CCMIN040682 - Laserfiche WebLink

489 Mr. Frank Cassara, Vintage Hills resident, stated he objected to this project because it is too dense and is not compatible with the Vintage Hills area. He stated he is wary of low cost housing not being kept well and there could be a crime problem, and also that there is not adequate access to the downtown area. Mr. Ron Schneider, 650 Orofino Court, identified objections to the proposed project and made recommended changes. He stated the density is too high; and suggested a mandatory 60% or higher for adult only occupancy, or to reject the plan in total. He stated this is experimental housing; that the City has had no experience with these types of structures, and with no overall controls the Council should reject the plan, cut down on the family dwellings, or have it adult only. He stated there could be an overflow of children; and that could be a problem be- cause there is no place for them to play, and that Park and Recreation funds should be designated for development of a park in this area, and also the project should provide adequate open space and that it should be maintained by the developer. He expressed concern regarding high turnover of ownership; and again suggested a man- datory 60% or hi~her for adult only occupancy or to reject the plan in total. He stated there is no assurance for designation of Park and Recreation funds to this area; and that Council should require this. He stated this project would cause an adverse traffic impact on Vineyard Avenue; and that the project should be 60% or higher for adult only residents or the plan rejected in total, and in any case no development should be allowed until Pico Avenue extension is completed. He stated he did not feel the Pico Avenue extension would make a significant difference in traffic impact on Vineyard Avenue. He concluded by stating he felt that maintenance will be a problem; and he had no suggested solution for this matter. Mr. David Ash, 615 Orofino Court, stated that as the project has been presented he could not accept it. He stated he felt the project is an experiment, and that if it fails the neighbors will have to live with it and advised he wanted hedges (protection) on this project. He stated he had fears of speculators, rentors, children, and inadequate open space. He stated that affordable housing is good but that many times it ends up affecting innocent people if it fails, and that the neighbors in this area need guarantees. He stated he is not against development of the area but wants quality development, not development that detracts. Mr. James Griffin, 3036 Chardonnay Drive, stated he lives across from the pro- posed site and is opposed to the density and the type of development. He stated that the number of duplexes is of great concern to him. He advised that he had looked at Mr. Parish's projects in San Jose and they were for the most part attrac- tive, and were occupied by adults. Mr. Griffin stated hehad concerns about traffic on Vineyard Avenue as there is no sidewalk from Pico to Linden and that this is a dangerous situation, especially for children. He stated that a park is needed in this area, and that more open space should be required in the project. He stated he felt the development should contain more single-family units. Mayor Mercer presented a letter from Roger Manning, President of the Vintage Hills Homeowners Association dated April 5, 1982, advising that for the most part, this group recommended approval of the revised project. Mr. Hirst rebutted by stating that the density is 8.55 dwelling units per acre and is considerably less than for a fairly standard condominium project. He stated that the streets are wider than other projects in town. He did not feel that this is an experimental project and stated this argument is not valid. He stated the project will generate a greater traffic load on Vineyard Avenue but that it will not create a significant adverse impact. He stated that because of the smaller units the project will attract senior citizens and young couples without children. 5. 4/6/82