pages: CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf, 16
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-07-20 | 16 | Mr. Miller stated that he is new [to the project]; he is a litigation lawyer; he read the ENA and he respectfully submits that terminating the ENA is premature; a vote should not take place today and would not be legally valid; the judgment is rushed; ENA's are legally enforceable in California; SunCal has spent almost four years and close to $15 million pursuant to the Agreement and relies on the Agreement; SunCal is entitled to the completion of a good faith negotiation process; the issue is about due process of law, fundamental fairness and providing an opportunity; the project is very important to the City; ultimately, Council would have the vote but the vote should not occur until the process has been completed; that he strongly believes the process has been set up; tonight's vote would not be legal or valid; that he wrote a letter last week saying that the term sheet with the Navy was frustrating because SunCal could not get cooperation from the City; City officials recognize that he is right; the milestone was prevented; the next step, after admitting that the milestone with the Navy was not met, has been to have a vote on the whole project; the EIR and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process is not complete; the matter has not gone through the Planning Board process; SunCal has bargained for a full, fair hearing on the development; SunCal has invested a tremendous amount of time and money; SunCal requests that the matter not be voted on today; the process should run its course; otherwise, SunCal will be in court to enforce its rights under the Agreement seeking very substantial damages, if necessary; the choice is not his; SunCal will enforce its rights under the Agreement, if necessary; SunCal is entitled to the benefit of the deal and is not getting any benefit by virtue of voting the project down tonight; the vote is premature; requested that SunCal and SCC Alameda have the benefit of a full CEQA process and let everything play out; the former Naval Base needs to be redeveloped; SunCal has done a lot of big land developments over the years; that he has represented SunCal for several years; he is hearing that one City official, who came on the scene about a year ago, has voiced an opinion that having a public project, instead of a private developer, would be better; SunCal made a deal in the ENA to complete the full process, go the full way, not to be truncated, and stopped in midstream; the decision is up to Council; SunCal is entitled to go to the end of the road and should not be co-opted or prevented by somebody who wants to do things differently; the matter will be the subject of litigation, lawsuits, and claims if the resolution is adopted. Proponents (In Favor of Staff Recommendation Denying MOEA): Former Councilmember Barbara Thomas, Alameda; Jean Noroian, Alameda; Ashley Jones, Alameda; Robbie Delio, Alameda; Dorothy Freeman, Alameda; Bob Sikora, Alameda; Birgitt Evans, Alameda; Jean Sweeney, Alameda; Jim Sweeney, Alameda; Reyla Graber, Alameda; Eugenie Thomson, Alameda; Nancy Gordon, Alameda; Jay Ingram, Alameda; Mary Fetherolf, Alameda; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda (submitted document); Rosemary McNally, Alameda; Chuck Millar, Alameda; Former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda; Dave Needle, Alameda; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association; Michael Karayasales, Alameda; Karen Miller, Alameda; Karen Bey, Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 4 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 20, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf |