CCMIN020601 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Dennis wanted to look at alternatives to a formal bond. She preferred to have Wente use its resources to build the winery, yet there is a need for some assurance that the project will proceed. Mr. Roush said the action regarding the final map did not require a bond per se. For example, it could allow a letter of credit, but in either event it is required that Wente set some money aside, whether it is $40,000 for the bond or a deposit of $2 million for a letter of credit, which can be drawn down as the project progresses. Mr. McKeehan suggested producing a letter from the bank indicated the $2 million is available for the project, even though the money is not earmarked for the project. Ms. Ayala was concerned about the timeline for the project. Mr. McKeehan said if the tasting room is eliminated, the building could be constructed in less than a year. Ms. Dennis inquired if the tasting room is removed, could there be some public use as suggested by Ms. Roberts? Mr. McKeehan could not address that at this meeting, but was willing to talk about it. Ms. Ayala expressed her admiration for the Wente family, but still felt the need to have some assurance that this building would be completed. She would accept some situation where after completion of a certain portion of the building, that the bond could be dropped. Mayor Pico felt the issue is whether Council wants a fully producing winery with a tasting room. It appears from previous comments, that there is support to just have the building constructed and not force a business venture that may or may not be successful. This is the final condition of the Ruby Hill project and Council needs to decide whether a bond is part of that condition to guarantee there will be a winery. If Council is satisfied with just reconstruction of the building, then there needs to be some guarantee that will happen. He could not waive the condition or bonding, but neither did he want to force a winery business. A substitute motion was made by Mayor Pico, seconded by Ms. Ayala, that the restoration means the rebuilding of a structure that would not include a tasting room or other production facility at this point in time, but that there must be a $2 million security to guarantee completion. Ms. Michelotti was not comfortable with that. The objective is to get the building built and agreed that Council should not mandate when someone should open a business. Pleasanton City Council 13 02/06/01 Minutes