CCMIN120997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Bob Gibney, of Heller, Ehrman, legal counsel for the Taubman Company, briefly recapped the process so far and the circumstances that surrounded the request before Council. It appears the issues of concern are (1) approving additional density at the Stoneridge Mall prior to completion of the West Las Positas Interchange study and potential adverse impacts resulting therefrom, (2) approving an expansion now when there are no specific plans or immediate needs, and (3) further delay in the Canyon Way improvements. To respond to those questions: (1) Taubman will proceed with the Canyon Way improvements as soon as weather permits regardless of the outcome of this decision. (2) There are special dynamics of a regional shopping center development: it is a long term process with substantial forward capital commitments. It is important to preserve the square footage for the last major department store and for adequate expansion of existing stores. The original stores, Macy and Penney, have operating covenants that expire in the next couple of years and unless Taubman can assure them of expansion, there is the possibility they would find another home. (3) The last issue of more density prior to completion of the study is the most troublesome. Taubman would prefer not to have a conditional approval; however because it understands the policy issues involved, it has proposed a condition that would allow the Council, by simple majority, to revoke the expansion approval at any time after the completion of the West Las Positas study if the expansion is determined to be inconsistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. In the meantime, approval of the expansion demonstrates the City' s strong statement of support for the Stoneridge Mall and its ultimate buildout. It permits Taubman to fully develop the Mall consistent with the General Plan and enables it to deal with major retailers. The traffic issue is also important to Stoneridge because if the people can't get there conveniently, they will shop elsewhere. Mr. Tarver felt the proposed condition was backwards. It says that if the development of 202,000 sq. ft. is inconsistent with the Circulation Element, the Council may revoke the approval with a majority vote. This appears to allow the Council to permit the development even though it is inconsistent with the Circulation Element and there is nothing the citizens can do. Mr. Gibney said that is definitely not the intention. He believed the City had an obligation to revoke the approval if inconsistent with the General Plan. Mr. Tarver preferred that the Council be required to take action to override any inconsistency with the General Plan, thereby providing a Council action that could be subject to a referendum. Mr. Gibney indicated there is no intention to prejudice the referendum process. Mr. Roush explained that there appeared to be two issues raised by the Mayor. First, a Council majority could elect not to revoke the approval. The second issue is if the Council chose not to revoke, would that be subject to referendum. He believed it was necessary to amend the language of the condition to require that the Council revoke approval if the expansion Pleasanton City Council 12/09/97 Minutes 10