CCMIN121195 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Tarver then asked where the process proceeds from here and whether it is the desire of San Francisco not to allow a four-month period to work with Pleasanton before going to the County. Mr. Nelson advised that that was not the direction he has been given. Ms. Michelotti inquired of Pleasanton staff to refresh her memory regarding its figures of costs to purchase the property. Ms. Acosta commented that only a gross figure of $100 million had been talked about, and this figure was never talked about with San Francisco officials. As a comparison, the School District passed an $80 million bond, so citizens can look at their property tax bills to see how much they are paying for that bond and have an approximate idea of what they would be paying to purchase the San Francisco property. Mr. Pico inquired if San Francisco could give an estimated range of losses to profit on the land. Mr. Nelson did not want to comment because he had not analyzed the cost implications of the revised plan. However, San Francisco would not be doing this development if there wasn't a reasonable chance of making some profit. He would not comment on the projections of actual profit. This development will provide San Francisco with a long-term revenue stream. Mayor Tarver announced that there would be another meeting of the Decision Makers, on December 12th, at 7:00 p.m., with representation from the Board of Supervisors and the PUC. Simon Cohen felt that Mr. Nelson is unwilling to state the potential profit because San Francisco wants to keep it to themselves. He asked the San Francisco officials to state the value of the parcel so that Pleasanton could then analyze if it could match that figure. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTItER MATTERS Item 6-1 Council direction and comments to staff ltnd repr~entatives on the Committee of Decision Makers (3R 95:412) Mayor Tarver hoped that something positive will come out of the meeting and keep the negotiations moving. One point made at the meetings was that this is not a bad plan from a planner's perspective. He felt that Pleasanton has gone as far as it can go, whereas San Francisco is anxious to get the project approved. He does not like the "dual track" process, and would much rather have the project processed only in Pleasanton rather than picking apart the County plan. He would like to have a four-month period for Pleasanton to process the San Francisco plan, to get financial analyses, and to look at alternatives. 12/11/95 - 8 - City Council Minutes