Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 SB 343 Schaefer Ranch ens ITO DUBLIN October 27, 2015 SB 343 Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials that have been received by the Community Development Department that relate to an agenda item after the agenda packets have been distributed to the Planning Commission be available to the public This document is also available in the Community Development Department and the City's Website. The attached document was received in the Community Development Department after distribution of the October 27, 2015 Planning Commission meeting agenda packet. 10-27-15 Item #8.1 G(Forms&Documents'C-CC Forms\PC FormsISS 343 Form tloc Jeff Baker From: Jim Dearbaugh < S Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 4 35 PM To: Jeff Baker,Jim Dearbaugh Subject: Item 8.2 PCSR Schaefer Ranch GPA Jeff, I am unable to attend the October 27th meeting where this will be discussed, but I wanted to share my view with the city council regarding the proposed change in zoning from 6 estate homes to 19 single family homes in Schaefer Ranch. I oppose this change for the following reasons: 1. The city previously converted a section of the Schaefer Ranch development (the section currently being built by Toll brothers) from estate sized lots to a higher density smaller lots. This change drove down the potential average selling price in the neighborhood devaluing the exclusivity and appeal of the overall development. 2. The additional change will further devalue the average selling price for properties in the development as compared with the original site plan. 3. Potential additional costs for the GHAD (special taxation district)with the additional homes in the area. Given the current real estate market, the developer should not have any problems selling these estate homes and there is no need to increase density other than a desire for short term profit maximization by the builder which will degrade the appeal of the development and Dublin Sincerely, Jim and Leslie Dearbaugh Dublin Ca 94568 t Jeff Baker From: Savitha Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 646 PM To: Jeff Baker Subject: Proposed plan for construction at schaefer ranch I am a resident of the Schaefer Ranch community residing at 10117 Marshall Canyon Court Dublin I will be unable to attend the meeting on October 27th. I hereby agree with all the statements made opposing this proposed construction Please consider this opposition of mine Regards, Savitha Setlur Sent from my iPhone 1 Jeff Baker From: Jeff Baker Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 4.41 PM To: 'Savitha' Subject: RE. Proposed plan for construction at schaefer ranch Savitha, Thank you for your email regarding the proposed project at Schaefer Ranch We will provide your email to the Planning Commission for their consideration at the meeting on October 27.The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council The City Council will subsequently hold a public hearing to make a final decision regarding the project All people who received notice of the Planning Commission meeting will also receive a notice of the City Council meeting. Jeff Baker Assistant Community Development Director City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 (925) 833-6610 I (925) 833-6628 FAX jeff.baker @dublin ca.gov I www dublin.ca gov Mission Statement.The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life,ensures a safe and secure environment, and fosters new opportunities. Original Message From Savitha fmailto�N Sent:Thursday, October 22, 2015 6:46 PM To Jeff Baker Subject- Proposed plan for construction at schaefer ranch I am a resident of the Schaefer Ranch community residing at 10117 Marshall Canyon Court Dublin I will be unable to attend the meeting on October 27th. I hereby agree with all the statements made opposing this proposed construction Please consider this opposition of mine. Regards, Savitha Setlur Sent from my (Phone t Jeff Baker From: Rekas Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 2 58 PM To: Jeff Baker Subject: Opposing the proposed plan amendment and planned develpment zoning As a Schaefer ranch resident I also oppose this plan . Thanks Renuka Project: PLPA 2012-00013 Schaefer Ranch I oppose the proposed General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Zoning. 1. City should have sizable number for new Estate Residential (0.01 - 0.8 units per acres) Units This will help Dublin Residents with increased income find an upscale home within Dublin. It is necessary to have affordable housing unit in any city. Similarly, it is desirable to have upscale houses in which multi- millionaires and billionaires should be willing to move into. 2. The site is perfectly suited and plotted for Estate Residential houses. Building Single Family Homes defies logic. For Example, one such property is the complicated driveways that are being proposed in the new plan. One driveway connecting three houses. There are many such features in the new proposal which go against the nature of terrain 3. Building high density housing on a street with down gradient with hills on both sides is dangerous. In case of street blockage Fire/Police/Ambulance will not be able to go in. Helicopters will also not be very useful because of higher elevation on both sides. 4. Schaefer Ranch home owners pay for the GRAD By putting three times (6 to 19) the propose houses the probably of any damage and the associated risk goes up drastically. Schaefer Ranch home owners end up paying the claims. So, it is in the interest of Schaefer Ranch Home owners to minimize the risk. 5. It may not be out of place to mention that Schaefer Ranch has been built on a site that has reportedly had nearly 60 landslides Some have alleged that the projects developer had to blast nearly 1.1M cubic yards of hard rock, move 9 4M cubic yards of dirt, and till up to 150 feet of soil to build this new residential community. 6. Builders profits and city's taxes are short term gains. A neighborhood lasts several generations. Building good neighborhoods is an investment in making a great city In Unit 2, there was a small commercial area initially planned which was converted to Single Family Homes. Also in Unit 2, proposed 16 (or 20) Estate Residential (0.01 - 0.8 units per acres) has been converted into 140 Single Family Ilomes (0.9 to 6 Units per acre). This has created houses with steep backyards which cannot be used for any purpose. houses surrounded on three sides by other houses which are very close too, etc 7 Commercial area located within Schaefer Ranch development has been scrapped. Residents have to drive about 3 miles to get basic amenities. There is no community center with activities like indoor community gathering, indoor games, swimming pool, etc 8. Builder profit optimization seems to be only goal of this proposal. By restricting number of units to just one less less than 20, the builder has intelligently avoided Inclusionary Housing Requirements and Public Art Provision requirements. 9. The street in Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 will be a Private Street The maintenance and management of the street will be by Home Owners Association. This cost will have to be shared by other home owners. The residents who are not on this street will still have to contribute for maintenance and management of this private street. r Jeff Baker From: Ketan Bhavan Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 1218 AM To: Jeff Baker Subject: I oppose the proposed General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Zoning Project PLPA 2012-00013 Schaefer Ranch Project PLPA 2012-00013 Schaefer Ranch I oppose the proposed General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Zoning. 1. City should have sizable number for new Estate Residential (0 01-0 8 units per acres) Units.This will help Dublin Residents with increased income find an upscale home within Dublin. It is necessary to have affordable housing unit in any city Similarly, it is desirable to have upscale houses in which multi-millionaires and billionaires should be willing to move into 2 The site is perfectly suited and plotted for Estate Residential houses. Building Single Family Homes defies logic For Example, one such property is the complicated driveways that are being proposed in the new plan.One driveway connecting three houses There are many such features in the new proposal which go against the nature of terrain. 3 Building high density housing on a street with down gradient with hills on both sides is dangerous. In case of street blockage Fire/Police/Ambulance will not be able to go in. Helicopters will also not be very useful because of higher elevation on both sides 4 Schaefer Ranch home owners pay for the GHAD By putting three times(6 to 19) the propose houses the probably of any damage and the associated risk goes up drastically.Schaefer Ranch home owners end up paying the claims So, it is in the interest of Schaefer Ranch Home owners to minimize the risk. 5. It may not be out of place to mention that Schaefer Ranch has been built on a site that has reportedly had nearly 60 landslides Some have alleged that the project's developer had to blast nearly 11M cubic yards of hard rock, move 9 4M cubic yards of dirt, and fill up to 150 feet of soil to build this new residential community. 6. Builders profits and city's taxes are short term gains A neighborhood lasts several generations Building good neighborhoods is an investment in making a great city In Unit 2,there was a small commercial area initially planned which was converted to Single Family Homes.Also in Unit 2, proposed 16 (or 20) Estate Residential (0.01 -0 8 units per acres) has been converted into 140 Single Family Homes (0 9 to 6 Units per acre) This has created houses with steep backyards which cannot be used for any purpose, houses surrounded on three sides by other houses which are very close too, etc. 7 Commercial area located within Schaefer Ranch development has been scrapped. Residents have to drive about 3 miles to get basic amenities. There is no community center with activities like indoor community gathering, indoor games, swimming pool,etc 8. Builder profit optimization seems to be only goal of this proposal By restricting number of units to just one less less than 20, the builder has intelligently avoided Inclusionary Housing Requirements and Public Art Provison requirements 9.The street in Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 will be a Private Street.The maintenance and management of the street will be by Home Owners Association This cost will have to be shared by other home owners.The residents who are not on this street will still have to contribute for maintenance and management of this private street. Thank You Ketan Bhavan Dublin, CA 94568 DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION City Council Chambers 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 RE Project PLPA 2012-00013- Schaefer Ranch October 13, 2015 Dear Planning Commission, Thank you for allowing us to express our opinion in matters relating to our community and the city We have been Schaefer Ranch residents since 2012 We looked at over 50 homes in several Bay Area cities including East Dublin, before selecting this community We oppose the proposed General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Zoning for several reasons 1 Building high density housing on a street with a down gradient with hills surrounding It can pose a danger to its residents 2 Building up to the 19 proposed homes in the planned area will increase the chance of damages and associated risks Schaefer Ranch residents will end up indirectly paying for claims using GHAD reserve 3 With more homes on the terrain, where there have historically been dozens of landslides, there is once again an increased risk of danger 4 There is also concern about the overall increase in housing and no major plans to build more schools to support the major influx of residents of school aged children. With the saturation of homes in this city. our children will ultimately suffer from overcrowded schools and a decreased quality of education 5 The increase in housing does not seem to be balanced with commercial sites to support the residents effectively This forces residents to support other local business in neighboring cities 6 Building more homes at Schaefer Ranch will heavily impact the flow of traffic and congestion in this area and ultimately the entire city Thank you for taking the time to present our letter Please keep the Schaefer Ranch Community safe and less congested Best Regards, Jenny and Andy Jeff Baker From: Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 1.56 PM To: rameet kohli@gmail.com, Arun Goel, tbhuthim @yahoo corn, lynna do @gmail corn Cc: Caroline Soto, Linda Smith, Jeff Baker Subject: Planning Commission tonight- please say no to projects Hello, (please forward to Scott Milian- I can not find his email. Forward me his email address please) I respectfully request the planning commission not approve any non- vested projects proposed this evening. There is absolutely NO benefit to our city from these projects Why is staff recommending approval of this project? The staff report identifies no benefits to the city, yet staff recommends approval. I believe our city Staff should remain neutral on projects and not try to tip the scales in favor of more development when residents everywhere are complaining about excessive growth, terrible traffic, and overcrowded schools Respectfully, Kerrie Chabot, 16 year resident Task Force Committee appointee Jeff Baker From: David Bewley Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2:34 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: PLPA 2012-00013 - Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map 8136 to create 19 single-family lots, and a CEQA Addendum RE: PLPA 2012-00013—Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review,Vesting Tentative Map 8136 to create 19 single-family lots, and a CEQA Addendum Dear Dublin Planning commissioners, I am unable to make the meeting tonight (October 27, 2015) regarding the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment as noted above. I know that you all understand that my failure to be at your meetings or for that matter the failure of others is not an implied consent or an agreement with the proponents or the Staff. I have appeared for over 25 years before the Council and Commission and in that context, have gained an appreciation for the processes involved in land use decision making. So as to this particular proposal, to convert 6 Estate Residential lots to 18 residential lots and create a 19th lot on a different street which are not currently vested is inappropriate given the overdevelopment which, as a matter of fact, not opinion, exists in our City today. As you all know there are just under nine thousand units planned but not built here in Dublin.This proposal confers absolutely no significant benefits to the local community or the city in general and burdens the current Schaeffer residents with over development. Considering overdevelopment: Where is the established need and where is the benefit conferred to anyone other than those who will benefit by selling more homes? There are only burdens no significant benefits with this proposal that appear in the Staff Report. For example: 19 units added give a benefit to the builder not the City as it is below the20 unit threshold for acquiring a payment in lieu fee for such projects as the Public Art Fund, affordable housing and some other factors that I am sure I am not considering at the present time. Another example: Open space is not increased by 10 acres but shifted to an area that is not available to the public. That is really a burden, as someone will have the burden of care and the public gets nothing of value. Increasing open space in Schaefer Ranch is a falsehood and in my opinion, a misrepresentation of fact. Over my 25 years of participating and viewing the many projects before this City I have read many detailed Staff reports. The staff is comprised with professionals it is true, but I have noted on numerous occasions in the past 25 years errors, failures of understanding, and even inappropriate bias in their reports .You should understand that this is true for other cities too, as well as for other professions. In particular I can factually document many of the errors and biases over this 25 year time period as well as very good reporting by the Staff which is not important at to this matter however. In my opinion, professional reports in general, such as Staff Reports should never be accepted but instead should read for information and analysis only. In this particular case,the Staff recommends approval. In my opinion this particular 1 Staff recommendation is inappropriate; it is for the Commission to advise and Council to make that decision. Staff should remain neutral in this case particularly where the observable burdens outweigh the benefits. Please deny and read this email into your record or include as an exhibit., Thank you, David Bewley 2 Jeff Baker From: Marlene Massetti feranififiallflearig Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:23 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Re: Reject Schaefer Ranch and Reconsider Decision Approving 60 Townhomes on Regional in Downtown Dublin PLEASE INCLUDE AS AN EXHIBIT TO YOUR REPORT Dear Dublin Planning Commissioners: Please reject the Schaefer Ranch Project that is before the Planning Commission this evening and reconsider, on appeal, your approval of the 60 town homes in downtown Dublin on Regional by Trumark Homes. Our community does not support and we can not afford to vest any more residential units in Dublin. We are suffering now the consequences of poor decisions made previously concerning Dublin's residential development. We do not have the infrastructure to support any additional residential units that will further impact the overcrowding of our schools, congestion on our streets and the quality of life for all Dublin residents. There are 8,787 units planned and over 5,000 of these units are vested and under developer agreement. We are unable to effect any change to those vested but the Planning Commission can make a difference now in Dublin's future by rejecting Schaefer Ranch and reconsidering your decision to approve 60 town homes on Regional Street in Downtown; approved October 13th by the Commission. Schaefer Ranch will add 19 more housing units to the City's housing stock and every single additional unit vested and approved by the Planning Commission (and Council) collectively contributes to the problem of overcrowding in Dublin. Additionally, the developer's proposal of 19 units instead of 20 relinquishes them from paying any "in lieu fees" for affordable housing! The 10 acres of open space that appears favorable, given our current deficit of parks but on review the acreage appears to be common, open space for the homeowners, maintained by the association that falls short in being a community benefit. Staff's report identifies no benefits to the City and we know there will be negative consequences to its vesting. In consideration of the above, the Commission should reject the project. Regional Street: I strongly urge the Commission to reconsider your decision and reject the proposal which will vest 60 more residential units in Dublin. We can not afford to vest any more non-vested units, including Regional Street. The project will further adversely effect our city; adding more children to our schools and more congestion to Dublin Blvd. The proposed development of 60 homes is too large for 2.7 acres. The design is flawed including the proposed parking stalls and inadequate guest parking and with one way in and out access only from Regional Street. There appears also to have been little or no consideration to the fact almost 400 homes are under construction a block away on Dublin Blvd. Adding more units to downtown will further exacerbate the traffic and congestion. Trumark's proposal of 36 guest parking spaces is a reduction in the City's ordinance 1 from one parking space per unit and sets a bad precedent going forward in the future. We know, absent any reports, that the current requirement of one guest space per unit has been solely insufficient for those living in and visiting any of the existing complexes. At build-out our population is projected to increase by 25,000 more residents bringing our total population to 75,000 with some projecting 80,000! Our city can not continue down this path, as it has, with no regard to the consequences. The residential projects proposed offer nothing in return to the community. We are quickly losing the quality of our lives in Dublin and hope as a Planning Commissioner will change this course. Please deny the Schaefer Ranch Project AND reconsider and reject the Regional Street Proposal by Trumark homes!. Sincerely, Marlene Massetti 2 I Jeff Baker From: Nita Emmanuel Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:16 PM To: Jeff Baker; Planning Commission Subject: Project: PLPA 2012-00013 Schaefer Ranch Attn: Planning Commission, City of Dublin I oppose the proposed General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Zoning based on the reasons below: 1 . City should have sizable number for new Estate Residential (0.01 - 0.8 units per acres) Units. This will help Dublin Residents with increased income find an upscale home within Dublin. It is necessary to have affordable housing unit in any city. Similarly, it is desirable to have upscale houses in which multi-millionaires and billionaires should be willing to move into. 2. The site is perfectly suited and plotted for Estate Residential houses. Building Single Family Homes defies logic. For Example, one such property is the complicated driveways that are being proposed in the new plan. One driveway connecting three houses. There are many such features in the new proposal which go against the nature of terrain. • 3. Building high density housing on a street with down gradient with hills on both sides is dangerous. In case of street blockage Fire/Police/Ambulance will not be able to go in. Helicopters will also not be very useful because of higher elevation on both sides. 4. Schaefer Ranch home owners pay for the GHAD. By putting three times (6 to 19) the propose houses the probably of any damage and the associated risk goes up drastically. Schaefer Ranch home owners end up paying the claims. So, it is in the interest of Schaefer Ranch Home owners to minimize the risk. 5. It may not be out of place to mention that Schaefer Ranch has been built on a site that has reportedly had nearly 60 landslides. Some have alleged that the project's developer had to blast nearly 1.1M cubic yards of hard rock, move 9.4M cubic yards of dirt, and fill up to 150 feet of soil to build this new residential community. 6. Builders profits and city's taxes are short term gains. A neighborhood lasts several generations. Building good neighborhoods is an investment in making a great city. In Unit 2. there was a small commercial area initially planned which was converted to Single Family Homes. Also in Unit 2, proposed 16 (or 20) Estate Residential (0.01 - 0.8 units per acres) has been converted into 140 Single Family Homes (0.9 to 6 Units per acre). This has created houses with steep backyards which cannot be used for any purpose, houses surrounded on three sides by other houses which are very close too, etc. 7. Commercial area located within Schaefer Ranch development has been scrapped. Residents have to drive about 3 miles to get basic amenities. There is no community center with activities like indoor community gathering, indoor games, swimming pool, etc. a 8. Builder profit optimization seems to be only goal of this proposal. By restricting number of units to just one less less than 20, the builder has intelligently avoided Inclusionary Housing Requirements and Public Art Provision requirements. 9. The street in Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 will be a Private Street. The maintenance and management of the street will be by Home Owners Association. This cost will have to be shared by other home owners. The residents who are not on this street will still have to contribute for maintenance and management of this private street. Respectfully, Sunita Emmanuel Resident of Schaefer Ranch 2 Jeff Baker From: Sharon Marts Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:59 PM To: 4111lMIMMMMMIMIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIgiPMOMOCaroline Soto; Linda Smith; Jeff Baker Cc: kerrie Chabot Subject: Please vote no on more new homes! (To be read aloud at planning meeting) Please vote NO tonight on the Schaefer Ranch rezone a parcel to homes. Let me repeat that-Please vote NO! My family moved to Dublin in 2003 with cows behind our home and the expectation of always having a seat in an "uncrowded" public school classroom whether there were homes behind us or cows in the future. I have seen our tremendous growth in the Bay Area --especially those who work in Silicon Valley. I recognize that Dublin is an affordable place for newcomers who commute from here by car or train --or who work here. But in good conscience, can you really feel like you are doing a new Dublin resident a favor if you give them a home and then force their kids and veteran Dublin residents into an overcrowded classroom? My family feels that the explosive (and irresponsible)growth and poor planning to align educational needs with a growing population for our city makes those of us who selected Dublin years ago feel like Dublin has done a "bait and switch" on us. Our family is now actually considering a plan to leave here before our younger kids reach high school. I'm sure we will have no trouble selling our home to another person who is unaware of the grave state our city has come to with lack of planning for growth, I feel sad for people buying a new home not knowing the details behind the community that they are joining--one that is making overcrowding the "new normal". Not only that that,they might come to sense their presence is less welcoming with every new tract of homes your planning commission forces through. -Dr Sharon Marts, EdD Gleneagles Dublin Ranch Neighborhood Sent from my iPad 1 William D. Thomson Attorney at Law 1222 Stealth Street, Livermore, CA 94551 Tel: (925) 606-6725 Fax: (925)447-1078 October 27, 2015 Via email in care of Debra.leclair@dublin.ca.gov Planning Commission City of Dublin Re: Agenda Item 8.1 - Schaefer Ranch Dear Planning Commission Members: My office represents the Ferguson, Davilla and Fields families. My clients are owners of property to the west of the Schaefer Ranch project. My clients currently have a 60 foot wide easement that is impacted by the roadway named Schaefer Way on proposed Tentative Map 8136. Please allow this correspondence to act as confirmation that my clients have no opposition to the staff recommendations set forth in the Staff Report dated October 27, 2015, for the approval of the project as long as the conditions of approval for Tentative Map 8136 for the Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 Project are adopted. The only additional comment my clients would make is that their easement is an easement for a right of way for roadway purposes and for the construction, maintenance and operation of all utilities in, under, over, along, and across the 60' wide easement. As a result, it should be noted that the potential future installation of utilities by my clients may impact some of the proposed developments along Schaefer Way such as sidewalks, trees, and other utilities that could be installed if the conditions of approval for Tentative Map 8136 are met. If you require any additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, William D. Thomson WDT/lo cc: Clients Jeff Baker From: Ravindra Sharma Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4 39 PM To: Jeff Baker Subject PLPA 2012-00013 From Man just and Ravi Sharma ublin, CA 94568 Phoned sending email with following contents to Jeff baker@dublin.ca.gov If you want you can also consider sending such an email. I will also be going to the hearing on Tuesday and give a written letter with this content Project. PLPA 2012-00013 Schaefer Ranch I oppose the proposed General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Zoning. 1 City should have sizable number for new Estate Residential (0 01 -0 8 units per acres) Units.This will help Dublin Residents with increased income find an upscale home within Dublin It is necessary to have affordable housing unit in any city. Similarly, it is desirable to have upscale houses in which multi-millionaires and billionaires should be willing to move into 2 The site is perfectly suited and plotted for Estate Residential houses Building Single Family Homes defies logic. For Example, one such property is the complicated driveways that are being proposed in the new plan One driveway connecting three houses There are many such features in the new proposal which go against the nature of terrain 3 Building high density housing on a street with down gradient with hills on both sides is dangerous In case of street blockage Fire/Police/Ambulance will not be able to go in. Helicopters will also not be very useful because of higher elevation on both sides. 4 Schaefer Ranch home owners pay for the GHAD By putting three times(6 to 19)the propose houses the probably of any damage and the associated risk goes up drastically Schaefer Ranch home owners end up paying the claims So, it is in the interest of Schaefer Ranch Home owners to minimize the risk. 5. It may not be out of place to mention that Schaefer Ranch has been built on a site that has reportedly had nearly 60 landslides Some have alleged that the project's developer had to blast nearly 1.1M cubic yards of hard rock, move 9 4M cubic yards of dirt,and fill up to 150 feet of soil to build this new residential community 6. Builders profits and city's taxes are short term gains A neighborhood lasts several generations Building good neighborhoods is an investment in making a great city. In Unit 2,there was a small commercial area initially planned which was converted to Single Family Homes Also in Unit 2, proposed 16(or 20) Estate Residential (0.01 -0.8 units per acres) has been converted into 140 Single Family Homes (0 9 to 6 Units per acre) This has created houses with steep backyards which cannot be used for any purpose, houses surrounded on three sides by other houses which are very close too, etc. 1 7 Commercial area located within Schaefer Ranch development has been scrapped Residents have to drive about 3 miles to get basic amenities There is no community center with activities like indoor community gathering, indoor games,swimming pool, etc 8. Builder profit optimization seems to be only goal of this proposal. By restricting number of units to just one less less than 20,the builder has intelligently avoided Inclusionary Housing Requirements and Public Art Provision requirements 9.The street in Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 will be a Private Street The maintenance and management of the street will be by Home Owners Association This cost will have to be shared by other home owners.The residents who are not on this street will still have to contribute for maintenance and management of this private street. 2