01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Sullivan questioned and confirmed that Mr. Carroll felt there would be a greater public presence if residents knew the Council would potentially make a decision on the extension this evening. Becky Dennis voiced support for the staff recommendation and congratulated staff on devising a plan amidst expansive and opposing community input. She said that the development of Staples Ranch is inevitable and expressed support for the Stoneridge Drive extension but said further discussion of the implications of accepting the County's offer may be warranted. She advised the Council to appeal to the Alameda County Resource Conservation District for assistance in developing adequate mitigations for the spearscale. She said the project will encourage the much needed development of SR 84 and she asked the project's opponents to consider how to make the best of an inevitable situation. Paul Mooney urged separate discussion on the Stoneridge Drive extension and asked the Council not to consider merging the issue with the Staples Ranch project. There being no further speakers, the public hearing was closed. BREAK: Mayor Hosterman called for a brief break and thereafter, reconvened the regular meeting with all members present. Councilmember Sullivan voiced concern over the discussion and public input on a matter that was not on the agenda, noted that the meeting was advertised to the community and press as a hearing on the Staples Ranch Specific Plan consistent with an MOU that does not include Stoneridge Drive; notice otherwise would have afforded the Council the opportunity to hear from a broader cross section of the community. He said he would like to exercise his right to continue the hearing to future date so that the public can be properly informed of the full scope of what is being considered. He suggested that other members of the Council who support the Specific Plan under the current conditions of the MOU may have a different opinion if the Stoneridge Drive extension is included. Mayor Hosterman asked if he would like to continue this meeting to allow for an opportunity to more accurately notice the public or if his intention is to rehear this subject in its entirety. Councilmember Sullivan said he considers it unfair to the community for the Council to have a discussion and make their positions on the matter this evening. He requested ending the hearing, rescheduling it for a future date, and publicize it properly so that the public can provide input. Mayor Hosterman requested a legal opinion. City Attorney Roush advised that per Council rules, any Councilmember may continue an item that is not subject to a legally or City imposed deadline (which is not applicable here) to the next Council meeting or to another date agreeable to the majority of the Council. An agenda item may be continued only once using this procedure and while this rule has typically been exercised at the start of a meeting, there is nothing in the rules that prevent it from being employed at any time during the discussion. Mr. Roush added that a continuance may not be requested once a motion is on the floor but as this was not the case, there is nothing to preclude Councilmember Sullivan from exercising his request, as suggested. City Council Minutes Page 13 of 15 February 3, 2009