21 SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

L1VERM®RE CALIFORNIA COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE C16 Section#All Page#All Comment: I do not see limitations on the size of operations or the possible combining of leases/developments that could turn small accepted projects into ones that wouldn't have been accepted in total.This seems to be a huge loophole that could be used to the detriment of LVK, Livermore and its residents R16 Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, requires the City to make its aeronautical facilities available to the public and its tenants on terms that are reasonable and without unjust discrimination.This federal obligation involves several distinct requirements. First, the City must make the airport and its facilities available for public use.Next,the City must ensure that the terms imposed on aeronautical users of the Airport,including rates and charges,are reasonable for the facilities and services provided. Finally the terms must be applied without unjust discrimination.The prohibition on unjust discrimination extends to types,kinds and classes of aeronautical activities,as well as individual members of a class of operator. Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. Commenter#7 C17 No development.Let's have plenty of people filing lawsuits to bury anymore rubbish about expansion of traffic at the Livermore Airport. RI 7 Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. Commenter#8 C18 There are some major concerns - No mention of noise mitigation plans. Airport is not living up to promises made for past 3 years. Airport liaison meetings has no public involvement and doesn't not happen as frequently as it's supposed to Planes continue to fly over noise sensitive areas at low altitude Curfew violations continue to occur While all these are going on this document is contradictory to the 2010 resolution of no more expansion and now the city is taking over decisions.When Kaiser project was going on the mayor claimed he had no control.Now it seems opposite. Public is not being involved in any decisions. A proper way is to make this in a true democratic fashion. Put it to vote and let people decide what they want. People should also be involved from the start, not at the very end with limited time.A handful of people are having a huge impact on not just citizens of Livermore but also Pleasanton. The overall process is not transparent. With so many airports nearby there is no need to further develop the airport here Development and this vague policy will open the doors for future FBOs and possible Amazon cargo flights because of the new warehouse. Please save trivalley and work with your citizens to make it livable for all. R18 See R16 Comment noted. No specific alternative language or deletions provided. Commenter#9 C19 Section#2.1 Page#3-4 Comment: Fails to provide an open and transparent process for RFP/RFI/RFQ. Fails to require ANY public involvement.How will the public be notified and informed about proposals?Where?When?How will the public provide feedback?This Policy says nothing about this. In fact this Policy would be fine with a new development that the public never even got told about.Think about it:a major development that impacts the public every day:this Policy would let that get approved with zero public input,without even letting the public know. This Policy has no problem with that. This is unacceptable. The public should be notified at every stage of the process(Interest, MOU, Concept Plan, etc.).The Public should be able to provide feedback.An acceptable policy would specify that. R19 See R4. Comment Compilation and Response 6 City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023)