CCMIN062883 - Laserfiche WebLink

297 begin construction this fall and have rental units available by next spring. He requested approval of the project as revised and indicated his intent to request an exemption from the Growth Management Plan by making 2~% of the units available to low and moderate income residents. Councilmember Mohr stated that the one bedroom units would be attractive to senior citizens and she asked what is the interest in this. Mr. Simmons advised that the project is geared to economics, is well designed, and will have reasonable rental rates, and that units will be made available to seniors but not limited solely to senior citizen residency. Councilmember Brandes asked if parking would remain the same with the reduction in units. Mr. Simmons stated he felt there is adequate parking with the lower density; the 408 parking spaces will be retained for the 200 units. Councilmember Mohr inquired about placement of the build- ings on the site with the reduced number of units. Mr. Simmons assured they would be located so as not to enfringe on the privacy of the surrounding residents, and he did not foresee any noise problems. He advised there will be an on-site manager for this project. Mr. Simmons reiterated his request for approval of the project with the Growth Management Program exemption. Vice Mayor Mercer asked if this matter would have to be referred back to the Planning Commission because of the proposed changes to the plan. The City Attorney stated that conceptual approval Icould be given tonight but that the developer needs to bring an actual site plan to the Council before an ordinance could be introduced. After introduction, the ordinance would have to be referred to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation before the ordinance could be adopted by the City Council. The following persons spoke in opposition to this item. Mr. Nicholas Cassens, 4082 Suffolk Way, presented a petition to Council that had previously been submitted to the Planning Commission, signed by 230 residents in the Pleasanton Meadows area, which read as follows: "We, the undersigned, presently reside in Pleasanton Meadows, "We are interested in the proposed high density apartment project that is currently being considered for approval by the City of Pleasanton. (Trenery Drive Apartments). "We understand that the owner has invested a large amount of capital in the property, and has a right to proceed in developing this asset to the best possible use. "We are very concerned that the property be developed in a responsible manner with full consideration of the impact on existing property owners, future residents of the development and the surrounding community, in which we take a great deal of pride and interest. "We appreciate your careful and thorough consideration of this matter, since the 625 homes in Pleasanton Meadows area reppesents a substantial number of Pleasan- ton's residents." Mr. Cassens stated the revisions presented tonight alleviate many of the concerns of the neighbors, however, he advised there is still concern about density and he feels the project should be reduced to 10-1S units per acre. He stated this would allow for the construction of attractive units consistent in value and appearance with the existing community; provide a living environment as close as possible to the typical Pleasanton neighborhood, not an unrepresentative, crowded noisy development with its attendant problems; encourage the members of the community to accept the new residents in with a positive attitude; reduce traffic on Santa Rita Road; minimize the level of noise pollution for the existing homes; and reduce the disturbance and pos- sible injury to children walking in the area. He stated there are still problems with the general design of the project; it is surrounded by parking which he felt should be moved in or better landscaped. He stated the main concern is density and he felt there should be larger apartments in this project. 4. 6/28/83