pages: CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf, 22
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-07-20 | 22 | Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam requested clarification on SunCal's intent and interpretation. Mr. Brown stated the form is complicated and is based on a prior DDA; staff has a misunderstanding of many elements; SunCal's intent is to continue a process with the City to get to a final public hearing; the document could be modified through the process; completion bonds, subdivision bonds, cash collateral, firm financing commitments, capital stack of debt, equity, all come together to deliver financial security at the close of every escrow so that the property could be acquired and fully developed; the financing plan is contained in the document; the financial plan cannot identify the loaning bank two years in the future; the financial plan shows how much cash would be coming from equity and debt to acquire and make infrastructure improvements; SunCal has provided the best estimate at this time; figures may be different down the road; the estimate is a good faith, solid estimate today; the scheduled performance states that the horizontal development would be completed within a specified time, that all residential land would be transferred to builders within a specified timeframe, and that vertical builders, who would build residential and commercial buildings, would all build within five years of the time the property is acquired; all schedules build and tee off one another in case of a delay or acceleration; SunCal cannot predict unexpected events that would change the schedule; the penalty for not achieving the schedule would be that SunCal would not have the right to proceed on the project; SunCal feels that providing for force majeure is fair. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated it is difficult to give policy direction on the fly on a document that she has not seen based upon interpretations that seem different for each party. The Public Works Director stated that infrastructure costs have not been agreed upon; the transportation plan is not detailed and is more of a transportation concept; the pro forma shows a plan based upon bus rapid transit used in Eugene, Oregon; staff has not been able to find out if the unit price for the bus rapid transit is applicable; SunCal added $5 million because its engineer miscalculated the mileage; the Water Emergency Transit Authority [WETA] has not agreed to a ferry terminal cost nor has agreed to relocating the ferry terminal to the seaplane lagoon; issues should have been addressed over the last three years. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated staff does not expect Council to be making decisions on policy without reviewing the document; tonight's focus is on the MOEA; SunCal has been with the City for three years; everyone knows what the agenda process is; submitting a comprehensive DDA at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday after the agenda deadline and having an expectation that a staff report would be submitted in Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 10 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 20, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf |