CCMIN021902 - Laserfiche WebLink

would satisfy everyone and was willing to work with the residents. She asked staff if April 17 was the final date to be set for the election, since it has been postponed several times. Mr. Lum said the date is still contingent on getting the golf course design documents completed and receiving satisfactory bids, as well as getting the other property owner agreements in place. If all that occurs, the April 17th date would stand for the election. Ms. Michelotfi referred to a remark that the City Council wanted the golf course but it was uncertain that the community wanted the golf course. She said when this started, there was an alternative of having two courses in the City. One has gone away, but one of the major considerations in putting the golf course up to the urban limit line was to preserve in perpetuity the open space and atmosphere desired for that area. She wants a win/win situation and to have Happy Valley a part of Pleasanton. She was not willing to change the Specific Plan and it mandates an acceptable alternative. Ms. Dennis also supported the annexation and would welcome the residents of Happy Valley. She has enjoyed working with the agricultural community for agricultural preservation. She pointed out that as owners of agricultural property inside the County urban growth boundary, the residents are the envy of the people outside the boundary. She is working with others on a plan to preserve the agricultural areas from urbanization in response to the voters passing Measure D, which created a County urban growth boundary in addition to the City's urban growth boundary. She was concemed that the Happy Valley residents may not be aware of the change in the County General Plan that happened with the passage of Measure D. They are inside the urban growth boundary and are part of the inventory of properties to receive the County's need to fulfill its state housing mandate, which is very high. She is more worded about that than the golf course. She felt the City staff and Council has worked well with the residents of Happy Valley and there is a commitment to work on the things important to you. She was certain Council regretted there is not funding to satisfy all their needs. She was concerned that if the annexation fails, it will not preserve the area. The choice would be to be with the City and its policies to keep the area as rural as possible, but that will change to a plan that says land within the County urban growth boundary is to be used for housing to meet the housing needs. The County is having difficulty finding locations for housing to bring its General Plan into compliance with state law. That situation did not exist when this process started. She wanted to make the point that the Council is committed to work with the residents to get as close to the vision that we all have for the area. If the residents are not part of the City, we can't help them. She felt Council was doing the best it can. Mayor Pico asked who wanted to work on the direct arguments in favor of annexation. Ms. Dennis and Ms. Ayala volunteered to work on this. Mayor Pico and Mr. Campbell indicated they would like to sign the rebuttal. Ms. Michelotti wanted to see the arguments and how much participation there is from the community. If possible, she would like to sign either one. Pleasanton City Council 15 02/19/02 Minutes