04 ATTACHMENT 10 - Laserfiche WebLink

February 6, 200 Mayor Hostermant Councilmembers, I am writing to you today for a couple of reasons. First of all, I'd life to express my thanks to Councilmember Sullivan for continuing Council Meeting Agenda Item 10 when he realized that there was a decision being planned regarding the stonerid a Dr. extension (SDE), and that the issue had not been properly noticed. There was, in fact, no mention in the "Notice of Public Hearing ", or in the staff Agenda Packet outlining the meeting item under discussion, that a decision on the extension of stoneride Drive was going to be made as part of the approval of the amendments to the Stoneride Drive specific Plan /Staples Punch Project. In fact, Exhibit A of the February 3, 2009 City Council Item 10 Agenda Report Attachments, "Draft stonerid a Drive specific Plan Amendment Staples Punch ", dated October 200 8, reflects an Emergency Vehicle Access (E VA) at the terminus of Stonerid a Drive and staples Punch Drive* as well as at the Auto mail site p. 3.2.2. There was nothing in Attachment g, "Recommended Revisions" to the Plan that changed the wording of that paragraph. It's unfortunate that the Council majority, who have made no secret of their wish to expeditiously extend stonerie Drive, seemed to have no problem with a hidden agenda item. The decision on the timing of the SDE will undoubtedly be made sooner rather than later; there was absolutely no reason to hide the fact. ,Just document it, deal with the public comment, and male the decision. It is unethical to handle it any other way. Which brings me to my second item. My thanks to Councilmembers McGovern and Sullivan for continually working to put the SDE into perspective with other decisions, issues and agreements that impact not only the SDE, but Pleasanton as well. I would ask that, as a Council, your decision to extend Stoneride Drive be open and transparent with full disclosure around that decision — warts and all. That would include a record of the documentation and commitments that are being set aside in order to make this decision. These include, but are not limited to the following: In April 200 , the city signed a Memorandum of Understanding MOU with the Surplus Property Authority (SPA), This MOU specifically stated that the city was not obligated to construct the stonerid a Drive extension in conjunction with the development of staples Punch. In a letter to Mayor Hosterman dated October 10, Zoo, supervisor Scott Haggerty, in partnership with the SPA, set aside that Ar OU The Alameda County SPA will now pay for the extension of stoneridge Drove only if it is constructed at the same time as staples Punch is developed. He further threatened that if there is a delay in putting through the SDE, it will jeopardize approval of the staples Punch development. July 18, 200 8, (after the public comment period) the Alameda LAFCo threatened to delay annexation of the Staples Punch property if SDE impacts were not included in the staples Punch EIl. They cited the Tri -alley Transportation Plan and Action Plan Update (February 2, 2008), which identified the SDE as a "Route of Regional ional significance ". SR84 is also noted on this Action Plan as a "Route of Regional significance. These LAFCo politicians are the same ones who, in April 200 7, as members on the Tri- alley Triangle Traffic Committee TTTC , eliminated SR84 improvements from being forwarded to the Congestion management Agency (CMA) as a way to coerce Pleasanton into extending stonerid a Dr.