Laserfiche WebLink
121 <br /> <br /> James Tong, 6660 Owens Drive, spoke in favor of this item. <br /> He felt that the horse operation would enhance therural atmosphere <br /> of that area. He agreed with the proposed set-backs. <br /> <br /> Margaret Tracy, Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee, spoke in <br /> opposition to this project. She was concerned the homes on <br /> Foothill Road would some day be sold and possibly be changed to two <br /> story. She asked how the 25 heritage tree would be saved in the <br /> grading process. She expressed her concern with the water <br /> availability. She believed there was a lot of concerns which <br /> needed to be worked out before proceeding any further. <br /> <br /> Dale Springer, 13 Burns Court, San Ramon, spoke on behalf of <br /> the Golden Eagle Farm Property Owners Association. She felt that <br /> it was inappropriate for Mr. Currin to be granted an approval for <br /> another subdivision because he had not finished the improvements <br /> for Golden Eagle Farms. She explained that the homeowners of <br /> Golden Eagle Farms have gone through great expense because Mr. <br /> Currin filed bankruptcy during the construction of their homes. She <br /> believedthatMr. Curtin should repay the property owners in Golden <br /> Eagle Farms before being allowed to start another subdivision. <br /> <br /> Peggy Purnell, 2472 Via de los Milagros, reiterated Ms. <br /> Springer's comments. She felt that this project should not be <br /> considered by Council until the problems of Mr. Currin's other <br /> project were solved. <br /> <br /> Bob Frillman, 9191 Foothill Road, Sunol, pointed out that per <br /> the Alameda County report, the current sewer system for this <br /> project was unable to handle the site. His understanding was that <br /> Alameda County did not want to be involved with the recommendation <br />-to proceed with this project and that grading was not to occur <br /> until this property was annexed to the City of Pleasanton. He <br /> ~uoted several of the main concerns mentioned in the staff report <br /> ~.and letters that were previously written to and from the Council. <br /> ~-He also reiterated comments in the negative declaration from <br /> Alameda County concerning the originally proposed plan. He was <br /> concerned with the liability of landslides and the number of units <br /> proposed for the acreage. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked if Mr. Frillman was referring to the plan <br /> which had the housing on the hill and the open space on the flat <br /> lands. <br /> <br /> Mr. Frillman answered yes, and Mayor Mercer pointed out that <br /> this new plan reverses the layout, <br /> <br /> Ed Churka, '405 Oak Lane, was not opposed to the complete <br /> development, but was concerned with the answers from staff <br /> regarding the completion of this project. Mr. Churka asked if <br /> staff gives a developer a time limit to construct and complete a <br /> <br /> 3/3/92 <br /> 19 <br /> <br /> <br />