pages: CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf, 23
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-07-20 | 23 | twenty-four hours is onerous. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the DDA is not before the Councilmembers/Boarc Members/Commissioners tonight; Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore's questions regarding the DDA are relevant; staff does not believe that anything in the last, best, and final offer has a cure or changes staff's recommendation. Mr. Brown stated at a previous meeting, the Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners discussed the intent to have a public hearing; the intent of the public hearing would be to discuss whether or not to continue with the ENA, not to deny the application; SunCal wants to work cooperatively with the City; the process needs a partner; the partner [City] has been difficult to come by over the last several months; SunCal wants to reestablish the relationship; that he is convinced that the relationship can be reestablished to move forward to discuss the important project issues and to have the EIR analyze every element of the project; at the end of the day, Councilmembers/ Board Members / Commissioners may vote to deny the project; staff may generate EIR alternatives that would be studied and would be the appropriate time to make judgments regarding the DDA, EIR, and project itself; rushing judgment on the application is inappropriate; SunCal would welcome dialogue with Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners and staff regarding the DDA and project itself; that he would like to engage in conversation with the Public Works Director regarding cost estimates and where the line would go; SunCal has a recommended bus rapid transit location in the plan which needs to be discussed; staff did not have enough time to ask questions regarding the DDA; SunCal has achieved the goal of having the DDA meet the requirements under the ENA. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff has not changed its recommendation in response to letters provided by Skip Miller; the Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners and staff have been discussing potentially denying the MOEA for the last two months; May 18th, June 1st, and July 7th staff reports discuss the matter; staff does not think the EIR would change any issues or recommendations noted tonight; findings for denial are related to the commitment to a transit oriented mixed-use development and comprehensive transportation development strategy that fully funds costs and operations, which is not something that an EIR would study. The Public Works Director stated SunCal had three years to address the bus rapid transit line; that he has tried to get SunCal to meet with WETA over the last year; he had to force SunCal to initiate dialogue with WETA; the issue is too little too late. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Mr. Brown stated that the last, best, and final offer is a complicated document that would take a long time Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 11 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 20, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf |