CCMIN082305 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Inderbitzen said he would be willing to participate if Council proposed a process that is coordinated with its application and does not delay the project and essentially, catch up with the process and work with the developers to implement a greater plan. If it becomes a tool to implement a delay or another hurdle for the project, he did not have an interest. Based on a number of email communications to Council and discussions she had with neighbors, Mayor Hosterman noted that there are people, including herself, that would like to consider other opportunities, such as finding other funding sources that might help balance the developers needs with neighborhood and community needs. She asked Mr. Inderbitzen if he would be willing to consider this as well? Mr. Inderbitzen said he had an open mind about these issues. He believed this project helped the community to implement a recreational park opportunity in the south east side of Pleasanton. In order to induce a property owner to do this, the City needs to provide them with some incentives. Lund Ranch II proposes 98 units, which is to give up 495 acres, build a park and trail system and dedicate it to the City and fund it through an endowment. He did not believe the City would receive another offer such as this. Mayor Hosterman said one of her interests is to ask Mr. Inderbitzen to assist Council in getting the other south east hills property owners at the table as there is some uncertainty by the neighbors as to the number of housing units being provided and if these units would only be the total number of units that will ever be proposed for the southeast hills. These neighbors want some assurance that when it supports the Council that it will receive a certain number of housing units and in trade, receive a certain number of acres in open space and perpetuity. Mr. Inderbitzen could only assist with the 495-acres that it controls as part of its property. He mentioned that he had previously provided a contact name and representative for the Foley property to Council and would be willing to discuss these issues with the other property owners. Ms. McGovern inquired about the idea of using conservancy funds to pay homeowners to not allow as much development of its land. She asked how the value of land and the housing that is constructed on it is assessed? Mr. Fialho did not have an answer to this question. He noted that several Councilmembers have suggested a process to get all stakeholders together to discuss opportunities for financing and what those levels should be to the extent of what the compensation should be to compensate private property owners. The idea behind the concept is to get all stakeholders together to discuss the concept of the southeast hills open space project along with the developers to find out about the formula. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McGovern, Mr. Fialho believed the properties included in the southeast hills were the Spotorno, Lund Ranch II, Kottinger and Foley priorites. He pointed out that approximately 10 acres of the Foley property is included in the urban growth boundary. Mr. Inderbitzen believed the Foley property included a hundred acres located between the Elk Grove south boundary and the Lund II property that is within the urban growth boundary. Mr. Brozosky inquired about the timeline for the Lund Ranch II project. City Council Priorities Workshop 4 08123/05 Minutes