2010-07-07 ARRA PAcketCITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY - - - JULY 7, 2010 - - - 6:00 P.M.
Location: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street
Agenda:
1. Roll Call — City Council
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only, may speak for a
maximum of 3 minutes per item
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
3-A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: 2221 Harbor Bay Parkway
Negotiating parties: City of Alameda and SRM Associates
Under negotiation: Price and terms
3-B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION (54956.9)
Name of case: Collins v. City of Alameda (Boatworks)
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any
5. Adjournment — City Council
AGENDA
Regular Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * * * **
Alameda City Hall
Council Chamber, Room 390
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
1. ROLL CALL - ARRA
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m.
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one
motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Board or a
member of the public.
2 -A. Responses to Questions Posed by the ARRA Board at the May 6th, 2010 Special
ARRA Meeting Regarding the United States Navy's Environmental Program at
Alameda Point.
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3 -A. None.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative
- Highlights of June 3 Alameda Point RAB Meeting
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which
the governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
7. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15.
Notes:
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary at
747 -4800 at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter.
• Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available.
• Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.
• Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request.
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC
FINANCING AUTHORITY (APFA)
WEDNESDAY - - JULY 7, 2010 - - - 7:01 P.M.
Location: Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items or business introduced by Board
Members may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is
before the Board. Please file a speaker's slip with the Assistant City Clerk if you wish to
speak on an agenda item.
1. Roll Call - APFA
2. Agenda Items
None
3, Oral Communications (Public Comment)
Any person may address the Board in regard to any matter over which the Board
has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda
Board Communications (Communications from the Board)
5. Adjournment - APFA
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC)
WEDNESDAY - - - JULY 7, 2010 - - - 7:02 P.M.
Location: City Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak Street
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council /Board /Commission on agenda items or
business introduced by the Council /Board/Commission may speak for a maximum of 3
minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Council /Board /Commission.
Please file a speaker's slip with the Assistant City Clerk if you wish to speak.
1. ROLL CALL - City Council, ARRA, CIC
2. MINUTES
2 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and CIC Meeting held on June
1, 2010; and the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting and the Special
Joint City Council, ARRA and CIC Meeting held on June 15, 2010. [City
Council, ARRA, CIC] (City Clerk)
3. CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION
3 -A. Semimonthly Update on SunCal Negotiations [City Council, ARRA, CIC]
3 -B. Presentation on SunCal Modified Optional Entitlement Application [City Council,
ARRA, CIC]
4. AGENDA ITEMS
None
5. ADJOURNMENT - City Council, ARRA, CIC
Beverly
Chair, AR
and
ayor
IC
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim Executive Director
Date: July 7, 2010
Re: Responses to Questions Posed by the ARRA Board at the May 6th,
2010 Special ARRA Meeting Regarding the United States Navy's
Environmental Program at Alameda Point
BACKGROUND
On May 6, 2010, at a special ARRA meeting, the U.S. Navy Base Realignment and
Closure Program Management Office (BRAC PMO) presented its environmental
program at Alameda Point to the ARRA Board. During that meeting, three questions
were posed that required follow-up responses:
How are the funds administered? ARRA looks for opportunities for Federal
funding for further cleanup. Is the Navy already receiving that funding or
do you receive your allocations through Congressional authorizations?
What is the status of the transfer process of cleaned VA lands? Has the
Navy and the VA reached a basic deal? What is the status of the "clean"
lands?
Is the estimate of approximately, $100 million for the remediation of Site 2
correct?
DISCUSSION
The questions posed were researched by the Navy's BRAC PMO and addressed in a
May 25, 2010 letter, attached.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact as a result of this action.
Agenda Item #2-A
ARRA
07-07-2010
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
RECOMMENDATION
This report is for information only.
R ctfully submi
Jen fer Stt
Dep ty C y Manager
JO:di
Attachment:
1. Letter from the Department of the Navy
Ms. Jennifer Ott
Alameda City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Ms. Ott:
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OFFICE WEST
1455 FRAZEE RD, SUITE 900
SAN DIEGO, CA 92106 -4310
Ser BPMOW.DR \0543
MAY 2 5 2010
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY THE ARRA BOARD AT THE
MAY 6TH, 2010 PRESENTATION ABOUT THE NAVY EVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAM AT ALAMEDA POINT
During the May 6`h, 2010 presentation to the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
(ARRA) Board, three (3) questions were asked to the Navy representative that required follow -
up responses. The Navy's responses to these questions are provided as follows:
Q: Councilmember Tam asked: I was trying to understand how the funds are administered
because the ARRA looks at opportunities for Federal funding for further clean -up. Is the Navy
already getting that funding? Or how do you get your allocations through congressional
authorizations?
A: The Department of the Navy (Navy) Base Realignment and Closure Program
Management Office (BRAC PMO) seeks Congressional appropriation for environmental cleanup
at Alameda Point based on a multi -year planning process. On an annual basis, the BRAC PMO
uses existing environmental information about the property to identify future funding
requirements. For the past five years, the BRAC PMO has been successful in obtaining
sufficient funding for the environmental cleanup program at Alameda Point.
Q: Councilmember Gilmore asked: What is the status of the transfer process of cleaned VA
lands? Has the Navy and the VA reached a basic deal?
A: The Navy and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are currently coordinating for the
federal to federal transfer of approximately 549 acres of property located at the former runway
area on the west end of Alameda Point. Since the VA submitted its formal request to acquire the
property in November 2006, the Navy and VA have accomplished several key milestones.
Those milestones include the negotiation of a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the
initiation of a Section 7 consultation in compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and
the scoping of an environmental planning report in compliance with the National Environmental.
Policy Act (NEPA). The next significant milestone the agencies intend to complete is the
submittal of a joint Navy/VA Biological Assessment to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
compliance with ESA, and the issuance of an Environmental Assessment in compliance with
NEPA.
Ser BPMOW.DR10543
MAY 2 5 2010
Additionally, Councilmember Gilmore asked the status of the "clean" lands. While the
property subject to the VA transfer include two Installation Restoration (IR) sites and a parcel -
wide Site Inspection, it is important to note that the base closure law allows federal agencies to
transfer properties to one another prior to the completion of the remedial actions. So to answer
Councilmember Gilmore "s question, while some portion of the lands are "clean" and some are
still subject to additional remedial actions, the Navy intends to transfer all lands at one time. The
Navy is currently attempting to comply with other regulatory requirements identified above
(NEPA, Section 7, etc.).
With regards to the question about a "basic deal" the answer is essentially, yes. Future
responsibilities of both agencies have been fundamentally agreed to in the draft MOU. Should
the ARRA wish to understand the arrangements agreed to between the agencies, the Navy would
be more than happy to provide a summary to the ARRA staff.
Q: Vice Chair deHaan asked if his estimate of approximately $100 million for the
remediation of Site 2 was correct. Mr. Robinson stated that $100 million seems high, and is
more likely $20 million - but will provide the current projection.
A: The current projections for Site 2 remediation include $19.2 million for the remedial
action and $2.7 million for long -term monitoring after the remedial action is complete; for a total
future expenditure of approximately $21.9 million on Site 2.
Please distribute this letter to the ARRA Board. If you have any further questions, feel free
to contact me at (619) 532 -0951.
Copy to:
Mr. Peter Russell
Russell Resources, Inc.
440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1
San Rafael, CA 94903 -3634
Ms. Leslie Little
Economic Development Director
City of Alameda
950 West Mall Square, Building 1
Alameda, CA 94501 -7575
2
Sincerely, -
r �
DEREK J. ROBINSON
BRAC Environmental Coordinator
By direction of the Director
Ser BPMOW.DR\0543
MAY 2 5 2010
Blind copy to:
Derek J. Robinson
William McGinnis
Alan K. Lee
Amy Jo Hill
Diane Silva (3 copies)
X File
Read File
Serial File
Writer: D. Robinson, BPMOW.DR, 2-0951
Typist: B. Foster, BPMOW.BF, 2-0914, MD:\ RESPONSE TO ARRA QUESTIONS.DOC\
25 MAY 10
13
Russell Resources, Inc.
environmental management
Alameda Point RAB Meeting on June 3, 2010
Highlights and Analysis
RAB members present: Dale Smith (Community Co- chair), George Humphreys, Joan Konrad,
James Leach, Kurt Peterson, and Michael John Torrey.
DTSC's Dot Lofstrom announced that she is being promoted to another position within DTSC,
and that this likely would be the last RAB meeting she attends. Several RAB members thanked
Ms. Lofstrom for her contributions to the progress made with Alameda Point's cleanup during
her tenure.
No formal RAB meeting will be held in July. However, on Saturday, July 17 at 9:00 am, the Navy
will provide a two -hour tour of various Alameda Point remediation sites for RAB members and
the general public.
Remediation and other field work in progress:
o Except for a 50 -foot segment under an electrical substation, the Navy has completed
removal and replacement of several radioactively contaminated storm drain lines
originating at Buildings 5 and 400. These lines discharge into Seaplane Lagoon, and the
work had to be completed before dredging of contaminated sediment from the lagoon,
which is scheduled to take place between January and March 2011.
o Active subsurface groundwater treatment is tentatively complete at IR Site 14, along the
Oakland Inner Harbor in Northwest Territories. At IR Site 27, just north of Pier 1, a third
phase of active groundwater treatment will occur in May 2011. Active groundwater
treatment was just completed at IR Site 6, near the corner of West Tower Avenue and
Ferry Point, and is beginning anew at IR Site 16, in the southeast corner of the base.
o The air sparge /vapor extraction system to treat groundwater contaminated with
benzene and naphthalene at Alameda Point OU -5 and FISCA IR Site 2 is operating.
o The principal part of the petroleum- contaminated groundwater treatment operation
near the Atlantic Avenue entrance is completed. Later this summer, further
groundwater treatment will be conducted in a small area near Orion Street where
higher petroleum levels persist.
o The Navy has completed pre- dredge sediment sampling of the Seaplane Lagoon in
preparation for its remediation. In conjunction with this sampling, sediment samples
were collected near storm drain outfalls into Seaplane Lagoon and Oakland Inner Harbor
that drain the vicinity of Buildings 5 and 400. Except for the Oakland Inner Harbor's
sample results, all sample analyzes have been presented to the BCT.
o Cleanup of soil and groundwater contaminated with copper at IR Site 28, the former
Todd Shipyard, near the ferry terminal on Oakland Inner Harbor, is being conducted
through early July.
RRI, 440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600 Agenda Item #4-A
ARRA
07 -07 -2010
Page 2of2
July 7, 2010
Alameda Point RAB Meeting, June 3, 2010
Highlights and Analysis
o Additional demolition of Building 459 (the former gas station at the corner of West
Tower Avenue and Main Street) will occur in July to allow excavation of metals
contaminated soil.
Basewide Radiological Investigations Update
The Navy's presentation consisted of a review of the status of radiological investigations at
various sites: specifically, FED -1A and -2B (runways area to be transferred to VA), IR Site 1
(landfill in northwest corner of Alameda Point), IR Site 32 (area in runways immediately east of
IR Site 1), IR Site 2 (landfill in southwest corner of Alameda Point), the storm drains removal
associated with Buildings 5 and 400, IR Site 17 (Seaplane Lagoon), and the basewide radiological
surveys. The last of these investigations involves thorough scanning of several buildings that
have some historical involvement with handling radiological materials. For most of these, no
radiological contamination is expected, but it has yet to be ruled out. RAB members expressed
concern that the basewide radiological survey addresses only buildings with historical
radiological activities and does not deal with other areas where undocumented radiological
material releases may have occurred. The west shoreline of Seaplane Lagoon was offered as an
example. EPA's Anna -Marie Cook floated the idea that the RAB might convene a work group to
nominate areas for the Navy to investigate for radiological contamination, but that are missed
by the current plan. If the Navy were to make funding available for this purpose, the RAB's
prioritization of sites could guide the effort. The Navy did not comment on Ms. Cook's idea.
Operable Unit 1 Remedial Action Update
Except for minor soil contamination remaining at IR Site 7, remediation of soil in OU -1 is
complete. The major remaining task for OU -1 is in situ treatment of groundwater at IR Site 16,
in the southeast corner of the base, which is contaminated with chlorinated solvents.
RAB Member's Reports
RAB Member George Humphreys presented two technical reports to the RAB. The first, which
deals with basewide radiological contamination, correlates the timing of fill events that formed
Alameda Point with periods during which radiological materials were handled at the base. An
aim of this exercise is to suggest areas of the base that are more or less likely to have
radiological soil contamination due to filling with radiologically contaminated dredge spoils. Mr.
Humphreys' other report deals with various aspects of the benzene /naphthalene groundwater
plume at Alameda Point OU -5 and FISCA IR Site 2. The Navy thanked Mr. Humphreys for his
work in researching and preparing the technical reports. It is very unusual for a RAB member to
prepare technical reports for presentation at a RAB meeting.
440 Nova Albion Way, Suite 1, San Rafael, California 94903 415.902.3123 fax 815.572.8600
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 1, 2010-7:01 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 7:27 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/ Board Members/ Commissioners
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair
Johnson.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote – 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
(*10-268 CC/ARRA/10-36 CIC) Minutes of the Special ARRA Meeting on May 6, 2010
and the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and CIC Meeting Held on May 18, 2010.
Approved.
(*ARRA/10-37 CIC) Recommendation to Award a Five-Year Contract for Professional
Audit Services for the Community Improvement Commission and the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority for Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 2010 through June 30,
2014 to Caporicci & Larson. Accepted.
(*ARRA) Recommendation to Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for
Dreyfuss Capital Partners, Building 29, at Alameda Point. Accepted.
(*ARRA) Recommendation to Authorize Approval of a Sublease for Point Source
Power, Building 7, at Alameda Point. Accepted.
CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION
(10-269 CC/ARRA/10-38 CIC) Semimonthly Update on SunCal Negotiations
The Deputy City Manager – Development Services provided a handout and gave a brief
presentation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
1
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam inquired whether the City has
received any indication from the Navy regarding whether the Navy would convey the
land in phases and whether the issue would be related to funding issues.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the City has made some
assumptions as to what the Navy would do; detailed conversations have not taken
place; the Navy is motivated to convey the land.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam inquired what assumptions the City
would like to see with respect to phasing.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded a couple issues in
Phases 1 and 2 need to be resolved; stated Phases 3, 4, and 5 do not have significant
issues; in general, the news is good.
In response to Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam's inquiry, the Deputy
City Manager - Development Services responded the pro forma assumes that the land
would be taken down in 2012, with pads being sold in 2014 which is consistent with the
clean up schedule, except for a couple of exceptions in Phases 1 and 2.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam inquired whether the City assumes
that the Navy would want funding all at once when Phase 1 is completed and conveyed.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded land payments have
been discussed; stated payment timing has not been discussed.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether staff has
discussed money with the Navy and how and when the Navy wants to be paid.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff has talked to the
Navy regarding the Measure B plan; stated the Navy did not follow up after the initiative
failed; the Navy stated that it has subsequent questions; conversations focused on
SunCal's ability to guarantee payments; the Navy has questions regarding whether
payments would be deferred, whether SunCal and D.E. Shaw would be capable of
making payments, and what assurances the Navy would have regarding secured
payments.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the Navy has
indicated whether it would be interested in some number other than the $108.5 million.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the negative; stated
SunCal has made statements to the Navy regarding willingness to pay what is shown in
the project pro forma; terms are not clear; the Navy will not have conversations with
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
2
SunCal until the City okays the discussion.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the Navy has
indicated that it is not resistant to being paid over time.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the Navy prefers up front
payment and is willing to consider back end participation because of the Defense
Authorization Bill passed last October; the Navy's concern is how it knows it would be
paid.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated ARRA and SunCal have
pledged openness; inquired whether the Navy has signed onto openness.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the Navy is a public
agency; stated that she will ask the Navy about the matter.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated the threshold for 1,100
individual homes was $666,000 per home; the Navy has not asked for more than
$108.5 million with additional homes.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated to date, the Navy has not
asked for more than $108.5 million but has not stated that it is willing to accept $108.5
million; the $108.5 million does not include Phases 4 and 5.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated the proposal includes the
northern territory.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated details have not been worked
out.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that she recalls that the Navy bases its number on a land
value formula.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the Navy hires an economic
consultant; the consultant looks at the pro forma; $108.5 million is for the 1,800
Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) project; market changes have been
significant.
Stan Brown, SunCal, stated confusion has involved the application versus the density
bonus option plan; SunCal believes addressing issues on the application is appropriate;
SunCal has expressed a desire to move toward a transit oriented plan; SunCal will
continue to be responsive to questions throughout the eighteen -month to two -year
process to complete the Environmental Impact Report; SunCal does not want to
confuse openness with what is in the letter.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
3
AGENDA ITEMS
(10 -39 CIC) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Approving and Adopting
the Five -Year Implementation Plan for the Business and Waterfront and West End
Community Improvement Projects for Fiscal Year 2009 through 2010 and Fiscal Year
2013 through 2014. Continued to June 15, 2010.
(10 -270 CC /ARRA/10 -40 CIC) Recommendation to: (1) Direct Planning Board to
Provide Advisory Recommendation on SunCal Modified Optional Entitlement
Application at June 21, 2010 Meeting, and (2) Set Public Hearing for Decision on
SunCal Modified Optional Entitlement Application and /or Extension of the Exclusive
Negotiation Agreement from Governing Bodies of Alameda by July 20, 2010.
The Deputy City Manager — Development Services gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether milestone
documents would be public upon submission, to which the Deputy City Manager —
Development Services responded in the affirmative.
Speakers: Jean Sweeney, Alameda; Jim Sweeney, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda;
William Smith, Alameda.
Stan Brown, SunCal, gave a Power Point presentation; stated that he disagrees with
large elements of the staff report; the major issue he would discuss is the assertion that
SunCal has used overly aggressive or optimistic assumptions in developing its pro
forma; if the recommendations of City staff and Economic & Planning Systems (EPS)
are adopted, there would be substantial degradation to the project pro forma to the
extent that the project may become financially infeasible; long range forecasting of
project pro formas is difficult; assumption analysis needs to be based upon a clear
understanding of industry business practices and a commitment to keep apples to
apples comparisons; SunCal believes an apples to oranges comparison has gone on;
the staff report identifies a number of differences between SunCal's estimates on
various parameters and EPS's recommendations; EPS estimates $860,000 and SunCal
estimates $1,042,000 for single family home sales in the year 2014, which is a 21%
difference in value; the EPS study put historical sales prices in Alameda into two
buckets: 1) single family and 2) all housing, including condominiums, townhouses,
duplexes and single family homes; EPS came up with $582,000 for a 1600 square foot
house contrasted with SunCal's $900,000 for a 2500 square foot house; house size has
a material effect on the sale price of a home; EPS's real price growth of 2% raises the
price to $630,000; then, EPS applied a 1.22 factor higher sales price for Alameda Point
to come up with a projection of $769,000; a 3% annual inflation rate reaches a nominal
real price of $862,000; the problem with the analysis is that EPS is confusing the
buckets and comparing a 1600 square foot house to a 2500 square foot house; the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
4
value per square foot of the $860,000 1600 square foot home is $539 per square foot;
$593 per square foot for a 2500 square foot house ends up with a house priced at
$1,347,000; EPS started with the all residential bucket at $582,000, as opposed to the
single family bucket at $666,000, which ends up with a price of $1,462,000 for a 2500
square foot single family house using the EPS methodology; EPS estimates that the
average premiums at Alameda Point to be 1% of sale price; the SunCal estimate is
6.4 %; explained the basis for SunCal's estimate; stated SunCal disagrees with the 1%;
regarding absorption, SunCal is not opposed to changing to the City and EPS's
recommendation; if the City wants to take a slower absorption, it is fine with SunCal; for
single family construction costs, SunCal estimates $115 versus EPS's estimate of $130;
explained the basis for SunCal's estimate; further stated another area that has been
discussed is what should be anticipated as the real growth in home prices over time;
SunCal's pro forma includes 2% starting in 2012; ESP recommends 1.4 %; both sides
have gone back and forth over the analysis; long term construction cost trends range
from -0.7% to 0.5 %; SunCal included a 0% real price growth; all of SunCal's prices are
increased by CPI throughout the term of the project; there have been some clear
mistakes in the EPS methodology as to price; EPS's premium analysis is simple;
SunCal has done a lot more research on direct construction costs; regarding SunCal's
Albuquerque, New Mexico project with D.E. Shaw being put into bankruptcy, it is fair to
say any large real estate player, particularly in residential, has struggled in the past
several years; assets have gone through a devaluation; SunCal and its partners have
been severely hurt; in the Albuquerque example, $180 million in D.E. Shaw and
SunCal's combined equity is in danger of being lost, which is an unfortunate
circumstance that is part of the price and risk of working in development; the good news
is D.E. Shaw continues to invest along side of SunCal and to express faith that SunCal
will go forward, as evidenced by the continuing investment in the Alameda process in
terms of the millions of dollars spent to date; SunCal would like to complete the process;
a project that the Council, Planning Board, citizens, D.E. Shaw and SunCal could be
proud of will be presented to Council for consideration in the next 18 months to two
years; SunCal looks forward to the opportunity to complete the process.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam stated the question is whether there
would be sufficient funding to pay for public amenities and community benefits
envisioned in the Master Plan; the answer is yes as demonstrated by two EPS pro
formas delivered to the City on April 8th and April 26th; the density bonus option pro
forma was sent to the Deputy City Manager - Development Services on April 26, 2010;
inquired whether the pro forma was incorporated in the staff report.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the pro forma is an
attachment to tonight's staff report.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam inquired why staff has a different
conclusion than SunCal regarding the density bonus option pro forma relating to
payment of public amenities.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
5
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded SunCal was responding
to the April 20th letter; stated comments are now being reviewed on the letter sent six
weeks ago; the City did not have the density bonus pro forma at the time the April 20th
letter was sent.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam stated the staff report seems to be
contradictory to the statement that there would be sufficient funds to pay for public
amenities and community benefits.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff believes the assumptions
are overly aggressive and questions whether the project could support the public
benefits and transportation improvements; staff has come to a different conclusion than
SunCal.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam stated that Mr. Brown has stated
that there are inconsistencies in the staff analysis of EPS projections; inquired whether
staff still has the same conclusions.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative; stated
staff has discussed the issues with SunCal; that she would be happy to have EPS
discuss the analysis; the big picture is that there are five to seven key assumptions that
significantly affect the bottom line of the pro forma; SunCal's assumption are overly
optimistic.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam stated that she does not
understand why SunCal's assumptions are considered overly optimistic in light of the
requirements for having a project labor agreement and information on builder cost
surveys that occurred in May, 2010.
Jim Musbach, EPS, stated EPS has been reviewing the pro forma; an independent
market analysis was performed; all [SunCal] assumptions skew towards the optimistic;
returns are overstated and project risk is understated; SunCal's analysis is inconsistent
and is intended to paint a picture that is not supported by evidence; assuming 450 units
per year versus 350 units would have a significant impact on the Internal Rate of Return
(IRR); SunCal does not defend the suitability of the 14.7% IRR under the Measure A
compliant project; funding public amenities and community benefits has risks; EPS
calculated a premium of 22% for the area; the calculated premium would be less by
starting with just single - family homes; the land values keep escalating and is a red flag
and far beyond other projects; improved land values as a percentage of unit prices
range from 15% to 25 %; SunCal's land values are over 50% of unit value; SunCal ends
up with 2% appreciation compounded year after year which all falls to the land value
which means there is no escalation in construction costs and the land captures all of the
value on the upside, which is not true; EPS does not see $1 million dollar houses being
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
6
built for $105 per square foot; there is no evidence in today's market that land values
are $2.5 million to $7.7 million per acre; comps suggest between $2 million and $5
million; EPS requested information that would substantiate land prices as a percent of
unit prices; SunCal provide one comp from southern California; EPS believes the
combination of assumptions is overly optimistic.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese requested clarification on Mr.
Brown's comments regarding EPS's assumption of $860,000 for a small house versus
$1.1 million house.
Mr. Musbach stated that he cannot make sense of the issue; SunCal concludes that
figures are lower than EPS by applying the average pricing across all product types,
which is not legitimate.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese stated that he needs an
answer regarding whether or not numbers are real; back calculating the cost per square
foot of an $860,000 house results in a $1.4 million house instead of a $1 million house;
requested clarification of the matter.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded a more detailed analysis
would be provided.
Mr. Musbach stated per square foot costs obscure house size and quality differences;
bigger houses will have lower per square foot prices.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam stated the project would never
pencil out by looking at just single- family homes; the Measure A compliant plan would
not be financially feasible because it would not support the level of public amenities
called for in the Master Plan; the Master Plan calculations were across all different
housing types.
Mr. Musbach stated EPS took all homes prices in Alameda and looked at that relative to
Bayport; Bayport homes command a premium of 22 %; EPS could have started with a
single - family home and ended up with a smaller differential premium of 10% or 15 %;
EPS forecasted home prices in Alameda as a whole and then applied the premium to
get an estimate of what the cost for what single - family homes are for Alameda;
SunCal's argument is that since EPS started with a number for all housing that is for
sale, then EPS should compare that price to SunCal's average price across all product
types in the project, which includes townhouses and condominiums, which drops
SunCal's average price way down.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the Bayport premium relates
to the fact that it is new construction and predominately single - family homes.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
7
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam stated EPS is stating that Bayport
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 cannot 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
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
8
development at Alameda Point is transit and traffic; the project will not be successful
without transit and traffic solutions; job one is paying for transit solutions; the project will
not be successful if there is not enough money to pay for transit solutions.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese stated the first
recommendation in the staff report is to direct the Planning Board to provide an advisory
recommendation on the OEA; that he has no faith that any amount of money would
solve the issue of getting people who are in the 4,800 housing units on and off the
island; having the Planning Board provide an advisory recommendation is important;
financing can be reviewed in parallel because financing needs to be based on the
project.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether staff is
assuming that SunCal would provide a complete application by the Planning Board
meeting, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the
negative.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated generally, the Planning
Board provides a recommendation to Council based on a complete application; a work
session or scoping session would take place if an application is incomplete; a formal
vote would not be taken; a policy determination would be needed without a formal
application; making a policy determination is the Council's job.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the application on file is not
deemed complete yet; the matter is an advisory recommendation.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam inquired what the Planning Board
would be reviewing if the application is incomplete.
The Planning Services Manager responded the application includes a General Plan
amendment and rezoning for the property; stated Council cannot take action on
entitlement without an advisory recommendation from the Planning Board; Council's
action would be to either deny or not deny the request and let the process continue;
staff wanted to provide Council with the option of extending or not extending the
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) or not given the timeframe of the ENA; staff
thought it was important to get advice from the Planning Board before the hearing;
having a completed application is not required in order to get the Planning Board's
advice.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether a Planning
Board recommendation is required for General Plan amendments or rezoning, to which
the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated a determination cannot
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
9
be made without a completed application.
The City Attorney stated Planning Board action is required to approve a General Plan
amendment or rezoning; action cannot be taken until an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) is completed; the application does not have to go to the Planning Board; however,
going to the Planning Board affords another opportunity for community comment and
Planning Board input.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated that he understands that
the Planning Board has not been provided with all the information; the Planning Board
does not understand the total scope of the project; that he questions the need to go
back to the Planning Board; too much information is missing.
The Planning Services Manager stated the matter is Council's call since there is no
legal requirement for the application to go to the Planning Board.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam stated circling the matter back to
the Planning Board may not have any value; that she does not feel there is enough
financial information; she does not want to impose the issue on the Planning Board until
financial information comes back in a more coherent form.
The Planning Services Manager stated the intention would not be to bring all the
economics back to the Planning Board; the Planning Board would be focusing on
planning issues.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese stated recommendations on
land use and transportation plans would be valuable.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the Planning Board has some
of the same questions regarding financial assurances.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the project might be starting out to big and maybe the EIR
should be smaller; housing units and commercial square footage could be increased if
the EIR shows that more capacity would be doable.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated the Planning Board was
looking to Council for guidance; that she thinks the process is backwards.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that she does not have a strong opinion either way; the
advantage would be to provide an opportunity for public input.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated study after study has
been done on transportation issues; today's traffic mitigations discussions are the same
as three years ago but the project has increased three fold.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
10
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam stated that she does not recall PDC
information on the WRT Solomon Transportation Study; inquired whether 1,700 homes
would generate revenue to pay for transit solutions.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan responded the issue is
extremely questionable; stated more public amenities would be needed for more
homes.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam stated that she thought the whole
concept is to have people bike or walk to neighborhood amenities.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated a transit oriented plan
was used in the community use plan; the transit oriented community in the community
use plan and the PDC were almost parallel; nothing has changed; building more homes
is not the answer to transit solutions; Treasure Island is the king of less auto usage;
Treasure Island residents use 1.8 autos per home.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam inquired what assumptions were
made with respect to the ferry; stated the Alameda Point ferry terminal seems to be
doing well and has an over 40% fare box recovery ratio.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan responded Oakland contributes
more of the ridership than Alameda; Oakland would lose its ferry service if the ferry was
moved to the lagoon; inquired what is Oakland's fare box recovery ratio.
The Public Works Director responded the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service fare box
recovery ratio is approximately 58 %; stated the Oakland connection helps Alameda mid
day because of Oakland excursion riders; staff has a meeting on Thursday with the
Water Emergency Transit Authority (WETA); WETA is wondering what will happen to
the fare box recovery ratio and whether the ferry service would be viable if it is
bifurcated from the Oakland connection and located at the seaplane lagoon.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated the northeast corner
lagoon location is a concern; the vessel would have to traverse the whole lagoon, which
would take five minutes; the PDC relocated the ferry to one of the piers which changes
having transit within a quarter mile of density.
The Public Works Director stated the matter was discussed at meetings [with SunCal];
the travel time through the seaplane lagoon would be approximately seven minutes
each way; WETA's Interim Operating Plan (IOP) originally envisioned interlinking with
the Harbor Bay Ferry Service; currently, the Harbor Bay Ferry Service travel time is 23
minutes, which would increase to 40 to 44 minutes due to the seaplane lagoon location.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
11
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam stated there has to be some type of
development at Alameda Point in order to create a more robust ferry system; otherwise,
there would not be any ridership; inquired what is the threshold to obtain new ridership,
to which the Public Works Director responded a ten minute walk.
In response to Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam's inquiry, the Public
Works Director responded SunCal has not provided ridership estimates; the developer
normally provides the information.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated the last study showed
that 24% of Alamedans go to San Francisco; thoughts are that every ferry would move
all masses to San Francisco, which is not the case.
The Public Works Director stated SunCal is proposing that more people would commute
to San Francisco because SunCal's product would be more appealing to people who
work in San Francisco; the ferry is only one part of the transportation proposal; the bus
rapid transit would be in the later phase.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated the PDC included the bus
rapid transit; denser areas would provide an opportunity for more ridership; requested
that all information be brought back; stated that he has not seen anything new.
The Public Works Director stated the City developed a preliminary traffic analysis for
Measure B; the PDC did not have any traffic analysis but had ideas to sustain a transit
oriented development; level of service analyses were not done; the first time a level of
service analysis was done was in the Election Report and was very preliminary.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated a lot of new studies have not
been conducted in the last three years; the issue would be addressed with SunCal at
Thursday's meeting; said discussion could be brought back at the next meeting.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated there still seems to be an
issue regarding where the ferry terminal would be placed; transit solutions need to
function as a whole; inquired how work can start on the rest of the transportation system
when the ferry terminal location is unknown.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the ferry would be part of the transit hub.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the ferry terminal would
meet the bus rapid transit; the matter would be discussed with WETA.
In response to Mayor /Chair Johnson's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated SunCal
has told the City where it wants the ferry terminal.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
12
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated planning is needed.
The Public Works Director stated the matter is being fine - tuned.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated that she assumes there
would be a similar process with AC Transit.
The Public Works Director stated a similar process would be done with AC Transit
eventually.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam stated everything takes time;
inquired whether there is enough time to gather information for the June 21st Planning
Board Meeting.
The Public Works Director responded the exact ferry terminal location is less important
than the idea of what to have; stated the traffic model would not be that sensitive and
the Board could see how to interrelate transit and land development density.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the ferry
terminal would be somewhere in the seaplane lagoon.
The Public Works Director responded the seaplane lagoon is being proposed; stated
the proposal is a transit hub in the seaplane lagoon with a ferry terminal at the northeast
corner; staff has had discussions with WETA regarding whether there will be enough
ridership to bifurcate from Oakland and move the ferry to the seaplane lagoon; that he
would like to discuss adding Harbor Bay; WETA only wants to take on new ferry service
out of the seaplane lagoon if it is financially feasible and the ridership is there;
otherwise, the ferry terminal would remain at the Main Street terminal; there would be
shuttles from Alameda Point to the seaplane lagoon by the end of the 3rd phase.
In response to Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan's inquiry, the
Public Works Director responded WETA's boats accommodate 119 and 159
passengers.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated other options need to be
reviewed; other options are getting few and far between; today's generation will change
employers many times; the vast majority of employees are in the south bay; Concord
does not have any bus service; BART is available in Dublin but is limited in other areas;
the City had three years of commitment; SunCal should have had the issue ironed out.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the matter should be sent back to the Planning
Board, the majority of Councilmembers /Board Members /Commissioners responded in
the negative.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
13
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated action is needed on the
second item [Setting a Public Hearing for Decision on the SunCal Modified Optional
Entitlement Application and /or Extension of the ENA from Governing Bodies of Alameda
by July 20, 2010]; staff is looking at either July 6th or July 20th.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese stated that he is puzzled why
the matter is being addressed tonight when an ARRA meeting was scheduled for
tomorrow but was cancelled; monthly ARRA meetings need to be reestablished.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of setting a
Public Hearing on July 6th 7th or 20th to decide on the SunCal Modified OEA and /or
extension of the ENA.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff would
come back with a recommendation on which date.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese stated that he prefers to have
the public hearing at the regular July 7th ARRA meeting which would not conflict with
Council business.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam inquired whether staff expects to
have the submittal that occurred over the weekend, the determination of completeness,
resolution of financial issues, and transportation plan issues available.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded a definitive answer on the
incompleteness [of the application] can be provided by June 15th; stated follow up on
the financial information could be provided in the next two weeks; staff would be
reporting back on transportation questions on June 15th
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated the density bonus leaves
a lot of question in his mind; 1,310 homes is low density; high density is 3,531; the
project is not new development throughout but is adaptive reuse and infill; that he needs
clarification on 29 areas on the reuse of the Batchelor's Enlisted Quarters (BEQ).
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the total number of units
would increase by 30 %; density, in terms of the number of units per acre, occurs
through a density bonus transfer; a density bonus plan cannot be achieved without the
density bonus option and density transfer.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated high density housing is
outside the quarter mile and actually goes beyond the quarter mile; more homes would
be outside the density corridor; provided a handout; stated the orange area is high
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
14
density and goes outside the quarter mile; inquired whether high density commercial is
part of the equation.
The Planning Services Manager responded commercial is not part of the density bonus
plan; stated the density bonus ordinance would not govern where SunCal chooses to
put densities.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated the red outline on page 4
shows high density residential and commercial; the blue line is the buffer zone; that he
has never seen anything similar in Alameda.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam stated the WRT Study also
analyzed a high range in density that was closer to SunCal's plan.
The Planning Services Manager stated the WRT Study looked at the PDC; the key to
making the overall project work for the City is that the 4,200 unit project would have to
develop and fund a very successful transportation plan that would work for the entire
island; the only way to get people from the 4,200 housing units through the tube would
be to have existing residents chose to participate [in a transportation program].
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam inquired whether the WRT Study
was commissioned by the City, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam stated that her comfort level would
increase if she had more information before deciding what the date should be; inquired
whether information could be provided by the next Council meeting, to which the
Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff would come back on
June 15th with updates on the completeness of the application, financial issues, and
transit oriented develop aspects.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam stated an update should be
provided on the concept of density bonus and density transfer and how it works in light
of the transit oriented development.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and
Mayor /Chair Johnson — 4. Abstention: Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner
Tam -1.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam stated that she needs more
information before she is comfortable with setting a date.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
15
ORAL REPORTS
(ARRA) Oral report from Member Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner
Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative - Highlights of May 6
Alameda Point RAB Meeting
Board Member Matarrese stated the Navy is nearing completion of the replacement and
removal of several radio active storm drain lines that go from Buildings 5 and 400 to the
seaplane lagoon; requested clarification on whether the new storm drains would meet
current standards; stated a number of remediations are in place; nearly 75% completion
of characterization is being approached; part of the clean up plan includes the former
Todd Shipyard near the existing ferry terminal where copper is being removed, which is
not all Navy contamination, but the Navy is paying for it.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:55
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 1, 2010
16
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 15, 2010- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 5:15 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam and Mayor /Chair Johnson — 5.
Absent: None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(10- CC) Conference with Legal Counsel — Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure
to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One.
(10- CC) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957); Title: City Attorney.
(10- CC) Conference with Legal Counsel — Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure
to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor /Chair Johnson
announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation [paragraph no. 10- 1, Council received
a briefing from its Legal Counsel; no action was taken; regarding City Attorney, Council
directed the City Attorney to bring back her goals and objectives by the second meeting
in September, 2010; no action was taken; and regarding Anticipated Litigation
[paragraph no. 10- 1, Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel regarding a
matter of potential litigation; no action was taken.
* **
Mayor /Chair Johnson called a recess at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 1:30
a.m. * **
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(10- CC) Conference with Legal Counsel — Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation
pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One.
(10- CC /10- CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: 1590 and 1616
Fortmann Way; Negotiating Parties: Warmington Homes, City of Alameda and CIC;
Under Negotiations: Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, Mayor /Chair Johnson announced that regarding
Anticipated Litigation, Council received a briefing on a matter of anticipated litigation
and provided direction to Legal Counsel; and regarding Real Property, the Council and
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
June 15, 2010
1
Commission received a briefing from its real property negotiator regarding potential sale
of City -owned property to Warmington Homes.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 2:10
a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
June 15, 2010
2
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) MEETING, AND
THE ANNUAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (010) MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 15, 2010-7:02 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 12:24 a.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers /Board Members /Commissioners
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor /Chair
Johnson – 5.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember /Board Member /Authority Member Gilmore stated page 4 of the minutes
should include the Power Point presentation given by Stan Brown, SunCal.
The City Clerk stated the minutes would be revised and brought back at the next
meeting.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the
remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner _Matarrese seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote – 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an
asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(10- CC /ARRA/10- CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and CIC
Meeting held on June 1, 2010. Continued.
(10- CIC) Resolution No. 10 -166, "Authorizing Execution and Delivery of an Agreement
Regarding Refunding of Authority Bonds." Adopted.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the resolution should be amended to include the 6%
present value savings.
The City Clerk stated the 6% present value savings does not need to be in the CIC
resolution, only the corresponding Alameda Public Finance Authority (APFA) resolution
[paragraph no. 10- APFA1 .
Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote —
Special Joint Meeting - Alameda City Council and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority; and
Annual Meeting - Community Improvement Commission
June 15, 2010
1
5.
CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION
(10- CC /ARRA/10- CIC) Semimonthly Update on SunCal Negotiations
The Deputy City Manager — Development Services provided a handout and gave a brief
presentation.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether Stan Brown, SunCal, was here to speak or
answer questions, to which Mr. Brown responded to answer questions.
Vice Mayor /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated a lot of people would like to
see the former Naval Base cleaned up; inquired whether SunCal is phone banking.
Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative; stated SunCal has been contacting supporters;
SunCal is urging supporters to let the Council /Board Members /Commissioners know
that there is broad support.
Vice Mayor /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal is intending
to clean up the former Naval Base.
Mr. Brown responded in the negative; stated the intent of the communication is for
supporters to express continued support.
Vice Mayor /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the communication
is coming from SunCal staff, to which Mr. Brown responded the communication is
coming from a consultant hired by SunCal.
Vice Mayor /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the name of the
consultant, to which Mr. Brown responded he does not know.
Vice Mayor /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the transcript and
consultant's name could be provided, to which Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative.
Speakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; William Smith, Alameda.
(10- CC /ARRA/10- CIC) Status Report of Finalized Navy Term Sheet Mandatory
Milestone pursuant to Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Section 4.2.2.
The Deputy City Manager — Development Services gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese stated $108 million would
have provided the Navy with profit participation when the housing market was hot and
was calculated based upon far less units than what is in the Optional Entitlement
Special Joint Meeting - Alameda City Council and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority; and
Annual Meeting - Community Improvement Commission
June 15, 2010
2
Agreement (OEA); requested that future analysis project 5,000 units instead of 1,700
units.
The Deputy City Manager — Development Services stated that she would apply the
formula specified in the draft Navy term sheet to the project to see what the and
payment would be.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam inquired whether the base project is
the Measure A compliant plan and whether the density bonus option is higher; further
inquired whether the two ranges would be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR).
The Deputy City Manager — Development Services responded project alternatives have
not been analyzed, but staff is close to finalizing a project description; stated the project
description includes the base project and density bonus option; staff is studying two
build -out scenarios.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam stated one hybrid project is being
analyzed; inquired whether the base project and hybrid project would be analyzed when
the Navy term sheet is developed in accordance with the Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement (ENA).
The Deputy City Manager — Development Services responded staff has not started
negotiations on the modified OEA; stated staff has significant concerns with the project
pro forma, and does not want to enter into land payment negotiations with the Navy;
that she assumes that final term sheet negotiations would be based upon the density
bonus option project because SunCal wants to build said project.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam stated that she recalls receiving an
email inviting Council, the Interim City Manager, and the Deputy City Manager —
Development Services to some type of outreach with the Navy; subsequently, the
Interim City Manager sent an email reminding Council that a Council subcommittee was
formed; inquired whether the subcommittee ever met with the Navy and the Pentagon is
unclear; inquired whether the staff report asserts that SunCal may be in breach of the
Agreement because of what may have been a meeting with the Department of Defense
that included the Navy.
The Deputy City Manager — Development Services responded in the affirmative; stated
that she was on a conference call with SunCal in which SunCal notified both the City
and Navy that they would like to set up a meeting with the Department of the Navy in
Washington, D.C.; that she and the Base Realignment and Closures (BRAC) Office in
San Diego requested to be invited; several times, the BRAC Office asked when the
meeting might occur; she and the BRAC Office were never notified.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam inquired whether the Deputy City
Special Joint Meeting - Alameda City Council and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority; and
Annual Meeting - Community Improvement Commission
June 15, 2010
3
Manager — Development Services knows what the meeting was about.
The Deputy City Manager — Development Services responded the BRAC Office
informed her that the meeting did occur; stated conveyance term details were not
discussed at the meeting; SunCal requested that the Navy support the six month ENA
extension.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam inquired whether the Deputy City
Manager — Development Services' made a determination that there was a breach of the
Agreement.
The Deputy City Manager — Development Services responded that she did not make
the determination, but staff and the legal team made the determination that the City was
supposed to be notified and invited to attend the meeting; that she was not invited to the
meeting or a subsequent negotiation session.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether or not the
Washington, D.C. meeting was an outcome of the email which invited Council, the
Interim City Manager and Deputy City Manager — Development Services to the meeting
and reminded everyone that the subcommittee had been formed.
The Deputy City Manager — Development Services responded the meeting may have
been; stated that she was never provided with a date or invited to attend.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam requested clarification on what
transpired in Washington, D.C. and how communication occurred.
Mr. Brown stated initially, the meeting was with the Department of Defense; that he
heads SunCal's renewable energy plan; SunCal wanted to discuss opportunities to sell
power to the federal government; solar power issues were discussed; negotiating was
not done; the status of the ENA was discussed; that he still wants the Council
subcommittee meeting to occur.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam inquired whether meeting
discussions were communicated to staff.
Mr. Brown responded that he called the Interim City Manager the next day; stated the
Interim City Manager returned his call but he and the Interim City Manager were unable
to connect; that he believes that SunCal CEO Frank Faye sent a text message to the
Mayor regarding the meeting; the meeting was not focused on Alameda Point; that he
strongly disagrees with the breach of Agreement position; the Agreement has a specific
provision that states the developer is authorized to communicate directly with the Navy
regarding the project or project site as long as the developer keeps the City informed.
The Interim City Manager /Executive Director stated Mr. Brown's phone call was after
Special Joint Meeting - Alameda City Council and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority; and 4
Annual Meeting - Community Improvement Commission
June 15, 2010
the fact; Mr. Faye advised her that he would take direction from Council and not the
subcommittee.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether SunCal requested the Navy to support an ENA
extension.
Mr. Brown responded that SunCal indicated that the ENA would be ending soon and
that SunCal wanted to remain involved in the project.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired if the conversation included whether the Navy supports
the ENA extension, to which Mr. Brown responded briefly.
Vice Mayor /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated Section 20 -1 states that
SunCal is not to meet or engage in negotiations with the Navy concerning the project or
project site without giving advanced, reasonable notice to the City in order to give the
City an opportunity to negotiate with SunCal and the Navy at such meeting; inquired
what is Mr. Brown's interpretation of said Section.
Mr. Brown responded that he concurs that the statement is the first sentence of the
Section; however, the second sentence states "notwithstanding anything to the contrary
in the foregoing, developer is authorized to communicate directly with the Navy
regarding the project and project site as long as the developer promptly keeps the City
informed of such communications "; stated SunCal made no attempt to negotiate with
the Navy without the City being present.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam inquired how the meeting came
about; further inquired whether Mr. Brown just happened to be in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Brown responded in the negative; stated SunCal does a fair amount of business
with the Department of Defense; originally, SunCal was talking to the Department of
Defense regarding solar opportunities; SunCal has been pursuing entering into a Power
Purchase Agreement to sell power to the armed services; the opportunity came to head
at the meeting.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam stated that it does not sound like a
meeting was planned to follow up on Council's opportunity to meet with the Navy;
inquired whether SunCal informed City staff immediately after the meeting.
Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative; stated SunCal still wants to meet with senior
Navy staff, Councilmembers, and City staff to negotiate terms of the Agreement; one
frustration has been that SunCal desires to have communications with the Navy but the
City has not been willing to schedule a joint meeting because of pro forma concerns and
other issues; the situation is curious in that after a year of requesting to have a joint
meeting, SunCal is considered to be in breach of the Agreement.
Special Joint Meeting - Alameda City Council and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority; and
Annual Meeting - Community Improvement Commission
June 15, 2010
5
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam inquired what is the path to the
resolution of pro forma issues.
The Deputy City Manager — Development Services responded staff has been working
on the new pro forma for less than two months; stated an extensive report was attached
to the June 1, 2010 staff report regarding the pro forma; staff was directed to sit down
and resolve some of the issues; staff met with SunCal today; that she advised Mr.
Brown that staff discussed different assumptions and related, rational assumptions; staff
would meet with the consultant [EPS] today to discuss issues; conversations would
continue on Thursday.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam inquired when staff expects issues
to be resolved.
The Deputy City Manager — Development Services responded resolving issues is not
just up to staff; stated negotiations are mutual.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tam inquired when SunCal expects
issues to be resolved.
Mr. Brown responded today's phone call was productive; stated that he is unfamiliar
with EPS's housing methodology and pricing; EPS feels that the unit value approach
versus square footage is the appropriate value measurement; that he disagrees with
said analysis; today, EPS was unable to advise him why it considered SunCal's
construction costs to be too low; EPS wants to compare the project to Bayport, which
has very few water views; water views are probably why SunCal has a higher premium
in its pro forma; that he is not sure when issues would be resolved to bring closure.
The Deputy City Manager — Development Services stated staff will be coming back on
July 7th to provide an update.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired what is the status regarding school facility issues.
Mr. Brown responded SunCal has had meetings with the School District; stated that he
is not sure whether changes have occurred in the last month or so; the School District is
evaluating facility needs; SunCal has provided two school sites within the plan.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated school site placement has been an issue.
Mr. Brown stated the he is unaware of any location issues, but SunCal would be happy
to engage in said conversation; the issue is a normal give and take process and would
be part of the EIR.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether SunCal is working on a transportation plan.
Special Joint Meeting - Alameda City Council and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority; and
Annual Meeting - Community Improvement Commission
June 15, 2010
6
Mr. Brown responded transportation planning is a big part of the budget; stated SunCal
is finding its own expert to advance the ball on transportation and transit issues;
alternatives are being reviewed; SunCal realizes that issues need to be fully mitigated in
order for a plan to be viable and approved by the City; SunCal recognizes that
transportation issues cannot become worse and is willing to work with its own
consultant in addition to the joint consultant retained through the EIR.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the EIR would provide an option for fewer
housing units.
Mr. Brown responded an alternative to be studied in the EIR has not been identified;
stated work still needs to be done; typically, one option would be to have a lower level of
development proposed; the EIR consultant and staff, along with comments from
SunCal, would develop an alternative to be studied for a reasonable, smaller project.
AGENDA ITEMS
(10- CIC) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 10 -167, "Approving and Adopting
the Five -Year Implementation Plan for the Business and Waterfront and the West End
Community Improvement Projects (2010- 2014)." Adopted.
The Economic Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Commissioner Gilmore thanked the Economic Development Director for the
presentation; stated sometimes the City gets busy pushing ahead on the next project
and does not take the opportunity to look back on accomplishments; the City has
changed for the better.
The Economic Development Director stated policy decisions have been put in place
with a lot of community input; this is the time for the City to talk about the impact that
projects have had on the community; in the last couple of years, funding projects
without redevelopment agency support has been difficult; the construction trade is the
hardest hit unemployment group in Alameda County.
Commissioner Tam stated that she would like to echo appreciation to staff; all
Councilmembers throughout the State are telling their legislature that redevelopment
funds are an economic engine and create jobs; inquired whether the City has a strategy
for locating retail sites.
The Economic Development Director responded the City has a number of different retail
opportunities which are not necessarily within the redevelopment project area
boundaries; stated Alameda Landing has an opportunity for up to 300,000 square feet
of retail; the City has identified how much the City could handle through a saturation
invoice and retail leakage analysis; the Catellus Agreement has a retail marketing plan
in which Catellus has to meet quarterly with the City; Catellus needs to update the retail
Special Joint Meeting - Alameda City Council and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority; and 7
Annual Meeting - Community Improvement Commission
June 15, 2010
strategic planning analysis if it deviates from its basic retail plan; the Marina Village
Shopping Center has issues; Bridgeside Shopping Center never finished leasing its
property; the City needs to work on the strategic retail side.
Speaker: Former Councilmember Tony Daysog, Alameda.
Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote — 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 1:32
a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sara Weisiger
City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting - Alameda City Council and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority; and
Annual Meeting - Community Improvement Commission
June 15, 2010
8
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager /Interim Executive Director
Date: July 7, 2010
Re: Presentation on SunCal Modified Entitlement Application
BACKGROUND
On July 18, 2007, the governing bodies of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority (ARRA), Community Improvement Commission (CIC), and City of Alameda
(together "Alameda ") approved an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with SCC
Alameda Point LLC ( SunCal), as the Master Developer for the redevelopment of
Alameda Point. The ENA was amended in March 2008 and in October 2008.
The Second Amendment to the ENA created a process that allowed SunCal to pursue a
ballot initiative for a non - Measure A- compliant land use entitlement at Alameda Point
and provided that if the initiative failed SunCal would be permitted to submit an Optional
Entitlement Application (OEA). This OEA would require a project consistent with the
City Charter (Measure A compliant) that could be processed within the overall
timeframe of the ENA. The amendment did not provide SunCal with the ability to
pursue a second ballot initiative, nor did it contemplate extending the term of the ENA
for processing of an OEA.
On March 26, 2009, SunCal submitted the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative
(Initiative) to the City. The Initiative included a Charter Amendment, General Plan
Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan and Development Agreement (DA), the
details of which were not negotiated with Alameda. On November 3, 2009, when the
Initiative was determined to have qualified for the ballot, the City Council set the election
for February 2, 2010.
Prior to the February election, SunCal submitted an OEA on January 14, 2010 as
permitted by the ENA. The OEA submitted by SunCal consisted of substantially the
same plan and processes contained in the Initiative. On February 2, 2010, the Initiative
failed at the polls with 85 percent of those participating in the election voting against the
Agenda Item #3 -B
CC /ARRA/CIC
07 -07 -2010
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
July 7, 2010
Page 2 of 16
Initiative. On February 4, 2010, Alameda provided SunCal with a Notice of Default
(NOD) stating that the OEA submitted by SunCal did not meet the requirements of the
ENA because the OEA conflicts with the City Charter. The only way for the OEA to
avoid conflicting with the City Charter was for SunCal to either submit a Density Bonus
Application (DBA) for the project in compliance with the City's Density Bonus
Ordinance, which SunCal did not do, or to seek an amendment to the City Charter
through a second ballot initiative. However, the ENA affords SunCal no further
opportunities to amend the City Charter through a second initiative.
Consistent with the terms of the ENA, SunCal had 30 business days, or not later than
March 22, 2010, to cure the default. On March 22, 2010, SunCal submitted a Modified
OEA in response to Alameda's NOD, which included a Measure A- compliant project
(Base Project) that might be modified at a later date through a density bonus.
At a meeting with Alameda staff, SunCal stated that no DBA would be submitted at this
time consistent with the City's Density Bonus Ordinance, because the ordinance itself
requires specific information, such as architectural elevations, which SunCal stated
could not be provided at this stage in the planning process. However, SunCal indicated
verbally its commitment to developing a higher- density project that will permit the land
uses, units, and density similar to the Specific Plan contained in the Initiative (Density
Bonus Option), not the Base Project. SunCal also indicated that the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) and Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) would include
the Density Bonus Option. The Density Bonus Option is essentially the same land use
program as the Initiative, with the exception of an increased amount of commercial
development, one acre of additional park and the inclusion of sustainable uses, such as
a solar farm, in the Northwest Territories. SunCal also committed to preparing a master -
planned DBA at a future date to avoid a piecemeal approach to implementation of a
higher density project under density bonus law.
On April 20, 2010, the City of Alameda provided SunCal with a letter identifying some of
staff's major concerns with SunCal's current submittal. In response to the April 20,
2010 letter and staff's requests at weekly meetings, SunCal has provided various
documents on the proposed Density Bonus Option to Alameda over the last several
months, including a project proforma provided on April 26, 2010 (Project Proforma)
(Exhibit 1). Alameda also sent a letter to SunCal on May 19, 2010 stating that the
Modified OEA was incomplete and requested that SunCal submit additional information
on the Density Bonus Option with sufficient detail so that it can be reviewed and
analyzed by staff and the EIR consultants, as well as the community, Planning Board,
and Alameda at the same time as the Base Project.
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
July 7, 2010
Page 3 of 16
On May 27, 2010, SunCal emailed a letter to the City's Planning and Building
Department responding to the City's Notice of Incompleteness letter, including
supplemental information to be processed as part of the Modified OEA and, on May 28,
2010, a letter to the Interim City Manager responding to Alameda's April 20, 2010 letter.
Staff reviewed SunCal's response and has met with SunCal on a weekly basis to
address any remaining concerns regarding the completeness of the Modified OEA. Per
the results of these discussions, and at staffs request, SunCal submitted, on June 24,
2010, a consolidation of all previous submittal related to the Density Bonus Option as
well as additionally requested documentation concerning the Density Bonus Option.
Based on a review of the initial Modified OEA provided on March 22, 2010, and all
subsequent submittals through June 24, 2010, staff has determined the Modified OEA
complete.
Notwithstanding this "completeness" determination, staff continues to raise planning,
transportation, and economic concerns with respect to the SunCal plan, including both
the Base Project and the Density Bonus Option. These concerns were shared with the
Planning Board on May 10, 2010 and May 24, 2010; also with the governing bodies of
Alameda on May 18, 2010, and with the Economic Development Commission on May
20, 2010. On June 1, 2010, the governing bodies of Alameda set a public hearing date
for a decision on the SunCal Modified OEA and /or extension of the ENA by July 20,
2010. The public hearing has been scheduled for July 20, 2010.
The governing bodies of Alameda at the June 1, 2010 also raised questions regarding
SunCal's Modified OEA. The answers to these questions and staff's expressed
concerns regarding SunCal's Modified OEA are the subject of this staff report.
DISCUSSION
Responses to June 1, 2010 Meeting Questions
At Alameda's June 1, 2010 meeting, various questions and issues were raised by the
governing bodies. The questions and their responses are provided below:
1. What is the status of ongoing negotiations between SunCal and Alameda
regarding project economics and assumptions in the SunCal Project Proforma?
As discussed at the June 1, 2010 meeting, Alameda staff contracted with the real estate
economics consulting firm that has been working on this project for many years,
Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), to evaluate SunCal's Project Proforma for the
Density Bonus Option. In particular, staff asked EPS to review and analyze the
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
July 7, 2010
Page 4 of 16
revenue, cost and fiscal neutrality assumptions in the SunCal Project Proforma.
Overall, EPS and staff believe many of SunCal's assumptions are overly optimistic,
which has significant implications on the financial feasibility of the SunCal Project
Proforma. The following provides a discussion of EPS and staff findings regarding key
financial assumptions.
Revenue Assumptions
EPS prepared a detailed report, Alameda Point Pro Forma Market Review, dated May
24, 2010, which summarizes areas of disagreement between EPS and SunCal
concerning key market assumptions in the SunCal Project Proforma (EPS Market
Report) (Exhibit 2). The EPS Market Report was made publicly available for the June 1,
2010 meeting and is on file in the Clerk's Office. At the time of the June 1, 2010
meeting, the key areas of disagreement regarding revenue assumptions included
single-family home sales prices, price premiums, absorption, and home value
appreciation.
At the June 1, 2010 meeting, SunCal presented its response (Exhibit 3) to the EPS
Market Report, which outlined SunCal's differing conclusions regarding revenue and
cost assumptions. At the meeting, the governing boards of Alameda directed staff to
continue discussions with SunCal regarding the SunCal Project Proforma and to provide
an update on the results of these further conversations at a subsequent meeting. Staff
formally discussed the Project Proforma with SunCal on June 15, 2010 and June 24,
2010, and has informally corresponded with SunCal regarding the Project Proforma
over the past month. As a result of these discussions, SunCal has agreed to modify the
absorption schedule in its Project Proforma to be consistent with EPS' recommendation.
However, agreement has not been reached regarding other differing assumptions and
thus both EPS and Alameda staff continue to retain concerns on SunCal's other
revenue assumptions, many of which appear to be overly optimistic. EPS prepared the
attached June 29, 2010 memorandum (EPS Memorandum), which provides a status
report on ongoing discussions and summarizes: (1) SunCal's issues with the EPS
Market Report, (2) SunCal's supporting data provided to date, and (3) EPS' response to
SunCal's issues (Exhibit 4). In sum, the EPS Memorandum concludes that many of
SunCal's assumptions do not take into account the significant changes in the real estate
market that have taken place as a result of the unprecedented recession of the last
several years. Consequently, EPS believes that many of the assumptions are not
supported by sound data and analysis. A table comparing the differences between EPS
and SunCal revenue assumptions is provided below.
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Cost Assumptions
July 7, 2010
Page 5 of 16
EPS and staff also continue to have concerns with numerous cost assumptions,
included in SunCal's Project Proforma, including cost escalation, direct construction
costs for single - family homes, infrastructure construction contingency, and key
transportation and infrastructure costs. The EPS Market Report and EPS Memorandum
summarize EPS recommendations regarding cost escalation and direct construction
cost assumptions.
To date, at staffs request, SunCal has agreed to increase the construction cost for Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) by an additional $5 million, and to add the Cross- Alameda multi-
use pathway as a construction cost of $2 million. With soft costs and contingencies this
increases projected project costs by approximately $10.3 million. There are other
infrastructure related costs that staff believe also should be increased or added to the
SunCal Project Proforma, including an increase to the infrastructure construction cost
contingency from 20 to 25 percent and $1.2 million for a fair share amount of a
projected new Corporation Yard. The construction costs for the ferry terminal, the
project's share for the Broadway /Jackson interchange, and the transportation demand
management (TDM) monitoring and refinement costs are still being discussed and
evaluated, and will also affect the total costs for improvements. A table comparing the
differences between EPS and SunCal cost assumptions is provided below.
Fiscal Neutrality Assumptions
Lastly, EPS prepared the June 2010, Alameda Point Public Services Analysis, which
analyzes the fiscal impacts of the Modified OEA (Density Bonus Option) on the City's
General Fund and certain affected Special Revenue Funds (EPS Fiscal Report) (Exhibit
5) in order to assure that the City's established policy of fiscal neutrality will be
achieved.1 The EPS Fiscal Report finds that while the General Fund is projected to
experience shortfalls only in the initial years, the Public Works - related Special Revenue
Funds are insufficient to fund costs. Various measures can help to mitigate the fiscal
impacts on Alameda, including developer payments and ongoing annual property
assessments. There are also ongoing operations costs associated with the
transportation program proposed for the project that will need to be supported through
assessments from Alameda Point property owners. However, the effectiveness of the
fiscal neutrality mitigation measures and the availability of transportation assessments,
are affected by the overall feasibility of the project, as discussed in greater detail below.
1 City of Alameda Resolution No. 13643, November 5, 2003
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
July 7, 2010
Page 6 of 16
2. Can the project financially support the proposed transportation improvements
and program, public benefits, fiscal neutrality, and a significant land payment to
the Navy?
As a result of these remaining issues and concerns, staff directed EPS to prepare a
financial feasibility analysis based on SunCal's Project Proforma, but incorporating EPS
and staff's proposed changes in revenue and cost assumptions, to evaluate the
potential impacts of such changes on project feasibility. EPS prepared a report,
Alameda Point Financial Feasibility Analysis, dated June 2010, which summarizes the
results of the feasibility analysis (EPS Feasibility Report) (Exhibit 6), which incorporates
the findings of the EPS Market Report, the EPS Memorandum, and EPS Fiscal Report.
This financial feasibility analysis is a tool for evaluating the effects of changes to the
SunCal Project Proforma on project feasibility; it is not intended to represent Alameda's
proposed business plan.
Table 1, recreated from the EPS Feasibility Report, provides a summary of key revenue
and cost assumptions in the EPS financial feasibility analysis that differ from the SunCal
Project Proforma. Table 1 also compares the EPS and SunCal assumptions. EPS also
incorporated other modifications into its analysis that differ from the SunCal Project
Profroma, which are described in detail in the EPS Feasibility Report, but do not
substantially affect the findings of the analysis.
Table 1
Key Assumption Modifications and Comparison
Assumption
Single Family Home Values
(per unit in 2014)
Single- Family Detached
Duplexes
SunCal
$1,042,000
$868,000
EPS
Recommendation
$860,000
$790,000
Difference
- 17%
-9%
Average Home Value Premiums
Single - Family Detached 5%
Duplexes 2.7%
Townhomes 4%
- 80%
-63%
-75%
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
July 7, 2010
Page 7 of 16
Average Single
Family/Townhome Absorption
(per year)
233 units
175 units
- 25%
Average Multi - Family
Absorption (per year)
220 units
175 units
- 20%
Real Appreciation in Home
Prices Value
2%
Single Family Direct Construction Costs
(per square foot in 2014)
Single- Family Detached $115
Duplexes $126
Townhomes $137
1.4%
$130
$150
$202
-30%
13%
19%
47%
Vertical Construction Cost
Escalation above Inflation
0%
0.4%
n/a
Horizontal Construction Cost
Escalation above Inflation
0%
0.5%
n/a
Horizontal Construction Cost
Contingency
20%
25%
25%
Additional Costs (Cross -
Alameda bike trail, BRT costs,
corporation yard)
$0
$11.5 million
n/a
There are other policy and development assumptions contained in SunCal's Project
Proforma that could be affected by further analysis and negotiations with Alameda and
the Navy, including, but not limited to:
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
July 7, 2010
Page 8 of 16
1. Public Financing. SunCal assumes 100 percent of all housing and non - housing
redevelopment tax increment financing will be dedicated to this project. ($212
million)
2. Property Management. SunCal assumes that it will provide interim property
management services for Alameda Point as the property is developed, with the
exception of the United States Maritime Administration (MARAD) lease. The
MARAD lease revenues and expenses are assumed to be retained by the City in
the EPS feasibility analysis. ($56 million)
3. Adaptive Reuse. SunCal assumes no revenues or costs for the adaptive reuse
of individual buildings. The SunCal Project Proforma does include infrastructure
costs associated with the adaptive reuse area.
4. Commercial Assumptions. SunCal is preparing a commercial market study
and business plan that will inform the ultimate revenue and cost assumptions for
commercial uses in the Project Proforma.
The EPS financial feasibility analysis determined that the feasibility of the project is
substantially affected in an adverse manner by the aforementioned changes, resulting in
an internal rate of return (IRR) of approximately negative 12 percent compared to a
positive 20 percent in the SunCal Project Proforma. As stated in the ENA, SunCal's
IRR requirement for the Alameda Point project is between 20 percent to 25 percent.
EPS also conducted sensitivity analyses to test the implications for project feasibility if
the market experiences stronger than expected recovery and/or commands higher than
projected prices, premiums and construction costs, as envisioned by SunCal's Project
Proforma. The following describes the results of a sensitivity analysis run for each of
the following individual assumptions:
1. Single Family Home Prices. EPS assumed single - family home prices similar to
those in the SunCal Project Proforma — the IRR increased by 10 percentage
points (for an IRR of negative 2 percent, rather than a negative 12 percent).
2. Residential Price Premiums. EPS assumed additional price premiums for
single - family homes comparable to those in the SunCal Project Proforma — the
IRR increased by three percentage points (for an IRR of negative 9 percent,
rather than a negative 12 percent).
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
July 7, 2010
Page 9 of 16
3. Construction Costs. EPS assumed construction costs on vertical construction
for single - family homes comparable to those in the SunCal Project Proforma —
the IRR increased by eight percent (for an IRR of negative 4 percent, rather than
a negative 12 percent).
The cumulative effect of these three sensitivity analyses result in an IRR of 14 percent,
a return well below the return required by SunCal in the ENA. However, EPS continues
to believe that this improved return using SunCal's assumptions does not take into
account significant changes in the real estate market and that EPS's projected IRR of
approximately negative 12 percent is much better supported by sound data and
analyses. The results of the EPS Feasibility Report raise serious concerns about the
financial feasibility of SunCal's Modified OEA, even if some of SunCal's key market
assumptions are accepted. Moving forward on a project that is financially underwritten
based on overly optimistic assumptions exposes both the City and the Developer to
significant risks including:
(1) SunCal cannot provide the financing commitments necessary to implement the
project and, as a result, "banks" the Alameda Point land without making progress
on developing the property;
(2) SunCal commences construction, the project does not perform to the levels
projected in the Project Proforma, and, therefore, future phases of development
are significantly deleted or perhaps not completed; and
(3) SunCal develops the private project, but because project financial performance is
significantly below projections in the Project Proforma, public benefits and
transportation improvements cannot be built to the levels committed in the
approved plan, DA and DDA.
In sum, there is considerable risk that the Modified OEA (Density Bonus Option) will not
be able to support the proposed transportation improvements and program, public
benefits, fiscal neutrality, as well as a significant land payment to the Navy.
3. Does SunCal project comport with definitions of transit- oriented development
(TOD) ?
At a recent City Council meeting, discussion occurred regarding the applicability of the
term "transit- oriented development" (TOD) in relation to the SunCal Density Bonus
Option. While no single definition of TOD exists, transportation planners typically define
TOD as including a mix of retail, commercial, and residential land uses, a diversity of
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
July 7, 2010
Page 10 of 16
housing types, development within close proximity to a rail or rapid bus station
(generally within a one - quarter to one -half mile walking distance), high - quality
pedestrian and bicycling facilities to encourage walking and cycling, and reduced
amounts of parking for personal vehicles to encourage transit and reduce vehicle miles
traveled.
As defined by the Center for Transit - Oriented Development, there are various types of
TODs ranging from "Regional Centers ", which exhibit the greatest presence of TOD
features, such as downtown San Francisco and Midtown Manhattan to "Special
Use /Employment Districts ", which contain fewer TOD features, such as South of Market
in San Francisco and the South Waterfront in Portland, Oregon.2 The differences
between these TODs include the types and frequency of transit services, parking
standards, and land use densities. Based on staff's review, the Density Bonus Option
proposal can be considered a "Transit Town Center" consisting of a moderate density of
residential, commercial, employment and civic /cultural uses clustered around a multi -
modal transit station.
4. What are the traffic findings from previous analyses conducted for Alameda
Point that could be used to determine the traffic impacts associated with the
proposed Density Bonus Option?
There have been several studies related to the development of Alameda Point that
address traffic, beginning with the 1999 EIR for Reuse of Naval Air Station Alameda and
the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Alameda Annex and Facility. The EIR analyzed
now - outdated land use assumptions and cumulative impacts. Additionally, this
document analyzed six different mixed land use assumptions, but did not identify or
analyze specific TDM measures. Transportation proposals included some modifications
to the then - current transit service, a demonstration project for the use of Amphibious
Transportation Vehicle (DUKW) and an electric shuttle service to the 12th Street BART
Station.
A more detailed TDM program was included in the mixed land use assumptions for the
2002 Master Concept Plan developed by Alameda Point Community Partners, including
an enhanced and relocated ferry and an aerial tram to the West Oakland BART
Station. However, this study did not include a traffic impact analysis. To assess traffic
impacts, the consultant assumed that the proposed TDM program would reduce peak -
hour traffic volumes by 32 percent and compared the peak hour volumes from the
2 Reconnecting America and the Center for Transit - Oriented Development, Station Area Planning: How to
Make Great Transit - Oriented Places, 2008
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
July 7, 2010
Page 11 of 16
project and cumulative traffic from other uses with the then projected 2005 and 2020
capacities of the Webster and Posey Tubes (Tubes).
The following year (2003), the City initiated the Alameda Point General Plan
Amendment (GPA) EIR, which included a detailed traffic analysis for a mixed land use
proposal that included 1,928 housing units and approximately 2.3 million square feet of
job - producing commercial. The analysis concluded that a total of 37,634 daily trips
would be generated from the development at full buildout. A total of 792 trips were
assumed to be by transit. In addition, 2,704 trips and 2,911 trips were estimated for the
AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The traffic analysis identified significant impacts
to two intersections in Oakland (Jackson Street /6th Street and Brush Street/12th Street)
and no significant impacts to intersections in the City of Alameda. The Posey Tube
street segment was determined to have significant impacts due to the project, but no
significant impacts were identified for any of the Congestion Management Plan network
segments in the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, High Street from Howard
Street to 1 -880, and Alameda Avenue from Fruitvale Avenue to High Street were
identified as having significant impacts due to the project. These street segments are in
Oakland.
The 2006 Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) included residential
land use assumptions consistent with the GPA EIR, but job - generating commercial land
use assumptions were increased by approximately a million square feet to 3.4 million
square feet. The proposed TDM program was divided into three stages: Day One
Improvements, Mid -Term Improvements and Long -Term Improvements. The goal of the
TDM program was to reduce residential trips by 10 percent and commercial trips by 30
percent.
Day -One Improvements included a shuttle or transit service to 12th Street BART at 15-
to 20- minute headways and expanded ferry service. The Mid -Term Improvements
included Rapid Bus Service, Long -Term Improvements including consideration of Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT), Light Rail or Group Rapid Transit along the former Alameda
Beltline right -of -way and crossing into Oakland using the railroad bridge at Fruitvale
Avenue. No detailed traffic impact evaluations were conducted for street segments and
intersections as part of the 2006 PDC effort.
In April 2008, the City hired a consultant to develop the Alameda Point Station Area
Plan (SAP) funded by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Alameda
County Transportation Improvement Authority to evaluate benefits of clustering
development with close proximity to transit. The plan looked at the following three
alternatives with different transportation strategies:
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
July 7, 2010
Page 12 of 16
1. The 2006 PDC that would provide transit service to Oakland BART at 12th
Street at 15- minute headways, ferry service to San Francisco at 30- minute
headways, shuttle connections to San Francisco express buses and downtown
Oakland, a transit station at the Sea Plane Lagoon, and a Car Share program.
2. A Transit Enhanced PDC with 1,800 market rate housing units, and 9,000 jobs
that would provide transit service to Oakland BART at 12th Street at 12- minute
headways, ferry service to San Francisco at 30- minute headways, shuttle
connections to San Francisco express buses and downtown Oakland, a transit
station at the Sea Plane Lagoon, and a Car Share program.
3. A Transit Plus alternative with 3,000 market rate housing units, and 9,000 jobs
that would provide BRT to Oakland BART at 12th Street at 5- minute headways,
ferry service to San Francisco at 20- minute headways, shuttle connections to
San Francisco express buses and downtown Oakland, a transit station at the
Sea Plane Lagoon, a Car Share program, and a future extension of the transit
service (potentially a BRT) to Fruitvale BART station.
However, no analysis on actual impacts to intersections or street segments was
conducted for any alternative. The SAP estimated total traffic trips from Alameda Point
after taking credits for transit enhancements for each alternative and then compared
them with the PDC alternative trips in the Tubes.
In September 2009, the City prepared a Preliminary Traffic Impact Report for the and
use program in the SunCal Initiative. The project included up to 4,346 new housing
units, 186 existing low -cost housing, re -use of existing buildings for up to 309 housing
units, 350,000 square feet of retail space and approximately 3.2 million square feet of
commercial. TDM strategies assumed to be included as elements of the project were a
dedicated shuttle service with 15- minute headways during weekday peak hours to the
12th Street BART station in the first phase. The shuttle service would evolve to a BRT
service in the later stages of the development with 15- minute headways during peak
commute hours and 20- minute headways off peak, expanded Ferry Service at 30-
minute headways.
The report concluded that in 2035, with the assumed transportation improvement plan
and TDM measures in place, the project would generate 61,561 vehicle trips per
weekday, with 5,260 trips in the a.m. peak and 4,927 trips in the p.m. peak. Existing
(2007) traffic volumes from Alameda Point were reported at 10,284 vehicles trip per
weekday, with 722 trips in the AM peak and 703 trips in the PM peak. The
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
July 7, 2010
Page 13 of 16
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
transportation program (improvements and TDM) was estimated to provide an overall
33 percent reduction in peak hour traffic volumes for the Project, with an 18 percent
traffic volume reduction at the gateways and a 15 percent reduction internal to the City.
The report then analyzed intersection Level of Service (LOS) impacts of the net
increased trips and determined that with the project transportation improvements in
place, several major intersections that currently operate at an acceptable LOS would
degrade to an unacceptable LOS with the project. For example, the Webster Street at
Ralph Appe77ato Memorial Parkway intersection would degrade for an existing LOS D
to LOS E in both the AM and PM peak periods; the Park Street at Clement Avenue
intersection would degrade from LOS D to LOS F in the a.m. peak and from LOS C to
LOS F in the p.m. peak; and the Tilden Way /Blanding Avenue /Fernside Boulevard
intersection would degrade for an existing LOS B to LOS F in both the AM and PM peak
periods
Finally, the City recently conducted traffic counts for the Posey and Webster Tubes in
2009 as part of the City's Traffic Capacity Management Procedure (TCMP), which is a
requirement of the Catellus EIR. The TCMP estimates the theoretical reserve capacity
in the Tubes based on the free flow capacity of the Tubes. The most recent June 2010
report, which is included as Exhibit 7, determined that the projected remaining capacity
in the Posey Tube is 829 vehicles in the AM peak and 1,183 vehicles in the PM peak.
The projected remaining capacity in the Webster Tube is 1,533 vehicles in the AM peak
and 364 vehicles in the PM peak.
As described above, there are numerous studies that have been conducted on the
traffic impacts associated with development at Alameda Point. The Density Bonus
Option will result in traffic impacts to the Tubes and to intersections in Alameda and
Oakland. Funding and implementation of a forward- thinking transportation program and
key transportation improvements will be necessary to minimize, though not always
eliminate, the traffic impacts of development at Alameda Point. The ability of the
Modified OEA to fund the capital and operational costs associated with the required
Alameda Point transportation strategy and mitigation measures will depend on the
feasibility of the project.
5. What is the status of meetings with the San Francisco Bay Area Water
Emergency Transit Authority (WETA) regarding relocation of the Main Street
Ferry Terminal to the Seaplane Lagoon, as envisioned in the SunCal plan?
Staff and SunCal met with WETA on June 3, 2010 to discuss the proposed Modified
OEA and the transportation improvements associated with the project. At that meeting,
SunCal provided a cost estimate for the new ferry terminal at the Seaplane Lagoon and
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
July 7, 2010
Page 14 of 16
general ferry ridership projections, based on County -wide data related to rail and ferry
transit from 2000. WETA and City staff are reviewing the data and will discuss these
and other ferry- related issues at an upcoming July 8, 2010 meeting. WETA's initial
concerns with relocation of the ferry centered on the impacts associated with the
Oakland riders and how ferry service would be provided from Oakland.
Recommended Next Steps
As discussed at previous meetings of the governing boards of Alameda, the term of the
ENA between SunCal and Alameda expires on July 20, 2010. The ENA further provides
that if SunCal were to complete its Modified OEA and satisfy the remaining two
mandatory milestones in the ENA by July 20, 2010 (the Finalized Navy Term Sheet and
the DDA as described below), the ENA would automatically extend until such time as
the City acted on the project: either by denying the Modified OEA (which action is
exempt from CEQA and does not require an EIR), or certifying the pending EIR when it
is complete and therefore approving the Modified OEA.
The status of SunCal's remaining ENA requirements is provided below:
1. Complete Application. As discussed above, Alameda staff has concluded that
SunCal's Modified OEA is complete.
2. Finalized Navy Term Sheet. The Finalized Navy Term Sheet (Term Sheet) is
one of two remaining mandatory milestones that must be achieved by SunCal
before the July 20, 2010 date, according to the ENA. A staff report providing a
status report of SunCal's attainment of the Term Sheet mandatory milestone
pursuant to the ENA was provided to the governing bodies of Alameda at the
June 15, 2010 meeting. As discussed at the June 15, 2010 meeting, Alameda
has not engaged the Navy in negotiations of the Term Sheet related to the
Modified OEA because of the need for a well- defined project description, a
thoughtful phasing plan and a mutually agreed upon project proforma for the
Density Bonus Option. As outlined in this staff report, staff continues to have
serious concerns with key assumptions in the Project Proforma, and cannot
negotiate the project's ability to support a significant land payment to the Navy
until these issues of financial infeasibility are resolved. It is unlikely that these
issues, in particular, will be resolved and a Term Sheet agreed to by all parties
before the upcoming July 20, 2010 date.
As discussed at the June 15, 2010 meeting, SunCal's election to meet with the
Navy at the Pentagon concerning the project on June 9, 2010 without providing
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
July 7, 2010
Page 15 of 16
notice or an opportunity to participate to Alameda constitutes a breach of
SunCal's obligations under the ENA. At the June 15th meeting, SunCal
confirmed at the June 9th meeting that it had asked the Navy to support a six -
month extension of the ENA. The Navy did not agree to this request and
indicated that all future communication about the project should be directed to
the ARRA and the Base Realignment and Closure Program Management Office
in San Diego.
3. Disposition and Development Agreement. The DDA is the other remaining
mandatory performance milestone that must be achieved by SunCal by July 20,
2010, pursuant to the ENA. SunCal can achieve the mandatory milestone for the
DDA if both SunCal and Alameda agree on the form and substance of the DDA
or if SunCal submits its best and final offer of a DDA acceptable to SunCal. On
June 10, 2010, SunCal submitted a draft DDA to staff. Staff is reviewing the
DDA and providing comments to SunCal on a weekly basis. Given the
complexity of a public - private partnership between SunCal and Alameda for the
Alameda Point project, and ultimately, the Navy, it is unlikely that staff and
SunCal will agree on the form and substance of the DDA by July 20, 2010, but
that SunCal will submit its "best and final offer" as described in the ENA..
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed request does not modify the financial provisions contained in the ENA
regarding reimbursement of staff and Alameda third -party consultant costs. Therefore,
there is no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund, Community Improvement
Commission, or Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority budgets.
RECOMMENDATION
This report is for information only.
Reupe, tfully submitted,
Jenn er
Depu y Ci
JO:di
tt
y Manager
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
Exhibits:
July 7, 2010
Page 16 of 16
1. April 26, 2010 Sun Cal Density Bonus Option Project Proforma
2. May 24, 2010 Final Report, Alameda Point Pro Forma Market Review, prepared
by EPS - on file in City Clerk's Office
3. June 1, 2010 Sun Cal Presentation on May 24, 2010 EPS Market Report
4. June 29, 2010 Memorandum, Response to Sun Cal's Alameda Point Market
Analysis and Feasibility Study Comments, prepared by EPS
5. June 2010, Alameda Point Public Services Analysis, prepared by EPS -- on file in
City Clerk's Office
6. June 2010 Final Report, Alameda Point Financial Feasibility Analysis, prepared
by EPS
7. June 2010 City of Alameda Traffic Capacity Management Procedure
SunCal Companies
Draft Alameda Point .Density. Bonus Option Cash now
Alameda, CA
Financial Summary
Investor Summary
Project Summary
04/26/10
Density- Bonus Option
Project Duration (Months): 180
Ay-,g. Yearly Mrkt Rate Absorption 454
Total Number of Lots: 4,841
Market Raze Lots 3,632
Affordable Lots 1,209
Average Market Rate Net Home Price S 650,914
Average Market Rate Home Size 1,472
Average Market Rate Net 5/SF 5 442,25
Average Market Rate Directs 9 172.88
Average FLV (including Premiums): S 169,405
Caoss Residential Sales Proceeds S 820,090,740
Gross Commercial Sales Proceeds 82,567,980
Gross Sales Proceeds ( Including Commercial/Institutional): S 902,658,720
In -Tract Costs:
Less: Builder In -Tract Costs and Fees
Othrr Revenue:
Residential Escalators
Residential Price Appreciation
Commercial Price Appreciation
CH)
Tax Increment Financing
Master Lease N0I
Master Loose Reversion
Marina Operating Income
Marina Reversion Value
Total Otter Revenue
Add: Master Marketing Reimbursements
Add: Misc. Revenues
Less: Builder Closing Costs
(233,425,208)
580,595
417301,0I6
20,988,098
199,759,542
235,686,324
36,200,333
44,841,959
2,838,048
15,013,532
973,210,247
32,504,988
307
(24,472.445)
Net Sales Proceeds: S 1,650,476,610
Master Costs:
Land (108,500,000)
Total Land Costs ( 108,500,000)
Ducal Demo, Site Prep, & Grading (217310,527)
Street Improvements (38.484 350)
Sanitary Sewer r (31.675.000)
Water Improvements (20.265.000)
Storm Drain (40,279,000)
Amenities & Special Construction (231,271,193)
Utilities _. (18350 000)
Subtotal (597.835,070)
Contingency;n. (119,367,014)
Fees, Assessments & Bonds - Map (27,181.000)
Subtotal (27,191,000)
Consultants and Engineering (71,039,449)
Master Cost In (Lakin (149,131,350)
Total Direet Costs (904,751,381)
0dirccts Insuraneo (13320,1931
Project Management (54,024,246)
General & Administrative (28,523,064)
Legal (a< Close +Project Legal (3,931 333)
Lest!. Closing. etc. (i4A &D Loan (1.191.667)
Legal, Closing. etc. /a, Lot Sales (1,210,250)
Master Marketing Program (32,504.988)
Misccllaneot s (2.380,000)
Development Admini>tnuion Services (16.698.567)
Alameda Debt Service & Repayment (20.127.024)
Project Burden (17,531,994)
Property Taxes (7,977,944)
Total Indirect Costs (199,423,571)
Acquisition & Development Loan - Points (11,050,810)
Acquisition & Development Loan - Interest Reserve (41.362,494)
Total Financing Costs (52,413,304)
Total Con S (1,325,091,258)
Project Profit:
Profit Margin on Cost:
Profit Margin on Revenue:
Untevered Project IRR
Levered Project LRIZ
Alameda Denst'.y Bonus Option Assumpuens (04- 25-10)
S 325,385,351
2456 %i
p 20.06%3
2333 %1
Printed c
CC /ARRA/CIC
Exhibit 1 to
4(26,2Agerrda Item #3 -B
07 -07 -10
r...,
0
4
0 0
6 •6
44
o
,', o
.1;
o
ni 0;
4, ...,
- .`,
...' -
''""'-
Builder
Margin
0.
e
c-4 isl
8 8
i-i ti.i
8 8
6 6
87
0 o
e• ,
8 8
6 0,
e. e
,-6,
0 0
%00'0
%00'07.
%0 8I
20.00%
20.00%
20.00%
20.00%
g: ?;,..
8
6 6
O.-.. as
6 0
g
8
0. 6
P
0 o s
S.. 0
o• O.-
o, 8 8 8
0., 0 0.. 0.
O O. o o
.,7_, , 0
.•
--...•'.
c,
,..-...- .
11
-05
27:
111111111M
11111111111E
..Q.0
,... •::-• ••,,,',..4.-
, ,.... N
0 4-. 40
, b. ,e,fr, 44
.:,,,,,i :
. .e) `...,
is, ,,, =,.. :is,
...
•
.,-, „..,..
z
- --4 -•
ea• '..-:,
—
0402
.- . - , , •:-(-,
r -...--
<4 ... 444,444440444,4444
. .
. . .
, " ,9.,
• •
, •
•
-.4
.O
..
8 a -
. ., _
4040
-,
8 ° 8
....
'
..„
''•• ,
'
•
• •
2,500''...
1;400
1.200
0 g
. .. .. .
C... i
, - ..
,=
c-...•.
g c—
- .
•,.
.. ..
-.- '
: i`.• , ' ,. • , • 0 "4"
•...., ..., _ .,o ';
-..
• f,g
F , --s, •. , s , ,- 2o ,
..
.,,. - •
111111
1•,
1•
1
'.
'.,at .,.., . .
Low Density 10 dtdae
\ediutn•Deusity - 17dulac
Med -high Density - 30 du/ac
0
:.:,
—
Total/Avg - All Planning Area
Total/Avg - Mrid Lille Planning
0
0
Alameda Density Bonus Option A
LandResidualll
$onC21 ertapSnir
Drat.lrarta Par Derry... Orr. Car Bar
1.4770.772. .7.7
1.31
VI 1 347.1471 1 5
712,2
7
3.1.77,,s1
3,7 N,,dly• 7,717
1777/N.77112-1,,,
2,7
X.
1.3-7.
L217.
33 737-,47
56 3....
731,777
4,43
173,..13
1,1,477
UN Nni, • 70 NU
1.7
IS S.,.
3,4.
17,771,2
ssms,
1.7.Das..4 10 .4.7
Ler .r.....
37,
rl.
137,
12 4777.
ss ;suss
r 10.02
S;
431:701
31.17.
77.7.22,12.7717. 27 2,72
23 N.
3137.
7,34.77
1127,5.
3,197.
I
1.771.11012,74,22 S.,
1.
72 N.
171
:MTN
.7,
NS...
1,
.17
SONS
16,7371
4i7.7317•7• 7,343.,
7.47,71,37,744,73,23.1,77
260
2,72
far.
SC
121.7
I..,
11,1111 .2
A2,71-14
7.,,,77:
667.74,,,,,,..,27317712,1,
1.47,74NN377,,,,r2737,176.2
.
371,
>1,...
.
37
1214,3
0,7,7.737,7
7.2471.714723737,-.777N
4.
237
...3.7
NS
•
77 N7.2,7
73,X=
2:11
}7417.NN, 71,. 17 7,77
1
11.
7.
.2,
72,,
SS
112
3.1,77,
...V
12112:
13.11,171
1172:2:22
AN
31 isu
.77
413.7.77
. 7.3,2
14.117.1.3
3
3277-771774N3N, 33,13.
3....3.• x raas
S.
I.
.17se
41
77
211.711
217..7
11.-729
7.1....
217215,320
1.
1,1
7172777
71
32,727
•,,,
I.,.
.33.0
177 OA.
.47 Nssi,s• 10,77
i 77.77274.10 S.,
'2...'.
7717,7721
sss
IN
3,,
.23217
134.1
1. VI
11.4.131
ss.,,,,,
37,11377 2.7,774,31,14 .2,
N
•
11
72...2•1317.7
MO .03 - 54 dots
4174,7737
21
•
212112:
3033
•
W.A.
1
7377 Ns, .s3s.„
123
2734,
tal
L.
14711,7
NA.
7.,,ra
.213
1341,04,1
17,132,70
20
11,11,171.3-73.7•X 2,2
a.
r.e...3
.0..rat
at
SI
371-2,30
.4177
......
ssoss
1264.0
MSC,.
fl2210.1111102
.46Nuo,..7-777.
....2 37.•336.7
1,3
11
261
2717217
71.7.17.7N
02
ND
41070
270
13,372,03
1.737.0.7.• Pa,
1 17
INN.
121
17
3.2.3
717.4.10
111.5
774,1,1
1.1.1.71,217
OP",
1.7713.7177.13.77.
1.
ISSN
367..
724.23
103,2727
l2
7,2174,13.711. 0 is,
l0222021,
20
1.41
13 6,37
13,777
NM.
3,07
227,747
3,000
I., 17.777• rarr
Maw
13,,
271.219
7.17.7
ssss„,
VOL.
147.77.
Mau. N.., 11.141.
1.
1 34
ss,ssss
:INN
.
NI..
IN,.
1,17,77
74134.13
1.2.171.
1 „■.0 anon or y. , oie:
1.
I.
77.17.7
22
314217
2 7,,,s
411.9.
23,,
s1,710
CAA,
7.7_1311
7.731,17
4,410.
13,101.
AN,.
2 3,27.347177.7777 .113-7,317.4433.7
1 31.7737741,31,277.174 12 01,
•
1...
17,,
I.
•
.
112
. P-... • AO,.
•
. 'I
NS.
•
31,a
.375.
.
•
10.7.737
102022:71112:012,
. 4.27.2.73.13
N.
927
73,7
ir
7, sss
N7,71.3
7,411233
/..4 2.,...30.03.117747.7
32i
Al 2,7377
111
,
ssssss
121.7
ss,,,,ss
.13
a 1{3417.7 .1.123,77, 532.,
1 .121"0071112:..
SFS
112
0012:1
1.
.
...
111271A
72.7233
•
2,1
1,412.
271,74
Z.S1..1.4
32.11.7 INN, 17 C.,
IN
17,77
N14.77
7,17 NI
3,11,7
1,1,33
15.23.
,
sl
14.7173.7.4.7.17.1,,
1,771,1.312• .21,17
127
.
3713,
1,7 NS
„,
IN.
.7733.
....
472371.72
11 tau
.....
. . ,
.
Pl.rd,
o,....
Irr. rars1177220,s
'11202:21
211
22114
7172
72.11
• 5 S
5
•
3
?
C.7.7,12
1171
711
s
Is
1 7
,s,
377,27
1•102.33
.7ss,
11.27 09
134,71
7„ssr.ss,
I, .
13,.
s.,,
17 ,,
17.2
1736
4.4,,,,-1
2,371.17
,s.sss
a4
1ASC 2
SC
ao
•
.
.
•
:
'411:417=e'.13s.,7s
.71
If
22
7.3.
7....7
1.7311
712,
37.33
71,7
111,
11,31-31
1,21,32
11
3 ,N7477,77 7.1.74.
3.
31
33
341,
1.S.
Sit,
17,
....
.
as
.
.
.
.
.
.
•
3 3
.
sr an
....
War!
.r.
r r.
r r
13 r
17,7
5
a ,...ntr.,...,
s .777,73,171.1.341,
5 St
3,
77
33
IS
771,77,
'341,
1.311
1277,123
, 117,
1 71167
17,1
.77,03
.
5 2.7776.1,
S.
,s,
IS
s s
7.1.7
3ss„
.4 NI
sssss s„
i 1;3,
s.„.;
s,,
17.
771,123
7 317,77.1.4
,
ss,
,
ss
ss,s,
37,...,
.,,,,,
77,7,
77,,,
N.,s
.33
177.
2.
27
3a
3.2.7
.77.
113,
.
.
, 0
,......
1 • •
Ell III I I II I MI Ir II
11177sNa
" ''t4"'':T--'3.7--i
22 070 Mg r ,.......
'
..T.":
1112.r.1
131
17.1,,,173,7,Ns
3
3 I
72
241
0 AI
1-1
N.
CU
NSA.,
sres4
NS
21.17
2E7
7 17.14,774.3134,717.771,12,24,1,7,
2 7
at
2 13777.74.2,72.
1 222:21.114 12.1017112212:1071)
2,7
011
1114.712
3 2,3s
17.
.
3 1477.
1
1 ts,
7.2
I-E
1 hrt
7 7774
134
a as
a s
3 rt
1 Ns,
ar
.....
...s.rinr Mast
..
sr
, r.,.........s•
.... rat.....4.......r..
..,
,
. ...Zap ISA 31
17.
114
. 71474737„. Ss,.
AR 2.717.N.14102.3131,33,11:1
., 4.1777,77.11.S.2. 417.17,
112
s ss
AS 1■71,72,17
AR .71737.1721,7117.41
7 SS
11.
a,
AI so,
ar
rats.
0 star
ras
r r
.
=a.
.1.1
nust,
Fut
71.43..71 73,141
CU
I,
.
17.
1.143.337, 4.23.7.
17.
1111,
3,
Noss
2,13
IS.
St
Fr r
5",
z
$'
n •
'
:7.
z
Ft.tal.itA/2.0 st7X21`,1.
INA.Arr COSTS
.‘?
12
21
31
2,5
13
NET INIINCI SUMMARI':
10
m.a ow.no:a: 7,02 are.
ply &rug Dnmr Assual Ocuo IG- -2,1t1
S005514.55/045,1
Draft Named. Point 0,64 07.4 Option Ca, 41...
013.-4400,
fras, Flys 0645.4 7475'404•6154 46,1 12/151..,150.5154.166 4,45/114 nanrser, an V13479.
IRM0)77-117711007)007170 1110171110
ProduCt.,
0,410.311.Slat
71,011.5114 34. (ex. La.)
115104479495,
637.1104..741 16.17,7451.4
7611.10171665 7,6yry 165
Wear540,6 as.114.406
409484
Der 06.t
500 5037, ff0.0461,4646., cca,an
M4a(1005tr.M071)71 Mmhsvcdmr.dition
1,14 .56r 544,56.0
7,461 rpo 56,64 5,51,4,601,656 5,46,5 DA for 555, cc. or,
5351490.16e6,0676r C1064.5,
CIty 46540,46 565,16/...n
ray al 5,64.16 5.arra 7134,110 fry ,
rats 4fO477e45.00111ss 01
00466 000 0 404 4044
CPO
S 0.110 00
$ 4,57040
5 151.31
O 131.24
5 7.617.54
O 3,11747
1 7,10473
szl..
1 10.7
'3 3.55
07041,370 SP 66 5 5 4,04530
s, Med 5 3.572.17
025156 tia, derstr. 41547.41) 5
711 5 4.57470
Afar.. /14.0.1.663 546 5.114047 lea 2.
Danstarctiar 1, Dn. 46.4 r66
Psyr 766
l4l61101304714
040,65.6,0643 r, ‘11
05.5a40251714017,5057,10 Pm,
Cava0666.1 art,5,6.6.46.
131370053
7,61w/0 7.5.43.,
.4114R,77700e705
1151.6475551102011 4.m. 451. RD, IS 0245416.05
731.160517.'6651,6451.56.0576 0 4.... acy
607.053a07y .765..6 0546 a.
51032D Warr.4.65515c4.16.557,0 774
,Pnal rim terv,65,675060<frarDe o.. 0.74
73,62,3565.1,711441.174 0. 7104
.1.0,114.46 566,6<arracti. a.
Day cf Mr rado ..6.6. 1...,155
Car 41 55.43 3., kis .u., 1...7,1
5 17.161,32
5 04,0s
5 1,141,1'4
5 135
IS
Alt t....31ratid• 7000
7.1...1347, 0.11518)
715360.11. 1174
Por 5.4cCap 7.65,2 of
1446,.4,44,53505.4.
111.54165 371.0 rsax
4151105.
C517,74 0.5.4140,16,0 16e (10 a14,1117
.4..3,1 404 3.'19 7, arfs
1.6f4r7 iav (.4
101, and fir rtn 100.73
ra,rrany Yany. I ry
3,015 5,444661,
:mmernofn
6.1.4.-1,114,5.64.40 I4r
1160 rwanDeacy
Carti,550Cy
7,art 61/ 0777,440.
kr 0.107057740, Ca, MAI,. aft....
39,07 .56...414.3,07...ra re, 133,300 107,014 30,51,0
f1.104 5,5,61 rrararity .6 11,7,4,110 11.155,7151 4,573.113
7.000./53'1ls: .54 6,411040 716.5 7457,137 1,672.1.77 518,775
PrSe6f4 706 5,7, aftsfatian 576, 1,6195 .5.074 51072
4.511011,,crarr rapsray Ste 4,726,471 5,045,040 1,514,071
2711554772, 4.554.10,600, 2:7,055 1.744,777 7416517
CI, DI A.., 5100.57:74.1.1a, iac 511,14.5 575.4.14 50411
Cava/ abr.. 74,50 rets
04.avf,06.160,4,744.4 5.613,441 0,77,,17 4.175.115
0156darly acasi, f141.15. •
05560.7,7 66,1 C., Petra 1., 4700104 2.324.2 3$7,372
044011745753., 5,503,131 5,171.717 771,319
701, and .66 .4
04.141,71,74,47, 4,671,464 4064,3 774,741
711134474.0,15.1 44,474 72.413 13,414
CA 511-,147,7771,7A4rov71,1771,7;ra,r, 115,754 743.4. 46.973
..(,),,,,,InVi(A..11■1%4 13,,.550 13,307.173 1,537,72
7,04,1 Isy
• .
TO. All %P.C.% Typal
4443
I3444401.05
3,542
Total fag, Per 1.1.1 Total 6155. 7,1777
157,307 5 .1
73,754,1M S 5.1.
0570.24711
7,013
Tata 15, Fes IIrtit
107,410 5 30 , 60,570 $ 30
15.751.2. 5 5.447 4,875.115 5 4,510
7247,07 0 535 1,115,127 4 605,775 5 511
53 145,774 $ 10 53.442 5 52
3,759,14/5 1,1. 3.784,110 S 1,175 1./502375 5 1.13
5.145147 5 457 4740437 $ 479 4486035 5 41/
172045 5 144 504444 S 147 174,541 5 157
21,454,415 1 4447 13,612.2,5 5 1.125 5.992.150 7 1.010
15,471,471 5 3,544 14,940152 0 3,577 3,570,7 5 3,449
72,523,417 5 13,90 57321,304 5 17,151
7533,315 1 541 7,1..117 5 1,44 745.144 $ 411
1.507,011 5 1.670 5,179,232 4 1,424 1..151.773 1 1470
111,983 5 110 8251*1 5 . 563.401 5 IGO
3,113,047 5 1.133 4,140.413 5 1,147 1,011.43 5 471
75,567 5 30 04.500 s 47 70550 5 70
172.7. 5 37 138303 5 43 33145 5 00
17.77;312 5 3.711 117655.173 5 3.711 3.3516,4 4 2.311
. 4 . 5 - 5
441,418.053 $ 15262 5 147014,405 5 10.700 7 24,404.4447 15.5
11.1 711 5 437 22.21 7,411 5,117 3060702 5 7402
4 77 5 164 77,457 5 4( 567 5 173 161,7 $ 45,497 0 14451 931 5 32 ,5
177,771,12) 1 111,170)
(711.377) 5 11171
6631.181) 5 1115)
(114,140) 0 :101)
(11.23.
1:5,77I) 4 14)
11.617,1771 5 O.)
(97)11,147) 5 721.3311 o 00,164314) 5 (74,5514
(71307,001l 5 (1637 117) 6 117747
'4)410.4754461 055.504) 1 0094400444) 1 (73.5147 5
P.)7/
(15401) 4 101)
(7.952.0501 5 (71111
15.741.475) 5 (7.317)
007670) 1 021)
17261711 5 (7) 1)
(1040) $ (757)
51571.112) 0 1507)
(10,031) $ (10)
(16.515) 5 (17)
5060471) 5 0,05)
5
10747,601 4 6,773)
(115,1531 3 01,11
00,4971911 5 117,441)
147,70/ 1 11 107,,11 $ 07 ...a $ :70
7,40,114 5 0,277 11,055,040 5 5,070 4,075315 4 4,570
1,457,517 5 530 1114.117 5 504 4-17,12* 0
245,171 5 57 1E457-1 5 51 53.125 5 .51
5,732.575 1 1155 4,194070 1 1.175 7410175 $ 1,141
1,344,951 5 419 1740,437 5 479 201,711 5 470
601656 5 107 114,143 5 167 51,621 5 M
6613.05 5 0.40.5 1,475671 5 1,711 1,135171 5 1,511
4,451.141 5 171 2:710,111 5 01 375304 1 711
7 500,M7 54,150 5,440,757 0 1,425 720,795 5 713
4,573,505 4 4,701 4.164,433 5 1.111 511,142 5 rya
47d174 5 18 77.50 5 11.0 5 10
155.715 5 33 414713 5 35 16,170 1
15419,571 5 1,7 13,485.2, 5 3927 1,614374 5 1,678
74.570.622era, 71171,043 54351432 3 17.274044 -
C71544,45 ID 3, 717 8,4.14 1,491,35,1
7c74171/4430144717 1 4 457471 5 71,507 40 5 U. 47.144
•
19,134.784 5 14.850 1 17,114.054 S 15.528 5 11,274731 5 11,022
17 004)14 7 7718 &0noo4 5 7,114 1141095 1 7344
75477145 ..,75 ko1,519 0.45 1 774473454 5 12,575
" s
4,1
p-s.S8S.
sign
kUgUg
ki§g§g
E'gg';'15.‘U
SS8
a -
gg
9.;
n
2
og
7.1
7:7
'8888882840
888 .
-- o
.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0
soo08000orno
8
o 0 6 O
— 0
o o 0 0
0 VI rl 0 ,
.07 ,
•-• —
o
. 0 0
0 0
0 0
g
6
o o
o o
o o
<4 0
o h
G,
3 8
2:
o
0
0 0
,
h
C..1
0, 0
0 CT
. 0 .
C-4
8 ' °
00 0
8888
0 0-
0 ,
n
C.1
CO
N
0
8
17,288,000 $
0
c,
F,S
`.0
8
0
17,214,000 S
5 ::
74
i)
4
00
N".
•
4.1
Printed on 5;1/2010 at 5:44 PM.
Draft Alameda Density Bonus Option Cash Flow (Extemal 04-
'
■
?..2
77 se
...........
aa
-8"
P24.
• ..Pa-ra-Fr&-r-rs----Rr..--.0s6;-&-rr,-arrs,T,s---;:q
P 828718.ga;fr.;32r,P,.42-P,=2.4"-VP.g;
a',C7,48"142'Ag:88r=gpr2ggnqF.2s77., g
ra.
`.1
Y Itl6,914,570 S
7—g2g.L"==84,7ng2,8gg2,72, Z;Rg
.47
22'
N77
c7,7
"15
p <-4
o
27 •
<7'1
g.4
(155,484,133) 8
ee
E
2e.
0
0
4,
0
Printed on 5/1/2010 at 5:4
EPS Table 2 Long -Term Construction Cost Trends
Iaav sua • is a
.Ins lsop .Ia
PD
111 I paulvly DDS
rD
5
•
r
rt
crQ
Par
O
eD
swiillxg DTI I p RU1ijy DDS
a
O
a
g
49
J 69 64
• co Co
N 64 O
(7) U) -+ O)
(h •A V
c\°
61
V
A
O 0 cn
V al N 0 69
N (WO N a>
a5u$ luiod epaulet,/
($ iueIsuoj) uoipafo.. aoiki
&) EA
0
11•
•660Z 0101.0Z usemlaq pouadaya.roj
ID.
a
O
N 0 Co CO
CO Co O CO
0 1.17Z-S0 PaEp ma!
ation of EPS' Single Family Home Value Projections
Q
3 m
co ca o a
cQ 3 N N. a. a co
�
�v co Tat
co
Vp ',-:
Q
O. vi o
co cr.
N
co C3--1
p - co
O $ . QO g Sk
w(5 05 3 ,,,-31 p
69 69 69
J
V • EA N COO
✓ W N -CO
N ca N O
CO
c
cO
of EPS' Single Family Home Value Projections
Source>B'SRnal Report, Alameda Point Pro Forma Market Review dated 05 -24-10
SOCAlameda
B'STable 4 - AlamedaM can HousngValues(constant $2010) DRDProforma
Sngle Family All t ' cal Comments Snge Family
Sales Price FnrUnit $666,542 $582,500 Rici ng @2010 $900,000
$/ $395 $364 From EPSDraft Import dated 05/11/10 $360
Implied Avg. Home Sze in Sc 1,687 1,600 4xAlameda'scalculation. 2500
B'STabte 9 - Alameda Point angle Fanily Price Point Forecast (2013 -2020)
implied Fbal Price &owth between Table 4 & "Citywide Price Forecast "in Table 9 2% For theperiod between 2010 to 2014. 2%
0tywide Price Forecast @2014 $630,849 B'STable9; Pricing @2014
Alameda Point Premium 1.22 B'STable 9
Alameda Point Snide Family Rice Projection (Constant $) $769,636 Actual figureperEPSchart is$766,518; disrrepancydueto
BFScalculation error.
Implied Annual Inflation between Table 4 & Table 9 3% For theperiod between 2010 to 2014. 3%
Alameda Point Srxje Family Rice Projection (Nominal $/1,600 Sc) $862,722 BPSTable 9
$/Sc(in Nominal $ & Assuming All Fbsidential Avg. Unit Sze) $539 $417
HomePrioesAssrmingSCCAlameda Projected Avg. Home3zes
9ngleFamilyHomePriceAssuming 2,500 Sc& $539/9= $1,347,772 $1,041,863
B'S Table 9 - Alameda Point Point Forecast (2013- 2020)w/ Adjustmentsto Utilize Snde Family PridngT rroughout:
Gtywide Rice Forecast @ 2014 $721,867
Alameda Fbint Premium 1.22
Alameda Point Price Projection (Constant $/1,68793 $880,677
Alameda Point Price Projection (Nominal 8) $987,194
$/Sc(in Nominal $) $585
HomePricesAssiming =Alameda P ojecfedAvg. Horne9zes
Sngle FamityHomePriceAssuming 2,500 9=& $585/9= $1,462,554
59
fA 69
CO V
CO 0)
69 N CO
cri W N W
W N O
CL CL
v
cq
EA
O
O
- W
N
N
CO - ID
CT a
(D m
T.
Q.
(0
0
,Sd1 Jo uopurquAa
suopaa fo.Id anl!A au.Iog
a
0
69
y 69 69 69
N 69 O .N'`
U) Ui -a 0) -a co
01 co G) N N
as
v8.
u tU
[1 SA
• a
▪ co tr
FD-
8 90
`fla sz
• • 3 m`
• 5'
c `O
a
0
0
opus 3u!od epaweb
(s luelsucp) uopefo d
6, %»
Co 0)
✓ 6, N (0
V G) V 0)
N co N Off)
Q
Q. a.
SD CD
3
q3 3
c gi
3
O
N
<C3 CD
.;
O
a 4.
O 4
O E,
O 0)
Q
SU
c�
4
cD
O
cr
co
Q.
W
0
2
co
co
69
69
CO
W V
■
p
EL
< 2.
Oa • 71
N
3
N
O
g,
s.
0
N
Evaluation of EPS' Single Family Home Value Projections
EVALUATION OFB'SHOM EVAUJES1UDY -
Source>B'SRnal Report, Alameda Point Pro Forma Market Review dated 05-24-10
SX Alameda
B 'STable4 -Alameda MeaHousn.Values constant $2010) ,,,�yyam� DBOProforma
I Snge Family I All Re-;_;giall Comments I Snje Family I
Sales Price Per Unit $666,542 $582,500 Pricing @2010 C $900,000
$/g $395 $364 From B'SDraft Fbport dated 05/11/10 $360
Implied Avg. Home Sze in 9= 1,687 1,600Alameda`scalculation. 2,500
B'STable 9 - Alameda Point Snge Family Price Point Forecast (2013 -2020)
Implied Rat Rice t' owth between Tab/ e4 & "at ywideP-iceForecas! "in Table 9 For thep +d between 2010to2014.
Citywide Rice Forecast @2014 • • 1 849 B'STable 9; Pricin.. 1 •
Alameda Point Premium 1.22 BFSTabie9
Alameda Point Snr;le Family Rice Projection ((Instant $) .769,63. , Actual figure per El Scharf is$766,518; discrepancydueto
B Scalculation error.
Implied Annual Inflation between Table4 & Table 9 3% For theperiod baiween 2010 to 2014. 3%
Alameda Point Sncje Fanily Price Projection (Nominal $/1,6009) $862,722 IEPSTable 9
$/Sc(in Nominal $ & Assuming Alll*sdential Avg. Unit Sze) $539 $417
HomePricesAssuming9'XAlameda HnjectedAvg. Home Szes
9ngle Familyf Mme Price Aruming 2,500 S=& $539/9= $1,347,772 $1,041,863
B'STab1e 9 - Alameda Point Point Forecast (2013 -2020) w/ Adjustmentsto Utilize Snge Family PridngThrougimout:
Citywide Price Forecast @ 2014 $721,867
Alameda Point Premium 122
Alameda Point Price Projection (Constant $/1,6879 $880,677
Alameda Point Price Projection (Nominal $) $987,194
SAT fin Nominal $) $585
HomeRicesAssaming SCCAlamecla Projected Avg. HomeSzes
SngleFamityHomePriceAssuming 2,500 S=& $585/9= $1,462,554
Evaluation of EPS' Single Family Home Value Projections
tion of EPS' Single Family Hom
suoipafo.Jd anl'A
EVALUATION OFB'SHOM EVAWESiUDY
Source>B'SRnal Wport, Alameda Point Pro Forma Market Review dated 05 -24-10
a Alameda
B' STabie4- AlamedaMea Howl ngValues(c at $2010) DBDProforma
Snje Family All Re Comments Snrje Family 1
S3Ies Price Per Unit $666,542 $582,500 FYicing @2010 $900,000
$19 $395 $364 From BPSDraft FFport dated 05/11/10 $360
Implied Avg, Home Sze in S= 1,687 1,600 SXAIameda'scalculation. 2,500
B'STable 9 - Alameda Point Srxje Family Price Point Forecast (2013 -2020)
Implied F ofPrice Growth between Table4 & "Of ywide Price Forecaa "inTable9 For the p dba'ween2010to2014.
Otywide Rice Forecast @2014 • 1 849 EFSTable 9; Pricin• • _ •
Alameda Point Remium 122 SigTable •
Alameda Point Snje Family Price Projection (Constant $) '.769,63. Actual figure perB='Schart is$766,518; dixrepancy due to
lculation error.
Implied Annual inflation between Table4 & Table 9 For For th theperiod between 2010 to 2014.
Alameda Point Sncje Family Price Projection (Nominal $ /1,6009) $862,72 "` B'STable9
$/S =(in Nominal $ & Asgrming AU Reddential Avg. Unit Sx) $539 $417
HomePricesAssumingSXAlameda Projected Avg. Home3zes
Sng(eFami/yI-kmPriceAim,ng 2500 S& $539/ Sngle Family Home PriceAssuming Z500 $539/Sc $1,041,863.''
EPS Table 9 -Alameda Point Point Forec (2013- 2020) wt AcijustmentstoUtilizeSnge Family PriangThroutimout:
CltywidePrice Forecast @ 2014 $721,867
Alameda Point Premium 1.22
Alameda Point Price Projection (Cbndant $/1,687 SF) $880,677
Alameda Point Price Projection (Nominal $) $987,194
$/S=(in Nominal $) $585
Home PvicesAssrming =Alameda PYojededAvg. HomeSrzes
SngleFamilyHomePriceAssrming 2,500 S=& $585/S= $1,462,554
g
a
E c
2. O O
CDC ' CD �s 0 _ _ ■-■•.1 �•�
vD
�Q cn.0 o a.. CD
'* Ly at,
cn )--1.) CD .A -h • CD C 6.� n p v' n
O
CD rt vO. CD `CS g
o lyCD ca. '"'' 0_∎ —• p
O gy CD CD rIL
CD p
`-'cicDp� �'
�° o,o73D2
o o 0
71/) � do
o�a���,��corcu
00 t7_CDO
Ro • BCD g
opa,
CD
SCC Alameda Home Value Premium Study
3aaaprle...Mffi
E$99
Eaiee &.
389288..8
88E
56Yt8 upo
SX$
$6
°,
I
g
aa
P
t r
ens
f' 8
C$Y:
8$8
8 $
p
r
aAi s.R.S tf
z
,St bl
«8pS
8_
888.3$888
88 8
"d$, do:S
p$8E W!!Y� -z�zY 7hMSJN.
e E�$$E$ �
is :
}}±±
M$8f
«_ «.. .. ... # «M � '
3f:$9E3 :
$ E $ 8$8
o$aMoti •'• p
s
�
-
ffi8$fdE8k8E..88
3 0
$88
£BSS a,.8E2S$
. , you PO
El V
0
aR'«SSf
8
88
-
8$3 8
oc
F a-c i nab
$88E8$.3
o y+pooaooaoW
&:imeg
� 0 4
cS
3�
CC Y
s..
,
d
gB R$f$a$88
.33
• ss8888
8'.2a8
Sf
p$
-
=
8 8
' $'
E
a E
$}
yp
L
8
&
£
pg
S
i
$$884t$i38$88A
88Bfi8£88A�$�8
.. ..
_
$$$.$$$y3
gQ
ddS
.y.; `_
pg Qg
3
t�
J
E
t88$E
Yar
SSSS$88
$.
8.8'
••..
g
Y,.---
tB$
wFa
8
�
rQ
8$'
p
f
8 °#
8
ti
31 w
}'3#tsi$
S SG
8 $S
,
822k8
gggg
$ #$
EBBa
yy
s
G.,�
p pg
i:F
g
!
2-8
°"t;
fiv
83yQ
-8_
g
f �
: #
8 88E 82E
888 %8&
«.0 ., ,.n
g
Ss� '7r.
�8
y
88'8
gpp
Dfffid
8 e
g8
i
s55
.y„
{°
g$
SCC Alameda Home Value Premium Study
6 0
C
E
C
112
T.V3m 7CITTPOONXIIrnr,
01605- (O'cor,E190'?.W6(5
t3Lo! Ve137.i717.9 °.7;
m-...m
a ,.,...0 IF-.C3s4-D v55660 5
o r'w - 006005- -int,-
ir7v00 f_v"-,Nu6tioN"
ar
..n P
:;: rn- 1 :
t5 77Jz-TIQI z gum ,low
_crle104.1 '74tNit, ; c.
im, w
':6It'Iti?"6.0- z
'1:7,-'10. °I 1150ilt °,-`• tO fl'-'1 D P-in
.., w fu ..
il ■ 4) q n
-
ocioE
tototo
Ci , 0 -.
_ os,,t6005.
-2560mi
. „co
i.3.1Dur,tg
e t• !)°
Poo "
'"IiNI
olz.ot
0 3
m1,0
0
OpolDmO, 04
O rr3 '0 o R!" g. cci4 C6i 2N
A 4, •. h.) R 7-. 673 =' ct ?). tb`e
513 7 -
L
ul4m*
0 0T44.0N) 400W44N44-4 ,4N 440 0 40:01/D1P
WO N-44NPOOON-,NNN040,,i:1-44000 '2,-iiin?!"
10W0.4 , , •' • • • • • I • I , , I . , t
7o0 ea_
,04,,..4„mutomTc.,14000ws4A00-(4„014NoN,
v, 40 1 -4,410N‘..40WOUNO-,0010W.P4N,40W0■400-4, 35-CT D)D(
q 0"
..z.rw,-- ' •-■ 0
...A't
if) aa$ 06
mo....,m
ton,D7 0;
-• o --j , ..,..., _., A .-0 r
d'-1 OW-, QNJ -1,N4-400-10 y194TwN..w4 1 onagi0o 'D
Pi":, 30
4.401*40.44)PINC00•400000WOMM"04WO" g
7i,V,'Icsci Rg
0 OP 4-1"IMMI000MT'40NWPO0NOWUMWMON 0
,flem:00.,....401.iicorlimulor000Nmmo4mtoom-qu-4 erj 0 - t.,1" 3 06
:.E...2..0 oT
m • 3'5 ''''''
:a
4
.. kir,P.LOZ C“
O 4 onwo o3
7
,
ot,q(ig Ya
till
_ I : 1 I 0111 i I I , ■ I I t i i k s i i 1 t i I 1 i I (-4("3 ' (1)°°) 3
O A
ilttIP/Iorili!!!!III!IMMM-4A0 or
*V)
'0,:—.-,:•• -e0C▪ = '
liqT,-cy
5 CID
5, 0 j a COD
0
, •
VI
-
'i.
alt4
0 cm,m‘
in
irt 4)
•,. 0 r9 A ,k .t ,A 4.4 ..i Nj IQ CD NJ
-.AM.A. MO 01,1MWM.41O0M4(04M0,4,4 NI4t0400A.14.!.v 0
-. O.
11)-aW s0,4 ON0050000NOWD70"0'00nMtOMMW-" Z..1
...............,. ....,—.
OW-10 04-4 6.4.-"OMOM000W000,J4-4W"N4N000-4 e
M40N 0401WK,N40MML30001.0+10000MPO.NIMN r
0
uoi uamon f IsoD pa
Economic & Planning Systems, Mc. 1/28/2009
ci) r---, .----. ..--.
Cra IV --A,
o
▪ > co co
O D A) Di
O 0 (n
P. 0
< CD ID
CO
C ill 0 0
, (0 =
0 'a 5
O 0 rn 0
o
-., m- CO
1- CD Z cc,
re c-, ......
g 0 re rp
C/)
5' 7 ea< z- -
ci a— o
5'
.51? ea o) co
5*
oa 5 . 5 co
ra.)
0. re • co 0
o) 6 0 g
a
* C.
E o ▪ 3
o
0
.-,.. 0
co
6 53. (03
a
CD ID p (1,
Co (I)
Cl) ua ca
Cl) a .
0: * m
r) ..-
n ii3
.
= 5' 0 .
En'
O 0 0
3 Co 0
O 5' Zil,
3? =
re C.
5' 5
co 6— c
P
5—
0.
CD
.?1
0
le
Di
ri
C
C)'
N
al
0
0
=
0
6
0
17
eY
D
rot
0
0
g
3
.56
5—
0-4 0'1 ON)
•'< I
CD '`.< '< *.<
CD CD CD CD
--t
< CDCDA)
CD < <
E; co al
2.1 c0
CD CCI
(D CD CD
cs)
(0 b) b)
eeee
N.) G.) PO CZ
b b L-1
e
poUaad °Lail
5—
Di
0
>
(i).
co (0
:g
o
o
ch
m
co
>
-o Foi
0
— o
m
cn
-4 A)
r•J cr;
0
5
CD
U)
m
C)
o(I)
0
1<
CD
0
CD
10>
_s.
Economic & Planning Sys..tems, Inc. 1/28/2009
g'
0
C
0 ▪ D CD ID
CD CA u,
Cl) o)
< CD CD
03
c 13 o o
53 co =
c o rp a)
o
-.), Bt.' co s.
r CD z co
a)
cr 0
0 ▪ a) a) 2
6
...
0
ZIT E 0
F5' , CDC
=
D.
▪ (7) 0 g
00 c
"D
co) • 3 3 D
0-
a) a) a) 0
CD 9 0
a)
Cf) 0 M
7 * 71
5.
ki 3 ET)
=
. o
= 5.
co
o c el
3 Cl) 0
0 ZS
5 P
a.
o
.?1
CI
o
Et
0
c
..m:'
rn
0
0
=
0
3
cic
Fa- -
Z
=
C0
07
cf)
(7)
3
0 01 c)
.3( ) &Ca
• a.)
<51) 113 al
CD < <
(1)
CO ED1 (-11)
CD C0 (0 t0
CD CD CD
Gr1
,4 b
eeee
4=+ (71
io Zs) b)
e 8.'74
Polled Wail
z
o
-a 3,
o 5 !
cr) :
o
0
E)
FIT
1
—
c c
:9:
() Li ImolD meld
CD
7J a.
CD
(.17;
0 o..
3 >
17,
co
CD
A)
CD
cr
I-v alqui sda
600V8271. •swersy•s Boutte id 2 Opel/Jon:3
0
-n Cn
00
-g o
o >
o '0 03
0
'gz g
SD CL
12
a? ' Zt3 17 ,..3 . 7: 1
• .--0...- .....- ........
C) 0 CD CD
CD M 01
m SD CD CD
„ <
rD CI Ct.
CO
C ill 00
-1 (0 0
c 0 (/) (I)
o • a: 0
-..
I— (1) z to
a) 0:
o- 0 a) (I)
o
-, tn 0 a)
(J) 9) il)
'6
F
= (D CO
0
C) a) =
T Co Ei 5' 2
= 0 5 <
0. 11, CD ID
SD 07 0 g
a_
Q. F.3. 0 3
o
o
0 3
i-) 5' a S''
w D3 D.) <0
cn (/)
I' UC1 a)
Cl) 8 =
7 * m
.-cTI 5
i3
= 5 0
o c 0
3 cn o
0 5' al
7.1
'' o
c
A' a.
O 5' =
5
o.
o
21
0
tb
0
c
5'
rn
0
3
F").
-13
5
to
C,)
tn
3
cn
C) CP C)
CD
11) (I) CO CD
to
Sll
CD < D)
<< <
1
(0
a) (0 (0 (C)
0) 4) CD
4h. CP) CP
'CO ir)
g-i! 8Z 8Z 8Z
.00
o'4Z 7EA
C> 4s, CO PO
CO b.1 iA)
Zisg
0
a C
OLUIL
() 1-ilmoi0 ee
I-1/ awl saa
3
rt4
4.47,
'41
C
(01
r=A scrA 1=A:
to
LP 1 ' 4,
I
NJ NS NS NS N3
-;j
MMC1MM
MOMMM
(0 (4 N 04 C0
c3
0 0 at 0 0
tJ tj tJ tO tO
. .
0 -4 co
f.A ( 00 4
at 0 at at at
N' po p3
0 (0 0 4 C4
0 0 0 0 0
5L1 5)
0 '4 0 0 at
SpUGUili.SOD U01
uol z alqui &la
Construction Cost Trends
-43
04 C44 t,4 64 64
64 03 b in
ag ag a1 at ag
Po Po
o4 ** 6*
Ir
04 1.0 C4 (4
c,o m m
ag 0 at at ag
po to co
6 ft? CD 4 in
0 0 0 0 0
op pp p
, 6
41 at 41 ag ag
03
uorJ z awl Sd1
erm Construction Cost Trends
co
r4
3
W Pi i7P
at 0 0 0 0
Fo
fl 1 CII .1
W
W 'CA
ag ag ag ag ag
Po r-J Po Po
0th 10 0
OOPPP
a/ a/ al 0 at
03
clic"Z
onIZaI am', sag
Construction Cost Trends
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
2501 Ninth Street, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710 -2515
510 841 9190 tel
510 841 9208 fax
Berkeley
Sacramento
Denver
www.epsys.com
MEMORANDUM
To: Jennifer Ott, City of Alameda
From: James Musbach and Michael Nimon
Subject: Response to SunCal's Comments on May 24, 2010 Final
Report, Alameda Point Pro Forma Market Review, prepared
by EPS; EPS #14012
Date: June 29, 2010
This memorandum augments the Alameda Point Pro Forma Market
Review conducted by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) for the
City of Alameda on May 24, 2010, and responds to SunCal's June 1
Alameda City Council presentation and letter to the City titled "Response
to Comments on 'Modified Optional Entitlement Agreement. " These
documents raised several issues related to the EPS market review
findings which are addressed in this memorandum.
The EPS Pro Forma Market Review report documents our
recommendations for key pro forma assumptions and provides data,
research, and analysis underpinning those recommendations. The EPS
Market Review report provides current market information as well as a
review of past data and estimates of potential future trends.
SunCal's response to the EPS market review relies on data selectively
pulled from different reports done over the last several years, including
data from preliminary drafts that was subsequently revised, in order to
refute EPS's recommendations. Moreover, in many cases their
arguments do not adequately take account of the significant changes in
the real estate markets that have taken place as a result of the
unprecedented recession of the last several years. Consequently, EPS
believes that many of their assumptions are not supported by sound
data and analysis. Each point in SunCal's response is addressed below.
CC /ARRA/CIC
Exhibit 4 to
P:1140005114012a, Agenda Item #3 -B
07 -07 -10
Memorandum
Response to SunCal's Alameda Point Market Analysis and Feasibility Study Comments
June 29, 2010
Page 2
Single- Family Home Sales Prices
SunCal states that EPS used average per -unit home sales consisting of average unit sizes of
approximately 1,600 square feet to calculate the projected value for single - family homes at
Alameda Point, which in their view would result in higher values given the larger units of 2,500
square feet proposed for Alameda Point.
This is not correct. EPS' projected single - family home values for 2,500- square foot homes at
Alameda Point are based on and consistent with Bayport single - family home sales that averaged
2,433 square feet per unit based on recent listings and are further supported by the recently sold
Grand Marina Village units that averaged approximately 2,300 square feet.
Table 1 below displays the square foot calculation. The EPS calculation of values per square
foot uses 2,500 square feet, not the 1,600- square foot average which is asserted in SunCal's
comments.
Table 1
Comparison of Single - Family Price Estimates*
EPS Alameda Point (2014) $860,000 per unit
SunCal Alameda Point (2014) $1,042,000 per unit
2,500 sq.ft. $344 /sq.ft. **
2,500 sq.ft. $417 / sq.ft.
Bayport Sale Listings (2010)
Listing 1 $750,000 per unit 2,000 sq.ft. $375 /sq.ft.
Listing 2 $649,000 per unit 2,219 sq.ft. $292 /sq.ft.
Listing 3 $849,000 per unit 3,150 sq.ft. $270 / sq.ft.
Listing 4 $749,500 per unit 2,361 sq.ft. $317 / sq.ft.
Bayport Average $749,375 per unit 2,433 sq.ft. $314 /sq.ft.
**
Excludes options and premiums.
SunCal assumed a 1,600 square foot unit when calculating EPS's average price for an Alameda
Point single - family unit, resulting in $539 / sq.ft. rather than the $344 /sq.ft. shown in this table.
SunCal data does not support its proposed pricing. SunCal has provided:
• Market analysis conducted in 2008 by Mark Company and the Concord Group recommending
single - family prices of $1 million. SunCal subsequently assumed $900,000. However, even
though the market has since declined significantly, SunCal has not modified its pricing.
• SunCal's 2009 price data for the Alameda, Berkeley, and Oakland areas showing prices for
new single - family units ranging between $424,300 and $605,000 per unit or $276 per square
foot. For comparison, this value would translate into a price of $690,000 per unit for
P: 114000s114012alapoin t\Corresk14012m,n062910. doc
Memorandum
Response to SunCal's Alameda Point Market Analysis and Feasibility Study Comments
June 29, 2010
Page 3
Alameda Point based on SunCal's single - family home size of 2,500 square feet. SunCal does
not document how or why a significantly higher price is justified at Alameda Point.
EPS based its price forecast on a review of Bayport sales and listings over time. These prices are
also supported by recent sales at Grand Marina. EPS compared Bayport prices to citywide prices
and determined that Bayport units commanded a 20 to 22 percent price advantage over average
sales prices for all for -sale units in the City of Alameda. This is due not only to location and
amenities, but also the larger average size of Bayport units.
EPS assumed that Alameda Point single - family units would command a price similar to Bayport,
plus an additional premium for Alameda Point's amenities (see discussion below). EPS
forecasted citywide growth in prices based on regional population and income growth, assuming
market stabilization. Alameda Point prices are assumed to maintain a 20 to 22 percent price
advantage over projected average citywide prices for all units. The analysis of single - family
home price growth also provides a basis for price forecasts for single - family attached units.
Forecasting home prices is difficult given the uncertainty of a wide range of market and financial
factors impacting future prices. While the EPS market assessment suggests that SunCal's single -
family home price estimates are highly optimistic, EPS will conduct sensitivity analysis to test the
implications for Alameda Point feasibility if the market experiences a stronger than expected
recovery or Alameda Point is able to command a higher than expected premium in the
marketplace.
Additional Price Premiums
SunCal projects that single - family price premiums at Alameda Point will reach as high as 11.5
percent of home values and that EPS's premium assumptions of 1 percent are too low. Sun Cal
initially provided no support for its assumptions but recently submitted additional documentation
which EPS has reviewed.
EPS assumes that an additional premium averaging 1 percent would be applied to forecasted
detached single - family home values, compared to Bayport - equivalent homes. This implies that
homes closer to the waterfront will obtain higher premiums, while other homes, such as the ones
facing Hangars or other dilapidated buildings, especially in the first phases of the Project, may
result in no or negative premiums. These premiums are in addition to the base price which
already reflects the advantages associated with a new master - planned community such as
Bayport. This assumption is more conservative relative to SunCal's average premium of about 5
percent above its base price for single - family detached units applied to already high home prices
of $1,042,000 by 2014.
With these price premiums, EPS estimates detached single - family home values of about
$870,000 by 2014, 21 percent below SunCal's estimate of $1,097,000 per unit (before
considering options that would result in additional value increase). By 2020, these values
increase to $1,120,000 and $1,470,000 respectively, a difference of nearly 25 percent. While
EPS is not in agreement with SunCal's 5 percent price premium assumptions for single - family
detached units, it will conduct sensitivity analysis of the premium range in the Alameda Point
feasibility analysis. EPS is in general agreement with SunCal regarding increasing premiums for
higher density multifamily products that are more likely to have view premiums.
P: \ 14000s114012al apoint\Corres114012mm062910.doc
Memorandum
Response to SunCal's Alameda Point Market Analysis and Feasibility Study Comments
Construction Costs
June 29, 2010
Page 4
SunCal assumes single - family direct construction cost of $105 per square foot in 2010 escalating
to $115 by 2014. SunCal provided a list of construction projects in the Bay Area that support
this cost for single- family units, although detail about these projects, such as home values and
construction type, has not been provided.
EPS bases its single - family direct construction cost recommendations on various industry sources
including standard industry cost - estimating sources and review of pro forma analyses for
prevailing wage projects. Prevailing wage projects generally result in construction costs that are
20 to 25 percent above non - prevailing wage costs. SunCal indicated that it adjusted survey data
to reflect prevailing wage - equivalent costs; however, this adjustment is not explicit in its data.
While construction costs of $100 to $110 per square foot may be reasonable for lower -end units,
higher - quality construction, such as units planned for Alameda Point forecasted to sell at a
significant premium above the citywide market prices, are estimated to cost in the range of $115
to $125 per square foot. These construction costs translate into costs of $130 per square foot by
2014, the first year that residential units would be developed. While the difference between the
EPS recommendations and SunCal assumptions is initially relatively insignificant, the impact on
the overall land sale revenues is substantial over the buildout of the Project, especially given the
difference in annual rate of cost escalation. This difference for single - family direct construction
costs is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Comparison of Alameda Point Single -
Fam ily Detached Direct Construction Costs
$170 -
$150 -
$130 -
$110
Difference: $15
per square foot
Difference: $23
per square foot
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
- EPS Cost Estimate (per sq.ft.) SunCal Cost Estimate (per sq.ft.)
There are many factors that contribute to uncertainty about future construction costs and their
forecasting, such as specific detail about construction type, economic and real estate market
shifts, and capital market changes. While EPS is not in agreement with SunCal's direct
construction cost estimates for single- family homes, it will conduct sensitivity analysis of lower
P:\14000.5\14012alapointWorres\14012mm062910.doc
Memorandum
Response to SunCal's Alameda Point Market Analysis and Feasibility Study Comments
June 29, 2010
Page 5
construction costs and their impacts on the Alameda Point feasibility analysis. Construction costs
per square foot vary by product type, with higher - density units generally costing more per
square foot than single - family units.
Absorption
SunCal assumes an average annual rate of absorption of 454 market -rate units or an overall
annual rate of absorption of 605 units (including below- market -rate units). This implies that
SunCal will sell the land to builders who will build and sell 454 market -rate units a year or more
than one unit per day. SunCal has not provided adequate support for its absorption schedule.
EPS recommends a rate of absorption ranging between 300 and 350 market -rate units a year.
As described in EPS's Alameda Point Pro Forma Market Review analysis (May 24, 2010), the
assumptions are based on estimates of projected market demand and competitive supply of
product similar to what is proposed in Alameda Point. The analysis considers factors such as a
likely number of builders, typical builder rates, absorption for other comparable projects, and the
context of local and regional projections. These assumptions translate into construction and
sales of homes by five to seven builders simultaneously, assuming an average of up to 60 sales
per year or just over one sale a week. This rate of sale is consistent with historic trends.
While SunCal has not provided any support for its more aggressive annual absorption rate of 390
to 450 units, SunCal's June 1 letter indicates that it is willing to reduce its annual absorption
forecast. Reduction of residential absorption would have an adverse impact on Project financial
returns as the timing of the overall development would be prolonged.
Home Value Appreciation
SunCal assumes real appreciation of 2 percent above inflation on home prices, or 5 percent
annually (if inflation is 3 percent). SunCal supports this assumption by referring to an EPS
analysis in 2008. However, EPS has since revised its estimate in light of the de- leveraging in the
real estate market since 2008, and its likely long -term impact on price appreciation, relative to
household incomes. As noted above for home prices, SunCal continues to assume prices and
appreciation based on outdated market information, reflecting unsustainable home appreciation.
EPS considers a number of standard industry sources in its Pro Forma Market Review to support
its recommendations for home value appreciation. These sources include the Case - Schiller
index, RAND, and DataQuick. EPS's recommendation for Alameda Point includes real home price
appreciation of between 1.3 and 1.5 percent a year.
SunCal's own market data for new single - family home sales in Alameda, Oakland, and Berkeley
shows real appreciation of between -0.8 and 0.8 percent between 1989 and 2009, which is
significantly below SunCal's current assumptions. While choosing different time periods could
yield different results based on market shifts over time, EPS recommendations reflect normalized
market conditions and are based on data reflecting at least one full economic cycle. For
instance, EPS does not end its time period in 2007, which would substantially overestimate
appreciation by excluding recent declines.
P: 114000s114012alapoint \Corres114012mm062910. doc
Memorandum
Response to SunCal's Alameda Point Market Analysis and Feasibility Study Comments
June 29, 2010
Page 6
SunCal's current pro forma assumptions reflect an optimistic real appreciation rate of 2.0 percent
annually throughout the Project buildout period and beyond and no cost escalation above
inflation (see further discussion below), which result in aggressive projections of land value
increases over time. While SunCal has not provided any independent support for these
assumptions, its recent submittal to the City utilizes prior drafts of the EPS analysis conducted
several years ago during substantially different market conditions. Information presented by
SunCal on June 1 reflects outdated market assumptions made during (or near) the peak of the
real estate market, which, in retrospect, was being fueled by unsound lending practices that are
not likely to recur. In addition, SunCal calculates historical average appreciation by averaging
overlapping time periods, which is not mathematically correct. For example, an annual growth
rate over a 5 -year period between 2002 and 2007 cannot be averaged with a 10 -year growth
rate between 1997 and 2007.
Figure 2 illustrates a comparison of single - family home values forecasted by EPS and SunCal
over Project buildout. The SunCal single - family home price forecast increases to $1.4 million by
2020 and assumes increases at 5 percent a year over development of the Project.
Figure 2: Alameda Point Single- Family Detached Home Price
Forecast Comparision (per unit, nominal $)
$1,400,000 -
$1,200,000 -
iQ
$1,000,000 -
$800,000
Difference:
$226,000 per unit
Difference:
$350,000 per unit
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019 2020
- -r -- EPS Forecast, no premiums
s - -- SunCal Forecast, no premiums ----w—SunCal Forecast, with premiums
—EPS Forecast, with premiums
Cost Escalation
SunCal assumes no escalation of vertical development costs above inflation. SunCal has not
provided any independent analysis of this assumption but cites earlier EPS analysis showing that
costs have been less than inflation over a 37 -year period and 0.5 percent above inflation over
the past 10 years. EPS is using the more conservative and recent average.
EPS considers a number of standard industry sources in its Pro Forma Market Review to support
its recommendations for cost escalation rates over time. These sources include the ENR
Construction Cost indices. EPS's recommendation for Alameda Point includes cost escalation of
P;1 14000s{ 14012al apointtcorres114012mm062910.doc
Memorandum
Response to SunCal's Alameda Point Market Analysis and Feasibility Study Comments
June 29, 2010
Page 7
between 0.3 and 0.5 percent above inflation. This recommendation is based on the most current
trends as documented in the Pro Forma Market Review and is reflective of detailed analysis of
cost indices.
Improved Land Value
SunCal projects current land values in Alameda Point to range between $4.0 million and $7.7
million for single- family uses, depending on density; multifamily land prices fall within this range.
These values are projected to grow at this rate year after year, compounding over the course of
the Project buildout. However, SunCal provided information of recently completed projects in
Southern California that indicate significantly lower land values, which contradicts SunCal's
current pro forma assumptions.
EPS reviewed comparable land sales before the market downturn. EPS also conducted residual
land value analysis to estimate potential land values that could be supported by the Alameda
Point development. These values are likely to fall in the $2.0 million to $5.3 million range
varying by land use, assuming that land values recover to normalized pre- recession levels. EPS
estimates single - family land values at about $3.6 million per acre by 2014 based on the
assumptions described above.
Two recent SunCal projects in Southern California provided to the City in May 2010 support
lower land values. These projects support residual land values ranging between $2.0 million and
$2.5 million per acre, significantly below the $3.6 million per acre estimated by EPS. For
comparison, SunCal's current pro forma assumptions for Alameda Point translate into finished
land values above $5.0 million per acre for single - family uses in 2014 or $4.2 million per acre
today.
Figure 3 shows the comparison of single- family land values forecasted by EPS to land values
forecasted by SunCal over the buildout of the Alameda Point Project.
Figure 3: Alameda Point Single - Family Detached Finished
Land Value Comparision (per unit, nominal $)
$800,000
$700,000 -
$600,000 -
$500,000 -
$400,000 -
$300,000
Difference:
$133,000 per
unit
Difference:
$220,000 per
unit
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
—o— EPS Forecast
- SunCal Forecast
P:\ 140005\ 14012al apointlCorres114012mm062910.doc
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
2501 Ninth Street, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710-2515
510 8,11 9190 tel
510 841 9208 tax
Berkeley
Sacramento
Denver
www.epsys.com
Final Report
Alameda Point Financial Feasibility
Analysis
Prepared for:
City of Alameda
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
June 2010
EPS #14012
CC/ARRA/CIC
Exhibit 6 to
Agenda Rem #3-B
07-07-10
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION AND KEY FINDINGS 1
Summary of Findings 1
2. LAND USE PROGRAM 4
3. BASELINE ANALYSIS AND MODIFIED ASSUMPTIONS 5
Baseline Analysis 5
Modified Assumptions 5
Structural Changes 5
Horizontal (Land Developer) Revenues 6
Horizontal (Land Developer) Costs 8
Vertical Pro Forma Revenues 9
Vertical Pro Forma Costs 10
4. PUBLIC FINANCE 11
Mello -Roos Community Facilities District 11
Tax Increment Financing 11
5. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 14
Potential Changes to Key Assumptions 14
Base home prices for single - family detached and attached units 14
Residential unit price premiums 14
Direct construction costs for single - family detached and attached units 14
List of Tables
Table 1: Alameda Point Feasibility Summary 3
Table 2: Comparison of Financial Analysis Differences 6
Table 3: Comparison of Vertical Pro Forma Assumption Differences by Residential Density
($2014) 7
Table 4: Alameda Point Public Finance Assumptions 12
Table 5: Sensitivity Analysis Summary 15
INTRODUCTION AND KEY FINDINGS
This report describes EPS's key findings, assumptions, and approach to evaluating the financial
feasibility of the Alameda Point Density Bonus Option redevelopment (Project) proposed by
SunCal (Developer). Alameda Point presents unique development opportunities and challenging
financial requirements. The purpose of financial feasibility analyses is to evaluate the viability of
the financial investment in the Project to ensure that the ultimate Plan reflects a development
program which can be achieved. The feasibility analysis will also help the City to structure a
partnership with the private sector understanding the risk associated with a significant level of
public investment into the Project.
Because feasibility analysis relies upon estimates of future market values and costs, it must
utilize the best data available at the time to foresee likely future dynamics in the real estate and
financial markets. It is important in underwriting a large - scale, multi - phased development
project that pro forma assumptions be conservative so that likely financial outcomes are not
overstated, and that risks are appropriately evaluated. Therefore, this analysis employs
conservative assumptions to avoid overstating the feasibility of the Plan. The actual Project cash
flow will depend on the timing, use, and extent of public financing options, the timing and actual
costs of site development investments, and the rate of absorption and achievable values of new
development and rehabilitated buildings. Phasing of improvements will need to be adaptable to
changing market conditions and specific development and tenanting opportunities.
Summary of Findings
1. SunCal's Density Bonus Option pro forma relies upon consistently optimistic
assumptions which likely overstate the Project's financial returns, and still
produces only a marginally feasible development. The Developer's financial plan
reflects a number of very optimistic assumptions regarding home prices, appreciation,
market absorption, construction costs and other factors. Nevertheless, the pro forma
produces a Project return of 20 percent, which is at the low end of the range for a feasible
development as defined by SunCal, who is seeking returns of between 20 and 25 percent. If
the Developer utilized more conservative assumptions, the Project would generate an
unacceptable return for SunCal, which suggests that the Project might not go forward or that
some of the financial and community benefits reflected in the pro forma might not be
realized.
2. The Density Bonus Option at Alameda Point does not result in a feasible Project
assuming more conservative market and development assumptions. EPS's analysis
utilizes a conservative set of assumptions that EPS believes are appropriate for underwriting
a Project with the market risks, complexity, and the long time horizon of the Project. The
assumptions tested, which are described in the subsequent chapter, result in the Project IRR
of negative 11.9 percent if all of the more conservative assumptions are realized, as shown in
Table 1. Comparison of the differences between EPS and SunCal assumptions is
summarized in Table 2.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
1 P:\ 14000s114012a /apoint\data\Market Data2010\ Report \14012Feasibltity063010.doc
Alameda Point Financial Feasibility Analysis
Draft Report 6/29/10
3. EPS tested the impact of certain key Sun Cal assumptions. These assumptions include
higher home values and lower construction costs for single - family attached and detached
units as well as other residential unit types, and higher price premiums. Optimistic
assumptions about these factors result in the IRR of 14.0 percent, still below the 20 to 25
percent range required to support the feasibility of the Project.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
2 P:\14000s\14012alapoint\ data\Market Data2010\ Report114012Feasibr lity063010.doc
Table 1
Alameda Point Feasibility Summary
Alameda Point Redevelopment; EPS #14012
Item
Total (2010 - 2026) NPV at 20%
(nominal $$)
Revenues
Residential Land Sales $610,489,108 $106,734,080
Commercial Land Sales $101,485,742 $20,158,722
Public Financing $407,266,287 $59,275,145
Other Revenue $72,467,489 $18,733,368
Total Revenues $1,191,708,626 $204,901,315
Expenditures
Land Acquisition $150,272,033 $22,154,828
Public Facilities /Service Costs $287,750,192 $60,300,828
Direct Infrastructure Costs $583,028,610 $131,603,042
Indirect Infrastructure Costs $344,225,895 $81,055,896
Total Costs $1,365,276,729 $295,114,593
Net Profit
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
($173,568,103)
-11.9%
($90,213,278)
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
3
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6/30/2010 P:114000s114012alapointllnifiativelMode6l4012fiscall3 densitybonus061610 RLVCompund.xls
2. LAND USE PROGRAM
Alameda Point Density Bonus Option reflects development of 4,845 residential units, 4.2 million
square feet of commercial space, and 260,000 square feet of civic uses. In addition, a range of
public facility improvements is also assumed, including a new sports complex, relocation of a
ferry terminal, new park and bike trail space, new school and library facilities, fire station
upgrades, transit /TDM improvements, and land dedication for a new corporate yard.
While a market study for the commercial program as part of the Density Bonus Option has not
been conducted, it is worth noting that the commercial program in Alameda Point has been
increased by SunCal from 3.0 million to 4.2 million square feet while timing has not been
adjusted. This implies that commercial program absorption is 33 percent faster than SunCal's
previous plans.
While EPS has adopted SunCal's annual commercial absorption projections for the purpose of this
analysis, these assumptions are considered optimistic and should be studied in additional detail
in the future. If the commercial program does not build out as projected, land revenues and
public finance proceeds will be less than currently estimated.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
4 P:114000s}14012alapoint}data }Market Data2010} Report114012Feasib llity063010.doc
3. BASELINE ANALYSIS AND MODIFIED ASSUMPTIONS
Baseline Analysis
EPS prepared a financial model for the Alameda Point Project that considers project costs and
revenues annually over a 17 -year period. The financial feasibility analysis evaluates the capital
flow from the perspective of a master development entity that would prepare the site for new
development, rehabilitate historic resources, and provide public amenities. Major revenues
generated by these investments include land sales and public financing sources such as Mello -
Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) bond proceeds and Tax Increment Financing (TIF). The
cash flow analysis evaluates the internal rate of return (IRR) as the key feasibility measure. The
returns are expressed as "unlevered," that is, before accounting for the effects of private
financing.
EPS reviewed SunCal's Density Bonus Option Plan, 2008 financial analysis pro forma (prepared
for NAVY discussions), and SunCal's Project pro forma tables provided to the City and EPS based
on SunCal's revisions in its financial analysis associated with the Density Bonus Option proposed
for Alameda Point. EPS's financial feasibility analysis simulates a "Baseline" picture of SunCal's
financial analysis and is based on review of prior versions of SunCal's Project pro forma provided
to EPS. It is worth noting that EPS's analysis and methodology differ from SunCal's and the EPS
"Baseline" results will be similar but not identical to SunCal using similar assumptions.
EPS implemented a number of revisions to SunCal's Project pro forma structure and assumptions
in order to adequately reflect necessary development, market, and economic risks. EPS's
assumptions are based on meetings with SunCal and City staff, detailed review of SunCal's
assumptions and their comparison to prior submittals, and EPS's independent market research,
such as EPS's May 24, 2010 Final Report titled Alameda Point Pro Forma Market Review. A
comparison of the differences between EPS and SunCal assumptions is organized into structural
changes, horizontal revenues and costs, and vertical pro forma assumption changes, as
described below. These changes are illustrated in Tables 2 and 3.
Modified Assumptions
Structural Changes
1. Established 2010 as the first year of the cash flow
SunCal structures its annual cash flow starting in 2007. Changing the first year to 2010
reflects the analysis time frame of the feasibility assessment today rather than in the past.
This change results in improvement of the Project return.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
5 P: 114000s \14012alapoint\data\Market Data2010\ Report \14012Feasibility063010.doc
SunCal Assumption
EPS Assumption*
0
0.
0
0) 0 0
▪ (N C
0 c
0).
-00
CA. 0 et 0
O " C
0.4z e
Lc,
co
ID
tr•-•
>,
.c
a)
o>
co >,
o co 0
• c o
O o
o
co c
c
/-3) g g
ul 0 F.: -5
2
O • 0
O 000
—
O • 000
c
f'7) 7) 2
2 2 2
4- 13
C C C <
Structural Chan
Horizontal Costs
0
0
EF/
C's1 <1. (0
6
see Table 3
0
c
a)
.0 0)
co E
c
o E
—
*TO
S 0-
ED_ To 'D
o. >
a To
< >
0)I E
o
E
To co .—
>
co
T:r.
o ) }CO}
2
a.
0
0
0
0
C',.1 `1- 10
t t-
*Assumes a conservative estimate for forecasting purposes.
• 0
c
• „
0
E
E -c
o
o • 0.
• 8
c
co
>.0
t"'
O .12 m
0.
CV (0
O '0
0• 9
a)
O 0
°
To-
=
c 0(n
c
c • 0
co
c
O 0
CD • 0)
01(1)
CO 0:1
CO 03
▪ CNI
Sources: SunCal Financing Plan; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
P: 114000s114012alapointllnitiativelMode1114012fisca ll3 densitybonus061610 RLVCompund.xls
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6/30/2010
-4`
<NI
C
C
C.)
C
E (NI
CD
v)
E 0.
0 -0
L..
CI.
C.)
iE
a:
> 2
C
C
0a.
(tS
C•1)
C)
0-
25 E E
ro 43 co
<
SunCal Assumption
EPS Assumption*
0 00
000
000
0
o 00
0.0-0
(0 0) a
(0N N-
Ce 69 ER
r•-• 0
(\i
Og 8g 8g
0. a. cp.
119 QD
N-
- C9
r r y-
0 0 (N
1.1)
v- (N
ER ER ER
o
E
=
E
a)
11.."
0 -0 +6' "0
0 a). a)
C0 To 13 (,) .c
0
= o
>0 c as
c i . E 0 0
--- >, o .
U)
C g)) *E u) --
0 i ,- ==
_ E <I Ili E U)
G)
o =asu)E 00u)E ca)u)E
..= 7-13 1-1- 0) 0 7+ U- 0) 0 0 I-1- CD 0
0.
E
0) 0) cl. -0 0) 0_ 1.5 co a
=
E -C, 0 ' (7) ..g.. = o 0 . c 0
0 u) C) F- w () C) F- ,!: OD 0 F-
w
7
Sources: SunCal Financing Plan; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
P: 114000s114012alapoint ilnitiativelModelt14012fiscal13 densitybonus061610 RLVCompund.xls
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6/30/2010
Alameda Point Financial Feasibility Analysis
Draft Report 6/29/10
Horizontal (Land Developer) Revenues
The Developer's returns primarily accrue from the sale of improved land (referred to as
"horizontal" development) to builders who will construct new buildings (also termed "vertical"
development) and rehabilitate historic structures.
2. Revised residential absorption schedule
SunCal assumes market -rate residential absorption of 454 units a year. EPS adjusted
SunCal's absorption rate to an average of about 330 market -rate units a year based on its
recommendations in the Alameda Point Pro Forma Market Review. This change has an
adverse impact on the Project return. The actual absorption schedule will vary by year and
is dependent on the number of builders, product diversity, and regional housing and
economic trends.
3. Excluded MARAD impact
SunCal's analysis reflects its retention of Maritime Administration (MARAD) subsequent to
conveyance of Alameda Point, including its operating revenues, operating costs, and sale
proceeds upon reversion. EPS's analysis assumes that MARAD would be retained by the
City and would not be included in the Developer's returns. This assumption is based on the
City's feedback and results in an adverse impact on the Project returns.
4. Revised marina - related impact
SunCal and EPS jointly conducted market research in January 2009 to estimate potential
land value for the marina at Alameda Point based on projected operating revenues and
costs. SunCal's Density Bonus Option Project pro forma has been changed to include a
higher estimate for potential marina proceeds relative to what was estimated in 2009. EPS
uses the joint 2009 approach in its analysis which results in adverse impact on the Project
return. EPS assumes a total of 600 marina slips.
Horizontal (Land Developer) Costs
5. Revised escalation of infrastructure costs
SunCal assumes that horizontal costs will increase at the annual rate of inflation of 3.0
percent during Alameda Point development. EPS assumes horizontal cost escalation of 3.5
percent a year, 0.5 percent above inflation. This cost is based on the ENR historic data for
infrastructure costs provided by the Public Works Department. This change results in
adverse impact on the Project return. Historically, costs have escalated at a rate greater
than inflation during periods of strong economic growth.
6. Increased infrastructure cost contingency
SunCal applies a 20 percent contingency to its public facilities and other direct horizontal
costs. EPS increased the contingency factor to 25 percent given the preliminary planning -
level cost estimates and risk. The 25 percent contingency is based on the experience and
feedback provided by the City's Public Works Department and results in adverse impact on
the Project return.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
8 P:\ 14000s \14012alapoint\data\hlarket Data2010\ Report \14012Feasibrlity063010.doc
Alameda Point Financial Feasibility Analysis
Draft Report 6/29/10
7. Adjusted timing of infrastructure costs
EPS deferred the timing for public facilities and other direct horizontal costs to reflect the
changes made to the absorption schedule described in item 2. This change was
implemented by deferring the timing for select public facilities and service costs by two
years. For direct horizontal costs, the timing was formulaically deferred in proportion to
the unit absorption. This change results in improvement of the Project return.
8. Added additional infrastructure cost items
EPS added the cost of $2.0 million for Cross - Alameda multi -use pathway, $5.0 million for
Bus Rapid Transit, and $1.2 million for the corporate yard to the feasibility analysis. These
costs add up to $11.5 million after contingency is applied. These infrastructure costs are
added based on recommendations from the Public Works Department and result in adverse
impact on the Project return.
Vertical Pro Forma Revenues
9. Revised real appreciation rate of finished residential values
SunCal assumes that market -rate residential values will increase by 5.0 percent a year or
2.0 percent above inflation. EPS makes a more conservative assumption of 4.4 percent or
1.4 percent growth above inflation. This assumption is based on the Alameda Point Pro
Forma Market Review and results in adverse impact on the Project return. While
appreciation will vary by year, it's likely to be less in the initial years because of significant
construction activity, absence of completed public improvements, facilities, and other
amenities which would not be completed until later years.
10. Revised base home prices for single- family detached and attached units
EPS's home price for single - family detached units is based on the analysis documented in
Alameda Point Pro Forma Market Review, which is lower than SunCal's price of $1,041,000
by about 20 percent. EPS estimates that Bayport's Harbor community provides a direct
comparable to potential single- family detached units planned at Alameda Point. Prices for
unit types are generally consistent relative to single - family pricing after accounting for
differences in product type. This assumption is shown in Table 3 and results in adverse
impact on the Project return.
11. Adjusted residential unit price premiums
SunCal assumes optimistic premiums for its single - family detached and attached residential
home value projections as shown in Table 3. This adds an additional value as high as 11.5
percent to base single - family home prices. EPS reduced premium estimate for single -
family detached and attached residential units to 1.0 percent based on Alameda Point Pro
Forma Market Review which results in adverse impact on the Project return. Actual
premiums will vary for specific buildings and location and would likely be higher for
premium view units, while other units may have no premium. EPS generally concurred
with the price premiums assumed for higher density, multifamily products because of
increased view premiums of those unit types.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
9 P: 114000 .5114012alapointldatalhlarket Data20101fteport \14012Feasibility063010.doc
Alameda Point Financial Feasibility Analysis
Draft Report 6/29/10
Vertical Pro Forma Costs
12. Revised escalation of vertical and in -tract costs
SunCal assumes that vertical and in -tract costs will increase at the annual rate of inflation
of 3.0 percent during Alameda Pont development. EPS assumes vertical and in -tract cost
escalation of 3.4 percent a year, 0.4 percent above inflation and 1.0 percent below home
value appreciation. This cost is based on Alameda Point Pro Forma Market Review and
results in adverse impact on the Project return. As noted above for infrastructure costs,
costs have historically escalated at a rate greater than inflation during periods of strong
economic growth.
13. Revised single - family attached unit sizes
SunCal assumes smaller unit sizes for duplex and townhome units relative to its prior 2008
Financial Plan estimates. While SunCal's prior 2008 unit sizes were used to estimate home
values for duplex and townhome units, EPS analysis reflects SunCal's 2008 unit size
assumptions. It is worth noting that SunCal did not provide any support for reducing its
single - family attached unit sizes, which increase land values and inflate potential land
revenues. EPS's change results in adverse impact on the Project return.
14. Revised direct construction costs for single- family detached and attached units
EPS increased direct construction costs for single - family detached units based on the
findings in Alameda Point Pro Forma Market Review. It also increased direct construction
costs for duplexes and townhome units consistent with the cost comparison between
various residential densities. This assumption is shown in Table 3 and results in adverse
impact on the Project return. To the extent that the quality of construction is less, direct
construction costs could be lower than assumed by EPS.
15. Replaced wrap insurance cost with a contingency factor
SunCal assumes wrap insurance cost of $10,000 for all units except single - family detached
but does not factor any construction cost contingencies. EPS included a 7.0 percent
contingency factor to all residential product types to reflect additional risk associated with
escalation in vertical construction costs above projected levels. The contingency includes
wrap insurance and does not have any significant impacts on the Project return.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
10 P:114000s114012alapointWata \Market Data20101Report114012Feasibi lity063010.doc
4. PUBLIC FINANCE
Public financing mechanisms which are required to facilitate upfront investments needed to
prepare the site for redevelopment are included in the analysis and shown in Table 4. Two key
financing sources are described in this chapter.
Mello -Roos Community Facilities District
A Community Facilities District (CFD) may be used to establish a special tax on property within
the district. The tax revenues can be used to secure CFD bonds for qualifying capital
improvements, and can also be used to support ongoing maintenance and services. The special
tax would be typically paid by owners of buildings on the site, although it can be structured to be
paid initially by the site developer.
The financial feasibility analysis assumes that SunCal would be able to fully pass on the CFD
payment to residential and commercial end -users with no discount applied to land values
because of the payment obligation. This is an optimistic assumption as the burden on residential
units (combined with regional transportation, fiscal mitigation, and taxes) exceeds 2.0 percent of
home values. A burden of above 2.0 percent is likely to result in adverse effects on residential
home values. Alternatively, less CFD could be issued.
The analysis utilizes the following steps to estimate financing from CFD financing:
• Estimate the overall development value.
• Base the CFD payment on a maximum of 0.65 percent of the overall development value.
• Limit the annual tax rate growth to 2.0 percent.
• Assume a 110 percent coverage factor.
• The bond issuance is assumed over a 30 -year term with an interest rate of 6.5 percent and
an issuance cost of 20 percent.
Assuming a tax of 0.65 percent of assessed value, about $195.4 million in CFD proceeds could be
supported by the Project while new development is constructed.
Tax Increment Financing
Under California law a Redevelopment Agency (RDA) is empowered to issue debt secured by
property tax increment revenue which can be used to assemble land, invest in infrastructure,
and rehabilitate structures in order to encourage private investment. Tax increment revenues
are generated by any increase in assessed value within a Redevelopment Area above the base
value at the time the Area was established. State law requires that 20 percent of redevelopment
revenues be placed in a housing set -aside fund to support the development and improvement of
a community's affordable housing.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
11 P: 114000s \14012alapoint\datalMarket Data2010kReport \14012Feasibility063010.doc
Table 4
Alameda Point Public Finance Assumptions
Alameda Point Redevelopment; EPS #14012
Item
Total (2010 - 2026) NPV at 20%
(nominal $$)
Public Finance
Communities Facilities District Bond $193,351,638 $30,413,318
CFD Debt Coverage $2,035,876 $320,234
Net Tax Increment Bonds $134,278,245 $18,725,512
RDA Affordable Housing Bond $61,478,918 $8,274,389
Annual Housing Tax Increment $16,121,610 $1,541,693
Public Finance Total $407,266,287 $59,275,145
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
12
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6/30/2010 P: 114000s114012alapointlInitiativelModel114012Fscall3 densitybonus0616l0 RLVCompund.xls
Alameda Point Financial Feasibility Analysis
Draft Report 6/29/10
The analysis utilizes the following steps to estimate potential proceeds from tax increment
financing for both non - housing and affordable housing bonding capacity:
• Estimate the overall assessed value.
• Estimate the 1.0 percent tax increment based on redevelopment assessed value.
• Assume an administration fee of 1.0 percent.
• Assume a 1.35 coverage factor to reflect the Agency last bond requirement and an additional
0.10 factor for contingency for the State takeaway.
• The bond issuance is assumed over a 30 -year term with an interest rate of 6.5 percent and
an issuance cost of 20 percent.
These assumptions yield potential tax increment proceeds of about $211.9 million generated by
net tax increment bonds, RDA affordable housing bonds, and annual housing tax increment. The
amount of tax increment would vary based on the value created, the amount of development
that occurs, and the timing of development; to the extent that market conditions are less
favorable than anticipated, and /or development does not occur as expected, the amount of tax
increment would be less and adversely affect the ability to fund public improvements.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
13 P; 1140005 j14012alapoint\dataWarket Data2010kReport \14012Feasibiliry063010.doc
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
EPS conducted several sensitivity tests which evaluate the impact on the financial feasibility
results of assuming SunCal's assumptions about home values, premiums, unit sizes, and
construction costs of residential uses. These assumptions are shown in Table 3. While EPS
does not consider these assumptions sufficiently conservative, their impact on the Project
feasibility is tested to illustrate their implications on the overall development returns.
The impact of changes to key assumptions is described below. If market conditions are more
positive than expected and costs are lower, the Project could achieve an IRR of 14.0 percent.
Potential Changes to Key Assumptions
Based on SunCal's comments and support provided for their assumptions, EPS tested how
changes to its assumptions would impact the feasibility results. The impacts of the sensitivities
tested are shown in Table 5.
Base home prices for single - family detached and attached units
Adopting SunCal's single - family home prices significantly increases land values for single - family
detached, single - family attached, and townhome units. While EPS uses a conservative set of
assumptions for home values, the values could vary significantly on types of builders, quality of
homes, and numerous other factors. SunCal's home value assumptions improve the Project IRR
by over 10 percent.
Residential unit price premiums
Including SunCal's premium assumptions further increases home values which improves the
overall development returns. SunCal's premium assumptions improve the Project IRR by about
3 percent. Actual premiums will vary for specific buildings and location and would likely be
higher for premium view units, while other units may have no premium.
Direct construction costs for single - family detached and attached units
Using SunCal's direct construction costs for single - family detached, duplexes and townhome
units improves land values for these residential uses and results in improvement on the Project
return. Specifically, this change results in the IRR increase of about 8 percent. To the extent
that the quality of construction is less, direct construction costs could be lower than assumed by
EPS.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
14 P:1 14000s114012alapoint ldata\Market Data20101 Report114012Feasibi lity063010.doc
re
0.
c■i....:,
EPS Base Case Return
Return With Cumulative Impact (2)
'c'T)
•
tc, cn
c o
• a)
E
2 a)
4- 0)
• c
"t5 :15
c
E o
0.
E
u) 0
-?-4
co
c 0
co
Z••
=
.0 0
CO
• 0-
V)
("6 0- 0
>
• (1)
_c
co —
c
c o E
>
• o
:S.: CIS 4-■
O • ° 0.
.0
o
o
E co
• o
• at
u)
E
x
To us 0
C
C 4-
c a) c
• -c o
o 0 cn
-o T.') 0
a) as 0)
) 0. c
E
0
•,•-•
15
Sources: SunCal Financing Plan; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6/30 /2010
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
From: Matt T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Date: June 28, 2010
Re: Update of Traffic Capacity Management Procedure
BACKGROUND
On June 19, 2001, the City Council adopted a resolution approving the Traffic Capacity
Management Procedure (TCMP). Established pursuant to mitigation measures
contained in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Catellus project, the TCMP
estimates the remaining traffic capacity in the Webster and Posey Tubes. Its purpose is
to identify a project's impact to the remaining capacity of the Tubes prior to the City
Council's approval of the project and to determine appropriate mitigations to reduce a
project's peak hour trips.
The TCMP is applicable to any proposed development west of Grand Street that
generates new peak hour trips through the Tubes in excess of one percent of the
current estimated reserve capacity. The TCMP requires a developer to identify the
number of peak hour trips projected to use the Tubes and propose feasible mitigation
measures to reduce the peak hour trips by at least ten percent for residential
development and 30% for non - residential development. The Planning Board may
reduce these requirements.
Implementing Policy 4.1.2.d of the General Plan requires that the TCMP be updated at
least every two years to include the latest Webster and Posey Tubes traffic volumes
and trip generation totals for developments approved but not yet occupied. The TCMP
was last updated in 2008. Exhibit 1 provides the required updated capacity of the
Tubes and includes traffic projections for the Alameda Landing project. In addition, the
projected trip generation totals for the unoccupied units at the Summer Homes
development on Buena Vista Avenue and Poggi Street, and the vacant units at the
North Housing located near Main Street have been included in the determination of
remaining capacity. Existing Alameda Point and the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center
(FISC) land uses are accounted in the existing daily volume counts shown in Exhibit 1.
Furthermore, no reductions have been taken for projects that are required to provide
Transportation Demand Management programs as mitigation for project related traffic
impacts. This approach provides a conservative estimate for determining the remaining
capacity of the Tubes.
CC /ARRA/CIC
Exhibit 7 to
Agenda Item #3 -B
07 -07 -10
Ann Marie Gallant, Interim City Manager
Traffic Capacity Management Procedure
DISCUSSION
June 28, 2010
Page 2 of 3
Two -week traffic counts of the Webster and Posey Tubes were collected from October
18, 2009 to October 31, 2009. As indicated in Exhibit 2, when compared to last year's
traffic volumes, the Posey Tube shows an average decrease of approximately five
percent during the morning peak hour and a two percent decrease during the afternoon
peak hour. The Webster Tube shows a five percent decrease during the morning peak
hour and a six percent decrease during the afternoon peak hour. This decrease can be
attributed to lower traffic volumes associated with the overall economic downturn and
the shift of traffic due to the construction on Webster Street and Wilver "Willie" Stargell
Avenue.
Based on the remaining capacity determined in Exhibit 1, Public Works staff has
calculated the hypothetical maximum development that could be accommodated for
different types of development for both current conditions and 2030. The 2030
projection assumes a one -half percent background growth per year. The development
estimates are determined by taking the remaining capacity and dividing by the trip
generation rate for each development type. The difference in development potential as
detailed in the last report is shown in parentheses below.
Estimated Maximum Development Per Land Use Type Based on Remaining
Capacity
1.92 Million Square Feet (MSF) of Manufacturing Use; (0.29 MSF); or
4.18 MSF of Warehouse Use; (0.61 MSF); or
1.94 MSF of Light Industrial Use; (0.12 MSF); or
1.35 MSF of Office Use; (0.08 MSF); or
0.29 MSF of Shopping Center Use; (0.04 MSF); or
0.46 MSF of Specialty Retail; (0.07 MSF); or
791 Single Family Residential Detached Units; (116 DU); or
1,233 Residential Attached (Duplex) Units or Town homes (183 DU)
Estimated Maximum Development Per Land Use Based on Projected 2030
Capacity
Due to a projection of no reserve capacity in 2030 for the inbound (southbound)
direction of the Webster Tube, no future land uses can be projected using
Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. Assuming a nominal
reserve capacity of 10 trips for this approach, the following uses could be
expected:
Ann Marie Gallant, Interim City Manager
Traffic Capacity Management Procedure
55 KSF of Manufacturing Use; (0 MSF); or
120 KSF of Warehouse Use; (0 MSF); or
130 KSF of Light Industrial Use; (0 MSF); or
60 KSF of Office Use; (0 MSF); or
8.5 KSF of Shopping Center Use; (0 MSF); or
14 KSF of Specialty Retail; (0 MSF); or
22 Single Family Residential Detached Units; (-2 DU); or
35 Residential Attached (Duplex) Units or Town homes (0 DU)
FINANCIAL IMPACT
June 28, 2010
Page 3 of 3
There is no financial impact to the General Fund anticipated from continuing
implementation of the TCMP.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The TCMP is consistent with implementing Policy 4.1.2.d of the General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
This report is for informational purposes only.
OK:VP:gc
Exhibit(s):
1. TCMP Remaining Traffic Capacity
2. Webster and Posey Tubes Traffic Volume
cc: Mayor and City Councilmembers
Deputy City Manager Ott
Supervising Civil Engineer
EXHIBIT 1
TCMP
Interim Traffic Policy for the Alameda Tubes
(As of Oct, 2009)
Webster Tube
(Inbound or SB)
Posey Tube
(Outbound or NB)
Capacity
3,976
4,007
PM Peak Hour
Existing Volume + Vacant Uses 2
3,131
2,170
Approved Projects Volume
480
654
Subtotal
3,611
2,824
Remaining Capacity
364
1,183
2030 Capacity (after Background Growth)3
(16)
919
1 % of Remaining Capacity (Excluding Background Growth) ;
4 ;'
12
AM Peak Hour
Existing Volume + Vacant Uses 2
1,958
2,925
Approved Projects Volume
484
253
Subtotal
2,442
3,177
Remaining Capacity
1,533
829
2030 Capacity (after Background Growth)3
1,295
474
1% of Remaining Capacity (Excluding Background Growth)
15
8
'Assumes a 55MPH Free Flow Speed & Actual Peak Hour Factor Observed (0.93)
2 Use the Mean Value of Readings during 2 Consecutive Work weeks (Tue -Thu) plus vacant uses. 2008 traffic
data used for existing due to lower volumes in 2009.
3 Assumes 0.5% growth per year
EXHIBIT 2
Posey/Webster Tubes
Historical Traffic Volume Data
1. Average Daily Traffic - Total Volume for 24 -hour period, reported in vehicles per day
Note: This information is based on raw data and has not been validated and may not be fully accurate because (1) The data
was not collected at the same time each year and traffic fluctuates seasonally (2) During some years data was collected for
only one
Posey Tube (NB)
Webster
Tube
SSB)
Total
YEAR
Month
ADT
AM Peak
PM Peak
ADT
AM Peak
PM Peak
ADT1
Hour
Hour
Hour
Hour
1993
July
42,800
3,392
3,339
31,608
2,299
2,587
74,408
1994
July
33,988
2,615
2,875
38,151
2,735
3,656
72,139
1995
July
35,972
2,893
2,768
44,004
2,870
3,826
79,976
1996
Sept
30,567
2,543
2,234
28,201
2,017
2,732
58,768
1997
Oct
27,704
2,606
2,114
27,795
1,985
2,777
55,499
1998
Sept
30,618
2,895
2,266
30,276
2,153
3,278
60,894
1999
April
31,397
2,994
2,325
33,627
2,189
3,414
65,024
2000
Oct
28,001
2,788
2,369
26,722
2,204
2,980
54,723
2001
Nov
24,877
2,471
2,129
23,868
2,186
3,067
48,745
2002
Oct
23,665
2,303
1,962
26,893
1,979
2,869
50,558
2003
Sept
28,268
2,788
2,228
26,943
1,992
2,918
55,211
2004
Nov
28,775
2,877
2,289
27,527
1,905
3,008
56,302
2005
Nov
28,545
2,693
2,197
29,259
1,913
3,032
57,804
2006
Oct
29,859
3,038
2,225
29,128
1,935
2,985
58,987
2007
Oct
29,504
2,769
2,185
29,321
1,877
3,064
58,825
2008
Oct
29,203
2,863
2,137
29,033
1,940
3,058
58,236
2009
Oct
28,648
2,732
2,103
28,064
1,838
2,873
56,712
1. Average Daily Traffic - Total Volume for 24 -hour period, reported in vehicles per day
Note: This information is based on raw data and has not been validated and may not be fully accurate because (1) The data
was not collected at the same time each year and traffic fluctuates seasonally (2) During some years data was collected for
only one