CCMIN110700 - Laserfiche WebLink

Item 6b(2~ Dele3abte whelher life City's vacant DFOD~rW ~ ~e 41~ bi~ of Sm~ ~u~ ~uM ~ ~ su~l~ (SR~:281) Michael Roush presented the staff ~ort. Ms. Acosta indicated staff would normally recommend surplus property go to an open bidding process, but this property has a unique configuration. Because there is no access to the property and staff is recommending that nothing be built on it, it makes the most sense to sell it to the successor in interest to the original property owner. Mayor Tarver declared the public hearing open. Jack Chesmut, 4128 Stanley Boulevard, expressed his interest in buying the property and believed it was worth a lot more than $38,000. He felt there were at least three interested parties who would be willing to compete in a bidding process. He believed that would be in the best interest of the taxpayers. He believed that selling the property for less than the fair market value would be a gift of public funds, which is not legal in Caiifornis~ If there is no bidding process, he wouid be interested in having the land divided. Ms. Acosta indicated staff is not suggesting a sale price of $38,000. An appraisal will be done to determine the fair market value. Staff has determined the vaiu~ of the property over time and the sales price will be the average between that value and the Jerry Wagner, 6344 Alisai Street, supperted the statements his attorney would be making and referred to his vision for the property in the future. He felt there was a great opportunity for the expansion of downtown. If the City sells the property to Mr. Ciesielski, it would remove those options. He expressed his interest in purchasing the property and was willing to participate in an open bidding process. Christopher Schiies, 699 Peters Avenue, Suite B, acknowledged that the City did not acquire the subject property through a condemnation process. He also stated his client, Mr. Wagner, was willing to participate in an open bidding process. He objected to the City's method of vaiuing the property. It is using a CPI that quadruples the price that was paid in 1968. Properties in Pleasanton have realistically increased fifteen to twenty times the original price. Using the CPI is inappropriate to get real land values in Pleasanton. Further, he believed this was an extremely hard property to appraise because of the conditions of sale and the fact that it is landlocked. There are three very interested buyers. He did not think either component suggested by staff for determining the value of the property was appropriate. He reiterated his belief that selling the property to Mr. Ciesielski at a below market price would be a gift of public funds. Another point he felt worth mentioning dealt with the Downtown Specific Plan. Apparently there is a tentative conclusion by the Committee that the property is surplus and ought to be sold, but there is Pleasanton City Council Minutes 9 11/07/00