pages: CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf, 14
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-07-20 | 14 | Point LLC. (PLN10-0012)." Adopted. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a Power Point presentation. Stan Brown, SunCal; Nick Cosla, SunCal; Jim Daisa, Kimley-Horn and Associates; gave a Power Point presentation; Phil Tagiami and Skip Miller gave brief presentations. Mr. Brown stated page 2 of the staff report states: "Alameda did not want to be committed beyond July 20, 2010 to development entities that prove incapable of utilizing the property"; SunCal has submitted a 2010 Alameda Point project and staff has deemed the submittal complete; SunCal has funded and the City has commenced the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), including retention of the EIR technical consultants; the City and SunCal have also had initial scoping meetings and completed the project description; this week, $720,000 has been deposited into the Escrow Account; the money covers City staff salaries, cost of the EIR, and other expenses associated with redevelopment; the application will be ready to be considered by the Planning Board and Council in the next fifteen to eighteen months; now is the time to complete the process; the draft resolution sets out the reasons why SunCal should be removed from the project and the application denied; clause A-4 states: "The modified OEA provides minimal certainly about how the property will ultimately be developed; many specifics about number, location, and density of residential units, amount, and type of commercial development, site design, the transportation system, and sustainability measures have not been provided"; the statement is not true; the plan is highly detailed, sophisticated plan use documents which include an exhaustive engineering analysis, transportation planning, adaptive reuse planning, commitment to the LEED neighborhood development goal, and green building standards; sustainability, design, unit layouts, and highly detailed land plans are before Council tonight; Clause A-5 states: "There is also substantial uncertainly regarding the relative timing of development of the residential and commercial components of the project"; again, the statement is not true; detailed cash flows that identify the timing of the project and project elements have been done and shared with the City; the cash flows are part of the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and are included in the business plan; a detailed land plan clearly sets forth timing and how residential, commercial, parks, and transportation routes come into the project; Clause A-7: states "a balance needs to be struck between flexibility and provision of meaningful commitments to the community"; that he agrees the statement is correct; unfortunately, in all the weekly meetings he has attended, this is the first time he has heard that SunCal's plan is inadequate because a balance has not been struck; an open, honest dialogue is part of the entitlement process that occurs as the project is made ready for public hearings; that is why the action is premature; Clause C-4 indicates the economic development strategy for the development of commercial businesses within Alameda Point is a critical flaw in the Modified Optional Entitlement Agreement (MOEA); SunCal agrees with the City that there is a well Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 2 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 20, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf |