pages: CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf, 20
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-04-06 | 20 | B] Specific Plan; the details of the plan are so important at this stage; there are only a couple of months to put the project together, which is a concern. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff would review the comparison [submitted by Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan]. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated there has been a lot of discussion around the issue of transparency and disclosure; sharing information in a public forum is not necessarily standard operating practice; the Alameda Point project is not normal for Alameda; the City is trying to come up with the mechanism and type of reporting out that can be done regularly [at City Council meetings] every two weeks; stated that she would read a letter that she would send tomorrow as a follow up to Frank Faye's presentation on March 16. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the offer constitutes a proposed change to the current ENA; stated that he believes the Council voted on whether SunCal was willing to change the restrictions in the ENA regarding what is proprietary; nothing is different unless a modified ENA is presented to Council. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the letter asks for additional clarification to provide the City with a clear understanding of what SunCal is willing to release; stated [Mr. Faye's] comments last time in the public forum indicated that SunCal wants to release information, but has caveats regarding proprietary information in terms of competition, which is a legitimate request; there are still questions about pro forma information; the pro forma includes a proprietary model; more information is needed in order to proceed with an amendment to the ENA; submitted and read the letter for the record; stated the last paragraph focuses on discussions regarding documenting predevelopment costs; the City is following up in writing on other requests, which are more complicated and comprehensive than just the details between D.E. Shaw and SunCal and the proprietary models used to calculate their pro forma; the City does not want to take the risk and assume everything else is transparent; listing what should not be disclosed might be easier; staff is trying to narrow down what transparency means; now that the OEA is moving forward, the City will look at new pro forma, which will have certain assumptions on Return on Investment; the City does not want to assume SunCal is willing to put the information in the public forum. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated assuming SunCal comes forward with a pro forma and says it is disclosable, inquired whether staff is anticipating that the City would handle disclosure or if SunCal would provide a copy or disk for the public when submitting documents; stated there would be less room for misunderstanding if SunCal indicates a document should be disclosed at the time the document is submitted. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 3 Community Improvement Commission April 6, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf |