pages: CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 12 | then there is a fundamental disagreement; SunCal thinks the City is looking at the wrong place to judge single family homes of a 4,800 unit community; a lot of time was spent on the matter a couple of weeks ago, so he does not want to belabor it because frankly, not much has changed since that time; he shared an exhaustive premium analysis from every block of the development with the City Council and staff in early January of this year; premiums are values above the base price of the home because of location, proximity to features, views of downtown San Francisco, or the water all of these premiums are easily annexed onto properties; SunCal came up with its premium analysis and that was its methodology; 1% is a typical premium used for a flat piece of property in the middle of nowhere; there are premiums for oversized lots, for cul-de- sacs, corner lots, etc.; that [1%] is the number that he typically puts into pro formas; that he does not understand why a detailed analysis was not done, on such a unique location; that he heard negative use was taken into account; he has not seen the analysis other than said statements; SunCal views every feature of the community, such as the existing buildings that will remain and be put into adaptive reuse and the harbor uses, as positives to the community, not negatives; SunCal views the project as a unique opportunity for an incredible architectural and land planning statement; further stated SunCal agrees with the absorption numbers that EPS has come out with; SunCal is happy with the numbers, which there are somewhat more conservative than SunCal numbers; for the record, SunCal does agree with them [numbers]; the issue of construction costs and SunCal's pretty exhaustive survey of 15 to 20 builders of projects for various types of construction, SunCal detailed construction costs builders are currently experiencing, made that information available, used that to develop estimates; that he does not understand the comment about making sure to include union wages, which are absolutely included in SunCal's number; SunCal stated that on the exhibit and spreadsheet provided, costs from builders that did not include prevailing wage include a 25% premium to costs where appropriate to come to the estimation of direct construction costs; in the last several weeks, SunCal has not received any detail as to how the City's team came up with its number; the one detail is from a prior report that referenced a particular book; -questioned where is the detail on conversations with builders, who did the City talk to and what projects were referenced; SunCal does not have detail so response is difficult; Sun Cal has received from EPS and the staff report, the statement on the project financial performance, which came up with a -12%; SunCal has not gotten to the guts of the analysis; from SunCal's superficial analysis, on Table 2 of the June 2010 Alameda Point Financial Feasibility Analysis, EPS has increased home sizes from the pro forma size for the 30-unit 1,200 square foot product and the 1,700 unit 1,400 square foot product to 1,500 and 1,900 square feet respectively; the analysis increases the size of homes, increases the prices, increases construction costs, and then tells SunCal it is upside down. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Brown is aware of an investigatory report prepared by Mr. Colantouno that was presented to the Council last night and made available to the public. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 11 Community Improvement Commission July 7, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |