PC 010913 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Blank stated that when he reviewed this, he had a whole series of comments. He indicated that in Appendix C, 1A and 1 B, his concern with those two is very clear; but he worries that as all of the East Side Specific Plan's existing lakes as well as all existing plants, trees, wetland areas and ponds are existing land uses and exempt from further review, he wishes that there were some way to put a clarification in here that says that "other uses are subject to review" just so someone reading this five years down the road comes in and says it does not say we cannot add uses here. He noted that maybe that is overkill, but he has seen so many problems stemming from a lack of clarification in these plans. Mr. Dolan stated that he does not think that kind of addition is going to require a sort of re- submittal and that the Commission could add some clarifying language and move this forward. He noted that when the City gets to what seems to be the bigger hot -button issue about the exception, that will probably put the City into re- submittal mode. Commissioner Narum inquired if that would be case even if the Commission takes that down. Ms. Stern stated that it does not if the clarification is removed. Commissioner Narum commented that it would if the clarification were added. Mr. Dolan stated that to get back to the point, the Commission can add language like that without too much of a problem. Chair Blank commented that it is interesting that there is a noise study in the appendix that talks about the average community sensitivity to noise, based on a publication from 1992 with the actual measurements made in 1977, at 55 dBA is moderate to slight; and at 60 dBA may be considered an adverse aspect of the community environment. He noted that people have become even more noise - sensitive since then. Chair Blank asked Ms. Harryman if she was able to review a huge issue down in Southern California where not all the airport stakeholders were taken into account and the City of San Diego built an office building that exceeded some height limitation and ended up being litigated with lots of penalties involved and the owner of the building having to lop off the top two stories of the building. Ms. Harryman clarified that it was not the City that built the building but a private developer, and the City actually sued the developer to require them to do that among other real parties in interest. She added that it started with the ALUC, and the City did not adopt a plan and just ignored it. Chair Blank stated that he was looking at Policy 24 to say something like "work with the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission, staff, and airport stakeholders to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 9, 2013 Page 12 of 20