Laserfiche WebLink
66 <br /> <br /> Mr. Conroe explained that time is essential for the project. <br /> He inquired if it would be acceptable to Council to bring the <br /> project up to a certain stage where there is some clear <br /> definition, work with staff to arrive at an agreement regarding <br /> the project, go through the Design Review Board or Planning <br /> Commission and then come to Council. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated that the development agreement also has <br /> to go to the Planning Commission, so there will be some lag time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bocian explained that Wells Fargo submitted a draft <br /> development agreement and indicated that it was interested in <br /> having this as well as the project. He told Wells Fargo that he <br /> did not have any authorization to move ahead with the development <br /> agreement until some other things were worked out or until it was <br /> authorized. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Brandes that Council authorize the staff <br /> to proceed with the negotiations regarding the project and the <br /> development agreement with the understanding that both would come <br /> before Council together. <br /> <br /> The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br /> It was then moved by Mr. Mercer, and seconded by Mr. Brandes, <br /> to have the developer and the property owner work with the staff <br /> to draft the development agreement based on the project and then <br /> bring the items to Council at appropriate times. <br /> The roll call vote was as follows: <br /> AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Mohr, Tarver and Mayor Mercer <br /> NOES: None <br /> ABSENT: Councilmember Butler <br /> ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Item 12b <br /> Report on West PleasantonAnnexation <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 90:54) regarding the <br /> matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer asked the Councilmembers what option they thought <br /> would be best. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that she was in favor of Option 1. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver indicated that he favored Option 2 because he <br /> would like to see both the Planning Commission and the City <br /> Council discuss the annexation in a workshop, as they did for the <br /> Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer agreed with Mr. Tarver. He indicated that he <br /> would like to have some the Planning Commissioners participate in <br /> the process because this is a very important issue and they have a <br /> lot to offer. <br /> <br /> -24- <br /> 2-6-90 <br /> <br /> <br />