pages: CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf, 25
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-07-20 | 25 | change, from the City's 2008 transportation strategy, which has been based upon the evolution of Alameda Point over time; the City has hired other consultants; that he has worked on phase and stage implementation detail from a developer's prospective. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated lawsuits were mentioned in last week's Alameda Journal headlines; tonight's discussions have included lawsuits potentially being an outcome of tonight's decision; three or four letters were received last week and came too late for the staff report; that she is not sure whether the letters would have been included in the staff report if the letters were received in time; requested feedback from the City Attorney on the matter. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel inquired whether Councilmember / Board Member / Commissioner Gilmore is talking about the damages issue. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore responded in the affirmative; stated that she is a little disturbed about the matter; she had the opportunity to review the City Attorney's opinion for the first time today; the opinion's existence became known to her about a week ago; that she requested a copy of the opinion from the City Attorney and was told to read the opinion in the City Attorney's office; the opinion had to be left at the City Attorney's office because it would not be given out in advance of the meeting; that she asked the City Attorney why she would not give the opinion to her; the City Attorney cited concerns regarding the white elephant in the room; she is disturbed by allegations regarding Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam, the Interim City Manager, City Attorney, Mayor, and SunCal; the situation has created an unnecessary, adversarial atmosphere around City Hall and the City; at the end of the day, everyone is friends, neighbors, and colleagues' and everyone will have to learn to work together; that she has volunteered for the City for over fifteen years; she has never seen the situation get this bad; the situation has been adversarial between the Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners even with general disagreements of opinion in addition to being adversarial between staff and the Councilmembers/Boarc Members/Commissioners; the whole process has bread an atmosphere of fear and suspicion that has driven some actions such as not letting her see the opinion; the implication that certain members of the Council/Board/Commission could not be trusted with confidential material applied to all the Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioner; that she wanted the opinion because the opinion is lengthy, and she did not know whether she would want to review the opinion again after reading the lengthy staff report; bouncing back and forth to the City Attorney's office is very inconvenient; the matter is a Charter issue because the Charter states that Councilmembers/Board Members/ Commissioners should be able to get an opinion from the City Attorney if requested in writing; the Charter does not state that an opinion needs to be read in a certain place; requested the City Attorney to provide an opinion that she is comfortable stating in public; stated that she feels the complicated opinion is difficult to digest; a Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 13 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 20, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf |