Livermore Airport Leasing & Development Policy Passes City Council

LIVERMORE, CA — The Livermore City Council voted Monday to approve a Leasing and Development Policy for the Livermore Municipal Airport, a contested policy that sets guidelines for future developments on the site.

Four council members, with the exception of Councilmember Ben Barrientos, said they did not believe it was in the city’s best interest to continue to delay voting on the policy, which has been in development for over a year. On June 26, the council voted to delay a vote in order to incorporate further council and public feedback.

“I do think that having a development policy gives us the choices to build the airport that we would like to see. Not having the development policy allows others to choose how the airport will develop in the future,” Councilmember Evan Branning said in closing remarks.

No developments are currently proposed at the airport site, nor was any zoning changed. The approved policy ends a temporary moratorium on future development on the site, and sets guidelines regarding noise, environmental standards, public outreach, design standards and more. It also requires that all future projects are consistent with a Resolution No. 2010-058, a 2010 law restricting development only to projects “in response to existing aviation demand.”

The policy calls for, among other guidelines:

• Monitoring PFAs or other contamination into the water system, and reporting it to the Airport Advisory Commission.
• Developing a Public Engagement Plan after a Memorandum of Understanding has been reached between the city and the developer.
• Encouraging development “in response to existing aviation demand.”
• “Voluntary noise reduction efforts.”

All proposals must also go before the Airport Commission, City Council, and public review. The policy also requires an Inter-Departmental Staff Review Team consisting of the airport manager and city staff to review compliance with the 2010 resolution and the city’s General Plan.

Still, the proposal has proved controversial. Dozens of speakers lined up Monday to express concerns about the sale of leaded fuel, PFAs and other harmful chemicals, public engagement, enforcement capabilities, and more. The most recent draft document incorporates minor feedback, like clarifying that projects will be evaluated by the Airport Commission and adding a section saying that project proposals must adhere to the development guidelines, and with the 2010 resolution. But many people still felt more time was needed.

“I would ask you to again continue the airport development policy to a future date before making a vote on it tonight. New information about unleaded fuel and potential sources of PFAs should be incorporated in this policy. The Dublin and Pleasanton city councils and public need sufficient time to review these edits,” said resident Jean King.

On June 6, the Pleasanton City Council hosted a meeting in which council members and residents expressed concern about growing noise, the lack of PFA monitoring, and enforcement of a voluntary curfew. The city sent a comment saying that it 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.” Mayor John Marchand said that Pleasanton’s feedback was incorporated into the latest draft.

Councilmember Ben Barrientos voted against the measure, saying that more study was necessary.

“There are a lot of good comments and suggestions, but I think if we’re going to do it, let’s do it right…and include some of the suggestions made by the people,” he said. “I’d still like to see it continue a couple weeks, doesn’t have to be months, and see what we can do to add to please some of the people concerned about the noise and PFAs, and if we can add something to alleviate their concerns, I think we should listen to them.”

Barrientos then made a motion to continue until after the next Pleasanton City Council’s next meeting, which was not seconded. He then handed papers containing various information and correspondences to his fellow council members, which Mayor Marchand called “highly irregular.”

Councilmember Evan Branning said that the policy allows for the necessary review and will give the city choice.

“I understand there are people who will be upset with us moving forward with the development policy,” he said. “However, the policy gives us more control over what will be at the airport, and what will happen if a determined developer comes in, and tries to go through the FAA to try to force the issue. So when I hear calls asking for us to continue this item for months, I believe that opens us up to exposure. I believe what we have in this policy is something that really gives us the opportunity to choose what we build at the airport.”

Branning said that questions of noise, PFAs and more are “operational” questions, and asked for a staff review of how the council can consider separate policies to reduce noise and eliminate PFAs and leaded fuel. Livermore City Manager Marianna Marysheva said the staff could provide the council and the community with an update on how the city is following federal, state and local regulations regarding those questions.

Marchand also asked the city attorney if, independent of the new development agreement, the city could fine or not renew hangar leases for planes that continually fly outside of curfew hours, or continually fly too low. A motion to look into that was passed unanimously.

“We need to have new development to bring in the unleaded fuel, and we can’t do that until we have a modified policy, so I think that this gives us the opportunity to achieve many of the goals we’re trying to accomplish, and this sets the guidelines and the pathway to get those things done,” he said.