pages: CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf, 30
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-03-16 | 30 | other stakeholders; SunCal is coming from a position of distrust within the community by its own choosing; that he does not see any humbleness. Mr. Faye stated that he has addressed the Council/Board Members/Commissioners because of the enormity of the situation; lifting the transparency will help everyone to avoid the misunderstanding; SunCal has an obligation to submit a transparent plan and looks forward to meeting the upcoming deadline as presented; rights will be reserved in a letter. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated SunCal spent $1,250,000 on the campaign; the community had to take on a poorly written initiative; that he hopes the community will never see a similar situation again; money seems to be more important than good will. Mr. Faye stated that is not SunCall's intent; SunCal has paid between $10 and $12 million on the project and has tried to be a good partner with the City; SunCal and D.E. Shaw are still willing and able to make contributions; most sponsors are gone, lenders are not giving land loans, and most equity partners are not putting out money. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated SunCal's proposal is to meet the deadline and submit an OEA by March 22, 2010 which can be processed by staff; that she does not understand how the process interplays with Council; inquired what is the best way to maximize opportunity for transparency. The City Attorney/Legal Council responded the process would be the same as for any development plan or submittal for entitlement; stated staff will review the matter, which will be forwarded on to the Planning Board once it is considered complete. Mr. Faye stated in the past, Council has formed a sub-committee to accompany staff in meetings to help develop a consensus; SunCal would love to have the opportunity to present responses and ideas directly to the Council/Board Members/Commissioners in an appropriate forum. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether a factual description could be published on the new submittal so that the community is informed; stated residents were interested and curious regarding the January 14th submittal. The City Attorney/Legal Council responded the submittal would be a public record. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the submittal could be summarized and presented at a Council meeting. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 5 Community Improvement Commission March 16, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf |