pages: CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf, 15
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-07-20 | 15 | developed strategy for development of commercial businesses within Alameda Point; SunCal has advised staff several months ago of SunCal's retention of RCO, SunCal's child lesser company, to conduct a study and provide a Phase 1 report; however, at no time, until he read the staff report and resolution, has there been any indication that failure to include such a report would be a critical flaw in the 2010 Alameda Point project; staff found the application to be complete; Clause C addresses transportation; SunCall's transportation plan is robust; Clause D addresses the Biological Opinion (BO); over the past several years, SunCal has worked closely with staff, consultants, the Navy, and Veterans' Affair Department to review and amend the existing BO; the results of the process will determine appropriate mitigation of land uses adjacent to the property; staff has been engaged in the process; full disclosure has been provided with staff's concurrence; SunCal agrees that the 2010 Alameda Point project and 2008 Master Plan are very similar in design; the 2008 Master Plan was submitted to the Navy along with the joint project pro forma as the City's and SCC Alameda joint submittal of 2008; the joint pro forma was submitted after exhaustive review by the City and SCC Alameda; the joint pro forma was prepared by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), the City's consultant; the City, SCC Alameda, and EPS reviewed and discussed with the Navy the joint pro forma submitted for the first quarter of 2009, at which point the City cut off any further contact between SCC Alameda and the Navy; in 2009, the City and EPS agreed with SunCal's plan, and a joint pro forma and plan were submitted to the Navy; a year later, EPS and City staff claim that SunCal's assumptions are overly optimistic; in 2009, EPS and City staff agreed with SunCal's revenue assumptions and now do not; inquired what has changed; stated in 2009, EPS and City staff agreed with SunCal's home construction costs and now do not; inquired what has changed; in 2009, City staff agreed with SunCal's revenue and cost escalation assumptions and now do not; inquired what has changed; stated in 2009, EPS and City staff agreed with SunCal's premium analysis and now do not; the change between the current and joint pro forma is that the sale has increased to $108,500,000 at the Navy's request; said amount is what the Navy wants and the amount that SunCal is committed to pay; that he is sure the City's consultants will point to the recession's impacts on the development industry; the recession started in early 2007 and was already a year old when the joint pro forma was prepared and submitted; the Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy occurred in September 2008, well before the joint pro forma was submitted to the Navy; the joint pro forma assumptions and 2010 Alameda Point project pro forma were reasonable and appropriate; the development will take twenty years to development; having the project pro forma reflect concerted, long-term trends is important; EPS and City staff agreed with assumptions that were appropriate and concerted in 2009; assumptions are still appropriate today; SunCal knows that serving government is a lot of work; the law and the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) specify a very critical process that has repeatedly been ignored and violated; the decision is simple - let the process continue. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 3 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 20, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf |