pages: CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf, 26
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2008-10-07 | 26 | business plan from SunCal. He expressed his concerns about calling the pile of data a business plan because there was no proposal, nor any conclusions drawn. Ms. Potter explained that SunCal did submit a draft business plan on September 19th, which was submitted in multiple parts, and do not exist together as one document. SunCal understands the Board's expectation of what the Business Plan document should entail and has promised that when they submit the final plan on November 19th, it will be bound in one single document with a narrative tying all the disparate pieces together as the Business Plan. Member Gilmore asked who gets to decide which party decides or determines when DE Shaw can remove SunCal as partner. Amy Freilich, Senior VP of SunCal, stated that as it's drafted currently, the Board would get notice from DE Shaw that would indicate that they have removed, for cause, SunCal as a partner. At that point, under the standard default provisions of the document, the ARRA would be entitled to declare default and specify the reasons for concerns and ask for a demonstration for what the cause was. If DE Shaw is unable to satisfy the ARRA with respect to that, it would be a default of the developer, and the ARRA would be entitled to terminate. DE Shaw would present their evidence that they were appropriately removing SunCal as partner. Member Gilmore further asked, under the operating agreement, SunCal can be removed for "member issues", would the process for determining default be the same? Ms. Freilich affirmed. Chair Johnson added that the only remedy would be to declare default and then terminate. Member Matarrese stated that the problem with this situation is, in layman's terms, it puts us back to square one where SunCal doesn't have any money without DE Shaw. He was concerned that DE Shaw knows nothing about developing Alameda Point, and that if we lose SunCal, we're at the end of the line -- we're stuck with a terminated agreement and no developer, and have to start the process all over again. Member Gilmore discussed that this scenario could happen at any point in the process, whether it's SunCal or DE Shaw; as you go forward, you always run the risk that something unforeseen could happen, and the project could not be completed and then you're back to square one. Alameda Point is a risk-inherent project. Chair Johnson agreed, stating that there's not 100% assurance to ourselves that something could happen; it's a very risky project and there's not way to prevent the risk. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 7 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting October 7, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf |