CCMIN102197 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Ayala said that is true except for the 1% increase. She asked if Wells Fargo was willing to reduce its improvements in order to let Taubman proceed and in return, get a five year extension. Ms. Dennis said the issues are revolving around traffic and the impacts and how much information is needed. She wanted to know if the solutions would be able to accommodate what is being planned. Mr. Brinton said there is going to be some increase, but the levels of service would be accommodated. Ms. Ayala asked if the Canyon Way improvements would be beneficial to Wells Fargo in the marketing of its property. Mr. Brinton said that when building permits are pulled, then Wells Fargo will reimburse the cost of the improvements. There being' no further speakers, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Michelotti did not want to see the City go to litigation with Wells Fargo or anyone else because the Mall is an asset to the community. She said Taubman has gone out of its way and had additional studies done on the increments on traffic. She felt the two issues before Council were the traffic improvements on Canyon Way and making the Mall marketable. She felt Wells Fargo was not going to develop the land anytime soon. The levels of service still need to be maintained and Taubman has come to the table in good faith and is willing to help out. She wanted to make sure the economic viability of the Mall is sound. It was moved by Mayor Tarver, seconded by Mr. Pico, to deny the request without prejudice pending completion of the West Las Positas Committee study, with a further review of the application following City Council's action relative to the Committee's recommendation. Mayor Tarver commented the Mall is an asset to the community. It is a partnership, but both sides have to benefit. He felt more information was needed. He did not want a moratorium. He said he was not comfortable approving the application at this time. Ms. Acosta asked if it would make a difference if something other than a moratorium could suspend the development. Mr. Roush said the way the language reads right now, the suspension only occurs if Council imposes a moratorium. If the language is changed to provide that the suspension would occur if Council simply changed the land use designation as to properties that were not vested, that would only take a Council majority as opposed to a 4/5ths vote. Pleasanton City Council 10/21/97 Minutes 22