Optional-Entitlement-Application

Excerpt:

After threatening legal action if the city decided to part ways, developer SunCal filed a complaint against Alameda for breach of contract and a violation of the Constitutional contract clause over the Alameda Point development.

COMPLAINT FOR:
1) BREACH OF CONTRACT;

2) VIOLATION OF THE
CONTRACT CLAUSE OF
UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION;

3) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF/SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE; AND

4) DECLARATORY RELIEF

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Excerpt:

Developer SunCal released three letters last week firing back at the city's handling of Alameda Point negotiations and its investigation of Councilwoman Lena Tam, who was accused of forwarding confidential information to SunCal among other allegations of misconduct earlier this month.

Excerpt:

It took until 1 a.m. for the Alameda City Council to vote 4-0 (councilmember Lena Tam abstained) to deny SunCal’s “modified optional entitlement application,” and take the first step towards ending its four-year relationship with SunCal, an Irvine-based developer that planned to build 4,800 homes, a 60-acre sports complex, a ferry terminal, parks, schools and offices at the former Alameda Naval Air Station, which accounts for one-third of this island city.

Excerpt:

Early this morning, the City Council voted to deny SunCal’s development proposal for Alameda Point on a 4-0 vote, effectively sending the developer packing an hour after the expiration of their three-year exclusive agreement to negotiate a deal to develop the former Naval Air Station.

Outline

Background
Two Remaining Mandatory Milestones
.Finalized Navy Term Sheet
.Disposition and Development Agreement

Discussion
.Denial of SunCal Modified OEAOptional Entitlement Application
..Findings for Denial
...Lack of Commitment to Mixed-Use Transit-Oriented Development
...Jobs/Housing Imbalance
...Need for Economic Development Strategy
...Traffic Impacts
...Impacts to Endangered Species
...Risk of Project Infeasibility and Adverse Outcomes
...Lack of Community Support

..Responses to Questions from Alameda's July 7, 2010 Meeting

Excerpt:

Suncal Co.s is threatening to take legal action against the city of Alameda and its interim city manager for “jeopardizing its efforts” to redevelop a 770-acre portion of a former Navy base on the island city.

The developer wants the city to investigate Ann Marie Gallant, the interim city manager, for acting in bad faith during its negotiations with the city on the project. Gallant says Suncal’s claims against her are false.

“This is a personal attack against me because (Suncal) holds me responsible for what’s happened with this project in the past year,” she said.

Excerpt:

Our firm represents SCCSunCal Companies Alameda Point, LLCLimited Liability Corporation (“SCC Alameda”). We understand that the
Alameda staff intends to place on the July 20, 2010 agenda of the City, the ARRAAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. The City Council acts in this capacity. and the CICCommunity Improvement Commission (Alameda's redevelopment agency). The City Council acts in this capacity. (collectively, “Alameda”) a vote on whether to extend the term of the ENAExclusive Negotiating Agreement referenced above. This vote on the ENA is wholly unnecessary. The ENA will be extended by its own terms and by operation of law. Therefore, we request that the vote be removed from the agenda.

Excerpt:

An attorney representing SunCal Companies has accused Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant of engaging in a “malicious campaign” to stall the developer’s plans in an effort to put the city in charge of development at Alameda Point – and demanded the city extend its exclusive agreement to negotiate a development deal for the Point beyond its July 20 expiration date.

Includes previous activity updates.