"Livermore airport noise monitoring funding up in air"

["Stephen Irwin" <stepheni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Monday, July 11, 2005

Airport monitoring funding up in air
By Bonita Brewer
THE CONTRA COSTA (CA) TIMES


Yet another showdown between Livermore airport pilots and neighbors is
expected tonight when the City Council discusses just how extensive a noise
monitoring program should be -- and who should pay for it.

Residents near the airport battling aircraft noise oppose a monitoring
system unless it includes "consequences for abusers."

And they don't like suggestions by pilots and Councilwoman Lorraine Dietrich
that the city pay for it instead of the airport's tenants.

"This recommendation is an attempt to strike out at the victims of the
airport noise and punish them," according to a statement released Friday by
the Livermore Airport Citizens Group.

"Using general funds would only mean reduced services for the city. The
residents of Livermore are not creating the noise. It is the users/tenants
of the airport which are not all from the Tri-Valley area," the statement
said.

On the same grounds, the group also opposes asking Pleasanton and Dublin to
contribute monitoring money.

Meanwhile, pilots in a newly formed Coalition for the Livermore Airport say
they do not believe there's any justification for additional noise
monitoring. The group cites a 2000 Pleasanton study that found no violation
of federal or state noise standards, and it says airport activity has
decreased, not expanded since then.

"If the council feels Livermore has to generate its own data, I'm confident
it will be essentially the same," said coalition Chairman Eugene Wheeler of
Livermore.

Livermore ought to pay for monitoring, "use temporary equipment like they
did in Pleasanton, get confirmatory data and close the books."

"For sure there are moments when there is aircraft noise ... but the vast
majority of people flying in and out of Livermore, including us (general
aviation) pilots and local businesses flying state-of-the-art aircraft, are
not generating noise," Wheeler said.

Dietrich said that because the city is initiating the monitoring, paying for
it "is certainly something that warrants discussion." If Pleasanton and
Dublin want to be included in noise monitoring, they should perhaps share
costs, she said.

Tonight's meeting will be mainly informational, with the city staff updating
the council on progress on the noise monitoring and reduction system.

Although the council could provide some general direction, no final action
is expected pending recommendations this fall from a noise consultant who is
exploring monitoring options.

Public Services Director Dan McIntyre has estimated cost of a permanent
system at $150,000. That would not include the cost of additional staffing
and office space.

A written report from McIntyre says the city has expanded its noise
complaint system, improved outreach to pilots and, in efforts to reduce
noise from jets flying to the Oakland International Airport, persuaded the
Federal Aviation Administration to direct them to fly higher and farther
south over the Livermore-Amador Valley. It also has joined federal lobbying
to phase out older, high noise "Stage 2" jets.

Airport officials say they continue to seek voluntary compliance with a 10
p.m. to 6 a.m. flight curfew but can't enforce it under federal law.

However, airport neighbor Wendy Weathers of Livermore insists the airport
can impose a nighttime flying restriction on its tenants through lease
agreements.

"If they overlook that, they're not doing their job."

If you go

The Livermore City Council meets at 7 p.m. today at 3575 Pacific Ave.,
Livermore.


   Post your opinion on this story in the CAA General Aviation Forum
http://www.californiaaviation.org/dcfp/dcboard.php

*****************************************