j;
IMPLEMENTATION POLICY
the IpCahorr.c•fcnf and density O'�:}.;:;:;{:};
of resrdenrr..l dcvclopnront,vrll he `.y,t r� 6 •,`:•.'.'.;:•' .f / y/// ,/,
r determined,vhon municipal Sul%"Ccs
51 can be provided and through G01142101 �.{ C4Jn• `•�;1: ///� / / /�� %/-.
rnEE\':nY _ Plan rclrncuiunrsrudrus. (••— O\�C��R, •� �• \�
ti
T
O�1
i Y STONI:IIIO(E O0
Extended Planning Area
:`..� e 1 mAa
r3
2000SET 8AC.K FROMZ-5$0 � Residential/Open Space(see note) C
Business Park/Industrial:Low Coverage
`Y 910 Business Park/Industrial
Public Lands
a�
1
j