My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN100201
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCMIN100201
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:34 AM
Creation date
10/19/2001 5:50:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/2/2001
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN100201
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Lure said if the annexation election fails, construction could not proceed this season. <br />Staff would bring back other annexation proposals and other ways to proceed with the project if <br />the Council so desires. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan indicated staffhas identified other annexation options. The issue is that <br />the City would have to reapply to the Local Agency Formation Commission. That would <br />involve losing more time. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti said she asked the question because the lack of the bypass road seems to <br />be an issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Lum proceeded with the remainder of the staff report. <br /> <br /> Bob Silva, Vice Chair of the Golf Committee, supported the staffrecommendations. He <br />pointed out that this committee was established in February 1997 and was to serve for about a <br />year. Five years later the committee is still together. He recognized the members of the <br />Committee and their various contributions. The committee has worked with staff on <br />interviewing consultants, reviewing the various designs, and financing plans. He pointed out the <br />committee was charged with dealing with the golf course and related facilities. It is not there for <br />land planning or other annexation issues. He again urged Council to support the staff <br />recommendations and to go forward with the design of the course in order to determine the real <br />costs of the golf course. He believed the golf course will meet the goals of the General Plan of <br />the City of Pleasanton and the Happy Valley Specific Plan as well as maintain the open space the <br />citizens desire to have in the south side of the City. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico asked staff if it would provide an in depth analysis of at least one annexation <br />alternative and what impacts that would have on the golf course, its costs, the infrastructure, etc. <br />before March 2002, so Council would have the information available for discussions with the <br />Happy Valley residents and so they know what course the Council could pursue if the annexation <br />is not successful. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan indicated staffhas given a great deal of thought to that and would present <br />the options that were most prudent. <br /> <br />Ms. Michelotti asked if the $83,014 was part of the $1 million in additional costs? <br /> <br />Mr. Lum said that was in addition to the $1 million. <br /> <br />Mr. Campbell asked if the annexation election would be decided by a simple majority? <br /> <br />Mr. Lum said yes. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis referred to the market analysis, which is based on 61,000 rounds of golf, and <br />asked if there was a maximum number of rounds. <br /> <br />Mr. Lure said the capacity of the course is much more than that. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 17 <br />Minutes <br /> <br />10/02/01 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.