Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-10-1989 Hansen GPAADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - January 10, 1989 An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Tuesday, January 10, 1989, in the Board Room of the Dublin Unified School District, 7471Larkdale Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m., by Mayor Paul Moffatt. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Moffatt. Councilmember Hegarty arrived at the meeting at 7:15 p.m. HANSEN RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY, EIR, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PREZONING, TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP'NO. 5766~ AND ANNEXATION REQUEST Mayor Moffatt indicated that it appears that at least 2 additional meetings will be necessary to discuss this topic, so he opened the discussion regarding potential dates. The Council scheduled the next meetings for Tuesday, January 24, 1989 at 7:00 p.m., at this same location. The following meeting was scheduled for Thursday, February 16th at 7:00 p.m., with a location to be determined. Senior Planner O'Halloran advised that this public hearing was continued from the December 13, 1988 Council meeting. To date, the City has held 3 public hearings and I public field trip to the project site. These hearings have been for discussion on issues related to the 147 acre proposed Hansen Ranch Project. Venture Corporation/Hansen Hill Development Corporation is proposing a General Plan Amendment to consider a 240 dwelling unit residential development on this site, which is west of Silvergate Drive and north of Hansen Drive. At previous meetings, the Council began discussions on the four major issues identified as' Issue No. 1: Conflict with Open Space Policies of the General Plan. The project proposes to fill the heavily wooded ravine and develop the area with single family houses. Certain areas with slopes over 30% would be graded to allow residential development. Issue No. 2: Type and Number of Dwelling Units (Land Use Designation and Density) for the Developable Areas. Issue No. 3: Significant Environmental Impacts on Oak/Bay Woodlands and Stream (Riparian) Corridor. Issue No. 4: Significant Environmental Impacts from Mass Grading. CM-8-16 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 10, 1989 Staff explained that in addition to the Council's review of the four major issues above, discussion and resolution of the following issues are also necessary: 5. Adding entire project site to Primary Planning Area 6. Amending tables and figures regarding residential development sites 7. Amending policies and map regarding Hansen Drive extension 8. Amending policies and map regarding alternate roadway to serve project 9. Amending policies regarding maximum acceptable level of service for major street intersections 10. Amending policies regarding fire protection buffer zones 11. Amending policies regarding open space maintenance The Applicant submitted a revised General Plan Amendment proposal to the Planning Department on December 28, 1988. The revised proposal 1) reduces the number of dwelling units to 240; 2) modifies the on-site vehicular circulation and eliminates the need for the proposed emergency access road located north of the project and relocates the road away from the existing Kaufman & Broad townhouses; 3) proposes unit development within Area I impacting significant oak woodland vegetation on site and off site on the Valley Christian Center; 4) proposes filling of a portion of the swale area contrary to City Council direction; 5) eliminates the proposed 17 units between .the knolls; 6) proposes filling in the area between the two knolls; and 7) includes unit development and a new cul- de-sac within Area 3 located in the northwestern portion of the site impacting both oak/bay woodlands and 30% slope areas. The Applicant's revised proposal includes three major areas on site which conflict with the City's existing open space policies. Area 1: The Applicant proposes grading, street improvements and development of approximately nine units. Residential development within this area is in direct conflict with the City's General Plan Policies 3.lA and 3.lB relating to preservation of oak woodland vegetation and 30% slopes. Development in this area will result in significant impacts on site and off site in that the Applicant proposes grading off site on the adjacent Valley Christian Center site. Area 1 also includes riparian/ creek corridor vegetation'in the vicinity of the proposed multi-family development. Area 2: The Applicant is proposing to fill the southeast portion of the swale area in which the City Council specifically and unanimously directed the Applicant to eliminate filling of the swale area. The filling of any portion of the swale area is in conflict with the City's General Plan Policies 3.lA and 3.lB relating to the preservation of oak woodland and riparian vegetation and 30% slope areas. Area 3: The Applicant proposes grading (cut and fill), roadway improvements and additional residential lots. Residential development within Area 3 is in conflict with General Plan Policies 3.lA and 3.lB in that this area consists of oak woodland vegetation and 30% slopes. ========================================================================= CM-8-17 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 10, 1989 ~Ms. O'Halloran explained that the main differences with the revised plan relate to a reduction of units from 245 to 240, modification of vehicular access and relocation of the road. Gordon Jacoby stated he would like to repeat some of the information presented by Ms. O'Halloran in a little slower fashion so the Council could see all the changes that have been made since their last map. There were roadway changes, removal of development changes, and grading changes throughout the project. They made an effort to change everything where concerns had been raised throughout the whole process. They moved the entrance road closer to the creek so the roadway would not be near the townhomes. They pushed the townhomes to the north side of the road, thereby pulling the road as far as they could away from the townhomes. They were contacted by the new Fire Chief who, in the last 4 or 5 months, has changed the policies regarding roadways. As a result of meeting with the Fire Chief, they realigned the roadway such that there will always be 2 access points into the loop road. Mr. Jacoby next discussed moving all the houses out of the swale. He stated he did take exception to the Staff Report as they propose no housing there. The Staff Report seems to imply that they are proposing homes in this area. They shifted the road on the northwest end of the property substantially down to move it out of the tree area and also further away from the swale area. With the last proposal, they were uncertain as to where they would put the fill. They decided that trying to build up in between the two knolls was not in anyone's interest, and so they did not pursue that effort. Mr. Jacoby advised that they are now proposing putting in a mound and presented a cross section drawing .illustrating how this would look. The primary reason for doing this was to make sure they have the least amount of dirt hauled off the site on local roads. This would be a controlled fill which would be reseeded and in effect, form more of a ridgeline between the two knolls, although'the two knoll points would still be higher. The ridgelines would be more visible as a backdrop to the homes nearby. One of the reasons they originally proposed filling the swale was because of the imbalance of dirt. He thought the primary area of conflict was the location of where they put the road and the grading required to do this. To take the road from one side to the other, they are proposing putting in some fill, as this is the only way they can bring the road from one side to the other side of the property. Behind the fill which goes in to support the road, they have room for homes. If they remove the homes, there will still be fill in this area. By moving the road down, they have been able to leave a lot of trees intact. They shifted the road to save as many trees as they could. Some areas have to be graded anyway in order to put the loop road in and/or to replace the landslide area. Mr. Jacoby felt it was very expensive to put in a loop road and then have no homes built along it. They are putting the custom lots in this area. He displayed a map which indicated a dark line outlining their recommen- dation as part of their proposal for General Plan. They felt they dealt with the issues of grading and tree saving as sensitively as possible. ========================================================================= CM-8-18 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 10, 1989 Ms. O'Halloran advised that Mark Trembley with EIP was present and could address some of the issues related to the open space area. Mark Trembley stated that their analysis of the Draft EIR dated December, 1987, and Final EIR dated May, 1988, was a different project in some respects. In the original EIR, there was about 1.6 million cubic yards of cut and about 1.1 million cubic yards of fill indicated. Mr. Jacoby advised that these figures related to the project about 4 generations back. Mr. Trembley questioned what the estimated amounts of cut and fill were at this time. Mr. Jacoby stated they are at this point, estimating about 900,000 cubic yards of cut and probably 750,000-800,000 cubic yards of fill. There would be about 150,000-200,000 excess cubic yards of cut and this was largely the purpose for the mound. Mr. Trembley indicated that the transfer of the fill from the swale area to the 2 knolls will save some off haul. The 200,000 cubic yards of excess dirt would equate to approximately 10,000 truckloads needing to be hauled. Mr. Jacoby stated that the purpose of the mound was to not have to take any dirt whatsoever off the site. Mr. Trembley discussed a letter from the Department of Fish & Game which he felt may become important. The letter did not get included in the EIR. The 45 day circulation period for the Draft EIR was December 23, 1987 to February 5, 1988, and the City did not receive the letter until August 2nd, although it was dated February 3rd. The Applicant will have to satisfy them on the stream alteration. These are the biologists that went out into the field about a year ago and made some agreements about what they would be willing to buy off on. Some of the redesign they requested has been done. Mr. Trembley stated he wanted to caution the Applicant that when the Department of Fish & Game comes back and still see the cut and fill, they will most likely give them some problems. They will probably want more than a 30' buffer along the stream. Mr. Jacoby stated that he appreciated the comments and further that he has worked a lot with the Department of Fish & Game and Fish & Wildlife. He felt they had taken the necessary steps for stream improvement, and are comfortable with what they are proposing. They are about 200' away from the area in question rather than the required 30'. They will walk them back on the site to give them a feel for the distance. Often times, the person who writes the site. Mr. Thompson discussed & Game. They may get They may also be conce They are mainly concerI Adjourned Regular Meet~ ~he report is not the same person who has walked the area of jurisdiction of the Department of Fish .nfo the areas of where the fill was eliminated. 7ned in the area where the road crosses the stream. led regarding the wildlife corridor. CM-8-19 January 10, 1989 Mr. Jacoby stated Fish & Game's primary interest is in the creek and has to do with flood control measures being proposed in the drainage to temporarily pond water that runs through. They would also be doing some selective rock placing, or rip rapping to the stream, so that the water continues to move in the existing stream bed. Cm. Jeffery questioned how the animal movement would occur. Mr. Jacoby indicated that a large size corregated metal pipe would be put into place with supports and with the road over the top. This would allow both animal and water movement. Cm. Jeffery asked if these would be similar to the culverts under 1-680. She felt this could become a security problem with kids going into the pipes. Mr. Jacoby stated that since this has actually not yet been engineered, they could comment no further. Cm. Hegarty felt that by eliminating certain homes, trees could be saved. Ms. O'Halloran advised that there was a tree survey completed by the Applicant in the EIR and Staff recommended that the Applicant be directed to prepare a new drawing at the same scale. Cm. Hegarty questioned if the Council was considering a General Plan Amendment or a.plan from the developer. He felt the Council was getting the cart before the horse. City Attorney Nave advised that their proposal is the first one to come in in the extended planning area that .brings these issues before the City Council to decide. This will affect their specific development based on how the Council determines it should be tailored. Mr. Jacoby felt part of the confusion stems from the fact that about 1 1/2 years ago, they prepared and had accepted, a tentative map and planned development. All of these were reviewed as being complete. They are now at a much greater detail. Cm. Hegarty clarified the fact that the City Could have made all these decisions without any developer presenting a plan. Cm. Jeffery questioned with regard to the scenic corridor on the other side of 1-580, and the mound and fill of the swale, was part of this plan to hide these homes from 1-580. Mr. Jacoby stated no that most of the houses will not be visible and are hidden from'view from 1-580. Elliott Healy stated he was concerned about the things that were discussed at the last meeting regarding the visual impact this project will have. He thought the Council had decided that photos should be taken of the major ridgelines from various locations in town. ========================================================================= CM-8-20 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 10, 1989 Mayor Moffatt stated that with the elimination of the high point of the area, this became secondary. Ms. O'Halloran advised that the reason why photos were not taken was mainly due to the weather. Weather permitting, these can still be taken, should the Council so direct. Mr. Healy stated he felt the Council made a good decision with regard to the swale area, and felt the Council should stick by this decision and allow no homes in the open space designated areas. Marjorie LaBar stated that with regard to the proposed mound, there is a large piece of land on the next property over being discussed for park dedication. She questioned what sort of visibility and where this mound was in relationship to the other piece of property. She also asked if this would be finished in one season or torn up for years. Ms. LaBar stated she was happy to see the road pushed back and questioned how necessary the homes were along this area. It appears that only about 5 or 6 homes are being proposed on this cul-de-sac. A cross section drawing requested earlier would show a lot more detail. In Area 3, the damage that would be done for the limited number of houses did not seem justified. Bob Anderson indicated that the Planning Staff did a study and came up with a number of 179 homes and he felt this would be a good starting point and questioned why the City did not go with this. Richard Heckler questioned if the loop road in Area 3 absolutely had to be there and also questioned if hoUses were being proposed on either side of the road. He felt this was a hollow argument that just because they must fill for the road, they might as well put in homes. Mr. Jacoby pointed out on the displayed drawings where grading would support the roadway. Custom homes would be located in this area. They needed to make some repairs due to the slide area. They would be regrading and revegetating. There will be a transition between the homes, the buffered landscaping and the natural landscaping. Mayor Moffatt asked what was the guarantee that the house does not go down the hill. Mr. Jacoby advised that they will put in proper materials and drainage to stop the slippage in the slide area. The dirt is moving down naturally now. Part of the ultimate guarantee lies with the bUilder. Mr. Jacoby stated that while he didn't wish to beat a dead horse, with a General Plan, you can't always anticipate exactly where the roadway is going to go through. They recognize that there are policies and concerns, but there are also City policies which do call for roadways. You can only look at these types of things when you get down to detail. In their proposal, they have tried to minimize conflicts wherever they can, and at the same time recognize that there is a road and circulation program needed, in addition to their desire to build some homes. CM-8-21 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 10, 1989 Cm. Jeffery questioned with regard to the custom lots if this is something they design the homes for or does someone buy the lot and then go out and get an architect to design the home. Mr. Jacoby advised that it is more of the latter. Cm. Jeffery indicated she did not remember specific policies related to hillside development, or homes built on stilts or built right into the hillside. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that there are no specific policies that relate to hillside development. There are policies that relate to 30% slope areas, but not on the actual construction requirement, or design review, etc. John Tragio thanked Mr. Jacoby for moving the road away from Winding Trails Road. His concerns relate to the boundary line and the fact that the creek is not straight, but rather snakes around. He asked for clarification of the point where the road crosses the creek. Mr. Jacoby pointed out the location of the covered bridge and indicated that there is only one creek crossing even though the creek snakes around. RECESS Mayor Moffatt called a short 'recess. Ail Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened. Zev Kahn stated the unforeseen boulders in this area needed to be discussed. Bordeaux Estates has a large collection of boulders. It was his understanding that Valley Christian Center used their boulders as decoration. These large boulders cannot be landscaped and will need to be removed from the property. These should'be considered when you discuss loads going out of the area, at least in the Environmental Impacts Report. Mr. Kahn felt that with the development and roads going in, some considerations needs to be discussed relative to public access to the open space areas. With regard to densities, Mr. Kahn indicated that Staff came up with a lower number. The numbers proposed by the developer are higher than the property can even hold. He felt consideration should be given as to how this development will look from 1-580. All one has to do is look at the Pulte Homes, and this will certainly keep your eye off of anything else around. Mr. Ambrose suggested that the Council stick to one General Plan issue at a time. This would be more productive. Issues related to the tentative map and planned development will come at a later point in time. The first item that needs to be resolved, is the appropriateness of developing CM-8-22 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 10, 1989 the open space areas, as proposed by the Applicant. When the Council reaches some closure on this issue, then it would be appropriate to move onto the next issue. Ray Alsdorf stated he hopes the developer will provide a clear indication of where the bridge will cross. Perhaps they could go out and flag this point. If you look at other cities in the area, there has been a move toward slow growth. We should look at whether residents want this area to develop and if so, how fast. Mr. Alsdorf urged the City Council to find out if everyone wants to see development in the hills. We should have developed the General Plan for this area and then ask the developer to modify their plans for the area. He felt that traffic related issues are a major concern in that any new development will certainly add to the congestion. Mayor Moffatt stated he wished to get on with some of the concepts at this time, particularly the conflict with open space policies of the General Plan. Some resolution should be reached with regard to 3.1A, preserve oak woodlands, 3.1B, maintain slopes over 30%, and 3.1C., continue requiring reservation of steep slopes and ridges as open space. Cm. Hegarty felt we should preserve the natural areas. Where natural creeks are concerned, we should have some sort of policy as to when roads go in, the development should take place on the opposite side of the creek. His concern was that whenever backyards face creek areas, you run into problems. No lots should back onto a creek. Cm. Jeffery stated she realizes that there are some areas where some trees will have to go for roads to be put in. We should try to minimize the loss of trees wherever possible. In Area 1, we need to compromise somehow. In general though, she felt we should preserve the woodlands and the 30% slope areas. She felt additional information was needed, however, in order to determine if we can achieve what we want with the policy as it stands. Cm. Vonheeder felt part of the problem is that there are different interpretations as to what is required and what is being done to get a road in. She would prefer to see houses that have vegetation in an area, rather than a crib wall. Most of the areas in conflict don't even have lots proposed on them. The conflict is whether the grading is necessary to the degree being proposed. The Council still doesn't know how much the new plan environmentally impacts the area. She felt part of the problem relates to the fact that the Council is trying to deal with 3 procedures at once. They are looking at the detail for procedure number 3 when trying to make a decision for number 1. Cm. Vonheeder felt that there was no problem with what was said in the General Plan. Cm. Snyder suggested that it might be easier to have each person say what they would like to have happen and then build the appropriate statement around that. He did not feel there was a general consensus in Areas 1 and 3, or a willingness to fill those areas for road purposes. If there isn't, the Council needs to say this, and then go on to something else. ========================================================================= CM-8-23 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 10, 1989 Mayor Moffatt asked if the Council felt that fill was appropriate for a road in Area 1. Cm. Snyder stated as the General Plan policy is now written, no, it is not appropriate. The same applies to Area 3. Cm. Jeffery asked if there was a way to provide flexibility for the benefit of a project without a substantial loss of trees. Mr. Nave indicated that the goal at this point is to determine whether or not 3.1A of the General Plan should control the proposal as to Areas 1, 2 and 3; and if so, the Applicant will need to go back to the drawing board, and the same will hold true with 3.1B and 3.1C. Cm. Hegarty stated that there is 150 acres in discussion. If you have a natural creek and a development is allowed to block it off, then it becomes almost like private property. What are we preserving the natural resources for? For everyone in Dublin to enjoy these natural resources, we must see that they are accessible to everyone. Cm. Jeffery made a motion which was seconded by Cm. Snyder, to reaffirm the General Plan Policies 3.1A, 3.1B, and 3.1C for the entire project. Cm. Jeffery asked if the Department of Fish & Game has a certain radius away from a creek which is considered a protected area and restricted. Mr. Trembley stated that a buffer strip is usually 30-100' from the bank of the creek, but they will barter. Council discussion ensued related to amending 3.1A to add "bUffer patterned after Fish & Game". Cm. Jeffery felt that if this is something that is required by Fish & Game anyway, there is no point in putting this in. Cm. Jeffery suggested that perhaps the Council could make a statement of explanation as far as the intent of the Council. Cm. Jeffery indicated she was mostly concerned regarding the creeks. Can the Council reaffirm the General Plan statements and include a statement of intent of what the Council means by preserving natural creeks. Mr. Nave stated he felt it would be appropriate for the Council to specify exactly what they mean by setting it forth in the policy. Cm. Jeffery questioned if this would be considered a change in the General Plan or a clarification. Mr. Nave stated it would be a clarification. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the Council reaffirmed the General Plan Policies 3.1A, 3.1B, and 3.1C for the entire project. ========================================================================= CM-8-24 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 10, 1989 The next item of discussion related to the significant environmental impacts of the project. Cm. Vonheeder felt that the Council was back to trying to define what is significant. She understood that there was about 6,000 trees on the site and at one point, we would be loosing about 600. She asked for current information related to trees. Mark Trembley discussed the original numbers and percentages contained in the Draft EIR. Ms. O'Halloran advised that there are 600 major trees affected, as indicated on the November 14th Staff Report. They have requested the Applicant to update this information. Mr. Jacoby indicated that they only surveyed trees that had the possibility of being affected. Cm. Vonheeder felt that the actual number we are now talking about is 109 trees. This number does not seem to be significant, if you are talking about 5,000 trees. Mr. Jacoby stated that a good number of these are located in areas that would be graded as a result of putting in a roadway. Cm. Snyder questioned the relevancy of this issue. He thought the Council had already dealt with this. Cm. Jeffery advised that they're trying to determine, "what is significant". Ms. O'Halloran advised that issues I and 2 can be combined as there is really no specific policy that uses the term "significant". Mayor Moffatt indicated that the Council would next discuss the issue of significant environmental impacts from mass grading. Cm. Snyder questioned why 3.1D was deleted from the listed policies. Ms. O'Halloran advised that the policies identified were the ones that Staff felt applied to this particular development. Mayor Moffatt felt one of the questions in his mind was with regard to where the ridgelines were, or where one viewed the ridgelines from. He questioned the definition of where you stand in order to look up the ridgeline, and how close. He felt this was one of the issues that has been stalled. Mr. Ambrose indicated that the Council's existing policy identifies where one would stand. It says you stand on 1-580 or 1-680 or major arterial streets. CM-8-25 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 10, 1989 Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Staff is looking for specific direction on whether the knolls are considered to be a ridgeline and whether the filling would be. in conflict with the General Plan policies that are identified. Sections 3.1C and 3.3F are implemented during the subdivision and the planned development stage and the policies now do not specifically prohibit grading within open space areas. The determination as to whether the filling of the knoll area is in conflict with these policies can occur at the subdivision stage when the actual grading plans come in. The Council could clarify this and amend the General Plan and include an additional policy, or clarify their intent. Cm. Vonheeder stated she did not feel that grading is in conflict with this particular policy. Cm. Hegarty stated that when you do mass grading, you scar the area. There is a certain amount of grading that must take place and any grading must be done with a permit with inspections. A study also has to be done. Cm. Jeffery felt that sometimes, grading or moving of earth can be for the betterment of an area. Mr. Ambrose indicated that there are several options. The Council can leave the policy as it is and when they come in with a planned development tentative map, they will have to take their chances; or the Council can be more specific and say, yes, this is a ridgeline that was discussed in the General Plan and they either need to preserve it or we would consider the fill as enhancement or it is not a ridgeline. From everyone's standpoint, Mr. Ambrose felt it would be more helpful if that clarification is made at this time. Cm. Jeffery stated she felt that in the beginning when the Council talked about ridgelines and 30% slopes, what was used as a guide was to think in terms of not wanting the hills scared or cut away. If you can improve a situation by giving a greater buffer to homes and improve the scenic corridor, she did not feel that this harms it at all. Mr. Ambrose summarized that what he heard the Council saying is that it is a ridgeline and they are viewing it as an enhancement to the ridgeline in this case. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, second by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the Council reaffirmed Policies 3.3E and 3.3F. Mayor Moffatt indicated the Council would next discuss the number and types of dwelling units and land use designation and density for the developable areas. Cm. Snyder questioned how past decisions at this meeting would affect the acreage figure under consideration. ========================================================================= CM-8-26 AdjoUrned Regular Meeting January 10, 1989 Ms. O'Halloran stated she felt the acreage figure would be more in line with Staff's acreage figure. The Council has not yet gotten into the actual land use designations, but so far has only discussed whether or not it is developable. Staff would need to do some new calculations. Strict interpretations of the policies may change some of the acreage in Area 3. Mayor Moffatt asked why Staff did not recommend any patio units. It appears that single family units is the only difference between Staff and the Applicant's recommendations. Ms. O'Halloran explained and advised that the General Plan bases density on gross acreage. The actual idea of having patio homes would be determined at the subdivision stage. Cm. Hegarty stated with regard to the number of single family homes he would like to see .5 - 2.8 as medium density. He felt that Bordeaux Estates is too dense and the lots too narrow. Cm. Vonheeder stated she felt the topography of this land will dictate the densities. Cm. Hegarty felt that if you make the low density number low enough, we are protected. Ms. O'Halloran pointed out the Planning Commission's recommendation to allow .9 - 6 per acre and establish a cap on the number of units that could be built. Mr. Ambrose stated that in the current General Plan there are caps established regarding the total number of units. Cm. Jeffery asked if Staff's recommendation was based on the current General Plan. Ms. O'Halloran advised yes, it was based on those areas considered to be buildable. Cm. Snyder made a motion which was seconded by Cm. Jeffery to have 2 designations. Density for single family homes would be 0.9 - 6.0 with a maximum number of units at 146. The medium density would be 6.1 - 8.0 with a maximum number of units at 50. Mr. Healy indicated he has a problem with these figures. He asked if these figures could be related to square footages. Mayor Moffatt explained that at this point, the Council is discussing land issues. Ms. LaBar requested the City Council to look at the.actual property when considering the overall densities. There may be places that in order to save something, special consideration could be given to permit clustering ========================================================================= CM-8-27 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 10, 1989 homes. She felt this issue needed more discussion. There should be some room for compromise. This concept was totally ignored by the Planning Commission. Mr. Jacoby expressed concern in that he felt he had been shut out of this discussion and this area is a very critical one to them. Cm. Jeffery and Cm. Vonheeder agreed that the Applicant needs to have opportunity for input, and further, that this would be a good stopping point for this meeting. Cm. Snyder and Cm. Jeffery agreed to table the motion until the Applicant can give testimony related to densities. Mayor Moffatt reported that the meeting would continue on January 24th. Recreational Vehicl'e Storage Area Cm. Jeffery requested that the City Manager place an item on the next regular meeting agenda related to writing a letter to the Board of Supervisors expressing opposition to the recreational vehicle storage area along 1-580. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Moffatt announced that the next meeting on the Hansen Hill develop- ment project will be on Tuesday, January 24th at 7:00 p.m., at the same location. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m. ========================================================================= CM-8-28 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 10, 1989