CCMIN120299 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Acosta said it is possible before March, but not by the time the measure is placed on the ballot. Mr. Pico believed that if another partner could be found, then the City would sell fewer bonds or pay for the cost of potential improvements to the public areas. He asked if a fund could be established to offset future bond liability interest expense thereby reducing the expense to property owners. Ms. Acosta said it depends on the structure of the bonds. Robert Cordtz, 262 West Angela, indicated he supported purchase of the property and doing nothing with it. He did not agree with the $100 million purchase price, but would agree to $50 million. He was curious about how much San Francisco paid for the property originally. He indicated his research had indicated the assessment for the nine parcels owned by San Francisco on Bernal Avenue is $3,266,000 per year. He referred to appraisals of agricultural land in the Napa and Sonoma County areas for $50,000 to $60,000 per acre. He did not believe the City should purchase land with a "cloudy" title because of the possible problems under Alameda County approvals. He asked how the property could be developed if there is no sewage capacity allocated for it. Ms. Acosta stated that San Francisco does not anticipate having capacity in the Pleasanton treatment plant. If the property were developed under the Alameda County approval, San Francisco planned to create its own treatment plant on the property. Pleasanton staff believes the County application has significant obstacles. Ms. Cordtz believed that once the property is annexed it will be worth $100 million, but not until then. He then referred to a 1994 community survey that concluded public opinion would prefer the land to stay undeveloped. Ms. Michelotti asked if he supported the purchase. Mr. Cordtz said he did if the price is $50 million. Jack Hovingh, 4250 Muirwood Drive, referred to the committee being formed to determine public uses for the property and indicated he did not believe any elected officials, school board members, or commissioners should serve on the committee. He believed they would have a vested interest in the committee's conclusions because of their ultimate decision-making positions. If Council is really interested in what the citizens think, Councilmembers should stay off the committee. He asked what the cost of infrastructure and various improvements for this property would be. He was concerned that Pleasanton could get into the same position as the City of Oakland with its burden of the Oakland Coliseum. He was also concerned that the proposal for the property is not consistent with the General Plan. It requires that 15% of the housing stock at build out will be affordable to households at less than 80% of the median income for the area. That is about 4,000 houses. If you add 300 houses on this property, even if they were all affordable, it does not make a dent in the mandate to have about 4,000 affordable houses. Pleasanton City Council 3 12/02/99 Minutes