Laserfiche WebLink
47 <br /> <br />this course would create low traffic throughout the day. There <br />would not be a rush in the morning or evenings resulting in danger <br />to the children who live in the area. He believed Mr. Fairfield <br />and Mr. Inderbitzen had agreed to minimize housing and take away <br />any traffic concerns. He explained the problem in trying to get <br />onto the golf courses in the surrounding area. He did not believe <br />that the price would be an issue in a semi-private golf course. <br /> <br /> Paul Ebright, who had served on the Mayor's Golf Course <br />Committee, spoke in opposition to the golf course. He agreed that <br />there was no question that Pleasanton needs a municipal golf <br />course. But, the proposed golf course was not a municipal. He <br />explained that a public golf course means that the public can be <br />invited but the EIR reflects this course will be a private course. <br />It is viewed that all of the golfers should be able to use the <br />municipal golf course and therefore, it should be affordable, <br />walkable, and under the control of the City. This course is <br />clearly not walkable and because the cost of playing a round of <br />golf is increased by the cost of renting a golf cart, it is not <br />affordable. Although the City of Pleasanton is accused of being an <br />elite community, he did not agree and believed that it never should <br />be. He was concerned with the allocation of water and sewage <br />supply as well and felt the resources should be preseved for a <br />public course. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked Mr. Ebright if there was enough demand in <br />Pleasanton for three golf courses. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ebright stated that at the time the studies were made <br />there was the need for two courses. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if he was anticipating that the City would have <br />two City golf courses. She then asked if the City could afford to <br />build two golf courses. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ebright answered absolutely. There is no question that <br />this City could support two golf courses. He then said that the <br />City could afford it. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if Mr. Ebright was aware that the City had the <br />intention to work toward the City golf course which would probably <br />be on the San Francisco property and some other identified <br />location. She asked if he would not want a golf course unless it <br />was public. She had received a call from a woman who preferred <br />Option D which is a ladies golf course because it has shorter <br />lengths of drives. She asked if there was already a municipal <br />course, would he be opposed to this one. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ebright explained that in talking with a lot of people, he <br />found that the view of the golfer in Pleasanton is that this <br />proposed course will not satisfy the municipal need. It is going <br />to become private. Mr. Ebright stated that this proposed course <br /> <br />9/15/92 21 <br /> <br /> <br />