PC 011316 - Laserfiche WebLink

kept that housing cap and we're already beyond it. So, again, I'm not looking to increase density. Balch: Well I actually probably will take the other side. I am supportive of the increase of density primarily for a few reasons and maybe I'll be on the short end but I'll just say I do see it as infill but I also see it as exactly how staff is saying; that it is on the periphery and we've got to be careful with that because where does the periphery start and where does it not? I can see the patchwork of rural coming in. And the reason I can support in particular is because it's two more units and maybe that's what I'm comfortable with is the two additional units versus as in the presentation by Mr. Houston many more. So I could support five as proposed density, and I have to say I really can do it because I see such significant high density just slightly up the road. I mean the next property is extremely dense. I mean, I drove through that several times and so if we're saying this is the edge of Pleasanton, then go five more feet because that seems a lot. They consider themselves in Pleasanton as well and that density is extremely high and would have of course never made it into today's world, but I do see this as a good way to do it. I respect exactly what prior Commissioners have said; that the three or the two, but I don't see three versus five as a deal- breaker for me. I don't, so I would support a higher increase in density. That being said, there are other issues to address but we kind of got past that. And I personally think the density Mr. Houston has suggested of five seems to be much more in line in keeping with what we want, like we can achieve a lot from the rural nature of it with what he's proposing. Nagler: Thank you. I'm not in favor of the five homes. I am supportive of maintaining the General Plan. I don't think .... I'll make a general point and then a specific point. In general, I think it's appropriate for us in a planning capacity to respect a process that is long and deliberative and involves a lot of community input and looks at the sort of layout of the community and has pockets of high density, low density, open space, bike trails and so forth as a serious endeavor. And if we get into a pattern of sort of hopscotch and based on the creativity of people willing to take risks on projects and do damage to that overall rationale, I don't think that's serving the community. And so I think Commissioner Balch's point could be very well made about the density of this project, but again, I don't know that it is appropriate with sort of the weight of an application as opposed to the weight of a deliberative process to be the reason that we should look beyond supporting, to the extent we can, the General Plan. So that's primary. And then secondarily, it's a little bit of, you sort of know it when you see it. Having also spent time across the street on the property, driving up the hill, there is an aesthetic difference between an acre lot there and not and it does have the feel more of a subdivision in sort of a more practical application of the word with five homes on that four -acre lot than three. So, I could absolutely be fine with the three. I think it's totally appropriate to cluster them on this parcel we're talking about on this side of the creek and designate the rest of the church property open space. Balch: Could I rebut. So my issue under your premise that the General Plan process is deliberate, we wouldn't be here because everything we're doing is doing a General Plan PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 13, 2016 Page 18 of 26