08 ATTACHMENTS 4-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Pearce proposed that the Commission review the questions. She inquired if there would be a benefit to separating Question 1, "Would the Planning Commission support a General Plan amendment to allow an increase in the density allocated for the subject site and Question 2, "Would the Planning Commission support an amendment to the Happy Valley Specific Plan which would allow an increase in the density allocated for the subject site and Ms. Decker replied that they could be combined. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he had participated in the first work session and has not changed his mind and would not support an amendment to the General Plan and Specific Plan. He noted that there has been a lot of discussion regarding wanting to be consistent with adjacent development, and he did not think putting six lots on six acres was anywhere near consistent. He added that the other parcels might be under one acre. He stated that the Serenity Terrace project has 12 lots, but it has much more than 24 acres, thereby developing less than one house per two acres. With respect to people not wanting to fully landscape two acres, he indicated that he did not think this should necessarily happen. He noted that the golf course is in a rural area, and there are horses on the trails along the golf course. He added that he personally does not have a problem with horses being out there. Commissioner O'Connor stated that an option would be to create a one -acre lot and to move three lots there, and then have another open space piece in there. He noted that part of the lot rises up to Serenity Terrace and that the lots are not all flat. He indicated that he would not be opposed to having three one -acre lots and having some additional open space. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he did not think that other developments not having used all of their capacity means they should be given to another development. He noted that any units not used can be put in multiple locations in the Downtown or near the BART station. He stated that he did not think this was an argument for building more density in the Happy Valley area and that he did not want to set a precedence. Commissioner Narum stated she supported the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment. She indicated that she thought that this might have been an unintended consequence of the Happy Valley Specific Plan. She noted that she felt the property was a bit of any eyesore and that the project should be more consistent with the rest of the lots surrounding the golf course. She added that there are several examples of developments that have already deviated from the Specific Plan. Commissioner Olson stated that he was initially uncomfortable with seven lots and indicated that he had pointed that out at the last workshop. He stated that he thinks the Commission should look at the General Plan and the Specific Plan on an extremely localized basis. He added that Mr. Schlies' argument with respect to the golf course is a convincing one and that the golf course attracts many people from out of town and makes a statement about this community. He agreed with Commissioner Narum that the property is now a bit of an eyesore and that he would support General Plan and Specific Plan amendments to allow six one -acre lots. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 14, 2009 Page 7 of 14