PC 032713 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Regonini said yes. He added that that is an industry standard right now Commissioner Posson noted that Conditions Nos. 55 and 100 talk about the gray water system and asked staff if the intent is to tie -in to the reclaimed water system. Mr. Dolan replied that those conditions stem from the City's checklist from the Climate Action Plan implementation. He noted that these are new conditions and that staff envisioned it as something that is on -site, recycling water in some way. He indicated that the City has not had any practice with this, so staff is still feeling its way through this. He stated that it may be a long way off before hooking up to the City's system may take place; however, he is willing to have that dialogue if he can determine that the City will get it there within a shorter timeframe, which would be acceptable to meet that implementation requirement. Chair Blank inquired if this would be one of the things staff could work out with the applicant by the time the project goes to City Council. Commissioner Posson agreed. He noted that Condition No. 100 uses the phrase "...are encouraged to use reclaimed gray water..." and recommended that it be changed to "...shall use reclaimed gray water" and then add "when available" at the end to tie it in to that purple pipe program. Mr. Dolan replied that would be fine John Casey stated that he is not speaking as a member of the Housing Commission, that his comments are his own and would like the Planning Commissioners to take them in context. He noted that Exhibit D of the staff report is the agenda items from the Housing Commission but that the Meeting Minutes for the February and March meetings are missing some of the local flavor. Mr. Casey stated that the Housing Commission had some challenges reviewing the proposal at two successive meetings. He noted that at their February discussion when they reviewed Option 1, they tabled the item and asked staff to re- engage with the applicants to come up with other options, and Option 2 was provided. He indicated that what was given to the Commission in the March meeting was an either /or Option 1 /Option 2. He added that they also looked at other options to see if there was a general consensus. He stated that they rejected both options based on the level of affordability and the number of units. He pointed out that one option provides additional affordability, and the other option provides additional units. He stated that part of the reasoning for that was that other projects in the vicinity had provided more affordability in terms of units and the level of affordability. He added that the Hacienda guidelines also came into play. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 27, 2013 Page 36 of 48