My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN100797
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
CCMIN100797
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:36 AM
Creation date
5/10/1999 6:09:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/7/1997
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
Ms. Belzer said BAE considered other comparable land sales in the area. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver asked BAE to explain the "oversize of infrastructure". <br /> <br /> Ken Gruelly, engineer for BAE, said City staff suggested larger diameter pipes for water, <br />sewer, and other infrastructure for future development. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver asked about the widening of the road. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gruelly said one option is widening in the minimal scenario (100 units) and <br />relocation is included in the scenario with 200 units. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked if the reduction in cost would be the best case scenario. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gruelly said the best case would be an infrastructure cost sharing program. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico had some concerns with the cost of the infrastructure. How much would the <br />numbers change in the marginal or worst case analysis. Did BAE use a discounted land value <br />to get to a residual land value? <br /> <br /> Anne Simpson said the analysis covered reducing the costs by retaining overhead utilities <br />vs. undergrounding utilities. She said without doing an analysis on this she did not know. BAE <br />discussed doing a discounted residual land value, but did not know how the infrastructure would <br />be phased. At this preliminary level BAE felt it was best to do a straight up and down analysis. <br />The analysis does include a 15% developer profit margin with a 20% contingency in the cost. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis referred to the concept of an inn/spa and conference center, asked if there <br />is a demand to use the existing facilities and asked why are these facilities being chosen rather <br />than facilities in Napa. <br /> <br /> Ms. Simpson said the demand is growing for conferences because the facilities are closer <br />than Napa. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala referred to a letter that questioned the cost of grapes in the report. <br /> <br /> Matt Delvally, BAE, said there is significant difference in price of grapes depending upon <br />where they are grown. Prices are at a premium for people who can produce good quality <br />grapes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked if there was any consideration given to potential impact from the South <br />Livermore Valley Land Trust and whether properties in the Vineyard Corridor would be able <br />to get conservation easements if they planted vineyards. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 10/07/97 <br />Minutes 12 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.