Laserfiche WebLink
That being said, I didn't go as far as staff's revised recommendation to cap the well. I <br />thought about it significantly and I will say I'm still there thinking about it because having <br />been raised on a property that had a well and knowing a little about them, it's a great <br />benefit if this property is allowed to retain the well. I didn't know it had a well in the initial <br />workshop. I bring it up now as something to consider. In terms of the overall project, I <br />was on the minority side at the time because I was okay with the five, but I kind of think <br />this is everything we mutually said. I personally think this is everything in line with what <br />we asked if not, in my opinion, a little bit more. So I'm extremely pleased that staff and <br />the applicant worked together to get to this point. <br />Chair Ritter: Staff, Diane brought up a good question on the well. Could you help us <br />answer that one? <br />Hagen: I don't have any specific background. There are a few differences. One, the <br />Lester property is not in the city, it's in the county. So it was a county property that was <br />hooking up to City water services. Without knowing specifics I don't know if the capping <br />of the well was a county requirement or a city requirement, but there may have been <br />some special circumstances involved in that. <br />Commissioner Balch: The other thing with wells though is that generally if you have a <br />well, it's not a metered thing. You don't pay for the water you pump underground which <br />is why the state is very interested in it. Capping them or frankly, the state might want to <br />put a water meter on them. I don't know, but not necessarily from this body. But that's <br />why it's such a benefit because its water from the aquifer for the property. <br />Chair Ritter: So are these Pleasanton water or all through the well? <br />Weinstein: Yeah, so I think the issue for staff and I'll echo what Commissioner Balch <br />said, we're not going to be vociferous advocates for getting rid of the well. That said, we <br />added this condition in response to comments we've received because this is an aquifer <br />that we all rely on. When they get water from the well that won't be City of Pleasanton <br />water but we get a lot of water from the aquifer especially during years of drought. We <br />all depend on this aquifer, and the aquifer is really complex and it's unclear, it's hard to <br />ascertain how the water flows through it, but this is the aquifer that we get our water <br />from during drought years and its fossil water. It's water that's been built up over tens of <br />thousands of years and it's not being replenished probably at a sustainable rate so it <br />behooves us to conserve the water as best we can and to the extent we can limit the <br />amount of wells that are out there, that's something that benefits the City's overall water <br />supply because again, it's something we depend on during drought years. That said, <br />this one well is not going to make a huge impact on our overall water supply but it is in <br />the City's interest to limit wells in and around the city. <br />Chair Ritter: Does the church use its own well or City water? <br />Hagen: City water. <br />Chair Ritter: The new development will use City water or well water? <br />Hagen: City water. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2016 Page 8 of 38 <br />