Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.1 Western Dublin Draft General Plan City of Dublin Agenda Statement City Council Meeting Date: May 28, 1992 SUBJECT: PA 88-144 Western Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan PREPARED BY: Brenda A. Gillarde, Project Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Specific Plan, dated December 1991 (sent under separate cover in December 1991) 2. Draft General Plan Amendment, dated December 1991 (sent under separate cover in December 1991) 3. Planning Commission recommended General Plan-Amendment text revisions (see May 12 Council Agenda Statement, Attachment 2) 4. Planning Commission recommended- Specific Plan text revisions (see May 12 Council Agenda Statement, Attachment 3) 5. Letters from Eden Development Group, dated February 26 and February 28, 1992 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Hear Staff/Consultant presentation 2. Question Staff/Consultant 3. Provide direction to Staff on the appropriate land use concept for the Milestone -property and corresponding general plan amendment/specific plan-changes 4. Provide direction to Staff on the appropriate land-use concept for the Eden/Schaefer property and corresponding general plan amendment/specific plan changes 5. Provide direction to Staff on minor general plan amendment and specific plan text revisions 6. Continue the meeting to June 8, 1992 for approval of the draft resolutions adopting the general plan amendment and specific plan SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES AND ACTIONS .The Council is requested to take action on the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment (CPA) and Specific Plan (SP) by giving direction to Staff on various issues outlined in this agenda statement. The Council should give its direction to Staff via non-binding "straw votes." Following the Council's deliberations and "straw votes," Staff will prepare draft resolutions for the project including any required -findings; statements of overriding consideration,- if necessary; adoption of the general plan amendment; and adoption of the -specific plan. The draft resolutions will be considered by the Council at the June 8, 1992 meeting. The major issues and actions which the Council should consider are summarized on the next page. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. COPIES TO: Applicant/Owner Senior Planner Project Planner Agenda File Application File ------------------------------------------------------------ COPIES TO: ITEM NO. CITY C L1 FILE A. Specific Plan/GPA Issues Relating to the Milestone Property 1. Determination of whether to retain the Brittany Drive extension 2. Determination of whether to permit development above 740' B. Specific Plan/GPA Issues Relating to the Eden/Schaefer Property - 1. Determination of whether to modify the development concept as proposed by the applicants 2. Determination of applicant requests to modify the specific plan text C. Minor General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Text Revisions 1. Direction to Staff on minor text revisions BACKGROUND: The proposed project for western Dublin consists -of a general plan amendment and specific plan. The development- concept contained in the -Specific Plan would - require the City to amend its current general plan. Because these two documents are interrelated, they will be discussed together under each major issue and action topic. The Draft Specific Plan (dated December 1991) lays out the development concept for western Dublin.- As envisioned in the Plan, the concept includes 3,260 units situated on 3,400 acres with -an -18 -hole championship golf- course-and pedestrian- oriented "Village Center."- The document- provides specific development -policies to direct where and how- development- should occur- in the study area. Standards -are included for residential and commercial uses, roads and other infrastructure such as schools, police and -fire service. There are also numerous-action programs such as an environmental management plan for the area's open space, site development plans for individual development projects and further geotechnical studies to ensure implementation of Specific Plan goals and policies. In order to accommodate the specific plan development concept, the City's current general plan would have to be modified. The existing general plan states: "...many or most development proposals in the extended planning area will require a General Plan amendment."- (Refer to Dublin General Plan, page 2). The proposed Western Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA) pertains only to the western extended planning area (i.e. western Dublin). The major policy changes to the current general plan would occur in the open space and conservation elements. The primary thrust of the proposed policies is to create more flexibility in some of the City's present policy language regarding slopes, vegetation and stream corridors. For ease of referencing, the chart listing key existing general plan policies that would be have to be modified is repeated from the May 28 EIR agenda statement. Existing General Plan Policies Proposed GPA Policy Modifications Preserve oak woodlands (GP, p.15) Protect woodland wherever possible _ (Draft GPA, p.12) Page 2 of 10 Maintain slopes-over -30 percent as Generally confine development to open space (GP, p. 15) areas under 30 percent; consider land alteration in areas over 30 percent under certain conditions (Draft GPA, p.12) Protect riparian vegetation Alteration of riparian vegetation will (GP, p. 28-29) be necessary; give special consideration to protection of riparian woodland (Draft GPA, p. 20) Restrict development on slopes over Require steep slopes to be restricted 30 percent (GP, p.29) to- open space except where they occur in designated development areas (Draft GPA, p. 22) Protect oak woodland; require Emphasize -oak woodland preservation; preservation of oak woodlands allow removal only after all feasible (GP, p. 29) efforts to- preserve -them have been made (Draft GPA, p. 23) Under the proposed policy- modifications,-land over 30 percent slope could be altered for--development, -and oak and riparian woodlands could be removed. These major- deviations from existing general plan policy would be necessary to accommodate the level of development envisioned in the proposed Western Dublin Specific Plan.- It should be noted that the proposed Western Dublin General Plan Amendment has been designed to apply only -to the Western Extended Planning Area in recognition of its special development conditions. _ The only -way-to avoid modifying the City's existing general plan policies would be to develop a project that complies with current-policy direction.- This alternative was explored in the Western Dublin EIR and resulted in the Rural- Residential - Alternative which would allow 200 units on the Eden/Schaefer property and 2 units on the Milestone property. MAJOR ISSUES The Planning Commission, in- its deliberations on the project, recommended several changes -to the Specific Plan, with resultant -adjustments required to the General Plan Amendment. These recommended changes raise major issues about the development concept that is presented in the Draft Specific Plan. The Council.is requested to consider these issues and provide direction to Staff via "straw votes." The -issues are -described on the following pages with the required Council action indicated in bold typeface. Page 3 of 10 A. GPA/SPECIFIC PLAN ISSUES RELATING TO THE MILESTONE PROPERTY 1. Brittany Drive Extension Considerable concern has been expressed by westside residents about the Brittany Drive extension. This road is proposed -by the applicants as one of two access routes into the Milestone-project.- Based -on current-City standards- for a-two-lane residential street, existing Brittany Drive could accommodate the additional project traffic, However,- given the long, virtually straight alignment of the proposed extension, the tendency for cars- to speed would likely increase. This could lead to conflicts between speeding vehicles and pedestrians. The EIR -identified this as a significant adverse impact which could be mitigated by such measures as striping and warning signs. (Refer to EIR, page 4-10.) The applicants proposed an alternative to the Brittany Drive extension which involved constructing a full public street over Skyline Ridge connecting to the Eden--Development project.. Staff does not support such a public road because of additional grading in a visually sensitive area and disruption of the regional trail corridor planned by East Bay Regional Park District along Skyline Ridge. There are no other feasible alternatives for a second public access road to the Milestone property. According to City and fire code standards, any project over-74 units must have two public access roads. A -project-with 25-74- units must have one public access road and one emergency vehicle access route (EVA). The EIR -identified two possible alignments -for an EVA:- 1) a northerly alignment, beginning in Martin Canyon; and 2).a southerly alignment running along the south side of Cronin- Ridge. The southerly alignment is considered the safer of the two routes, although slightly more visible than the northern one. If the project had only-one public access road- and an EVA, the number of units would have to -be reduced from 125 to a maximum of 74-units.. This alternative is identified in the EIR, as the Cluster - Development Alternative.- Under this alternative, the overall project concept single family custom- lots - would be retained. Access would be via Hansen Hills Ranch subdivision. This alternative would address neighborhood concerns- with additional traffic on Brittany Drive.-It. would also address visual concerns associated with development above the 740' elevation (see section 2 below). However-, the Cluster Development Alternative would not eliminate all identified unavoidable adverse significant impacts, namely massive landform alteration and vegetation. ---The project alternatives that would eliminate all unavoidable impacts are the Rural -Residential Alternative (2 units), the No -Project Alternative and the Optional Site -' Alternative. (Refer to EIR, pp. 17-19 -3, -11.) Page 4 of 10 2. Development Above 740' Elevation As proposed by the applicants in the Draft Specific Plan, a portion of the Milestone project would project above the 740' elevation, which historically, has been the upper limit of development in Dublin. These homes would be visible from central- Dublin and the Dublin -hills. The EIR identifies this an- a-significant adverse impact which could be mitigated by removing approximately 30-to 40 lots from Cronin-Ridge. (Refer to EIR, page 5-11.) The Planning Commission recommended the removal of 30 to 40 lots from Cronin Ridge. 3. Discussion The- Council has several options to consider for development on the Milestone property: a. Leave the development -as presently proposed in the Draft Specific Plan - 125 units, two public access roads (Brittany Drive extension and Hansen Hills Ranch Road). b. Reduce the number of allowable units to-a -maximum of 74 units, eliminate- the Brittany Drive extension and provide an emergency vehicle access route (the Cluster Development Alternative). c. Permit development of 125 units; eliminate -the Brittany Drive extension, and allow a full public access road to be built over Skyline Ridge. d. Recommend another development option. Selection of "a", "b" or ?'c'l would require amending-current General Plan - policies regarding development on 30 percent slopes, loss -of oak woodland,- and loss of riparian vegetation. This would not be the case with the Rural Residential Alternative (2 units) which essentially conforms to current General Plan policy. Selection of the above options, with the possible exception of "d" would also require the Council to make subsequent findings for significant environmental impacts and -a statement of- overriding -considerations for unavoidable adverse impacts. Each finding would be accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale used- to make the finding. For the statement of overriding - considerations, the -Council would have to balance the benefits -of the project against the unavoidable impacts. These statements will be prepared, as necessary, for the development option selected by the Council. They will be contained in-the draft resolutions the Council will consider at the June 8, 1992 meeting. The Planning- Commission and Staff recommend that the project be -reduced to a maximum of 74 units, that the Brittany Drive extension be eliminated and that the southerly alignment be established for the EVA. Page 5 of 10 Council Action Required: Determine, by "straw-vote,"- which- development concept should be selected for the- Milestone property and-incorporated into the Western Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. B. GPA/SPECIFIC PLAN ISSUES RELATING TO THE EDEN/SCHAEFER PROPERTY 10 Modifying� the Development Concept The project as proposed by the- applicants and described in the Draft Specific Plan would-result in 3,131 units on -the Eden/Schaefer property with-an 18 hole championship golf course and a pedestrian oriented "Village Center." In order to achieve this development concept, substantial- alteration would be required to the site's existing terrain and vegetation. The -upper sections of seven ridges would be lowered, in some- cases by as much as 100 feet. - Fill would -be placed-in six canyons,-exceeding depths of 100 feet in certain areas.- Coincident -with this massive landform alteration is the loss of significant stands of oak and riparian woodland. - Because these habitats are rapidly disappearing they are of high ecological value. The Planning Commission expressed considerable -concern about the destruction of native oak woodland -and riparian habitat on the- - Eden/Schaefer portion of the project. Lengthy Commission discussion focused- on the Cluster -Development Alternative as an alternative to the development concept outlined in the Draft Specific Plan. The Cluster Development- Alternative would have the same number of units as -the concept- described in the- Draft Specific Plan - 3,131 units. However, the housing mix would be substantially different. There would be more small single family lots and multifamily units than presently proposed-in the Draft Specific Plan. -Many of the custom lots would be eliminated. - According to the-layout in the EIR, the - golf course and commercial center would remain. (Refer to EIR page 17-9 and Figure 17-4.) There are several environmental advantages-to the-Cluster Development Alternative, most notably the preservation of Upper Elderberry and -Wildflower -Canyons. These two canyons contain significant stands of relatively undisturbed oak and riparian woodland. The loss of these canyons and their associated vegetation was - identified in the EIR as an unavoidable adverse significant impact. However, -with this-alternative other unavoidable vegetation impacts would re main, including loss of oak-and riparian-woodland in- Hollis Canyon and loss of willow riparian habitat in Eden and Songbird canyons. Substantial landform- alteration would still be required with coincident unavoidable -visual impacts. The 1 alternatives -that would eliminate unavoidable adverse impacts (except air quality) are the Page 6 of 10 Rural Residential Alternative which would permit 200 units on the Eden/Schaefer property, the No Project Alternative and the Optional Site Alternative. (Refer to EIR, p. 17-1, -3, -11.) There are several disadvantages to the Cluster Development Alternative. - The EIR notes that the higher densities and fewer large lot homes could result in.-a negative fiscal impact on the City. However, with- a carefully balanced mix of units, a neutral fiscal impact could be possible. (Refer to EIR page 17-10.) The EIR also states (p. 17-10) that there are serious questions of market feasibility and demand for-.the type of units- -in the Cluster Alternative. The increased -density of this alternative seriously compromises the -financial viability of the project: -(The Eden - Development Group applicants addressed marketing concerns-in their letter to the Council which was handed out at the May 12 meeting.) At-the conclusion of their deliberations, the Planning Commission recommended the project as proposed in the Draft Specific Plan. 2. Discussion The Council has several options to consider for development on the Eden/Schaefer property: a. Leave the development -concept as presently proposed in the Draft- Specific Plan--3,131 -units with an emphasis on large -lot, custom homes surrounding the-golf course, - Development would occur in most of the major canyons, including Elderberry Canyon and Wildflower canyons. b. Select the Cluster Development Alternative 3,131 clustered units with an emphasis-on small- lot single-family and multi- family homes. Development would be excluded from Elderberry and Wildflower canyons although other canyons would be developed. A location would be provided for the golf course. C, Recommend another development option. Selection of "a" or "b" would require amending the City's current General Plan policies regarding 30 percent slopes, loss of oak and riparian woodland. Selection of- the Rural Residential- Alternative (200 units) -would require no major amendments to the City's current general plan policies. Selection of the above options, with-the possible exception of would require the -Council to make subsequent findings for significant environmental -impacts-and a statement -of overriding considerations for unavoidable adverse impacts. Each finding would be accompanied by a._, brief explanation of the rationale used -to make the finding. -In making' a--statement of overriding consideration, the Council would have- to balance the benefits of the project against the unavoidable impacts. Page 7 of 10 These statements will- be contained in the draft resolutions the Council will consider at the June 8 meeting. The Planning Commission and Staff- recommend -that the Eden/Schaefer project remain as currently proposed in the Specific Plan. Council Action Required: Determine; by "straw vote!' which-development concept should be--selected--for the Eden/Schaefer property and incorporated into the Western Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. 2. ,applicant Requested Modifications The.-Eden Development Group submitted Awo letters in February, -1992 (see Attachment 5 requesting certain modifications -to the Specific Plan text. ­ The Council is requested to review the items and provide direction to Staff. a. Street- Standards. The applicant- requests-deletion of street standards on pages-.4-9 and 4-10 of the Specific Plan to allow for more flexibility. - The-Planning Commission and Staff recommend retention of the standards -as they currently appear in the Specific Plan. The-language at the beginning of the street standards section allows for exceptions as approved by Public Works Director. b. Golf Course Access. -- The applicant has requested deletion of the requirement for public access to the golf course at least two days a week. (Program 7.3A, page 7-7) The Planning Commission and- Staff recommend retention of the requirements as presently proposed to ensure regular public access to the golf course. C. Golf Course Water Feature.- The applicant requests deletion of the requirement-for vegetation around the ponds on the golf course. (Policy 8-20, page 8-11) The-Planning Commission and Staff recommend modification of the language to require vegetation around the ponds consistent with golf course use. d. Lot Orientation. The applicant requests revisions -to Policy 9-3, page 9-2 and Program 9.2A page 9-4 to allow more flexibility in lot orientation for maximizing solar access. The-Planning Commission and Staff -recommend modification of the language to permit more flexibility in orienting lots for solar access. e. Design Review Committee, The applicant requests that- Program 9.3B, p. 9-5 be revised to limit design review committees to custom homes. Page 8 of 10 The Planning Commission and Staff recommend deletion of the reference design review committees and add language requiring all applications to be subject to the City's development review guidelines and permits and any other supplemental design conditions. f. Tax and Assessment -Caps. The applicant requests deletion of Policy 10-10, Page 10-9 which permits bonds to be issued only if the taxes and assessments do not exceed two percent of property value. The-Planning- Commission and Staff -recommend revision to-the language to grant exceptions upon approval of the City Council, Council Action -Required: - Review recommendations "a" through "f" above and determine whether they should be incorporated into the text of the Specific Plan. C. MINOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/SPECIFIC PLAN CHANGES The Planning Commission recommended -the following-minor changes to the Western Dublin Draft General Plan- Amendment and Draft Specific Plan. The Council is requested to review the changes and provide Staff direction. 1. General Plan Amendment Changes a. Modify Policy 7.2A (page 22) to provide reconstructed aquatic habitats where necessary. b. Modify Policy 7.2J (page- 22) to read: "Except where steep slopes occur in designated areas of clustered development or ancillary facilities,-require areas.-of steep slopes to be restricted to permanent open space." C. Modify Section 1.8.1 (page 7) to add floor area ratios for two land use categories: Retail/Office} Maximum floor area ratio of 1.0 Freeway Commercial - Maximum floor area ratio of 0.4 d. Revise -Section 2.0, page- 8 to reflect an adjustment to the population figure from 9,500 to 8,400. 2. Specific Plan Changes a. Clarify definition of collector street. (Chapter 4 - Traffic, pp. 4-7 to 4-11) b. Revise Program 7.9A to emphasize that all open-space on the site would be permanently retained as non-development areas. (page 7-17) C. Revise Policy 8-19 to require fencing around the perimeter of Powerline Reservoir. (page 8-11) Page 9 of 10 d. Revise Program 3.6A (page-3-1-7)-to include a maximum FAR of .1.0 for -retail/office--and- a maximum FAR of 0.4-for freeway commercial: Also add a statement to the program to permit residential uses above or adjacent to non-residential uses. e. Revise page 7-15 to add a new action program 7.8B to address provisions for minimizing linear park impacts on the Morris residence. f. Revise Policy 5-2 page 5-2 to address the need for western Dublin residents to pay for the cost of water to -the project and that the cost is not borne by existing Dublin residents. g. Revise Program 10.6A -page 10-12 to emphasize the need to use a GRAD (Geologic Hazard Abatement District) or other - equivalent- entity to address the concern for liability in slide prone areas. Staff-recommends incorporation of -General Plan- Amendment-changes "a"- through-'!d" and Specific Plan changes "a" through "g" into the text of these respective documents. Council Action Required: Determine -whether the-above- items. should be incorporated into the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan documents. [s/wdmy28sp] Page 10 of 10 EDEN vEVELOPMENT OROUP 1400 Fashion Island Blvd., #1000 • San Mateo, CA 94404 415-571-8100 * FAX 415-349-7338 DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1992 TO: BRENDA GILLARDE, PLANNING CONSULTANT ` CITY OF DUBLIN ,(/J FROM: MARTI BUXTON, PROJECT MANAGEI - EDEN DEVELOPMENT GROUP RE: REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR WESTERN DUBLIN Eden Development Group is very satisfied with the Draft EIR for western Dublin. We are not asking that any of the mitigation measures be deleted. However, we do request that some of the text and a few of the measures listed below incorporate additional language either to clarify the goal of the mitigation or to better reflect the constraints of the site. I have also attached a copy of a memo from William Gray & Associates concerning transportation issues which I would like to have incorporated as part of our review of the EIR. 1. Error in text Page 3-16 Annexation to Dublin-San Ramon Services District The text describes the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District de-annexation, rather than annexation to DSRSD. :.Both activities will need to occur. 2 . Clarification Page 3-31 Regional Trail The text states in the last sentence of the page that the developer will be required to dedicate a regional trail. The mitigation measures on the following page do not specifically reference ownership of the regional trail. However, it should be not that if dedication is made a requirement for approval then it would be subject to the provisions of the Quimby Act as specified in Section 66477 of the Subdivision Map Act. 3 . Additions to Page 5-13 MM 5 . 3-12 Site Plan-Oak Ridge This measure is concerned with the visibility of the proposed Oak Ridge neighborhood to residents of Palomares Hills and Sunny Heights. MM 5. 3-16 concerns the visibility of Oak Ridge to the rural residences of Eden Canyon area and requires a combination of setbacks, berms, tree replacement as well as tree protection to minimize visual impact. MM 5. 3-12 only references tree protection to screen visibility. The Oak Ridge site plan will be revised to lessen tree removal. However the use of tree replacement, setbacks ,,., and berms should be added as methods to minimize the visibility of Oak Ridge in MM 5. 3-12 as it is in MM 5. 3-16, rather than relying on only one type of mitigation. ATTACHMENT 5. Clarification Page 9-5, Action Program 9 . 3B Design Review Committees. The role of the Design Review Committee should be limited to that stated on page 9-9 , Action Program 9 . 5B Custom home design review, established by the appropriate Homeowner Association. If the City of Dublin establishes a city-wide Design Review Committee, then the developers will involve that committee as required. It is not feasible to establish separate Design Review Committees for each neighborhood, prior to construction to review all design aspects of the proposed development. 6. Delete Page 10-9 , Policy 10-10. It is inappropriate for the City of Dublin to cap the percentage of taxes and assessments at 2 . 0 percent of property value. The 2% number is a marketing guideline used in the building industry. Experience has shown that consumers have been reluctant to purchase homes when the percentage greatly exceeds 2%. - The market should determine what the percentage is, not the City. In addition, changes to Proposition 13 or future city-wide assessments approved by the voters could impact the total percentage. 7 . Delete Page 11-17 , Figure 11-1, Process & Construction Schedule for Eden Canyon Country Club. This schedule was generated by Aliquot, civil engineers for Eden Development Group, in September 1991. It was not provided to the EIR consultants by Eden Development Group and it does not represent the current planning regarding sequencing or timing of required activities. The Draft Specific Plan provides for the timing of processing and construction to be negotiated as part of the Development Agreement negotiations. Please delete this document from the Specific Plan. Aside from these few requested modifications, Eden Development is ..very supportive of the Specific Plan as drafted and believe it can °serve as an excellent framework as the project progresses and becomes more detailed in its design. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. EDWilliam R. Gray and Company Transportation Consulting &Governmental Relations DATE: February 25, 1992 TO: Marti Buxton, Eden Development Group FROM: Teresa K.Q. Bowen, William R. Gray and Comp SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Western Dublin At your request, we have reviewed the above document, dated December 1991, and have the following comments which are to be included with your comments to the City: Sphere of Influence and Annexation Issues Page 3-15 states that both the Eden Canyon interchange and the Schaefer Ranch Road interchange are included in the sphere boundary because the City will assume responsibility for the interchange improvements in these areas. The environmental document should clarify that the City, with assistance from the Eden Development Group, will take the lead in developing appropriate interchange improvements in cooperation with Caltrans. It is our understanding the City Council, in adopting Resolution 6-92, acknowledged that I- .580/Eden Canyon Road interchange improvements would be locally 9funded through assessments, fees, exactions, special taxes, and/or participation from other affected jurisdictions. Appendix K Figure K-1 should be clarified. The geometrics depicted in Figure K-1 corresponds to Figure 18-10. Figure 18-10 (Eden Canvon Interchange) represents mitigation for project plus cumulative traffic impacts for the year 2010 without the construction of the I-580/Schaefer Ranch Road interchange. The EIR should acknowledge that mitigation for the same scenario with the construction of the new Schaefer Ranch Road interchange has been identified and is depicted in Figure 18-9 . Since the physical envelope of improvements for the "without Schaefer Ranch Road Interchange" scenario is likely to be greater than the "with Schaefer Ranch Road Interchange" scenario, the potential impacts associated with the I- 580/Eden Canyon interchange should not be affected. TKQB \msm\deircomm.ts 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 425 Walnut Creek, California 94596-3822 (415) 947-1966 FAX (415) 947-3177 EDEN DEVELDPMENT GROUP 1400 Fashion Island Blvd., #1000 • San Mateo, CA 94404 415-571-8100 • FAX 415-349-7338 DATE: FEBRUARY 28 , 1992 TO: BRENDA GILLARDE, PLANNING CONSULTANT CITY OF DUBLIN 1 FROM: MARTI BUXTON, PROJECT MANAGER- i EDEN DEVELOPMENT GROUP RE: REVIEW OF DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN Eden Development Group is in complete agreement with the Draft General Plan Amendment as it is currently written. The following comments concern modifications, deletions and additions to the Draft Specific Plan. 1. Delete Pages 4-9 and 4-10, Action Program: Streets and Highways, 4 . 2A (and Figures 4-3 through 4-7) in which design standards for Hollis Canyon Boulevard, Dublin Boulevard, the Loop Drives, Shell Ridge Road and all other types of streets and travel ways are specified. In my discussions with Lee Thompson, the Public Works Director, he agreed that it is very difficult to make detailed design decisions at this stage based on a 400 scale map. The policies in this chapter outline the goals and objectives that should be achieved in planning the streets. The specific details of widths, design speed and other criteria should be determined and approved by the Public Works Director at the Tentative Map stage when the larger scale of the map makes those decisions more accurate and defensible. 2 . Consistency with the language of the Draft EIR, Page 7-7, Action Program 7 . 3A Public access to golf course. All aspects of the ownership and management program for the golf course must be negotiated in the future as a package. It is inappropriate to specify one component in isolation, i.e. , times of access, at this s . Clarification Page 8-11, Policy 8-20. It is incompatible with golf course design to be required to provide a dense border of vegetation around at least half of the water features on the golf course. 4 . Pages 9-2 and 9-3 , Policy 9-3 and Action Program 9 . 2B, Lot • .;.; orientation for energy conservation. See my review comment of the Draft EIR concerning large lot design window placement and limits within the project due to terrain. ATTACHMENT 6 4 . Impossible Standard Page 6-6 Buffer Zone It is not possible to provide a minimum 25 foot buffer zone of "undisturbed annual grassland . . .between all preserved woodland, coastal scrub and riparian stands and all parts of the development" . It is not clear if "undisturbed annual grassland" refers to grassland that has never been graded or grassland that has been graded, reseeded and will not be disked for a fire-break after development. There are areas where there is no alternative but to grade within existing woodland in order to construct roads which will daylight at the tree line with no adjacent undisturbed grassland. Mitigation Measure 6-2 should be revised to read "Design the development plan so that a buffer zone of grassland exists between preserved woodland, coastal scrub and riparian stands and most parts of the development. In general, minimum width of this buffer zone shall be 25 feet. " This would better reflect the reality of the existing terrain and any concerns of the fire department. 5 . Additions to Page 13-5 Lot Orientation for Energy Conservation In addition to the exceptions noted, a statement should be added that houses on large lots can achieve energy conservation through orientation of windows and, therefore, lot orientation is not as significant. Also, unlike a flat site, the constraints of the terrain of this site will not always allow the major axis of the lots to be within 30 degrees east or west of a north-south alignment. N;