From: Ben Fuller
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:49:20 -0800
To: ‘Christine Boland’ <email@example.com>
Subject: [Gescboard] Referendum Official Re-Request
I hope you are well. I need you to state in writing whether you can or cannot retrieve the referendum on the creation of the berm. As you know, the passing of this referendum resulted in the creation of the berm. The exact language of the referendum is critical to our case, because we believe that inherent to this referendum was the allowance of the creation of the berm if the City honored its verbal agreement to keep it as low as it could to preserve the Eastside residents’ view of the Western hills. In our verbal conversations, you have stated to me that you believe the referendum supercedes any verbal agreement Mike Garvey made with our residents. We have now been led to believe otherwise. We therefore would like to re-request to see the language on this referendum.
The verbal agreement between Mike Garvey and the residents of our community is the key part of our case regarding the San Carlos Transit Village. The extra $30 million spent to create the compact berm was spent to preserve our view of the Western hills. I have verbally asked you a few times in recent months to produce this referendum and wanted to check on the progress of this request. Now that they are going to place a Transit Village on the other side of the berm and destroy our view that was promised to protected by the City.
Finally, please reference below an email from Brian Moura regarding the City’s benevolent respect of its verbal agreements.
From: Brian Moura [mailto:BMoura@cityofsancarlos.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 8:21 PM
To: Ben Fuller
Cc: Sam Herzberg; Paul Magginetti; Tim Hilborn; Jim Vick
Subject: Laureola Park Improvement Project – Some Background and History
Councilmember Ahmad is referring to Laureola neighborhood requests about the features of the proposed Laureola Park project back in 2000. At that time, the City had earmarked over $830,000 in surplus General Fund dollars to upgrade Laureola Park and expand the play areas/field using land acquired several years prior for that purpose by the City.
City Staff held meetings at the Laureola Building with the neighborhood and park users and the project design firm during the design work on that project to discuss Laureola Park upgrade options.
The initial comments at the meetings included neighbors both in favor of improving the park and neighbors who wanted the “no project option” (i.e. no improvements to the park at all). There were some neighborhood concerns that by adding green area and making the field larger at Laureola Park, increased traffic would come into the park and the neighborhood.
The original City plan in 2000 also included plans to replace and upgrade the existing playground equipment, funding for some of which had been donated by some park neighbors.
There was strong neighborhood opposition to upgrading that aspect of the park design, so it was dropped.
The City also agreed through meetings at the Parks & Recreation Commission and City Council to scale back somewhat the play/field area in favor of additional parking as requested
by the neighborhood.
By making these changes (retaining the existing playground equipment vs. new playground equipment as originally planned and trading some play area/green space for parking), the balance of the
Laureola Park upgrade was approved and was ultimately built.
The result was a much improved park that had better drainage, more picnic areas, more play area/green space, better access from the neighborhood and better access for all park users.
From: Ben Fuller
Sent: Tue 10/6/2009 7:37 PM
To: Brian Moura
Cc: ‘Sam Herzberg’; ‘Paul Magginetti’; ‘Tim Hilborn’; ‘Jim Vick’
Subject: Old Laureola Agreement Regarding Laureola Park
Councilman Ahmad told me about an old agreement between the Laureola Association and the City that is keeping Laureola Park out of date and also preventing the Council taking a stand on a Park in NorthEast San Carlos. Are you aware of this agreement, and if so, would you be able to furnish us with a copy of it?