pages: AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2009-01-07 | 3 | determine how to actually finance the project, once the land is conveyed, there are several different mechanisms, including debt & equity. With regard to the bankruptcies on the other projects that SunCal was the operator on, not necessarily the owner of, most all of those were Lehman projects. When Lehman filed bankruptcy and decided to not fund SunCal, SunCal decided, involuntarily, to throw each of those projects into bankruptcy in hopes of forcing Lehman to start to fund those. These projects are independently financed and structured and have absolutely nothing to do with the Alameda Point project. Member Gilmore reiterated the concern regarding SunCall's ability to fund predevelopment expenses. Mr. Keliher explained that if SunCal defaults under the ENA and doesn't perform, it is simply over. He further stated that, to date, SunCal has deposited all the funds. Both Member Gilmore and Mr. Keliher clarified and confirmed that the ARRA is not obligated in any way to reimburse SunCal for the predevelopment funds that have been spent. There was discussion about the historic structures. Mr. Keliher is in agreement with the Board that it's not the wisest move to proactively rip down the structures, and that SunCal will work with staff on working out a process of evaluating the best direction. Member Matarrese offered comments for consideration, including requesting detail of commercial space, and what impact of those spaces would be with regard to traffic and truck routes, and the industrial-type uses. Member Tam also asked about industrial uses, mixed-use and residential. Peter Calthorpe described another similar project in San Jose where there was a balance of use in the commercial, civic, and retail areas. He stated that industrial development needs to be treated in special way, explaining that it has not yet been determined whether there are industrial users that are appropriate for this site and that should be part of the mix. Member Tam asked about the BCDC sea level rise, and the 24" that one speaker mentioned. Mr. Keliher responded that he has heard various levels, but that no one has come out with specific number to design to, an issue that SunCal does not want to ignore. Member Tam stated that we are at the point of our best and last opportunity to provide an economic stimulus package without public subsidies or a tax on our general fund. This draft Master Plan produces economic growth, a realistic transit system, and that the phasing will make it flexible enough to respond to varying economic conditions, whether it's 15 years, or the next 20-30 yrs. Member Tam stated her appreciation to staff and SunCal that the plan has been vetted very thoroughly with the community. Member Gilmore asked what would happen if the City breached its obligations under the ENA. Donna Mooney, Asst. General Counsel, replied that the ENA is a contract and if the City doesn't fulfill an obligation to it, it would be considered a breach of contract. SunCal would have a legal remedy to this breach, which could include asking a court to make us come back and continue negotiating, or it could be that the contract is terminated and we give back the $1 million deposit. Member Matarrese clarified that tax increment bonds are sold based on tax increment at the time the bond is sold, not based on the development for which those bonds will spur. Ms. Potter confirmed and explained that, typically, when you go to the market with debt and desire to raise money through the sale of bonds, the project has to be at least three years into its development so that the underwriters and folks interested in purchasing the bonds have an expectation of the track record and then projections about the increment that will be generated over the life of the project. | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf |