CCMIN020982 - Laserfiche WebLink

255 dangerous as that of the Mission Plaza Center, advising that most of the accidents occurred on the north side of Valley Avenue at the Mission Plaza Center. He stated the alternatives seemed more hazardous than the existing situation. Mr. Kallenberg stated that the issue of the Orloff property has nothing to do with this particular condition and feels that the matter should be totally separated and that it should not be considered at this time. The following persons spoke in opposition to this application: Mr. Calvin G. Andre, 1995 Brooktree Way, representing a group of citizens in this area, stated they had met with the owner and developer at one meeting, and again with Mr. Ferreri at another meeting. He stated this group appreciated the setback change. He addressed traffic considerations, stating that Valley Avenue traffic will increase, addition of separate turn lanes into the project such as those at Greenwood Road would facilitate easier access at the project, and that an emphasis on senior citizen occu- pancy would reduce traffic. Mr. Allen Fox, 1976 Brooktree Way, requested that two items be included in the design considerations; that the color scheme should blend with the adjacent area similar to the post office, and that the landscaping include a generous use of ever- green trees. Mr. Levere Adams, 1960 Brooktree Way, stated he moved to Pleasanton twelve years ago and chose his house because he liked the community, the schools, and more specifi- cally was pleased with the Brooktree location a~d type of neighborhood. He stated he was dismayed when he found out the lot behind his house was to have 170 units on 9 acres; that this high a density would not be compatible with the adjacent residences, and three of the units would overlook his back yard. Mr. Adams stated he felt that the density should be reduced by at least 1/4 in order to be more harmonious to the neighborhood; he felt that any higher density would not be acceptable. Mrs. Juanira Young, 1883 Rosetree Court, stated she felt the proposed development should house only senior citizens because it is a good central location, they would not be driving at peark hours and could walk to shopping, there would be less mainte- nance and utilities, and it would provide housing for this particular need in Pleasan- ton. Councilmember Kephart questioned the legality of limiting this housing complex to senior citizens in light of the new State Supreme Court ruling of the day before (Marina Point). The City Attorney advised that the Court recognizes senior citizens and would probably allow this. Mr. Tom Baines, 1798 Orchard Way, reiterated the concerns regarding setbacks and color scheme, which have now been resolved. He expressed continued concern regarding density and traffic. He requested Council to further consider improved ingress and egress to the project, lower the density by 30%, and make the project attractive to senior citizens. He stated the meeting room needed to be 3,000 sq. ft. Mr. Matteson rebutted by stating that he did not disagree with any of the concerns voiced. He reviewed the studies made relative to renting to senior citizens, stating that out of 78 apartments, only 12 tenters were from the immediate city of the com- plex. He added that senior citizens are good tenants. Mr. Matteson stated he was not sure the Pleasanton complex could be totally filled by senior citizens. He added he would be willing to set aside a reasonable amount of units for senior citizens - approximately 20%. Mr. Orloff stated he felt this is a nice project for Pleasanton and he is proud of the plan. He thanked City staff, Planning Commission, and City Council for their cooperation in this development. 6. 2/9/82