CCMIN040682 - Laserfiche WebLink

487 He stated he anticipates that most money lenders will require owner-occupancy, thereby eliminating speculators from buying these units. He advised that the CC&R's and a part-time manager will take care of any problems related to poor maintenance and sloppy landscaping. Mr. Hirst stated that if there were more single-family residences then the cost of the dwelling units would be higher, and that this type of residence would also encourage more children and traffic. Mr. Hirst concluded by stating he felt this is a worthwhile project and he re- quested support and approval. In response to the price of the housing, Mr. Hirst stated the smaller duplexes would cost approximately $57,000 and the larger du- plexes would be $58,000, and the prices for the single-family detached units would be approximately $92,000 to $114,000. Mr. Parish rebutted the concerns of the opponents, stating that the density is the same as the adjacent mobile home parks. He stated that the income of the tenants will be between $25,000-$45,000 for single-family units, and he found it a problem with this area being considered as slums. Mr. Parish stated that 25% of the project is being set aside for senior citizens, and that he would not feel comfortable going any higher. He stated there would be pride in ownership and he felt the units would be well maintained. Councilmember Kephart asked the approximate completion date of the Pico Avenue extension. Mr. Walker advised that Pico Avenue should be completed to Stanley Boulevard within one year, but that further extension to Valley Avenue has not been included in the next three-year capital improvement program. There being no further testimony, Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing closed on the application and the negative declaration. After discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Kephart, and seconded by Council- member Butler, that Resolution No. 82-118, determining on the basis of a review of initial environmental study done for this project, that no significant environmental impact would occur as outlined in the City's guidelines and that a negative declara- tion is appropriate for prezoning and development plan approval for an approximately 247 dwelling unit project on an approximately 29 acre site located at the north side of Vineyard Avenue opposite Sauterne Way, be adopted. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Kephart, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: None Councilmember Butler stated that after considerable thought regarding this development, he had personally decided that this is not a low cost housing project. He stated he was concerned about the size of the duplexes and shared lots, even though the overall density is at the low end of the scale. He stated he had no problem with the overall density and felt the units were quite well done and the idea is innovative with a lot of merit. Councilmember Butler stated he felt Coundil is looking at a reasonably high density project with relatively small units but these units are not low cost and are not a good buy for our citizens. Councilmember Kephart stated he has spent much time in southern California recently and that small units of 600-700 sq. ft. with zero lot lines are selling rapidly. He stated he felt Mr. Parish's project is a step in the right direction in bringing about affordable housing to the City of Pleasanton that the Council has been talking about and committed to for quite sometime. He stated he did not feel this project is a social experiment. He added that the City's park system is one of the best in the State of California. Councilmember Kephart stated he felt all the concerns regarding the proposed development have been met, and he is in favor of the project. 6. 4/6/82