01 - Laserfiche WebLink

how the proposed higher density projects fits in with existing higher density projects throughout the City and then restated the actions recommended by staff for Council consideration and discussion. Councilmember Cook-Kallio referred to Item D under Cultural Resources and voiced concern with the mitigation measure for dealing with historic buildings with simply taking a photograph. She asked if it was possible to add the ability to be able to move the structure or relocate it. Councilmember Sullivan added that the Downtown Historic Guidelines Task Force will soon meet and through that process, the City will identify some of the criteria in dealing with historic buildings. This is the criteria he would like to look at versus a photograph or record, and he asked if there was a way to loop this into the process as mitigation. Mr. Fialho suggesting the Council may rely on either existing or future suggested guidelines under the presumption that the task force will create and recommend adoption to the City Council which could serve as a way to bolster the language in the mitigation plan. He said EIR's need to be very prescriptive in specifying exactly what the outcome needs to be. He suggested task force create the guidelines necessary and reference these as the proposed mitigation for historic mitigation, noting that staff has drafted language to this effect. Councilmember McGovern referred to page 2 of 15 and said documentation is referenced according to the Historic American Building Survey. She thinks what the task force was going to do was draft guidelines for Pleasanton which are much more important. Mr. Dolan said staff has revised language for the mitigation which addresses the task force's work and this will address local issues. The mitigation as written does not preclude the City from doing something more aggressive, and ultimately, when projects come forward, the City could still locally make the decision that the house be preserved in its entirety. He said all the mitigation does is provides flexibility not to do an EIR if the Council is ultimately convinced the house can be demolished. It does not preclude the development review process or findings about its significance, which would be affected by any new policies and criteria the task force develops. Councilmember McGovern asked to see the new verbiage prior to adopting the EIR, and Mr. Dolan pointed out that the revised language is underlined. Councilmember Cook-Kallio recognized the proposed direction but voiced concern that there may be no institutional memory that a future Council or Planning Commission may have. She would like to ensure that any future Council or Planning Commission have the benefit of the historical record. Councilmember Sullivan noted that the Council and Planning Commission must deal with it because staff will ensure whatever comes forward will have to comply with the mitigation. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said in addition to this, other work should be included to acknowledge and document the history of the downtown and historical buildings. Councilmember Sullivan noted this is the work the task force will accomplish. Councilmember Sullivan questioned the mitigation for water supply and the supplemental water study that was included in the SEIR, which has to do with long-term forecasts about where the City's water will come from. He said Zone 7 and water retailers are comfortable that there is a firm water supply through 2015, but beyond that, it gets more sketchy as to what measures will be taken to ensure there is an adequate water supply. He said he was not comfortable that the mitigation reflected some of the outstanding questions and needs to be strengthened to reference the issue of growth management as it relates to infrastructure. Mayor Hosterman agreed but questioned how this differs from language contained in the Water Element of the General Plan. Councilmember Sullivan noted this is EIR mitigation for the project; City Council Minutes Page 5 of 13 January 4, 2012