pages: CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf, 19
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-06-01 | 19 | homes are currently listed for $375 per square foot; the assumption in the Optional Entitlement Agreement (OEA) is $360 per square foot. Mr. Musbach stated that he couldn't follow the numbers; the comparison is not apples to apples but is a trick to change the average number, which is not accurate. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he received the information [SunCal's Power Point] at 3:30 p.m. via email; things seem to be premature; SunCal and EPS need to sit down and have a discussion on the matter; EPS has worked with the City for thirteen years; neither SunCal or EPS understand what the City is going through; EPS should review issues and respond; tonight is not the time and place for discussion; the Power Point presentation is difficult to see; the pro forma has many other issues. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated that she is thoroughly confused; requested an apple to apple comparison for single-family homes and townhouses, stated that she wants SunCal and EPS to start at the same spot; if both parties end up in a different place, she wants to know where and why in plain English. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the pro forma shows an IRR of 19% to 25%; the project would be spread over twenty years; inquired what PERS hopes to get on investments, to which the Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded 7.75%. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the IRR is not an acceptable level. Mayor/Chair Johnson state there have been discussions regarding conservative or aggressive assumptions; the real discussion is what would happen if there are not enough funds to pay for public improvements; questioned whether there would be enough money to pay for transportation solutions for 4,800 housing units and 4.5 million square feet of commercial development; said discussions are critical for a successful outcome; understanding the transit oriented nature of the development is important; having enough money to pay for transit solutions is critical. Mr. Musbach stated the issue is how to secure that the risk is appropriate. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated reverse engineering seems to be taking place; the project is totally different than the 1,700 housing unit project; understanding what is really sustainable is important; 4,800 housing units is hard to put into prospective. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the key to any development at Alameda Point is transit and traffic; the project will not be successful Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 8 Community Improvement Commission June 1, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf |