pages: CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf, 26
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-07-20 | 26 | Closed Session was not held on the matter tonight because of a clerical error; that she does not have the benefit of her colleague's and legal team's thinking. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated no allegations have been directed toward her; she understands there have been claims and spins regarding the investigative reports. The City Attorney./Lega Council stated SunCal's attorneys have threatened to sue the City if the City does not do what SunCal wants; having a litigation defense briefing would not change the situation and would have no bearing on the Councilmembers/Board Members'/Commissioners' decision tonight; City staff, including a significant legal team of land use attorneys, CEQA attorneys, and litigators, have done a through analysis of the issues before the Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners tonight and have made a recommendation to the Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners; SunCal also says that it is entitled to the benefit of the deal that SunCal has made; the deal is the ENA; the ENA specifically states that damages would be limited to return of SunCal's $1 million deposit in the event of the City's breach of its obligation to negotiate diligently and in good faith. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether SunCal's damages would be limited to $1 million if SunCal sues the City and is successful. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the negative; stated the benefit of the bargain SunCal made set forth in black and white in the ENA specifically states SunCal's damages would be limited to a return of the $1 million deposit; that she does not believe tonight's forum is a good time to get into a legal issue debate with SunCal's attorneys. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the ENA expired yesterday; the City does not have a Navy term sheet; inquired whether the question on the agenda tonight is whether or not to accept the MOEA. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the question on the agenda is whether or not to follow the staff recommendation to deny the MOEA which could be done without prior CEQA review; stated Councilmembers/Boarc Members/Commissioners cannot approve the MOEA without CEQA review. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation; stated the project has the same flaws as the project before the voters; the DDA would not change the issue; opening the process up would be beneficial to the City. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 14 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 20, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf |