SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

i. June revision section 2.6 still there j. k. I. 3. 4. 5. Noise impacts: 6. ignored in the document, although new policies and guidelines are provided on 7. garbage cans 8. - No new noise mitigation plans are required for applicants and how they 9. will "aggressively foster reduction in noise" This is the big issue! 10. 11. June revision adds mention of noise but provides no standards, no specifics. 12. Pretends that the existing noise is OK. Thus no reduction goal, at most a hand-wavy goal not to increase. Still fails to support the 2010 resolution, which calls for aggressive reduction. It's also placed under Social not Environmental, which is minimizing: 13. noise is an environmental issue, not just happy talk. 14. 15. June revision Section 2.9. Possible Grounds for Rejecting an Application 16. or Proposal: still has a dozen reasons to reject a proposal but not 17. one of them mentions noise. 18. 19. Overall, the June revision adds brief mentions of noise; it still has more 20. to say about garbage cans. It's still specific on what's acceptable for garbage cans. It is real vague about what's acceptable for noise. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. The City Initiative: 27. (where the city can put out an RFI/RFP/RFQ) is worded whenever there is 28. "land/improvement available" -this is in direct contradiction to the 2010 City resolution that explicitly indicates only when "existing demand" with "tangible evidence" - and the city does not make this determination - it is the Airport Advisory Commission 29. that does. Likewise "Encourage imaginative and innovative development of land" (section 1.2) is hardly consistent with meet existing demand. And yet they claim in that same section "The above objectives reflect the Airport Development Priorities established 30. by the Livermore City Council in 2010 through Resolution number 2010-058"; no, they do not. 31. 4