PC 03/13/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ Wayne Bonde said the Williamson Act was put into existence during a farming situation which they were in for a ~arge number of years. Due to the homes surrounding his property, it is no longer feasible to farm or remain in the Williamson Act. He realized that people like to look at the horses and animals and views of their property; however, they appear to not rea~ize that fences must be fixed and other things maintained. Thomas Pico, Jr., 795 Nea~ P~ace, expressed opposition to any development of the Bonde Ranch property. He felt the application should be continued until the public has more of an opportunity to review information and respond to it. He is concerned as to how development will destroy the viewshed, and how increased traffic from the project will affect the area. He did not believe the cancellation of the Williamson Act is in the best interests of the public welfare. He did not think Pleasanton needs more expensive houses on the hills and felt there are enough vacant spaces in town for other development. He felt there were enough applications already approved for housing that has not been built. He felt it is possible to refute staff's findings and challenge staff's position. He urged the Commission not approve cancellation of the Williamson Act, and wait until current approvals for housing are built. Ann Kennedy, 5192 Independence Court, was opposed to any development of the Bonde property. She felt that it would impact ~ traffic on Independence Drive. Her major concern was that traffic would impact the park area on Independence Drive and prove to be very dangerous for children. ~ Leonard Hicks, 833 Independence Court, said his house backs the proposed project. He said he is not an anti-growth person and believes in the City's Planned Progress concept. However, he is expressing his concerns to the City about losing any more of the ridge or hill views. He felt that in developing these areas the quality of life for all the citizens of Pleasanton is threatened, and sends a message that money can be directed to Pleasanton to get projects approved. He felt the EIR had not been properly prepared; that school issues were not addressed; and asked that this EIR not be accepted. He felt this project is so sensitive that extreme care must be taken to work out any issues of concern. He concluded by asking the Commission to seriously consider what the project is doing for the community. Blaise Lofland, 1039 Nelson Court, urged the Commission not to cancel the Williamson Act and not act on the project until further consideration is given to possible impacts. He also thought the General Plan should again be reviewed. He felt there are legal issues that could come to bear should the Act be canceled. He did not favor more development in the proposed area, but thought that the City could purchase it for park development. He said the EIR failed to address the impact on a MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION KARCH 13, 1991 Page 10