03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Weinstein discussed the impact of the revised project on the city's RHNA surplus. The exchange of the 177 -unit project for the currently proposed 94 -unit project would create a net decrease of 8 units in the low and very low income category and 83 units in the moderate income categories, for a net loss of 159 units. However, the reduced density of the proposed project would increase affordability to above moderate income households by 10 units. In summary, the total RHNA surplus would be reduced from 1,176 to 1,093 units which are equal to the reduction in units as compared to the previous proposal. Staff has heard a general level of community support for this project, particularly from the Parkside neighbors who seem pleased with the reduced density of the project. Other supportive comments relate to the generally reduced impacts on traffic, schools and water. Staff has roughly calculated that the currently proposed project could reduce the site's water demand by as much as 13.5 acre feet, or approximately 50 %, annually as compared to the previously approved project. In light of the community support and reduced impacts as well as the overall quality of the proposal, staff recommends that the Council take the actions listed on page 2 of the report and approve the project. Mayor Thome asked and Mr. Weinstein confirmed that the project is already entitled for 177 units. If this current proposal were denied, the applicant would have the right to pull permits for the larger project, pending Design Review. Mayor Thorne asked and Assistant City Attomey Harryman confimied that a denial of the project based on the drought would be equivalent to instituting a moratorium, which the city cannot legally do without a statement from Zone 7 that they lack the water supply to support the project. Councilmember Pentin noted that the Planning Commission's report states that the project will be conditioned to use recycled water for landscape irrigation when it becomes available, which he thought might be concurrent with the occupancy of this project. However, he did not see anywhere in the conditions of approval requiring the use of recycled water, only reclaimed grey water. Mr. Weinstein explained that reclaimed grey water is the same as recycled water and confirmed that the project is conditioned to use recycled water, when available, for all irrigation. Councilmember Narum asked what would become of the 83 excess growth management units, should this project be approved. Mr. Weinstein explained that as the city is entering a new growth management period, the units would essentially vanish. He confirmed for her that they could not be transferred to another project. Ms. Harryman confirmed, noting that the Growth Management Ordinance contemplates this type of scenario. Councilmember Narum suggested it might be wise to quantify the noise levels that would allow the Community Development Director to restrict Saturday construction times Mr. Dolan explained that practically speaking, any complaint would result in that restriction. Vice Mayor Brown asked whether the city had any authority, short of a moratorium, to ask or compel a developer to respect the fact that even a 94 -unit project is imprudent during a drought where existing citizens are doing their very best to conserve the minimal water supply that is available. Ms. Harryman said they could certainly ask but, as discussed earlier, a moratorium is not a possibility at this time. She said she has heard discussion about somehow using the Growth Management Ordinance to accomplish the same thing. However, the ordinance specifically states that once a project has secured a Growth Management Agreement the project may be modified without affecting its allocation approval provided that no additional units are added. The ordinance also discusses that City Council Minutes Page 11 of 18 June 16, 2015