Email
925-931-1036
JOIN NOW!
Write To The City Of Livermore
.
-
There are studies to show homes have a lower property value when located close to airports mainly due to noise. Return
-
Increase d operations 90% from 192,000 (Tower logs 2003) to 370,000 (LAMP 2020) [1 operation of every minute of every 15 hour day, 365 days of the year] this is too high, lower the allowed amount. Jet traffic 7 x current traffic from 2200 (2001) to 18,500 (2020). Once the LAMP is approved there is nothing the city can do to prevent larger traffic/or other mixes. Appendix D in the LAMP
Return
-
Amount of Noise (from airplanes and from jet s) will go up – guaranteed proposal (App D, LAMP) No method for real noise abatement in the plan, other than ”voluntary” restrictions between 10 pm- 6 am (other mitigation was to give air conditioners to people where noise was to high! (LGP) Study was not complete and did not include Single Noise Event readings --- which are critical for determining impact of additional aircraft and jets on the population. Also noise studies did not include Pleasanton or Dublin. Return
-
Proposed Large Aviation Business Park is not consistent with the current, mainly recreational operations of Livermore Airport (app D, LAMP). This growth will: Attract Fixed Based Operators (FBO) to service aviation industry (App D, LAMP) Attract more business based aviation traffic (i.e. more jets), with FBOs (App D, LAMP) Livermore General Plan (LGP) does NOT mention the need for an Aviation Business Park. Re-zone Airport from “Educational/Light Industrial” to “Airport Zone / Airport Service Zone” not appropriate or consistent with recreational and educational use of the Livermore Airport Do not approve the LAMP until a much more scaled down version is proposed (with no aviation park) LAMP makes the airport dominant -- not compatible with the character of Livermore or the Tri-Valley (agriculture, wineries, tourism, quality). Return
-
Net benefit to Airport is only $140,000 per year (can not be used by the city for schools, etc since it is an enterprise fund) Security, noise mitigation (air conditioners for residents), additional city costs for servicing business park,etc not taken into account – why aren’t these costs included? Insurance? What else is missing? City must put in $1.6 Million dollars --- better ways are available for generating revenue + more consistent with Tri-valley values and quality of life, including funding our schools. Most of the direct/indirect revenue projections will NOT go to Livermore (after all, where are all the businesses today – Pleasanton , San Ramon, Bishop Ranch, Dublin , and Livermore ). Return
-
Environment Assessment Issues – FULL EIR is needed, including surrounding cities! A full EIR (Environment Impact Report) was not done, and does not include the surrounding cities of Dublin and Pleasanton . Ethically and morally, this should be done. The current EIR (which points to the LGP EIR) does not adequately cover all aspects of the proposed expansion, including the impact of the Aviation Business Park , Air Quality Levels, affects on surrounding communities, etc… Return
-
Do not take any more grants – grant assurances significantly reduce our control Taking Federal/State grants effectively relinquishes our local control over the rules and operations of our airport (i.e. we cannot implement locally controlled noise laws, restrictions,etc due to the grants we have taken and would be taking with the current LAMP). Return
-
Additional Lighting on runway (LAMP) – do not approve this in the LAMP This will only encourage more night flights. This is not what we want. There is nothing, once lighted, that the City can do to restrict night flights. Return
.