21 SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

LIVE 1TW@REI CALIFORNI , COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE R30 See R5 Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. Commenter#11 C31 Section# 1 through 7 Page#1 through 35 Comment: Nowhere in the document is the word "noise"mentioned.There should be mention of noise and noise abatement/enforcement in the application,leasing,design,development and compliance areas. R31 See R5 Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. C32 Section#2 Page#3 Comment: The City Initiative: (where the city can put out an RFI/RFP/RFQ) is worded whenever there is"land/improvement available"—this is in direct contradiction to the 2010 City resolution that explicitly indicates only when "existing demand"with "tangible evidence." (The City cannot create demand! It should be noted that it is the Airport Advisory Commission that creates the demand.How does this impact the 2010 resolution? i.e., large planes such as Amazon cargo?or a Jet port for Fixed Based Operators? City Initiative MUST adhere to and enforce the review/notification by the City manager, Airport commission,City staff,etc.Public must continue to be kept in the loop;i.e.,informed:of when/IF public notification/comment will happen,that is no potential for agreements being signed in secret or not made public until late in the process. Public should be notified at every stage of the process(Interest, MOU, Concept Plan,etc.)and be able to provide feedback. All information must be provided publicly without NDA/confidential agreements at all stages.Financial information could be non-disclosed. R32 See R4 and R7. Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. C33 Section#2.1 Page#3 Comment:Attributing the City with powers of"sole discretion"concern me.Sounds like secret meetings, etc. R33 Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. Commenter#12 C34 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. R34 See R4 Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. C35 Section#2.1 Page#3-4 Comment: Fails to implement the Livermore City Council Resolution of March 23,2010 "Future development at the airport shall ONLY occur in response to EXISTING AVIATION DEMAND. Whether demand exists shall be evaluated by the airport advisory commission and shall be based on TANGIBLE EVIDENCE. The Policy overrides the City resolution,erases it,rewrites it. This is completely unacceptable. R35 See R7 Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. Comment Compilation and Response 9 City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport(06/05/2023)