CCMIN120799 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Rossi said it was about $129 million. This is like a mortgage and most mortgages cost about two and a half times the principal. Bob Nickeson, 4260 Pleasanton Avenue, appreciated the Council and staff for working under difficult circumstances to get this measure before the community to see if the residents want to acquire the property. He felt the City of San Francisco can play an important part in getting this issue settled. To work against that could draw this situation out for another ten or fifteen years and at that point $50 million would look like a good deal. Not all communities in California would have the ability to purchase property like this. It is a good opportunity for the city. Duncan Matteson, Valley Avenue, Pleasanton, was happy Council had this opportunity. He encouraged an aggressive approach by the Council. The opportunity to have 510 acres in the heart of a prime real estate area is priceless. The citizens will not fully appreciate this until ten or fifteen years from now. He believed the property was worth $400 million minimum. He is in the real property business and did not think that was a wild estimate. He felt Council has a rare opportunity to use this for the betterment of the citizenry. He believed a consortium could enter into a partnership with the City and the City would be able to pay off the bonds and get a $100 million plus profit for the City. He encouraged Council to continue in this venture. In the west Bay Area there is no such opportunity left. The prices being paid for homes, apartments, office buildings in that area are incredible. It is two to three times what it is in Pleasanton. Those same valuations will happen in Pleasanton in the next five to ten years. People want to live and work here. Pleasanton has one of the premier office parks in the entire state. He encouraged a partnership with a major institution (as Prudential was in the development of Hacienda Business Park). Ms. Michelotti referred to the proposed change from the word "entitlement" to "approval" in the ballot language because of the concern that the general population may not recognize what "entitle" means. Her concern was that there is no plan that is being approved and the descriptive parenthetical statements were removed. She believed entitlement was approved for a non-specific approval. Mr. Pico shared the comments of Mr. Matteson. This is a priceless opportunity. We are at the end of the millennium and we are seeing lists of the bests in various categories over the last century. He felt the citizens of Pleasanton have an opportunity to leave a tremendous legacy for the future of this community if we can acquire this property. A hundred years from now people will say this was the best thing that happened in Pleasanton. He wants the ballot measure, so people can voice their opinions. Pleasanton is a model city and this is an opportunity to become a world class city. We could have an exceptional place to live because of the potential amenities on this property. Them is no free lunch. We will pay for this either by purchasing the property or by having to live with the development of the San Francisco plan. He urged the community to see this as an incredible opportunity and to think of this as a legacy for future generations. Pleasanton City Council 11 12/07/99 Minutes