PC 081314 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Ritter referred to Mr. Morrison's statement that the staff report says the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan — Zone 7 has sufficient water to accommodate planned growth through 2030. He inquired if that is 80 percent reliable. Mr. Dolan replied that he had addressed that earlier that clearly this was written before the drought and that there is a dialogue going on right now to see what needs to be done. He stated that it would be great if the City could just wait until that dialogue occurred and then decide what to do, but the City cannot wait because the way the Housing Element law and RHNA are set up, the City has to have its inventory ready to submit in the next couple of months, and if the City does not have its inventory ready, the City will get into the same trouble it did the last time. He noted that there are implications: this community resisted State housing law and adopted the housing cap; it tested how that works and experienced it firsthand. He pointed out that the City lost and it cost a lot of money, and now the City is proceeding with caution and efficiently saving the taxpayers of Pleasanton money on litigation that was unsuccessful. He indicated that the City has to keep on this schedule to meet the requirements and ultimately, the resolution of the water issue in California is going to take a bigger conversation than Pleasanton's Housing Element. Commissioner Ritter stated that the best pair of speakers he saw tonight was Karen Ellgas and James Paxson. He pointed out that that was an example of two opposing groups that the Commission has had up here before, and they talked through things and came up with mutual plans for that CM Capital site. He asked staff if keeping that site in the Housing Element and going through, knowing that the parties are working through those issues, would still be step one. Mr. Dolan replied that that is interesting because there has been a lot of dialogue about it. He noted that the neighbors want to lower the density and do not what to get another Summerhill project. He continued that there was some resistance from that from the property owners and from Hacienda, and now they seem to be coming together. He indicated that that is great because there are more people happy, and there the success of getting this adopted and moving forward is more likely to occur. Mr. Dolan noted that staff's reason is broader than that and is concerned about the buffer. He indicated that that site accounts for 200 units, and if it is taken out of the 30- units - per -acre density, then the buffer is down to 175 units. He pointed out that it is tight but not insurmountable. He noted, however, that staff is not making that recommendation and will defend the sites because staff believes that they are viable and it may be fine. He further noted that he thinks it is great that they came forward together and worked something out like that, and it would be a shame to waste that effort. He stated that he thinks staff can work with it either way and that the Commission can make its recommendation on that. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 13, 2014 Page 25 of 32