21 SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

L1VEIW@RE C FOR N I COMMENT COMPILATION AND RESPONSE Commenter#22 C88 Comment: Noise impacts-the document does not address how planning and development will take into account noise impact on the surrounding community and Livermore in general. I suggest detailing noise monitoring procedures and requiring a report on potential noise impact of any new development that should be part of the proposal process. There should also be a regular (multiple times a year) way to communicate impacts to the community.Any legal means of supporting noise reduction including adding fines to lease agreements for violations or assessing take off and landing flight paths for the least impact (near freeways when possible instead of homes)should be prioritized. R88 See R5 Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. C89 Comment: Any proposals that have a direct benefit to the city of Livermore residents should be prioritized.For example,development proposals that include amenities that the community can enjoy(a restaurant or museum). R89 Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. C90 Comment:Any proposal for development should be automatically linked to a public announcement.The steps for the approval process should be detailed in the plan and publicized at each stage. Extra opportunity for public input should be built into each stage of the process including the proposal stage R90 See R4 Commenter#23 C91 Section# 1.2 Page# I Comment: I am writing to express my concerns regarding the recent changes made to the Livermore Airport Development Policy.While the new policies and guidelines provided in the document cover many areas,I noticed that noise impacts had been ignored.This is a significant issue that needs to be addressed, especially given the high noise level during small plane takeovers in areas east of Jordan Ranch/Dublin(Opp Fallon Sports Park) and over the Cottonwood Creek School. Furthermore, I am concerned about the City Initiative clause in the Livermore Airport Development Policy.As per the 2010 City resolution, an RFI/RFP/RFQ can only be put out when there is "existing demand" with "tangible evidence." However, it appears that the Airport Advisory Commission, rather than the city,makes the determination.This raises questions about whether the airport staff is trying to bypass the 2010 resolution to allow for expansion,such as a cargo base for companies like Amazon, FBO with major jet operations (i.e.,737 maintenance or major jet port hangers and FBO),expand runways and impacts a large set of tri- valley communities(Dublin/Pleasanton/Livermore), and new development projects at the east side of Dublin. R91 See R5, R7 C92 Section#2.6 Page#7 Comment:Lack of transparency and public notification opportunities.There is no mention of when/if the public will be notified or allowed to provide feedback. This could result in agreements being signed in secret and not made public until it is too late in the process.The public should be notified at every stage of the process,from Interest to MOU to Concept Plan,to provide feedback. R92 See R4 Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. C93 Section#3.2 Page#9 Comment:This significant issue needs to be addressed,especially given the high noise level during small plane takeovers in areas east of Jordan Ranch/Dublin(Opp Fallon Sports Park)and over the Cottonwood Creek School. R93 See R5 Comment noted.No specific alternative language or deletions provided. Comment Compilation and Response 19 City of Livermore, Livermore Municipal Airport (06/05/2023)