Suncal Tells Its Story: An Interview with David Soyka, SVP of Public Affairs

The New York Times, San Francisco Gate and a slew of local blogs have all focused their media scrutiny on the quaint island of Alameda and Alameda Point redevelopment, which left the city and its officials without answers, stunned like a deer in headlights.

After all this intense media attention, one can only hope the light at the end of the tunnel will be an honest post mortem analysis of the project, with a few key learnings that will help us move forward. I tip my investigative hat to reporters Zusha Elinson, Michele Ellson, LaurenDo and John Knox White for moving this process along. As for city officials, I see more of the same insane politicking that yields the same insane results.

It’s interesting to see developer after developer be turned away from the real estate gem of the Bay Area. With all its potential, why does this keep happening on Alameda Point?

Who is the scapegoat this time around? Is it the developer Suncal, Lena Tam or is it Ann Marie Gallant and the City of Alameda? East Bay for Open Government gave Suncal SVP of Public Affairs David Soyka a call to ask a few of our questions. Following is an excerpt from our question and answer session:

First off, how is Suncal dealing with the loss of the 4-0 city council vote?
All of the Suncal team has put blood, sweat and tears into the Alameda Point project. Some of us have relocated our families and dedicated the last three years of our life into creating a viable, sustainable, transit-oriented development that would benefit the City of Alameda and its residents. The Peter Calthorpe plan is visionary and environmental groups, affordable housing advocates and residents support the plan. We all think it’s a shame to see it dissipate.

Nick Kosla, Suncal Forward Planner, claimed that the weekly meetings between Alameda City Staff and Suncal were “an abyss.” Do you agree?
Unfortunately yes. It was a frustrating experience to be negotiating in good faith and believe we were making progress with the City Staff, only to realize it was just a show. None of the hard work done on either side was communicated to the decision makers at the city council.

What was Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant’s role in the development process?
For a project that is of top priority to her community and is one-third of the island of Alameda, she was alarmingly uninvolved. She delegated most duties to an inexperienced junior member of her team, Deputy City Manager Jennifer Ott, who I believe once worked for the Economic and Planning Systems group (Economic and Planning Systems created the staff reports highly critical of SunCal’s plan). Our planning team had never come across this irregular process, especially in a project of this size.

Did it appear to you that the ICM had an alternate plan during negotiations with Suncal?
It was so unexpected that we did not believe it was happening, but as it drew closer and closer to the date of the vote, it was hard to deny. She publicly announced a Plan B to the Chamber in 2009, was minimally involved in plan negotiations. We constantly heard rumors that she was sabotaging the project behind closed doors. It seemed she did not want the project to succeed.

When City attorney Terry Highsmith stated, “we’re starting to think we’d be better off without a developer,” it should have been a sign something was going on. In retrospect we should have known, but when you are sitting across from your development partner (the City) it’s hard to imagine that they’re doing everything in their power to work against you. I guess we hoped for too much.

Is there anything else?
We still believe in the plan to revitalize Alameda Point. We’ve invested in the community and the East Bay region and would like to find a way to work in good faith with the city. This plan will bring the East Bay valuable regional benefits and positive economic impact.

East Bay for Open Government contacted Ann Marie Gallant and she was not available for comment.