On August 4th, Michael Colantuono, the attorney representing the City of Alameda in the matter of alleged misconduct by Councilmember Lena Tam, wrote a letter to the Alameda County District Attorney’s office, refuting many of the defensive claims made by Ms. Tam’s attorney, John Keker.
Continue reading City’s Attorney Responds to Lena Tam Defense
|
||||||
Advertisement |
By Erica Madison “We need a public process that includes workshops and public forums that allows the community to participate in developing a vision for Alameda Point. But I don’t believe we have capital or leadership to pull this off.” By Erica Madison On July 27 during a special Alameda City Council meeting, Councilmember Matarrese said the vision for Alameda Point needed to be focused around job creation and commercial development. Dear Editor, I was among the many Alameda residents who attended the city council meeting last Tuesday, July 20, to urge the council to reject SunCal’s Optional Entitlement Application (OEA) and refuse to extend SunCal’s Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA). The ENA was to expire on July 20th and the recent application included a plan that was substantially similar to what 85 percent of Alameda residents voted against last February. It called for 5,000 residential units, as did the defeated proposal, and now includes an even larger commercial component, with a proposed 4.6 million square feet of commercial buildings. In a meeting that began last night and ran into the wee hours of this morning, on a 4-0 vote, Alameda City Council approved a resolution that denied SunCal’s so-called “modified optional entitlement application” plan for Alameda Point, effectively ending the City’s continued negotiations with the developer. As a result, SunCal’s exclusive negotiation agreement (ENA) with the City of Alameda expired at midnight. Attorney’s for Gray1 CPB LLC, a San Diego based investment fund that secured a $9 million jury verdict against SunCal and SunCal CEO Bruce Elieff last month have asked an Orange County court to compel Mr. Elieff to submit to a deposition to disclose his assets. Gray1′s attorney’s say that Mr. Elieff and his attorney “failed to cooperate in any manner to re-schedule” a planned May 28, 2010 asset deposition, and that they both “failed to appear at Bruce [Elieff's] re-noticed June 30, 2010″ deposition. A week ahead of a key vote by Alameda City Council regarding continuing negotiations with SunCal over Alameda Point, an attorney for the developer sent a series of letters to the City of Alameda threatening to sue if the City doesn’t continue negotiations, and warning that “the damage to our client’s reputation and business is potentially great and far in excess of what the City treasury could sustain.” Updated: July 9, 2010, 10:50am - included court tentative decision against SunCal. A jury in an Orange County Superior Court has reached a verdict against Bruce Elieff and SunCal parent company SCC Acquisitions, Inc. in the amount of over $9 million in the Gray 1 CPB LLC v. SCC Acquisitions and Bruce Elieff case. According to a June 15th City of Alameda Staff Report to City Council, SunCal violated the terms of their Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with the City of Alameda when they met with the U.S. Navy at the Pentagon earlier this month. Dear Editor, Despite the will of the voters who overwhelmingly rejected Measure B, SunCal just won’t go away. They are now marketing themselves as “SCC Alameda Point LLC” because they know their image is tarnished in Alameda. Despite SunCal’s false front, the City of Alameda should face up to the facts and stop negotiating with SunCal. Forget all the glowing promises and pretty pictures, here’s the not so pretty reality. |
 |
||||
|
Copyright © - All Rights Reserved |
||||||
Recent Comments