Suncal Sues Alameda Amended Complaint

8/8/2019 Suncal Sues Alameda Amended Complaint

1/9

1 LOUIS R. MILLER, State Bar No. [email protected] DANIEL S. MILLER, State Bar No. [email protected] BRIANPROCEL, State Bar No. 218657bproce1(2millerbarondess .com4 MILLE1 BARONDESS, LLP1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 10005 Los Angeles, California 90067Telephone: (310) 552-44006 Facsimile: (310) 552-84007 Attorneys for PlaintiffSCC ALAMEDA POINT, LLC8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA11 SOUTHERN DIVISION12 SCC ALAMEDA POINT, LLC, a limited CASE NO. SACV1O-01171 CJCliability company, (RNBx)

I Plaintiff,14 NOTICE OF FIRST AMENDEDv. COMPLAINT15 CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipa1 [FED. R. CIV. PROC. 15(a)]16 corporation; ALAMEDA REUSE ANDREDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY,17 Joint Powers Authority; COMMUNITYIMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF18 THE CITY OF ALAMEDA, a publicbody corporate and politic; and DOES 119 through 10, inclusive,20 Defendants.2122232425262728

NOTICE OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [FED. R. CIV. PROC. 15(a)]71404.1

Case 8:10-cv-01171-CJC -RNB Document 7 Filed 08/26/10 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:122


2/9

1 TO ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 1 5(a)(1) of the Federal3 Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 15-4, Plaintiff SCC Alameda Point, LLC is4 filing a First Amended Complaint (FAC). Th e FAC add s Section G, and5 Paragraphs 74 to 80 to the Facts section, based on facts that occurred three weeks after6 the filing of the complaint. The FAC also includes a new Exhibit D in connection7 therewith, which is attached hereto.8 The new Section and Paragraphs are as follows:9 G. The City Endorses the SunCal Transportation Plan That It10 Previously Rejected11 74. The July 20, 2010 StaffReport rejecting SunCal gives as a reason that,12 SunCal has been working with Alameda for three years and has made limited progress13 on crucial aspects of the planning and entitlement of the Alameda Point Project14 concerning transportation. However, the City had, and still has, in its possession a 57-15 page document entitled Alameda Point Transportation Strategy 2009. In creating16 this Transportation Strategy, SunCal worked closely with Fehr & Peers, the17 consultant used by the City on other projects and specifically chosen by the City fo r18 Alameda Point.19 75. After SunCal provided Fehr & Peers with the Land Map and other20 information on Alameda Point, Fehr & Peers over the course of several months21 developed the Alameda Point Transportation Strategy. SunCal and Fehr & Peers22 collaborated closely and worked long and hard on the Transportation Strategy, which23 provides a detailed analysis and proposal for fer ry and bus services, a residential24 EcoPass system and a car-sharing plan, among other things.25 76. On August 10, 2010, just a few weeks after the July 20, 2010 decision to26 expel SunCal, the City participated in The Association ofDefense Committees27 annual conference to address transportation issues in the Bay Area. City officials gave28 a presentation on behalf of the City relating to transportation on Alameda Point.

1NOTICE OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAiNT [FED. R. CIV. PROC. 15(a)]71404.1



3/9

1 77. Incredibly, they relied on and presented the unique concepts found in the2 SunCal!Fehr Transportation Strategy; they even utilized the most critical documents3 therein developed by SunCal; and they appropriated fo r themselves months, and4 thousands of dollars, ofwork by SunCal (copies thereof are attached as Exh. D).5 78. The City touted and took credit fo r the same strategy on which it6 criticized SunCal; and the City embraced the strategy on which it earlier relied to7 expel SunCal f rom the Alameda Point project.8 79 . At the conference, a top City official described the transportation plan9 exactly as SunCal proposed:

10 As we redevelop the base, lets do what we can to create a mixed-use,transit-oriented development. From day one , the issue has been: how dowe deal with the transportation issues, were at the forefront of the

Z 12 community of Alamedas mind. Promoting sustainable development,13 development that will not have a huge environmental impact and issustainable, cost-effective and is green, has always been a major principle14 underlying everything we do at Alameda Point. As I keep saying, at15 every single community meeting, the first question that comes up onevery single plan: what are you going to do about the transportation

problem?17 We dont need to build the entire transit services from day one, you can

18 phase them in . So, we have a system of phases which we envision, where19 you build the first phase, begin integrating your transit services, shuttleservices, the things you can afford to do with a limited amount of20 development. Then, as you build the second phase and add to Alameda21 Point, you also improve your transit services and transportationprogramming and make them more and more robust. And then the third22 phase, you have the full transportation program.23 So not only are you increasing the transit services and facilities on the24 base, but each phase, ca r share programs, b ike share programs, shuttle25 services to the various BART stations, offsite improvements,improvements to the transportation system city-wide are a lso improving26 with each phase. So that by the time you get to the year 2025 when you27 have full build-out, you have the full impact of all these new homes andemployees, you also have all the benefits of your transportation strategy.28

2NOTICE OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [FED. R. civ. PROC. 15(a)]71404.1



4/9

1 80 . This action by the City is the height of hypocrisy and dishonesty, and it2 further demonstrates the Citys bad faith herein.3

45 DATED: August 26, 2010 MILLER BARONDESS, LLP

By:____________Lo is R. MillerAttorneys for Plaintiff

9SCC ALAMEDA POINT, LLC

101112

- 13

z15

_.J *

171819202122232425262728

3NOTICE OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [FED. R. CIV. PROC. 15(a)]71404.1



5/9

ULH



6/9

-

zC



7/9

c7,



8/9

PROOF OF SERVICE1STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )2 ) SS.COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )3 I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of Los Angeles,4 State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and no t a party to the withinaction. I am employed by MILLER BARONDESS, LLP and my business address is5 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000, Los Angeles, California 90067.

6 On August 26, 2010, I served 1J the original F1 a true copy of the within7 document(s) described as NOTICE OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on a llinterested parties in this action:8 EJ PERSONAL DELIVERY: I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to9 the offices of the above named addressee(s).

10 BY MAIL: I am readily familiar with the business practice for collection andprocessing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service.11 This correspondence shall be deposited with the United States Postal Service thissame d ay in the ordinary course of business at ou r Firms office address in Los12 Angeles, California. Service made pursuant to this paragraph, upon motion of aparty served, shall be presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date of postage13 meter date on the envelope is more than one day after the date of deposit formailing contained in this affidavit.14

15 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE: I served the foregoing documentby Federal Express, an express service carrier which provides overnight delivery,16 as follows. I placed true copies of the foregoing document in sealed envelopes orpackages designated by the cxpress servicc carricr, addressed to e.ch interested17 party as set forth above, with fees for overnight delivery paid or provided for.18 BY FACSIMILE: I caused such envelope to be delivered via facsimile to theoffices of the addressee(s) at the facsimile numbers listed below. I certify that said19 transmission was completed and that all pages were received and that a report wasgenerated by the facsimile machine which confirms said transmission and receipt.20

U BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: by transmitting via electronic mail a true copy of the21 above listed document(s) to the email addresses set forth below on this date before 5:00p.m.:22 U (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of23 California that the above is t rue and correct.I1 (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the State Bar24 of this Court at whose direction the service was made.25 Executed on August 26, 2010, at Lo s Angeles, California./4>26 . . driana Preciado27 Type o r Print Name Signature28

71427.1



9/9

Geoffrey L. Robinson, Esq.Alan H. Murphy, Esq.BINGHAMMCCUTCHEN LLP3 Embarcadero CenterSan Francisco, CA 94111-4067Telephone; (415) 393-2000Facsimile: (415) 393-2286David B. Newdorf, Esq.Vicki F. Van Fleet, Esq.Newdorf Legal220 Montgomery Street, Suite 1850San Francisco, CA 94 104-4238Telephone: (415) 357-1234Facsimile: (866) 954-8448Teresa L. HighsmithCity AttorneyCity ofAlameda2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room E280Alameda, CA 9450 1-4477

SERVICE LIST

Attorneysfor Defendants, City ofAlameda, Alameda Reuse andRedevelopmentAuthority, andCommunity Improvement Commission ofthe City ofAlameda

Attorneysfor Defendants, City ofAlameda, Alameda Reuse andRedevelopmentAuthority, andCommunity Improvement Commission ofthe City ofAlameda

City Attorney, City ofAlameda0

aU

C,z

>- 0

H0

z

00t

0

00

0

C-

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

71427.1


Suncal Sues Alameda Amended Complaint

Documents

Transcript of Suncal Sues Alameda Amended Complaint