CCMIN110982 - Laserfiche WebLink

293 the size of his units to 800-850 sq. ft., which allows for rental to one-family in- comes such as single people, divorced persons, small families, and the elderly. He stated that most of these people only have one car, which would not cause any in- crease in traffic impact. He stated there would be a homeowners association to con- trol the apartments, and that the apartments would remain as rentals for at least ten years. He stated that financing is easier to obtain and at a lower rate for apartments as compared to condominiums. Mr. Harris advised that his plan has 1½ acres of open space, he has added a tennis court and park by the creek, and has added a clubhouse. He stated he has added parking at a ratio of 2.6 spaces per unit. He stated he will add a full City street, Vine to Vineyard, but this will not add a burden to Vineyard Avenue. He stated there is a need for rental housing in Pleasanton, and he urged Council approval of his application. Mr. Jerry Morrow, 6890 Via Quito, stated this is a rare opportunity to approve rental units. He stated it is difficult to find rentals in Pleasanton today, and he urged Council to approve Mr. Harris' 88-unit apartment development. The following persons spoke in opposition to this application: Mr. Howard Neely, 448 Amador Court, stated he is opposed to this application be- cause of the adverse traffic impact it will cause on Vineyard Avenue. He presented a chart showing traffic figures on Vineyard Avenue which affects the residents of the area. He requested that a comprehensive traffic study be made on Vineyard Avenue, that traffic speeds be reduced on Vineyard Avenue, and that Council hold a public hearing for residents who live around Vineyard Avenue to express their comments as to what they feel should be done regarding this street relative to traffic congestion. Mr. Frank Belecky, 892 Madeira Drive, presented additional traffic figures on Vineyard Avenue, which he felt have a significant adverse impact on the area. He stated he felt Vineyard Avenue is one of the worst streets in Pleasanton for heavy traffic. He added there are seven streets and 64 driveways on Vineyard from First Street to Pico Avenue, and that many of the driveways have hundreds of cars using them from the apartment complexes already on this street. Mr. Belecky requested that the apartment complex developments be scattered all over Pleasanton, instead of so many on Vineyard Avenue and in the Vintage Hills area. He stated he felt the area along the creek should be agricultural land in order to protect the wild life in that area. He stated he opposed this project because of high density, traffic, danger to children, and water shed damage, and stated he felt that an Environmental Impact Re- port should be required instead of a negative declaration. Mr. James Pruett, single-family homeowner at 3884 Vineyard Avenue, stated that traffic and parking is a neighborhood problem. He stated he is not opposed to afford- able or subsidized housing but felt the density is too high in this area and that traffic problems should be resolved before allowing any additional apartment units on Vineyard Avenue. He stated that if this application is approved he would suggest that some type of wall or fence be required to discourage people from parking on the south side of Vineyard Avenue. Mr. Steven Weschler, 647 Orofino Court, presented past decisions made by Council indicating their opposition to additional development on Vineyard Avenue because of traffic problems. He cited the Hindu Cultural Center and the Shadow Cliffs water slide. He stated he felt there should not be any additional units approved on Vine- yard Avenue until that street is improved. Mr. David Ash, 615 Orofino Court, stated he opposes the project because of traffic. He urged Council to wait until after Pico Avenue improvements are completed and to see the results of that improvement before approving any more projects on Vineyard Avenue. Mr. Ash stated he also has concerns about lack of fire service to this area. 5. 11/9/82