Laserfiche WebLink
L1\7E1WRE <br /> " `°° " COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE <br /> Commenter#17 ., <br /> C69 Appendix#7.4 <br /> Page#30 <br /> Comment: A FLAW OF THE RECENT KAISER APPLICATION STRONGLY OPPOSED BY <br /> RESIDENTS IS REPEATED IN THIS POLICY DOCUMENT.Until the application is far down the <br /> flowchart and presented to the airport commission, there is no requirement for review or input from <br /> persons required to be LIVERMORE RESIDENTS. <br /> R69 Appendix 7.4 has been expanded to include Airport Commission participation following submission of <br /> an Application(under the Unsolicited Interest process)as well as prior to issuing an RFQ/RFP(under the <br /> City Initiative process). <br /> C70 Appendix#7.4 <br /> Page#30 <br /> Comment: ADD an additional task Process between the "Start" bubble and "Interested party initial <br /> meeting with IDSRT" as follows: "While in compliance with Brown Act, Interested party meets <br /> individually with Airport Commission members, willing to sign NDA if needed, for the purpose of <br /> informal presentation and to receive feedback regarding the proposed application prior to IDSRT <br /> submittal" <br /> R70 See R69. <br /> C71 THIS WEBSITE FORM <br /> Comment <br /> This website requires at least the input of City and County -Yet there is no input fields for that.There is <br /> only an input for"Country" <br /> R71 Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. <br /> C72 THIS WEBSITE FORM <br /> Comment <br /> Once you hit"Review"there is no visible"Edit",or"Go Back"button to make the changes it requires <br /> R72 Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. <br /> Commenter#18 <br /> C73 Section# 1.2 <br /> Page# 1 <br /> Comment: I have concerns regarding the Livermore Airport New Development Plan Proposal. Please <br /> advise where these issues are addressed in your Airport New Development Plan Proposal.The big issues: <br /> R73 Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. <br /> C74 (a)Noise impacts are ignored in the documents;why aren't noise policies mentioned? <br /> R74 See R5 <br /> Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. <br /> C75 (b)It appears the City can issue an RFI/RFP/RFQ whenever there is"land/improvement available"even <br /> without existing demand with tangible evidence(in contradiction to the 2010 City resolution). <br /> R75 See R7 <br /> Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. <br /> C76 (c) I don't see it mentioned when/if public notification/comment will happen (when developments are <br /> proposed).The public needs to be made aware of proposals that impact them and their daily lives. <br /> R76 See R4 <br /> Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. <br /> C77 (d) It appears there's an ability for city council to bypass city manager, airport commission, airport <br /> management and sign a deal for expansion (looking at current proposed wording). Full disclosure and <br /> transparency are important. <br /> R77 See R69 <br /> -1.01100Comment Compilation and Response 16 <br /> City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023) <br />