For those seeking to understand more about how the financing will be structured for the Alameda Point project between DE Shaw (not Lehman Brothers) and SunCal, then perhaps you should check out this staff report, and possibly watch the webcast of the CIC meeting tonightas well. (coughebxcough) For those who don’t care and just want the Cliff Notes version, you’ve come to the right place.
So here is the nitty gritty folks. A new partnership (limited liability of course) has been formed by DE Shaw and WV Development Group (a wholly owned subsidary of SunCal) called Cal Land Venture, because apparently it’s too difficult to come up with a creative name for anything these days. So, as mentioned previously, SunCal will still be in charge of day-to-day operations, but DE Shaw because they hold the purse strings gets to make the big decisions if big decisions are to be made. More importantly during this Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) DE Shaw, while in the drivers seat, cannot remove SunCal unless there is “gross negligence , willful misconduct, or fraud.” Which, in that case, we as a City would probably want them to be removed and would not need to wait for DE Shaw to pull the trigger. According to the staff report, Cal Land is expected to invest about $10 million during this ENA process.
Also added are new milestones including the ENA termination date which is now July 20, 2010 as SunCal will be moving forward with placing the Measure A exemption for Alameda Point on the November 2009 ballot, which they will need to do by April of 2009. But if they decide to not go for the ballot initiative or it fails then then will have to submit an Entitlement Application by June 15 or 45 days from notification that the ballot initiative failed to meet requirements for placement on the ballot.
Interestingly enough, added to this Second Amendment is a stipulation that if there is litigation that is unresolved by July 20, 2017 then the ENA will be terminated, even though the orginial ENA had no time limit for litigation.
By the way, since we are on the subject of timelines and the ENA can someone ask Doug deHaan if he wants to:
..maintain the present city/master developer Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) timeline. This has been very difficult during the present turbulent national fiscal crisis…
As stated in his Smartvoter.com position paper. Or if he wants to:
“What really concerned me and should concern everyone else is that this really is a high-profit investment to be in a hedge fund. There are certain driving forces that mean they have to make money. To make extraordinarily high returns. And that bothers me, because it can drive your project in a different direction instead of letting it mellow in the right way.” [emphasis added]
As stated in his interview with the East Bay Express. Because you can’t do both. You can’t expect the developer to meet hard and fast timelines and let something “mellow…the right way.”
And if taking care of this issue weren’t enough for the City Council sitting as the CIC they are also going to be considering accepting the North of Lincoln Strategic Plan, this is particularly noteworthy considering the shuttering of Good Chevrolet last week. Of course, for those that have been following along, the strategic plan for this Gateway District was the result of an intensive community process beginning with community stakeholder meeting, a publc visioning charette, a three-day design studio, a community open house for feedback, and public review by the Economic Development Commission, Historic Advisory Board, Transportation Commission, and Planning Board as well as the Park Street Business Association. If the CIC decides to approve and accept the strategic plan the next step is to have the Planning Board consider amendments to the City’s general plan and zoning changes to conform with the strategic plan.
Michelle Ellson has an insightful piece on this today that raises some interesting and worrisome points.
http://theislandofalameda.blogspot.com/2008/10/operating-at-point.html
She notes that DE Shaw can do away with SunCal, not only for cause, gross negligence, etc., but for “…a whole host of other “member issues” listed in the operating agreement we’re not allowed to see.” She also raises an interesting question regarding whether D.E. Shaw can replace SunCal if the ballot measure to amend Measure A fails. In addition, she questions Shaw’s ability to boot SunCal from their entire portfolio of joint projects if one or more start going south. Since the terms of the operating agreement are not available to the city, I think her concerns are dead on.
Comment by Susan — October 7, 2008 @ 10:22 am
[...] Last night, the city council (fine, ARRA), approved 4-1 an amended Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with SunCal that turns Alameda Point over to a new development entity Cal Land (L.Do has the skinny). [...]
Pingback by Stop, Drop and Roll » Alameda Point moves forward — October 8, 2008 @ 10:09 am
Art Lipow’s rant against the North of Lincoln study last night was ridiculous and drew both applause from his minions in the gallery (ET’s “activists”?) and ire from Robb Ratto when he spoke after Art.
Art participated in the North of Lincoln charrette, as did I, which he referred to as a “charade” , ha-ha. He said it was merely phony democracy meant to mollify the public. Then he complained about how it’s just smoke and mirrors so developers can come take advantage of Alameda etc., etc..
As in the past, Professor Lipow announced that he knows what he’s talking about because he reads ten papers a day. Does he do anything else? Obviously he goes to public meetings to spout off. He suggested the young whippersnapper who did the presentation for the consultant retire himself and read ten papers a day so he might learn what’s going on. Huh? Yeah my IRA is worth shit anyway. Since I’m going to have to learn to live on air, why not retire now? Who needs a career? I’ll just become a professional pompous know it all! I’ll have to eat cat food, but the wages of self satisfaction are terrific!
Robb Ratto was growling with righteous indignation and said a) instead of being caught flat footed by the Good Chevrolet closure isn’t it nice we are already planning how to handle the transition? b) he invoked the Park Street Visioning and pointed at the apparent successful renovation of the theater, which was called for in the Visioning process and he condemned nay-sayers like Art.
In terms of the Park Street Visioning, and I think in many of the consultant lead public participation sessions, there is an element of phony democracy, dog and pony show, etc.. Art complained that the participants are always self-selected, i.e. the usual suspects. One supposes Art would prefer we hold firm and not talk about change, it’s hard to tell. He scoffed at the idea from the consultant that we plan to redesign the area according to the uses and tenants the market indicates might most be interested. To Art market driven means developer driven.
The Park Street Visioning was parlyt in direct response to the public ire about the unveiling of City Manager Flint’s stealth plan to have an outside developer Trammel Crowe to give what I call a heart lung transplant to the center of Park Street, complete with eminent domain if needed. At that Visioning the public definitely needed to vent, but at both the Visioning at the North of Lincoln charrette process, as a lay person I learned a few more things about city planning and was generally glad to have in put and get to converse with fellow citizens, staff and the consultants. Some may be cynical about participating in these things but there are also people who show up who are not regularly participants in these things who seem really gratified to have an opportunity to say what they want and to see detailed plans close up. As for self selecting, sure the participants are often the same people but that is in fact democracy where we choose to be involved or not.
Perhaps Lauren will find time to pick over Lipow’s claims that the consultant recommended “getting rid of planning by simply giving over to market forces”. Also, he claims there are plans to get rid of Jim’s Coffee Shop, and that they recommend narrowing the street. Both incorrect. The consultant actually talked about the kind of destination retail which might be attracted to and fit in this type of “gateway” area, R.E.I. being an example; how reducing driveways and curb cuts enhances walkability; he discussed the niche for small professional offices over large tech uses, Perforce being fortunate but somewhat of an anomaly; etc. etc.
I think in the last century, I sat through too many Green Party meetings where Art Lipow would sit off to the side during the discussion of business and then at the end he would always sidle over and make his critique of the meeting and pontificate to us as if we were students in his classroom, about where we really ought to be headed. He and Gretchen had real plans for organizing a “movement” in this town and they have tried. I think Art needs a bowel movement.
Comment by Mark Irons — October 8, 2008 @ 10:16 am
Yes, the renovation of the theater was successful.
And the public was sold that project because it was promised that much revenue would result from that project for the City of Alameda. Did anyone talk about that? And how much revenue is being realized?
Did anyone talk about the surfeit of ret/commerc space, available but vacant (some has been vacant for YEARS)?
There are lots of spaces available all over town for small professional offices. And more are being vacated daily. Did anyone mention that?
I bet not.
There might be something to Lipow’s assertions. I mean, for the consultant to recommend “giving over to market forces” is almost like the statement made in City Council meeting a few weeks ago that we should not get in the way of the free market!
Like, DUH! The economy is in the dumper because of “market forces” and “free market” (read: greed and unscrupulous business practices).
And that does sort of scream out of all the newspapers, these days, doesn’t it? Hard to miss that…
So, where are these consultants from, anyway?
And how much does the city of Alameda pay them to give these vacuous recommendations?
Comment by E T — October 8, 2008 @ 11:38 am