Prominent developer SunCal brought in for Coliseum City study

SunCal, a large developer based out of Irvine, was brought into the Coliseum City project this week. Their role isn’t as the project’s master developer, it’s to determine whether the stadium, parking, and ancillary development can all properly fit on the 120-140 acre Coliseum site. Intriguingly, SunCal was brought in by the Raiders and Mark Davis, who have lingering concerns about having enough parking for football games.

SunCal has plenty of experience in the East Bay, having worked previously on Alameda Point before the project drowned in a sea of hubris and red tape. They also resurrected the long dormant Oak Knoll redevelopment plan, which had previously suffered from the depths of the recession.

New City’s Floyd Kephart wanted to make clear that SunCal’s role here is as a consultant:

Presumably, SunCal’s study, which was not a specific requirement for the ENA, will help guide Davis’s decision making process later this year. Just as important, it will probably guide the NFL’s. The league really likes plans with tons of parking, as seen in both the Inglewood and Carson plans. The hypothetical, then, is what if SunCal comes back with a larger parking requirement than is prescribed in Coliseum City? Of the 13,000 spaces programmed into the project, only 4,200 are surface parking (good for tailgating and buses). Everything else is in a garage, which when Lew Wolff mentioned the difficulty with garages, he got hammered. I wonder what will happen when the Raiders want more surface parking for their stadium.

Sure, there is BART, which according to the Raiders currently serves 30% of fans. You still need, well, 13-15,000 spaces for everyone else. And we have no idea whether SunCal’s study will include a baseball stadium.

SunCal could also find the project attractive enough to become the master developer, which would be a huge positive. Unlike Alameda, where SunCal is persona non grata, they don’t have a poisoned relationship with Oakland. They could be exactly what Coliseum City needs, though it’s clear they are acting in a thoroughly noncommittal role at the moment.

When I first heard the news I was surprised that it hadn’t gotten out at the beginning of the week, as the NFL owners meetings started. Then I saw SunCal’s limited role and it made more sense. If they express more interest in May, then it’s something for Kephart and Oakland to hang their hats on.

Alameda County approves ENA, draws line in sand at public money

Early during the Board of Supervisors meeting, President Scott Haggerty hinted that the assembled gallery could see how the Supes were going to vote, as they all had roughly the same comments during their part of the discussion. Nate Miley said he was going to vote for the ENA, but didn’t support “wholesale” use of public resources (land, money) for the project. Richard Valle called the project an “opportunity for private investment” before affirming his long-held no public funding stance. Wilma Chan felt the same while talking about community benefits. And Keith Carson considered the ENA a prudent step so that they could find out if the project had legs.

That sentiment of limited public support didn’t begin yesterday. It was brought up in public in December 2013, at the joint discussion between the Supes and Oakland City Council. It’s a topic that City and County haven’t been able to reconcile when County wasn’t part of the ENA. Now that they are equal partners, they’ll have no choice. It’s impossible to undersell the impact of this. County has taken a hard line on this, and it’s hard to see how City or Floyd Kephart’s New City will be able to reconcile it. In other words, it’s a potential showstopper.

The public contribution issue is big enough for the County that at the same meeting they commissioned a $200,000 study by CB Richard Ellis to appraise value of the Coliseum complex, land and buildings. Even that proved divisive:

Why would the County want the appraisal so badly? If the County wants to work from the notion that it could sell the complex at fair market value, it would help to understand what that FMV is. That doesn’t mean that they’d actually sell it at FMV. They could do a deal like San Jose, offering land at a discount provided that there was a certain price based on use. If County trends towards FMV pricing, that may be to force a decision on preventing a land giveaway by the City. While there are no deal terms yet, Coliseum City has long operated from the idea that the value of the land would offset sunk cost items like new infrastructure or writing off the Coliseum’s debt. The money saved by not spending it on land could be funneled towards the football stadium’s funding gap.

parcels

ENA covers ~140 acres of Coliseum area land

 

But if FMV was sought for the land, there’s no redirection of money to the funding gap. How, then, does that gap get addressed? If all three parties are going to have even a rough framework of a deal by the June deadline, they’ll have to come to some serious compromises that satisfy all three. That problem is one of those proverbial above my pay grade type of problem.

Miley made sure to mention his contingency plan of retrofitting the Coliseum instead of building new. While all five Supes approved the ENA, they didn’t express a ton of confidence in the project coming together. Left unsaid was another even more radical option that may prove more viable in time, one that was briefly mentioned in the adult conversation 16 months ago.

What if the City bought out the County?

If the County were leaning in that direction, an appraisal would make even more sense. Then they could start to figure out how to split the property, the remaining debt, and the JPA itself. Divorces are always messy, so don’t expect anything like this to happen as long as talks with Kephart continued. It’s not hard to see Coliseum City’s demise leading to a divorce. After all, if the sports teams are the JPA’s kids, and the kids have all grown up and moved away, what’s left?

Yet another possibility is that the County, which has a good relationship with Lew Wolff, is waiting just like Wolff for Coliseum City to die. Then they can work with the City on ballpark plan at the Coliseum. The no public funding demand would arise yet again, which would scare off many developers – but not Lew Wolff, who is not thinking about developing the Coliseum extensively right now. But that would be at odds with the City, which has grander visions for the Coliseum area than a stadium surrounded by parking.

Going back to the next-six-months-narrative, Friday’s City Council approval had optics that were designed to look good in reporting progress to the NFL. However, the NFL’s LA point man, Eric Grubman, continues to maintain that Oakland is neither “aggressive” nor “specific” about its plans. It’s easy to figure out what he means by “aggressive,” but “specific” appears to be a vaguely coded term. Is that just about Oakland’s desire for a 80,000 dome? That appears to have been put aside in recent weeks, especially by Mayor Schaaf. Does it mean something else? Coliseum City continues to be this amoeba that could contain anywhere from three to zero teams. The next three months are meant to provide some specificity, and the following two months even more fine tuning. The NFL signaled that it may announce or authorize moves during the fall, before the 2015 season ends. That puts Oakland, San Diego, and St. Louis under the gun to resolve their stadium problems, or else become abandoned. Even as it seemed the NFL had lost control of this game of musical chairs, they may have regained it.

Are we having fun yet?

Kroenke releases new Inglewood stadium renderings on eve of NFL owners meetings

The jockeying for position in the race for LA continues. Oakland approved its ENA extension on Friday, paving the way for Alameda County doing the same on Tuesday. I’ll have more on that following the Tuesday meeting. The Carson stadium project has gotten enough signatures for a public vote later this year (or more likely a City Council action bypassing a vote). Rams owner Stan Kroenke has new renderings of his proposed stadium at the old Hollywood Park in Inglewood. All of this is in advance of the NFL owners meetings in Phoenix this week. All of the players want to give the impression that they have the most advanced, stable plan. All of them, except perhaps Mark Davis, who continues to prefer riding on the coattails of others’ plans (Carson, Coliseum City). Both Dean Spanos and Kroenke are making the case for having their own stadia, privately financed, with no need to house a second team – but the capacity to do so if the opportunity arises. This saga will continue to unfold over the coming months, with everything coming to a head after the Super Bowl 50 when the relocation window opens. Unlike 2014, these stadium plans are becoming more concrete with each passing week, thanks to political actions by Inglewood and Carson.

Previous renderings of the City of Champions development showed zoomed out, distant images of the stadium. Now we’re getting closeups of the exterior and interior. The design is groundbreaking and familiar, all at once. Undertaken by HKS, the architectural firm that penned the more showy NFL stadia of recent years (Cowboys Stadium, Lucas Oil Stadium, the upcoming Vikings’ stadium), the stadium is is covered by a transparent roof canopy, with open sides to allow for air to circulate from outside.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Like (half of) the fixed, transparent roof at the Vikings’ football cathedral, Kroenke’s roof will be covered in a fabric called ETFE (ethylene tetrafluoroethylene). It’s extremely thin while having excellent light transmissive and insulation properties. Most importantly, it’s very light for a roof material, weighing around 3 ounces per square foot depending on the number of layers used. The lightness of ETFE allows the roof structural work supporting it to be lighter and less complex compared to steel roof structures, and more reliable than the previous generations of fabric roof technology that used Teflon or fiberglass-embedded fabric. ETFE was first used in high-profile sports applications such as the 2008 Beijing Olympics, where it was employed at the Birds Nest national stadium and the Aquatics venue. Instead of being part and parcel with the stadium, the roof will extended over a public plaza, acting like one gigantic canopy. While Southern California never needs a roof for football, the canopy will allow the stadium to be used for numerous big indoor events, such as the Final Four.

Baseball in the Vikings' stadium? Yes! Golden Gophers, baby.

Baseball in the Vikings’ stadium? Yes! Golden Gophers, during the early spring of the college baseball season.

Google’s proposed campus in Mountain View is also likely to use ETFE as a canopy over constantly evolving workspaces.

google-campus1

Google’s buildings will be surrounded by transparent roof canopies, with fresh air allowed to circulate from open areas.

Technology has come a long way since the first domed stadia were built. The Astrodome, which used skylights for the roof, was fatally flawed as not enough light came through to grow grass indoors successfully. That led to the invention of Astroturf, which had the even more appealing original name of ChemGrass (should’ve stuck with it, Monsanto). Numerous other domes became the unfortunate going trend in many cities in northern climates. Most had an air-supported roof, such as the Hubert Horatio Humphrey Metrodome, Pontiac Silverdome, BC Place, and the Hoosier (later RCA) Dome. After a number of deflations and weather-related incidents, air-supported roofs gave way to more reliable technology. Some of the newer domes in the late 80’s and 90’s used fabric roofs but weren’t air supported, using compression rings or cable supports to hold the roof up (ex.: Alamodome, Georgia Dome, Tropicana Field). Few air-supported structures remain in use, most notably the Carrier Dome at Syracuse University. Many of those will give way to replacement venues if not replacement roofs.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

The always aesthetically pleasing ceiling at the Trop

 

That gets me thinking about St. Petersburg. Yes, the location of the Trop is terrible for the other Bay Area trying to get to a Rays game, but what if the dome roof were replaced by ETFE? Would that help the aesthetic there? At least fans would be able to see the sky instead a dull roof, and maybe the use of a lighter material would allow the roof to be re-engineered so that one or two of those compression rings could go away. Too practical to be a solution, right?

City and County set new targets for Coliseum City ENA

Update 3/19 1:20 PM – Oakland’s City Council has scheduled a special meeting for Friday, March 20 at 11:30 AM to vote on a resolution supporting the ENA. You can find the agenda at the meeting link. In addition to the deadlines set forth in yesterday’s news, there’s also an option to extend the agreement for up to six months if some of the deliverables aren’t met or other holdups. There’s also this:

competing

Nothing about the “alternative proposals” shows up in the resolution, however. Once the City and County both approve the ENA including this facet, the A’s (and Raiders for that matter) could start sending in their own concepts. I expect one at some point from the A’s, but as noted previously, they are under no deadlines to deliver anything as New City and the Raiders are.

Original post:

Yes, we wrote two months ago about how the City of Oakland and Alameda County were coming together to work on Coliseum City. The signs were that both parties were finally on the same page.

Well, we’re hearing the same thing again, though this time it might actually be for real. After some back and forth between the County and Floyd Kephart of New City, the County’s Board of Supervisors are looking to vote on the ENA at the end of this week. Or early next week. Or something. The SF Business Times’ Ron Leuty has the details.

Besides the ever plodding deal machinations, Leuty also picked up the new terms of the ENA. June 21 marks a midterm deadline for New City to provide certain deliverables. The “final” deadline is August 21, with even more deliverables. All told it’s 23 separate items, all important, few minor.

June 21st’s set is all about creating the framework of the deal. It should answer basic questions like How many teams will be involved? and How long will it take to develop?

  • An initial financing plan for a new stadium for the Raiders, including ancillary development and land and infrastructure to support a potential new stadium for the Oakland Athletics. It will include projected sources and types of funding as well as the estimated equity stake from New City, its partners and affiliates.
  • Terms and conditions required to win a commitment from the Raiders, A’s or the Golden State Warriors to Coliseum City. This will include an update on the status of negotiations between New City and each team.
  • Initial site plans for new Raiders and/or A’s stadiums.
  • Financial and market feasibility analyses for various elements of the development other than sports facilities.
  • A development schedule for the sports facilities and ancillary development, including the timing of entitlements for all phases of the project.
  • An estimate of infrastructure cost and a funding plan for the infrastructure, including a list of potential regional, state and federal grant sources.
  • Plans for tax financing districts for infrastructure.
  • A preliminary plan for subdividing parcels, if needed.
  • Proposals for addressing the existing Coliseum debt.
  • Proposed timetables for disposing of land for various parts of the project.
  • An outline contracting plan.
  • An outline community benefits plan for the project.

August 21 is about buttoning up the deal and figuring out all of the little details defined in June.

  • A detailed description of the plan for project development.
  • Refined terms and conditions required to win a commitment from the Raiders and/or A’s and a project schedule for obtaining a commitment.
  • A refined financing plan for Raiders and/or A’s stadiums, including identification of all sources of financing.
  • A refined description of the financing structure for ancillary development and the proposed developers for each element of those pieces of the development.
  • A clearer schedule for development of the stadiums and the ancillary development, including the timing of entitlements.
  • A better estimate of infrastructure cost and a funding plan for the infrastructure.
  • A refined proposal for establishing tax financing districts for financing infrastructure.
  • A clearer plan for subdividing parcels.
  • A refined proposal addressing existing Coliseum debt.
  • Proposed terms for the lease disposition and development agreement and financing for various elements of the project.
  • A refined contracting plan and community benefits plan.

By late April we should expect that the EIR will be certified and the Specific Plan approved, which are their own framework in that it defines zoning. With that zoning component there are no entitlements on which developers can build at the Coliseum.

To date many of the deadlines put forth by the City have been about timing in concert with some important date for the Raiders and the NFL. Previously the ENA was supposed to be completed before the 2014 season over, then before the franchise relocation window opened, then 90 days from that (April). Now the ENA deadline is being pushed to just before the 2015 NFL regular season starts. That itself is arbitrary, and allows for yet another 3-5 months of slack before the Raiders have to make a decision on LA or another possible move. With that in mind, I fully expect Coliseum City to slip yet again past August. The list of deliverables above is daunting. The DDA alone can take months to put together. While everyone’s operating from the notion that once a team signs on everything else will fall into place, there’s little reason to believe that negotiations will be that tidy. This project has a growing number of stakeholders, including housing and jobs activists who will make their stamp on a community benefits agreement. The financing for a project of this size is incredibly complex. And the City and County have to be on their toes to ensure that they don’t get taken by the private stakeholders in the project: New City, developers, and the team(s). Without clear terms done in thoughtful, deliberate manner, you get Mt. Davis.

I haven’t mentioned the A’s or Lew Wolff yet. Wolff has made his position clear in that he has no interest in Coliseum City. The difference for him is that he and the A’s have no deadlines, arbitrary or otherwise. What happened to the idea of allowing competing bids? That appears to have disappeared into the ether. For now.

Miley says the R-word

You’d think someone actually reads this blog.

Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley wrote an op-ed in the Trib on Monday, imploring the City and County to consider multiple avenues towards getting the Coliseum complex in the best position to retain the Raiders and A’s. One of the avenues Miley pushes is retrofit. Or renovation.

Yes, renovation. Now let’s be clear on the idea’s prospects. For baseball it’s a nonstarter because of the foul territory, sightlines, and numerous other reasons, so you can stop dreaming about a Bash Brothers-era Coliseum as a possibility. Instead, Miley wants to renovate the stadium for the Raiders, which would leave land available for the A’s to build a new ballpark. The rationale, Miley notes, is that the funding gap that looms over the project would be significantly reduced if a less costly renovation project were undertaken instead of a whole new stadium whose price tag approaches $900 million – for only 56,000 seats. Renovation would cost around $500 million, a figure I’ve touted here and there. The Raiders and the NFL apparently have no interest in renovation, but in some cases they have signed off on improvements projects like Soldier Field, Lambeau Field, Ralph Wilson Stadium in Buffalo, and most recently Sun Life Stadium in Miami – all cases in which the market was hostile towards subsidizing a new stadium.

I have advocated for this solution for years, mostly because the Coliseum works best going forward as a football venue. Mt. Davis may be ugly as sin, but its bones are good and it would require only a relative handful of improvements to get it up to 2016 status. For instance:

  1. Remove the upper nine rows of the lower deck, east side. Open the concourse, add in bars with views of the field and drink rails.
  2. In some locations, install “living room-style” loges along the concourse.
  3. Remove a couple rows to provide better views from the wheelchair areas.
  4. Redo the club seating sections to create two small tiers. Club would be glassed in and provide views.
  5. Remove the entire upper deck, transform it into a party deck.
  6. Modernize the first two levels of suites with new technology.
  7. Transform the upper (third) suite level into another club and party suites.
  8. Freshen up all concourses and other public areas.

You’d end up with around 10,000 seats on the east side including 60 suites and 3,000 club seats. That leaves another 45,000 seats, 20-40 suites, and around 2,000 additional club seats (inclusive of total capacity) to account for. Getting to a $500 million project is doable, as long as you aren’t trying to pile on the square footage. Keep most of the structure fairly basic and concentrate on keeping the amenities in a single, focused area.

Early stages of construction at the Coliseum in 1965

Early stages of construction at the Coliseum in 1965

See how there are man made hills in the picture above? There’s no square footage in those hills, no electrical, plumbing, or HVAC. That’s how stadia were kept relatively cheap. New stadia are all about building out as much of the venue as possible, so much that modern football stadia have twice as much square footage as their predecessors. Mark Davis has said on multiple occasions that he doesn’t need a stadium as fancy as Levi’s or AT&T Stadium, so he should be obliged.

Two-deck bowl built adjacent to existing east stand

Two-deck bowl built adjacent to existing east stand

As the east side gets a makeover, the original bowl is torn down. The old berm is reshaped for the new lower seating bowl at the end zones. The west sideline has space underneath the lower bowl for locker rooms, maintenance, and storage. That leads to the new seating.

  • Lower 3/4 deck: 21,500 seats
  • Upper 3/4 deck: 20,500 seats
  • Field or mezzanine club: 1,500 seats
  • 40 suites: 500 seats
  • Standing room: 1,000 spaces

The key to this layout is that there’s only one concourse in the new bowl. That’s a bit of a nod to Levi’s, where the lower concourse is vast. The second deck is not really cantilevered over the first deck. Behind the second deck is a two-level suite and press addition. Total capacity is 55,000 seats and could have 4,000 more seats by adding 6 rows to the upper deck.

Stanford Stadium and the Citrus Bowl used similar approaches, and while those builds weren’t as complicated as this, the same principles apply. Done aggressively, this shouldn’t take more than 18-24 months to complete. Obviously there would be questions about where the Raiders would play temporarily and the A’s displacement, but those are for another post. Want a renovation? Here’s an example, if Mark Davis is actually interested in a solution.

LA’s downtown stadium dream dies while STL’s gets a boost

When I went to the Stadia Expo in the summer of 2012, I walked by the large Gensler booth. In it was this:

gensler-farmersfield

Now it belongs in the dustbin of great, failed stadium concepts. When AEG unveiled the concept in 2011 it seemed it was getting all its ducks in a row. It had a naming rights sponsor in Farmers Insurance, a cooperative government in terms of process if not money, an EIR completed, and legislation to help bypass CEQA litigation. AEG appeared to be in the pole position for a future NFL stadium in LA.

They were missing the most important component of a new stadium: a team to call that stadium home. Not for lack of trying. They had reached out to every possible relocation candidate. The problem was their terms. AEG wanted, at least at the outset, a large ownership stake and control of the franchise as well. Owners as well as the NFL balked at such demands, and let AEG hang out to dry while they formulated their own relocation plans independently. Frustrated by the lack of action on the LA front, AEG head Phil Anschutz allowed his company to pursue buyers in hopes of a multi-billion dollar cashout. He also let Farmers Field champion Tim Leiweke go, giving the project no real internal support in addition to its lack of external (NFL) support. The final blows came in a quick combo as Stan Kroenke partnered with Inglewood interests on their own domed NFL stadium, followed by the Chargers and Raiders partnering on an outdoor stadium plan in Carson. Today AEG announced that it was giving up on Farmers Field and moving on with its Plan B, an expansion of the LA Convention Center (which it operates) that includes no stadium component.

AEG went from stalking horse to legitimate contender to non-entity in the span of four years. That’s the stadium game for you.

The State of Missouri’s Department of Economic Development released a study claiming that a new stadium for the Rams would return upwards of $9.6 million per year to the state’s coffers. The study isn’t available on the MoDED website yet, so I haven’t been able to scrutinize it. I tend to be skeptical of such claims, but I’ll wait to comment until I see the study. The public contribution for the riverfront venue is $405 million of a total development cost of more than $1 billion.

The beat goes on.

Raiders could stay at Alameda HQ through Feb 2019 even if they leave Oakland next year

Update 10:00 AM from Steven Tavares:

Original post:

When the Raiders balked at paying past due rent at the Coliseum last month, we figured it had something to do with the lease extension, but we couldn’t figure out the rationale. Now, looking at the new lease terms – set to be voted on by the Coliseum JPA Friday morning – there’s little that stands out. There are clarifications on how to handle signage and advertisements inside the stadium, along with updated parking revenue definitions. The $400,000 in back rent will be paid. Then I saw this:

7.5 Additional Payments for Use of Permanent Training Facility and Training Site. If the Raiders announce a relocation or sign a lease to play football games outside of the City of Oakland or Alameda County (a) for the 2015 season prior to March 1, 2015, then, commencing on March 1, 2015, or (b) for the 2016 season prior to March 1, 2016, then, commencing on March 1 of the year following such announcement Raiders shall have the option of continuing to use the Permanent Training Facility and Training Site for up to thirty-six (36) months, up to and including February 28, 2019 as determined in Raiders’ discretion. For the first two years, Raiders shall make an additional payment to Licensor each month for continued use of the Permanent Training Facility and Training Site in an amount equal to the fair market rental value of the Permanent Training Facility and Training Site on a monthly basis, as determined by a mutually agreeable licensed commercial real estate broker based on comparable rental space. Raiders and Licensor agree that the fair market rental value shall not exceed $525,000 per year for the first two years. For the third year, Raiders shall pay Licensor an amount of One Million Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,050,000), payable monthly in equal installments. In the event the Raiders are engaged in good faith discussions concerning an extension of the Operating License or other arrangement for the Raiders to play future Football Events in the OACC Stadium as of March 1, 2016, any obligation to make payments shall not commence while such discussions are continuing and the thirty-six (36) month period and obligation to make additional payments shall begin when Raiders agrees to play football games at a location other than OACC Stadium for the 2016 season; provided, however, that if Raiders agrees to play football at such other location, Raiders shall pay such rental payments retroactively from March 1, 2016.

Compare that to the same clause from the 2014 lease, which allowed for 24 months of training facility use and ended on February 28, 2017. Now they’ll get an extra year, giving them until early 2019 to stay. That could prove useful if the Raiders head to LA for the 2016 season, but the Carson and/or Inglewood stadium plans fall apart in the interim.

It’s a great situation for the Raiders, allowing them to stay fairly cheaply in Alameda while entertaining stadium concepts in Oakland, LA, etc. Allowing the team to be in Alameda past the 2018 effectively gives Mark Davis a three-year grace period, even if the Raiders leave Oakland starting with the 2016 season. If they stay at the Coliseum and engage in further stadium talks, rent on the facility is abated.

Can, kicked.

The grace period allows Davis to not have to look for or build a training facility in LA right away. He could continue to keep the team training in LA, fly them down for “home” games at a temporary stadium on the weekend, and fly them back up Sunday night. The stadium plan in Carson has to be modified to include a second team training facility, though chances are it wouldn’t be ready until at least spring 2018, based on what we know about the political landscape involved and construction lead times.

Let’s be clear about this: a training facility is not make-or-break item when billions of dollars of stadium speculation are the order of the day. It’s still a critical part of team operations. That’s where players will be 5 of 7 days every week during the season, and where they’ll report going back to OTAs. Now it makes more sense that the Raiders are funding improvements to the weight room and other parts of the facility, since they know they’ll be there for a few more years.

As usual, it’s Davis looking out for his team first. Maybe he’s not so different from his dad after all.