CCMIN011706 - Laserfiche WebLink

would release seven units for reallocation in the General Plan process. He pointed out there would be plenty of demand for additional units elsewhere in the General Plan process. He noted that David Jones, son of Mr. Jones, is opposed to the creekside streets. In conclusion, he noted there was a letter and statements made at the Planning Commission by David Jones implying that somehow the Department of Fish and Game, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Army Corp of Engineers should not be issuing permits which he believed was a fundamental misunderstanding of how the environmental process worked. The City is the appropriate lead agency but once it prepared a document, each of the responsible agencies conducts its own certification as to the project and each agency has the option to ask and require additional information. Once the document has been released and unless the project is being upscaled in its environmental effects, the City is not required to recirculate the environmental impact report; however, out of caution, City staff did go back and recirculate the document. David Jones, the son of Mr. Ernest Jones, Sr., believed there were many inaccuracies. He mentioned that he proposed the road along the Arroyo in 1995 and requested an offsetting park fee. While he was not opposed to the road along the Arroyo, the proposed that traffic from Rose Avenue would be directed through Mr. Jansen's property to the Arroyo and the property to the west would have a cul-de-sac from the Arroyo placing the homes with its backs to the Fairgrounds for better sound mitigation, which would also provide a 20-foot EVA that currently exists on Mr. Alteri's property. In response to Mr. Sullivan's question regarding the possibility of a bridge across the Arroyo, as he understood it, the issue was traffic could not exit a road within 300-feet of a bridge; therefore, the road had to be taken back through the Fairgrounds 300-feet in order to get way from the Valley Street bridge. He clearly stated that his father did not have anything to do the Calico Lane project, his father only owned the property, sold it and had no stipulation as to what would be constructed. He referenced the agreement between Mr. Jansen and his father and mentioned his father did not gain anything from this document. In 1995, the Planning Commission and staff required there be no second-story windows overlooking his father's property. Mr. Jansen asked that only Lot Seven should be applied and all other lots should be allowed to have second-story windows, which is what is reflected in the current proposed project plan. His father requested Lot Seven be a single-story unit. His father also requested that the alignment to the easement not be changed, but it has been changed. In order to straighten out the validity of the agreement between his father and Mr. Jansen, he mentioned he filed a lawsuit in the Alameda County Superior Court. In July 2003, his father's attorney provided Mr. Jansen a document from an engineer and that document has never been addressed. He contested the agreement that his father signed and was hopeful that Council would continue this matter until the lawsuit had been addressed. Mr. Sullivan asked Mr. Jones if the 1995 issues were not being adhered to currently or did it not reflect what he believed the issues were in 1995? Mr. Jones said the 1995 PUD issues were not being reflected in the proposed PUD and the agreement was completely counter to his father's wishes as reflected in the 1995 PUD. He noted that his father signed the agreement; he believed his father should not have done so. He requested that an engineer be required to show how the grading and drainage access will be provided and submitted. He also requested that a landscaping plan prepared by a landscape architect be prepared and submitted at the same time. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 10 01/17/06