Blogging Bayport Alameda

February 8, 2010

Ohhh snap!

So I had promised myself that I wasn’t going to write about Alameda Point until tomorrow, because even though news about the Interim City Manager sending out a Notice of Default to SunCal about their Optional Entitlement Application (OEA) was very interesting news, it could wait given that the Planning Board meeting is tonight and there is a fairly interesting, albeit small, item of interest.

So for those who have not read the Notice of Default (Michelle Ellson has a copy) it essentially says that SunCal’s OEA is not valid because it has to Measure A compliant according to the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement.   The ICM uses some fairly reaching arguments to come to that decision too.   Recall that this is the woman who insisted that the City’s Election Reports on Measure B only discuss what was included in the body of the language itself and not the “intent” of the Developer or even other documents that were confidential due to the ENA but that she had review previously.

Now, she is claiming, it’s all about the intent of what the City wanted in the ENA because she knows as well as anyone else that the specific requirement that the OEA be Measure A compliant is not within the “four corners” of the ENA contract.    She suggests in her letter that:

As it was expected by all that an election would be held in November 2009, the Optional Entitlement Application was anticipated as a safeguard so that should the Ballot Initiative fail, SunCal could then submit a Measure A compliant plan by January 15, 2010.

Here’s the thing, while it very well may have been the intent that was not what was written in to the ENA.   The ENA is fairly clear on what the OEA can look like and there is no provision that the OEA must be Measure A compliant.   Go ahead and look through the ENA, I’ll wait.   Just to give you some guidance the OEA section begins here, but refers back to this section for under Entitlement Application as to the form of the OEA.

Even more puzzling is the news that at least one of the City Councilmembers was not made aware that the NOD was going to be sent out meaning that there was not a vote or discussion on the matter, which would appear to suggest that the ICM is acting rather unilaterally on this issue.    I wasn’t around during the Jim Flint as City Manager years but I think this was one of the real big critiques of Jim Flint.

In response to the ICM’s letter, SunCal released its own response:

Dear Mayor and City Council Members,

We were shocked that we received a notice of default on February 4, 2010 for the Optional Entitlement Application (OEA) that we submitted on January 14, 2010 with the full knowledge of the Interim City Manager. The notice is littered with inaccurate and misleading statements. Moreover, the legal argument for determining the default is specious and relies on alleged requirements that simply do not exist in the ENA.

For example, there is no requirement in the ENA that SunCal submit a Measure A compliant plan as is alleged in the NOD. In fact, that would be counter to the master plan and business plan accepted by the City, which has been the basis of our negotiations for two years. On numerous occasions, the Interim City Manager maintains that a Measure A compliant plan is not financially feasible. At several of our meetings, she has frequently sought additional residential and commercial densities in excess of the OEA plan, rather than a reduction in density. The Notice of Default alleges obligations that do not exist in the ENA when it states that a density bonus application was a required submittal to meet a Mandatory Milestone, nor is it true when it states the plan submitted in the OEA cannot conform to a density bonus approach, when the City Council can make appropriate findings during the normal entitlement process.

Moreover, we were even more surprised and disturbed to see that these specious legal claims used to determine the non-existent default, were the subject of a City-issued press release. It is simply bad form to deliver this notice of default as a press strategy and we do not understand why the City desires to create public controversy at every step of this process, rather than in working together in a mutually beneficial manner to implement a financial and environmentally viable plan for Alameda Point. While we are preparing a more thorough response to the Notice of Default, we are compelled to respond immediately because of the City’s erroneous press release.

Following Tuesday’s February 2, 2010 election, SunCal has become acutely aware that the community’s desire for a better future for Alameda Point must follow a more traditional development process. We want to respect the community’s desire, and will take our lead from the City Council. In accordance with the ENA, we are actively pursuing that vision and are eager to work with the City Council and the community of Alameda in good faith to ensure the future of Alameda Point and the City is secured.

As clearly noted in the OEA submittal, the Plan can be entitled either by City Council decision to place a charter amendment on the ballot or by use of a density bonus. Rather than pre-determine the course the City would choose to take, we assumed that the City would work with us in good faith to craft the plan in a manner that met the City’s preferred goals. In the absence of an ulterior motive, the proper way to handle this matter would have been to advise us through the planning department of the City’s preferences and to advise us of additional submittals that might be required to conform to the newly adopted density bonus ordinance, if that were the City’s preference.

While we remain committed to working with the City Council and the community of Alameda in good faith, the City’s actions over the last two days raise questions about whether it shares this commitment. As a result, we must begin to doubt the City’s desire to ensure that the vision for Alameda Point is realized in a manner consistent with the City’s responsibilities under the ENA, despite the numerous public statements to the contrary.

SunCal has, and is, currently expending significant financial and staff resources on the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, which was approved by the City Council last October by a unanimous vote. We are continuing to perform under the terms of the ENA.

Unfortunately, the use of City press releases for damaging unsubstantiated claims is becoming a major distraction and obstacle to the success of our mutual Alameda Point effort.

We respectfully request that you withdraw this notice of default and that we work collaboratively on a plan that is best for the City of Alameda.


Pat Keliher
SunCal Companies

Here are some highlights.   I’m sure that some folks would be shocked to learn:

On numerous occasions, the Interim City Manager maintains that a Measure A compliant plan is not financially feasible. At several of our meetings, she has frequently sought additional residential and commercial densities in excess of the OEA plan, rather than a reduction in density.

After all, I’m positive that some folks have been completely rah rah ICM because they believed her to be a protector of Measure A.   It must be enlightening to learn that not only is she not a Measure A lover, she would have rather seen a land use plan exceed the residential and commercial density (aka more stuff) out at Alameda Point.

And this:

Moreover, we were even more surprised and disturbed to see that these specious legal claims used to determine the non-existent default, were the subject of a City-issued press release. It is simply bad form to deliver this notice of default as a press strategy and we do not understand why the City desires to create public controversy at every step of this process, rather than in working together in a mutually beneficial manner to implement a financial and environmentally viable plan for Alameda Point.

Along with this:

While we remain committed to working with the City Council and the community of Alameda in good faith, the City’s actions over the last two days raise questions about whether it shares this commitment. As a result, we must begin to doubt the City’s desire to ensure that the vision for Alameda Point is realized in a manner consistent with the City’s responsibilities under the ENA, despite the numerous public statements to the contrary.

Hints to SunCal beginning to take the proverbial gloves off.    If the ICM keeps up with these sorts of actions, SunCal is going to have a long long list of complaints to keep the City in a whole heap of legal troubles for a while.   The City Council needs to have a heart to heart with the ICM to try to figure out what her end goal is before the City is exposed to even more legal liability.

While I’m sure that a lot of people are happy that the ICM was pivotal in the defeat of Measure B, we can’t pretend that actions that smell like bad faith negotiating isn’t being documented by SunCal and its lawyers in the case that the ENA negotiations fall apart.


  1. You are using a “he said she said” as a source of information and calling it news? LOL!

    Other than that, if the elected officials have a problem with staff overreaching, they have a mechanism for solving it. A couple pissed bloggers are just that. BTW, with the exception of you, JKW, and Helen Souse, practically nobody in this community is rooting for SunCal to sue. Way to try and manufacture outrage. Hold a tea party perhaps?

    Comment by AD — February 8, 2010 @ 8:04 am

  2. AD: Did you find in the ENA where there is a requirement for the OEA to be Measure A compliant?

    Also, it’s Helen Sause. Pronounced like “Sauce.”

    And it’s not about rooting for SunCal to sue, it’s to point out that the ICM is doing nothing to avoid SunCal having legal grounds to sue. Which is sort of her responsibility to keep the City from being exposed to liability.

    Comment by Lauren Do — February 8, 2010 @ 8:09 am

  3. #2

    “Did you find in the ENA where there is a requirement for the OEA to be Measure A compliant?”

    There is nothing in the ENA that says that it can’t be written in Klingon.

    Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 8, 2010 @ 8:26 am

  4. So, pointing out that the interim city manager manager may be putting the city in legal jeopardy for no good reason is “rooting for SunCal to sue”?

    Were those who claimed the city was “on the verge of bankruptcy” rooting for the city to go broke?

    Comment by Michael Krueger — February 8, 2010 @ 8:32 am

  5. The angry rude tone that this question has evoked is totally counterproductive . Name calling and enemy lists do not help us retain the sense of community and mutual respect and support that is what many of us have worked for for many years, and which many newcomers found as a desirable quality in deciding to locate here.

    I would hope that the city leadership will step up to defuse and disassociate themselves from this behavior.

    Comment by barbara kahn — February 8, 2010 @ 8:53 am

  6. Ha, ha. Bill Smith’s “normal government processes” better look for a new shepherd.

    Comment by Jack Richard — February 8, 2010 @ 9:07 am

  7. Whether one likes SunCal or not, Lauren’s comments in re: exposure to litigation are a legitimate concern. Maybe this action does that; maybe not, but it is something cities should take into consideration when deciding on tactics. Risk, especially for this city with its many economic problems, is an appropriate concern. I’ve read some bloggers advocating immediate “kicking SunCal to the curb”, and while I understand the depth of feeling about the development, it will not be that easy for the City to extricate itself from the work with them that it has been involved in for years. This is not because SunCal is evil – it has to do with the way real business is done in the real world. It will take a careful, well thought out process if we are to keep ourselves in a “smart” place. The reality is that this is a complicated matter and will require well thought out, step by step planning and execution to carry it out to a wholesome conclusion for us.

    Comment by Kate Quick — February 8, 2010 @ 9:47 am

  8. ANT: Ah, but the ICM is not complaining about the OEA written in Klingon, she is putting forth an argument that the ENA specifically says that the OEA must be Measure A compliant. I haven’t found reference to that in the ENA yet, but I’m still looking.

    Comment by Lauren Do — February 8, 2010 @ 9:59 am

  9. Lauren: Measure B failed; SunCal HAS to submit a measure A compliant application if they want to stick around. I can’t see how the city manager is not doing them a favor by reminding them of that. They have 30 day to fix it. Instead, they are going off the deep end and sending strange emails around, acting all hurt. What’s THAT all about? The words that come to mind more and more to describe SunCal’s behavior is manipulative and dysfunctional.

    And I completely agree, vilifying the city manager doing her job is counterproductive. If there’s a legitimate gripe, take it to council.

    Comment by AD — February 8, 2010 @ 10:05 am

  10. AD: Where does it say they have to submit a Measure A compliant development? Point to the clause in the ENA and I will be happy to write about it in detail.

    The NOD was based on what the ICM claims is in the ENA, so there should be documentation about it, correct?

    Comment by Lauren Do — February 8, 2010 @ 10:08 am

  11. According to phone conversations I have had with both Council Members, neither Marie Gilmore nor Lena Tam received any advance notice of the ICM’s letter to SunCal certifying a Notice of Default (NOD).

    I wonder if the mayor or anyone else on the council knew about the NOD letter in advance?

    As a matter of good governance as well as common courtesy, it seems that the Interim City Manager should have at least informed the City Council prior to filing the NOD. (The ICM works for them, after all, and the City Council not the ICM, is responsible for making policy. And it could be argued that filing the NOD is, indeed, a policy decision, not an administrative one.)

    I agree with Kate Quick: the ICM appears to be placing the City of Alameda at greater risk of potentially expensive legal action by SunCal for breach of contract or on similar grounds. Whether one supports SunCal or not, spending Alameda’s limited resources defending us against an avoidable and preventable suit seems like a needless expense.

    As an interested observer of the City’s public statements and public record on these matters, I would say that the City has, indeed, failed to negotiate “in good faith” with SunCal, which the City Council duly chose as its latest master developer. That is not a responsible way to implement public policy.

    As Michael Krueger notes in #4, these questions of proper procedure and good governance are serious ones, regardless of one’s views about SunCal or the redevelopment of Alameda Point.

    Comment by Jon Spangler — February 8, 2010 @ 10:20 am

  12. SunCal has gone a long way to alienate the community by forcing an expensive special election (which I thought showed no respect for City taxpayers) with a ballot measure that not only called for Measure A exemptions at the Point (which I personally consider inevitable), but also tried to lock in a development agreement written by SunCal and submitted to the voters to bypass Alameda City processes (more than an over-reach). The move seriously backfired on SunCal and seriously undermined their ability to continue as deveoppers at the Point. It isn’t necessarily the kiss of death, but if they wish to continue, I think that they need to regroup and present a plan that they think will work (as well as be acceptable) or withdraw from the project.

    My understanding is that the current SunCal contract expires in June or July. At that time, the City can simply decide not to renew the contract. SunCal could sue, but given the unnecessary costs they have incurred on the taxpayers and the complete failure of their proposal when presented to the voters, I just don’t see how they could argue “but for this or that, SunCal’s Point plans would be successful.” They would probably lose the suit and be liable for City legal costs.

    At the risk of setting off a firestorm, I keep hoping that the VA would swoop in and build their hospital/mausoleum project. At least something would be getting under way at the Point.

    Comment by John — February 8, 2010 @ 10:29 am

  13. Lauren: I will point you to the city charter and the results of the measure B election.

    Comment by AD — February 8, 2010 @ 10:37 am

  14. AD: The City Charter and the results of the Measure B election are not outlined in the ENA under the section on the Optional Entitlement Agreement.

    Comment by Lauren Do — February 8, 2010 @ 10:40 am

  15. #14
    SunCal has to comply with existing laws. They cannot violate building codes or other standards in what they submit and have it considered a valid submission. The ENA is not a universe of its own. It is SunCal’s responsibility to submit a valid proposal that complies with laws and standards. If they haven’t done so, then they have only themselves to blame. The city has given SunCal 30 days to correct their filing and submit one that is in accordance with Measure A. It isn’t the responsibility of the city to do SunCal’s job for them. SunCal was well aware of what they needed to do.

    “Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what SunCal’s position would be if the measure did not pass.
    Pat Keliher, SunCal, responded that SunCal wants to have some type of fallback plan; stated SunCal is looking at Measure A compliant plans internally.
    Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal would still be willing to be in the process if the plan was Measure A compliant.
    Mr. Keliher responded that today, SunCal would not want to walk away from Alameda Point; stated SunCal would like to look at other alternatives.”

    August 18, 2008 Council meeting.

    All the city is asking for is for SunCal to produce those Measure A plans. It should be easy for SunCal to file those within 30 days if they started working on them 18 months ago.

    Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 8, 2010 @ 11:02 am

  16. I have no symphathy for SunCal and agree with #12 that SunCal showed no respect for the City tax payers or our City council by trying to bypass the City process and get a one sided development agreement passed.

    That said, I’m deeply disappointed to hear that the entire council did not get to vote on the NOD. I look to the input of all of our council members on these important issues.

    Comment by Karen Bey — February 8, 2010 @ 11:02 am

  17. ANT: The four corners of the ENA, the contract which governs this process does not explicitly spell out that the OEA needs to “comply with existing laws” aka be Measure A compliant. It simply says that the Developer has the option to submit an OEA and that the OEA must meet the same requirements as the Entitlement Application. Of course the original Entitlement Agreement was what was included as the whole of Measure B and the land plan in Measure B was not Measure A compliant.

    Comment by Lauren Do — February 8, 2010 @ 11:11 am

  18. #17
    Apparently the city attorney does not agree with your opinion.

    Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 8, 2010 @ 11:20 am

  19. Of course Measure A is an existing law, but it certainly does not prohibit anybody from drawing up a plan for multiple dwelling units.

    A non-Measure-A-compliant plan could still be implemented using the density bonus ordinance. The Council or the citizens could place a Measure A modification on the ballot. People are free to speculate on the likelihood and relative difficulty of these scenarios, but they are all legal paths to the implementation of a non-Measure-A-compliant plan for Alameda Point.

    How can the interim city manager claim to be negotiating in good faith, yet pull the requirement for a Measure-A-compliant plan out of thin air?

    Regardless of how one feels about SunCal, Measure B, or Alameda Point, how does it benefit the citizens for the full city council to be left out of the loop on an incredibly important decision like whether or not to serve a notice of default? This hardly seems like the type of ordinary day-to-day decision that deserves to be left wholly to staff discretion.

    Comment by Michael Krueger — February 8, 2010 @ 11:51 am

  20. ANT: Well, at this point a Dirty Harry quote would be apropos:

    Not “Do I feel lucky”

    Comment by Lauren Do — February 8, 2010 @ 12:08 pm

  21. #20

    Not all opinions are of equal value. An opinion from an attorney on a legal matter carries more weight than one from a layman. Same with a medical opinion. When you are sick, do you ask the guy behind the counter at Burger King for medical advice or do you see a doctor?

    Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 8, 2010 @ 12:53 pm

  22. ANT: the final adjudicator on any “opinion” is a court of law.

    Much like the decision on the setting of the election date, another lawyer, Council member Marie Gilmore, took exception as to the City Attorney’s reading of the election law.

    So unless the question is taken into a different venue it is simply a legal opinion, not a statement of fact, particularly if the City Attorney is relying on “intent” as opposed to what is specifically spelled out (or not spelled out) in the contract.

    Comment by Lauren Do — February 8, 2010 @ 1:00 pm

  23. Measure B lost because it was a bad idea, and no amount of “spin” and other forms of dishonesty could convince voters otherwise. The pro side lost in large measure because they used meaningless rhetoric and scare tactics — without honestly addressing any real issues.

    But rather than respect the voters who overwhelmingly rejected Measure B, the pro side is now looking for yet another scuzzy tactic to manipulate opinion.

    The notion that the city manager suddenly cooked up this default is ridiculous. All the parties involved knew from the outset what the consequences would be if Measure B lost, and it was up to SunCal to prepare — competently — for that outcome.

    With this optional application, SunCal decided to put lipstick on the pig — throw in a couple of superficial changes and then resubmit the existing plan as-is to save themselves the time and trouble of writing a new one.

    They knew perfectly well that it was nowhere near being acceptable as Measure A compliant — so now they’re pretending to be shocked. This looks like some kind of weird political theatre.

    Comment by dlm — February 8, 2010 @ 5:52 pm

  24. Lauren: Please explain how a developer can arbitrarily decide to ignore the city’s existing laws. To claim that they can and then ask anyone to prove otherwise is essentially absurd. Of course they can’t.

    Kate: If concerns that the “exposure to litigation” are legitimate, then what would be the basis for these lawsuits? So far, I haven’t heard anything specific.

    Comment by dlm — February 8, 2010 @ 6:09 pm

  25. #6. Normal government processes can be messy – as the discussion on the default notice the City sent out makes clear.

    For the record, I am supportive of SunCal’s submission of an alternative plan that continues to include housing that is both economical and environmentally sustainable.

    Here are some normal government processes that those who support SunCal’s plan could consider for getting it approved. Except for the third alternative, all rely on state housing law to invalidate our City’s ban on economical and sustainable housing. Those who want to see that housing only at Alameda Point may want to consider alternatives 3, sponsoring a charter amendment to do just that -courts aren’t known for surgical strikes.

    1) lobby the City Council to simply rezone Alameda Point to allow the construction of economical and sustainable housing and use the State’s requirement that Alameda provide its fair share of regional housing to defend the Council’s action in court,

    2) citizens could sue the City in State Court to permit construction of economical and sustainable housing anywhere in Alameda,not just the Point,

    3) citizens could sponsor and approve an amendment to the City Charter to permit the construction of economical and sustainable housing at Alameda Point,

    4) a developer could, as SunCal has proposed, use the density bonus to construct a limited number of economical and sustainable homes at Alameda Point.

    Which option do you prefer? All have agreed the status quo is not an option.

    Comment by William Smith — February 8, 2010 @ 9:11 pm

  26. “If we who favor large-scale sustainable redevelopment of Alameda Point are going to realize our vision, we simply have to convince the entire community.”

    Bill: What do you mean by “we”? SunCal spent $1.3 million on this effort and they lost by a spectacular margin — apparently a lot of “us” don’t like them. The level of denial goes nowhere but up, and that’s not realistic.

    Comment by dlm — February 8, 2010 @ 9:42 pm

  27. #24 – In the world of business, when entities enter into the type of negotiation agreement such as this one, a primary requirement is that both parties negotiate “in good faith”, a legally defined term that is often the subject of suits when one party believes the other party has done something like withheld information, changed the basis of the negotiations without informing the other party, or had no intention of taking the negotiations to either settlement (a deal) or impasse. (There are a lot more “causes” so the examples I gave are just some.) So, if the reason the City gave for the default notice was thought by SunCal to be a pretext for stopping the negotiations before the agreed upon termination date and was not based in the agreed upon perameters of the ENA the City might be at risk for exposure to suit. Even if the suit had no merit, every law suit costs big money to defend. Reducing/avoiding risk is a big part of prudent financial management so my question is not pro or anti SunCal or pro or anti the ICM and City Attorney, but how was the risk considered? The ICM and City Attorney may well have considered the risk and found it to be very small, or at least smaller than the potential for some gain by the issue of the default notice. I’m just asking questions, not opining.

    The message I was trying to convey in my first post is that as much as many dislike SunCal and the concept of this development process, reality is that the City cannot just “run them out of town, NOW.” There is a process for withdrawing from agreements and the process has to happen in a business-like and proper sequence to insure risk avoidance.

    Comment by Kate Quick — February 8, 2010 @ 9:49 pm

  28. 26.

    Darcy: There are a lot of Alamedans, many represented by Renewed Hope and the Chamber of Commerce who thought that SunCal’s development plans deserved a fair hearing through the normal approval processes, but voted against Measure B because SunCal decided to reduce their financial exposure and short circuit normal governmental approvals – in other words we considered the DEAL was bad, even though we thought the plan had potential to implement the Alameda Point Community Vision linked to on The Island.

    Comment by William Smith — February 8, 2010 @ 10:02 pm

  29. Over 85% of the voters said NO to SunCal for one reason or another.

    This means 85% of the voters said SunCal go away.

    Comment by Bob — February 9, 2010 @ 5:45 am

  30. 25

    I’m not in favor of placing a third world (euphemism for economical and sustainable) enclave of housing on the base or anywhere else in Alameda and I doubt, if that required any of your three alternatives to get rid of MA, neither would the rest of Alameda.

    Comment by Jack Richard — February 9, 2010 @ 9:05 am

  31. This was a complex ballot initiative, not a simple referendum on SunCal; in fact, the name “SunCal” didn’t occur anywhere in its 288 pages.

    85% of the 38% of the voters who voted in this election said “no” to this particular combination of development agreement, city charter change, and plan. That’s all the election tells us for sure.

    Comment by Michael Krueger — February 9, 2010 @ 10:22 am

  32. #31
    “That’s all the election tells us for sure.”

    It is all that you choose to hear.

    Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — February 9, 2010 @ 10:40 am

  33. No, it’s not just what I “choose to hear.” Everything I stated above is an objective fact.

    Now, you are free to go beyond the facts and say “the election means Alamedans don’t like SunCal,” but that is an interpretation. It is certainly a plausible interpretation, and it may well be the correct interpretation, but unless you have a scientific poll or some additional evidence confirming that interpretation, you can’t call it an objective fact.

    Then again, maybe it’s naïve of me to think that the facts matter. The mob has spoken: “Get the torches and pitchforks, everyone, and let’s run these bastards out of town!”

    Comment by Michael Krueger — February 9, 2010 @ 11:40 am

  34. 31. Michael,

    As one of those who voted no on Measure B, I assure you that your statement below is incorrect:

    85% of the 38% of the voters who voted in this election said “no” to this particular combination of development agreement, city charter change, and plan. That’s all the election tells us for sure.

    I, and dozens of other Alamedans I know, including 3 of 5 council members, support bringing SunCal’s promising plan through the normal development approval process. We voted against Measure B solely because Measure B would have short circuited that process, including foreclosing options to make the City’s finances whole. Thus I can personally attest that more Alamedans, far more than 15%, support giving SunCal’s plan a hearing. And what’s more, many of us are committed to making sure that SunCal gets that hearing for their economical and sustainable plan – should they still want that hearing.

    Comment by William Smith — February 9, 2010 @ 3:19 pm

  35. Bill, please read the statement carefully. I did not write that you or anyone else who voted “no” voted against the plan; I wrote that those who voted “no” voted against the combination of the plan, development agreement, and charter modification. This is an important distinction that is obviously lost on a number of people.

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that in your case, you liked the plan and you liked the charter modification, but you didn’t like the development agreement; therefore, you voted “no” on the combination. That’s entirely consistent with my statement.

    Of course, we know that some people voted “no” because they didn’t like the plan, and some because they didn’t like the charter modification. Without exit polling or other evidence, it’s impossible to say exactly what each “no” vote meant.

    The same goes for the “yes” votes, by the way. Some, like me, voted “yes” because we liked the plan and we thought the charter modification made sense in that context; we weren’t crazy about the development agreement, but we felt that it was not problematic enough to justify bringing the whole development to a screeching halt with a “no” vote. Again, absent some kind of poll or other data, we can’t say for certain what each “yes” vote meant.

    Comment by Michael Krueger — February 9, 2010 @ 7:46 pm

  36. #35 Traffic and toxic fill land caused me to vote NO on B.

    #31 Even though SunCal’s name was not included in the thirty word ballot measure, or 283 page initiative, SunCal’s name was all over it.

    SunCal and their attorneys and DE Shaw wrote the initiative, right?

    Comment by Bob — February 10, 2010 @ 6:40 am

  37. City Manager’s Report to CC re SunCal default — on the agenda for Tuesday, 2/16/10:

    “Consider SunCal’s Requests to: (1) Approve an Addendum to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement etween SunCal and Alameda Requesting Modification to Certain Terms Including Extending the Term
    of the Agreement to July 20, 2012; and (2) Retract the Notice of Default Sent by Alameda Regarding SunCal’ s Performance under the ENA”

    Comment by littlechicken — February 12, 2010 @ 11:19 am

  38. Dave Howard has written a really excellent post on SunCal’s recent request to extend the deadline on the Notice of Default, which is relevant here. SunCal is requesting a 60-day extension from the current deadline of March 22nd.

    “Alameda City Council will consider the request next week. Deputy City Manager Jennifer Ott has recommended that Council deny the request…”

    “Legal experts Action Alameda News talked to suggested that by asking for the tolling agreement [extension], SunCal may be trying to strengthen their position in advance of any lawsuit against the City of Alameda. Should the City sign such an agreement, and SunCal were to sue the City over the Notice of Default and the breach by SunCal of the ENA that the City alleges, the City would have limited their options to respond to the suit.”

    Comment by dlm — March 12, 2010 @ 4:32 pm

  39. Wait, Action Alameda is now rooting for SunCal to sue the City by writing about the possibility!? The horror!

    Comment by John Knox White — March 12, 2010 @ 6:32 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: