The URL can be used to link to this page

2007-02-07 ARRA PacketAGENDA 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 2. CONSENT CALENDAR Wednesday, February 7, 2007 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. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of January 2, 2007. 2 -B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of January 16, 2007. 2 -C. Approve Sublease for Tenant at Alameda Point. 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 3 -A. Selection of a New Master Developer for Alameda Point. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative. 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 749 -5800 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. APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Tuesday. January 2, 2007 The meeting convened at 7:42 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda Lena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 6, 2006. 2 -B. Approve Subleases at Alameda Point. 2 -C. Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a 3rd Amendment to the Standards of Reasonableness to Modify the Allowed Uses for Building 613. Approval of Item 2 -A was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes — 4; Noes — 0; Abstentions — 1 (Member Tam was not present at the 12 -6 -06 ARRA meeting). Approval of Items 2 -B and 2 -C was motioned by Member Tam, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes — 5; Noes — 0; Abstentions — 0. 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS None. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative. There was no report as Member Matarrese was unable to attend the last RAB meeting. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) There were no speaker slips. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY Member deHaan discussed opportunities of the cruise ship industry, citing that the docking of cruise ships in San Francisco earned $10 million per year. Member deHaan requested that staff Page 2 investigate this opportunity further, particularly the deep water docks included in the MARAD lease. Executive Director, Debra Kurita, said the item will be agendized and be brought' back to the ARRA. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, *at/ 0;(44A___ Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Tuesday. January 16, 2007 The meeting convened at 7:47 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda Lena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -B 2 um_ 2 -A. Recommendation to Approve an Agreement with Russell Resources for Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point for 12 Months in an Amount not to exceed $119,000. 2 -B. Authorize PM Realty Group to Enter into a Contract with Belden Consulting Engineers for Design of Pier 2 Electrical Upgrades at Alameda Point in an amount not to exceed $109,500. Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes — 5; Noes — 0; Abstentions —0 4. 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.) 5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY 6. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum February 7, 2007 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director SUBJ: Approve Sublease for Tenant at Alameda Point Background At the December 2004 ARRA Board Meeting, the ARRA elected to review and approve all subleases at Alameda Point. Discussion Richard Miller Photography, a photography studio is renewing its lease for Building 621. The rent will be $0.37 per square foot or $40,920 annually for this structure, which is light manufacturing/warehouse space in fair condition. Attachment A describes the business tetins for the proposed sublease. Fiscal Impact The rent for Richard Miller Photography in Bldg. 621 is $40,920 annually. Recommendation Approve the proposed sublease. Attachment: A. Proposed Sublease Business Terms B. Site Map Rem illy submit ed, Develop Di rector l Nanette 5 rnks n nce &. lclministration Manager Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED SUBLEASE BUSINESS TERMS February 7, 2007 Page 2 TENANT BUILDING SIZE (SF) TERM RENT Richard Miller Photography Building 621 9,198 1 year $3,410/mo. ATTACHMENT B w CA 0 N.) rn SKYHAWK ST. t I I Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Interoffice Memorandum February 7, 2007 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Debra Kurita Executive Director SUBJECT: Selection of New Master Developer for Alameda Point BACKGROUND On September 21, 2006, Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) notified the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) that it was withdrawing as the Alameda Point Master Developer five years after it was selected. APCP cited a downturn in the residential real estate market that no longer supported the $108.5 million land purchase price tentatively'negotiated with the Navy as its primary reason for not moving forward. Following APCP's withdrawal from the project, the Navy agreed to an ARRA- sponsored process to identify a new master developer. The Navy's agreement was predicated on a timely process that would conclude by mid -March and retention of the $108.5 million purchase price and the previously agreed upon payment schedule contained in the draft term sheet. At its October 4, 2006 meeting, the ARRA authorized staff to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to determine if there were developers interested in becoming the Alameda Point Master Developer. DISCUSSION RFQ Process The RFQ was issued on October 19, 2006, and a mandatory bidders conference was held on October 30. The RFQ was posted on the project web site (www.alameda- point.com), mailed to interested developers, and announced in the Association of Defense Communities' (formerly NAID) newsletter. A press release was also published regarding the availability of the RFQ. The RFQ identified several key selection criteria including: • Experience working with former military bases and/or brownfield projects that required large -scale environmental remediation and environmental insurance, • Financial capability to undertake the project, and • Organizational and staff capacity to manage a complex redevelopment project. Experience with complex development projects, including public /private partnerships, is essential to successfully developing a former military base. In addition to concluding a conveyance agreement with the Navy and resolving regulatory challenges including environmental remediation, historic Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority February 7, 2007 Page 2 preservation, and a Tidelands Trust land exchange, the selected developer must negotiate a Development Agreement with the City and a Disposition and Development Agreement with the Community Improvement Commission. Familiarity with environmental laws such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response , Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) guidelines and State Redevelopment Law is necessary. Financial capacity and willingness to spend up to $10 million of "at risk" funds to secure project approvals and to spend another several hundred million dollars before the project begins generating revenue are also requirements to successfully redevelop Alameda Point. In addition to overall project experience and financial capacity, the experience of individual development team members is crucial. Given the project complexities and the length of time anticipated to develop the project, it is important that individual team members have worked together on prior projects and are part of an organizational structure that ensures a well- rounded skill set. In addition to the evaluation criteria outlined above, development teams were asked to submit a vision statement that addressed how the developer would meet the goals and objectives of the Preliminary Design Concept (PDC). The purpose of the vision statement was to determine: • If there was a clear understanding of the regulatory and technical issues at Alameda Point; • If the City's primary goals such as fiscal neutrality, provision of a sports complex and retention of several key buildings as City facilities could be met; and • Whether the project could be developed consistent with the community's vision as captured in the PDC. Over twenty interested parties attended the mandatory bidders conference and fourteen teams participated in one -on -one follow -up meetings to gather more information about the project. On December 4, 2006, five firms submitted responses to the RFQ. The responses were provided to the ARRA Board under separate cover, are posted on the project web site and are available in the City Clerk's Office and Main Library. An evaluation team was formed comprised of the Assistant City Manager, the Acting Project Manager, the ARRA's financial consultant from Economic & Planning Systems, and the ARRA's environmental consultant from Russell Resources. Evaluation Process The evaluation team reviewed the responses and interviewed the five development teams in late December. A thorough reference check for each of the teams was conducted during the month of January. On January 12, one of the five teams, The Corky McMillin Companies, withdrew from consideration stating that its experience, expertise and resources could be best utilized on other opportunities. On January 23, a public open house was held and the four teams introduced themselves to the community with formal presentations and informal question and answer opportunities at developer stations. Over 200 people attended the event. The developer presentations are also posted on the project web site and available at the City Clerk's Office and Main Library. Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority February 7, 2007 Page 3 The attached evaluation matrix has been prepared based on the responses to the RFQ, follow -up interviews, developer presentations and reference checks. The matrix summarizes key elements of each developer's response and provides a rating relative to each criterion (e.g., strong, moderate, weak). The analysis and "grading" is necessarily both qualitative and subjective. For each of the seven criteria used to evaluate the responses, the basis for a weak, moderate or strong rating follows: Base Reuse /Relevant Experience Developers were graded as "weak" if they had no experience redeveloping closed military facilities or comparable complex master planned redevelopment projects. Developers were graded "moderate" if they had some recent experience with these types of projects. Developers were grade "strong" if they had extensive recent experience with closed military base or other complex redevelopment projects. Development Competencies Developers were graded "weak" if they had little or no experience in large mixed -use master planned land development projects, or if they relied upon consultants to provide that expertise. Because of the potential for developers to over or under value portions of the project due to a desire to build some portion of the vertical improvements (homes or businesses), developers were graded "moderate" if they had experience in large mixed -use master planned land development projects but specialized in a particular type of development such as single family residential or commercial. Developers were graded "strong" if they had substantial experience with large mixed used master planned land development projects and no specialization in any type of vertical development. Alameda Point Team Qualifications Developers were graded "weak" if their team had little or no experience working together, individuals on the team had little or no experience working on complex mixed -use development projects, and there was little or no Bay Area development presence. Developers were graded "moderate" if there was some, but not extensive, continuity of team members over time and Bay Area development experience, or if development capacity was evident but possibly spread thin or without depth due to other projects underway. Developers were graded "strong" if the individual team members had worked together extensively on complex development projects and if there was substantial Bay Area development experience. Financial Capability /Approach Developers were graded "weak" if they had limited or conditioned access to capital for acquisition and development activities, or if there was no explanation of how capital would be accessed for the project (terms and conditions for accessing capital) or if the decision - making process for accessing the capital was cumbersome and lengthy. Developers were graded "moderate" if there were reasonable milestones for accessing predevelopment and development capital, and if several principles or committees controlled the decision - making process. Developers were graded "strong" if they had direct access to all required capital (i.e., self - financing capacity with ready access) and a streamlined decision - making process for approval and expenditure of funds. Development Approach Developers were graded "weak" if they had concerns about the PDC and their ability and willingness to fully implement provisions of the PDC and if they did not outline an approach to vertical development at Alameda Point (i.e., third party builders, joint venture partners, assumption of all Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority February 7, 2007 Page 4 vertical as well as horizontal development, etc.). Developers were graded "moderate" if they accepted the PDC but proposed revisions to aspects of the document and if they had an approach to vertical development. Developers were graded "strong" if they accepted the PDC, with only minor revisions, and had a solid approach to vertical development. Acceptance of Existing Business Terms Developers were graded "weak" if they expressed strong reservations or concerns regarding the previously negotiated conveyance term sheet with the Navy. Developers were graded "moderate" if they generally accepted the provisions of the term sheet but indicated an interest in pursuing some modifications. Developers were graded "strong" if they accepted the terms of the conveyance agreement without revision. Environmental Remediation Experience Developers were graded "weak" if they had little or no experience working with Federal and State environmental regulators on complex remediation projects, no experience securing environmental insurance, and no experience with environmental remediation projects or working with the military on privatized or military- retained environmental clean up. Developers were graded "moderate" if they had experience working with environmental regulators on complex remediation projects, have secured environmental insurance and have some experience working with the military on environmental clean up. Developers were graded "strong" if they had extensive environmental remediation experience, worked with environmental regulators routinely, have obtained environmental insurance, and have participated in early transfers, with privatized clean up, of former military bases. The evaluation team's rating of each developer relative to each of the seven criteria is as follows: It is important to note that the evaluation is based on a review of the developer's experience, competencies and financial capability rather than the strength of individual consultants that may be Catellus Lennar SunCal United World Infrastructure Base Reuse/Relevant Experience Moderate Strong Moderate Weak Development Competencies Strong/Moderate Moderate Strong Weak Alameda Point Team Qualifications Moderate Moderate Strong/Moderate Weak Financial Capability /Approach Strong/Moderate Moderate Moderate Weak Development Approach Strong Strong/Moderate Strong Moderate/Weak Acceptance of Existing Business Terms Moderate Weak Moderate Strong Environmental Remediation Experience Strong/Moderate Strong Strong/Moderate Weak It is important to note that the evaluation is based on a review of the developer's experience, competencies and financial capability rather than the strength of individual consultants that may be Honorable Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority February 7, 2007 Page 5 retained to assist in project development and implementation (e.g., architect, land planner, environmental consultant, legal advisor, etc.). The evaluation matrix, along with developer presentations and public comment at the ARRA Board meeting, will assist the ARRA Board in selecting a new master developer for Alameda Point. Next Steps Once a master developer is selected, there will be a 60 -day period in which the selected developer will conduct further due diligence to determine interest in entering into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with the ARRA for a 24- month entitlement period. The selected developer will be required to deposit $100,000 for the 60 -day due diligence period which will be forfeited in the event the developer does not to move forward. If the developer enters into an ENA for the project entitlement period, a $900,000 deposit will be required. If the project is entitled and a conveyance agreement is executed, the deposit will be credited against the purchase price. If the developer terminates the ENA, the $900,000 deposit will be forfeited. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to selecting a master developer. The required deposits described above, along with a cost recovery provision in the ENA, will ensure that the selected developer pays for the ARRA's staff costs and consultant expenses. RECOMMENDATION Consider selection of a new master developer based on responses to the RFQ, participation in the community open house, presentations to the ARRA Board, public comment received, and the attached evaluation matrix. Following selection of a new master developer, authorize the Executive Director to enter into a 60 -day exclusive due diligence period to negotiate an ENA with the selected developer. Respe fully submitted, David Brandt Assistant City Manager By: ebbie ' otter Acting Alameda Point Project Manager m -, x ' 16 ED co , oo co. ° 6 0 0 DD cD 0 c co CD 7.) co co so 6 > . . 5o . o - * a s•-o •• , 2 - 50 8 200 ,. i O a 2 < 5 7 g m l M .0(D< ;D 0 .g3g ,,CD e.,- -<-- co -0 * 0, co -I , 3(1)(05'0 a -; ,- , , o 5. = cc) CD -c 5 (D :.4.' ,-"-- CD •-c a) A) Cn ''' - 0 * -' CD --. CD " a 3 3 - -0 3 - 0 a 0 - CL co 0- 0 a. 2, 0 -, <0 X 0 .7.: 5.. a -• CD -, 0 0.. 0 - z co = - x -.co co • c .... a ,_ u) CD C ,... a „,, 5-, •,. 7 * 0 co a) -0 co a -• 0 0 0 2: ii)-(0 5' 0 - co a) .c-3 •< co - - 0 V) ° ° C 3 a c 3 a) = 0 5.•••"'D.7.....ac.--500 >0000 ri2,TI,R.62=50 37) o F, EL * 0 ilir 6' 5 C > 0 3 0-ua c 3 0 2 6 cn 5' 3' ° (P ' _E-0' a. 0 0 ZO o ‘" - co 0.. 0 -. a co -. - = •-•• a co E - -- 0. a 55- 2 CD 0_ „ 3 5); 0 . 0 cc:. (0. 0 t....' r— m = (0 :-., .• 0 - a to- = 03 (.1 " o co -..< co 0 ..., ....,_ - --.< co -.. -. 6- -• "t) o r-, -, a. w 2 * -0 •.< 0 Fp - oCt a t" • , i c BM , _0-‘ . _05 1 - C )0 coD1 - c o5: 1 E? g- - , 1 09, t. D3. .,--nrT.1 E - * o-(1),rn co 5 5... 3 a .aE ‘..< 5 ca,f-cDa , ..".. a = a .. cn u) co c0 cn - 0 tTu o' = c 0 ID 3- g-• CD zi° 3 ,,N) 5 2 7..,.(0 511 2 3 ru a, g- g a R. ,„, ..: .. g3 0 > c.,CD 0)) g 'f) W, 0 PI; - 2 0 E; co , 5' O. 1\3 --• (I) sii. ° "'" a 0- c2. 3 ° 3 - (a c3 c - -' a -" - - - 2 c c7i ° 3 a) C11 z ° 6 - c-D•f20=c2F)*--)coco amo- 00sKu,,,--,wm-..0=cD. cD.,_ _, co 2. o - • ,... 0 c a a 0 cc a a 2 0 . -.• co 5 ...< cr 0 a c 7 0 -r, P 3 cr a to ::- 0 o ri, 0 0 = 2 a 5 a- - r-r co r- a < 3 to ..? Tr 0. 0 or 3 I:, 2 0 0 8 cow 00 _ 0 m 0 c°.. ET El cl co rs, 3 0 ca 1. 0- SU 0°- 3 2 2 2 2,.., -E3 T c o a) co --••• Et a -- V• CT •-• - .-, 0 - ,..,. = R co 0, (D 5-, 0 = CD 0 LC 74: 0 0 a - 0 0 LT co E_n. CD CL u, 0, < 0, 0, _i 0- D ir) o,, 0 cjj Er CD •-•• co - co -6= SD co Lennar 0, = 0, , 00 x . 5, 3 3 00 F.-7 8 a 0 0-5 c CC0cOD r) 50 o-) - 5c5 o . 0 CC = r) 0 0 l=- •,a ■••, •cC Zn 0 = - co 0) 0 (.7,• -.._, .4 a cc) 2. 0 3 u) -, 5. 9 7 2 5-- o-0,:,--r-7= 2 0, (c) ° ii3 q- 0. . 0 so ,T,. 35- ca o c 2. 0 c -2 u' • ° - 2 * c 6 a * 0 - 5 co .. ...., _ 0) ...•-o 0 0 ° . 2. a) 5 -0 St * 0 Om pa0 0_, 3 -5 3 0 0 --• 0 0 (1 co a. 5" _C,:0 == s... 0 ° k') cD5 ID 0,... CD c..,-, i?... , 0 . z — cjit, ...-- ,-, › 0—.2 ifi (1) cn < --. r' a• cca_. co z co. 6- -5 0 -0 •-. AS 3 CD 7.,.- D 0 6 a 0 a) - a ot) 0 - * 0 ,-,- co a; 3 co = .4-.) --, a- ar, * ,...,< co 2 5 C ,.... cp CD. (4 CD ° a a 5 i 5,-„, .3 a c7i c) = 51: g0 la -8 rpz 0 -0 7 ° a. co a co -0 6 6 3 ..< 0 -0 5 0 ,-- ji 2, =• o E n — 0 ' ,T, < 9-) ° '20 a g ,... - Fri •-• 0 0 (n = co ".. 6 a.- ,<, co 5' 0 5. 5: M. 3 - a- 5)- CD a -. ...,:‹ ,. 0, 5. a..• -, 0 a 9' 0. ° c co M. 9:), ° (0. Cel a a"). &I' a) a. * CD ' t< 5." o 3 cn 5' 5' a SunCal ,..-„,,, =- (11.13 00 '0 3 a -5. CO CD 0' CD 0 0 0- 0 C 5^. 0 Z 0 2 0 5 0 5' 5' _-0 5 -2 C (/) ••••■ g D il) C a 0 5' co A> 0, " 2).. (.,_. c 0 -0, _ _. 3 Z 6 -• , a.. 0., _,, , _ 0 a cs - 5' ° -, a ° E4 5' co 5' cr 9 .-^" 5 a CO •-■ CD' 0 .;:p ID 0 Er 0. * ° 0 CD 0" 1°,1, 0 n .-. CO 5 ..^.T. cc-) co :-,7 - D' °* io- a -0 co co 3 co 2 o ,,,-- w ''' C - CD " 0-03°C 2. D ° caw 3P w-,... 0 = * CD co c0 CD •-•• 0 * .-. %< - o CD I- /5' (j)) M CO - 5' A) co 0 a -, -■ cn D -, cn 5 a a.) - co 8. g co 0 - • (-1-, 5. -, . 3 0* fp" fa 0 0 - C a3 T.?, 0 (R >0) 0. 0 0 5 0 --, ,-.. 0 0 _.„ -0 5. ,...0 , , 0 5'0M03(130-0-coso0- 5 cr 73'cor 0.-00c--co-'0 0---43 ins c.E. - a -3 0 co --c -' :30-....51'-'.03•09 ac 7 a W 5 Z --) C " - (D 0 c- 21 0 C C A) 0 "c - * •-• aa.suoa - 0 - fj., p) CD cD cD CO. a A) FD- a -2, co - -, -• a , r.,_ 0 CD -0 -0 = 0 0 z 0 SO a F-4: cr, cc, c 0 Fp, cn ...< 0 c - c 0 3 „...< ,•< a) a -, o -, < c. a) ca. <cD , ci,.,. , wcr B (D0 „..... - 8 0-g.-z E. - • -.9.. 3 0 0 ..- a 1 ac- 0 a = a) 6 0 ca. zil- cn a _ c 3 co ° -• -. -*cm ° 0 a . CI --- 2 - 0, - st -5- = 0 -. -0 o 5 a a ,-,3 ,,,.* 0 -3 0 z. -0 0 0 A) CD ,... . ° C0 0., -a co • (CD 0 a A) -<- a. 5 0 0 0 CD ....• 0 - c CD EL co 'O. 5 ,6 a 3 5 0.- in- United World Infrastructure z m r m • m • > -a r 0 c 2 -I ▪ 0 E z E m a) Da a k- m m 0 0 M -‘ X ' .0 03 51)4 CD CD. f•ID) M 0 D3 CD a) 0 0 ...... 0 CD C Q. CD = 33 0. -C1 5.00-o (no =-Kao Kc.no 3.05,0 a-B• WO 0 (0 .• -o 0 o 0 o 0 F., F'D .." P M" P 0, ''s O. 0 0 3 *C3 — CL 0 0 c •.: C. >, 3 0 P2- c SP- — R. a (1 9 0 C D gi ..0. . C / ' ° F; 9. a 1..,) D1 _038. a 0 () 9 ... 71 6 u. 0 o) — a 03 E ,-.• 0 < ,.:- CD. tr, ;0' a — > c" •-.. 0 m- •-, CD 0 0 , ....• _ o ,, 5-• 0 Bs — A, il 0 0 (a 0 0 —.•< 3 7, — gr.' • su .3 -' 4. --0.c-ca 0 Z"'0*-.-11 0 ° 0 0 CI O. • 5. 0 x 10 3. > 5.' ct CD < cp '4.' -..° . 3 CI- O' 5 ° %) r co 0 0 = 8 03 a> 0 al 0 a. (-3 F Z13 3- 3 = — " FD -0 S "< c c 0 u) 0 0 14 a. — 0 5 0 7, 0 -. -•, --, , ,..,, c - ,,, 3 x 15.. ,0 .0 '"' s-. 0 a> < ca 0 CD ,.... 0 CD ,... CD ••••• $c c M 0 :-, sZ' 2. co o • B• 0 =- 0 o Catellus Lennar Cl) c = C) 0 * 3%) x- 0, a ° K 0 3 Cr • 0 9- 3 , — -.- 0 9 , ° E 0 — a - , 3, 0 8 , 3 7 R•CD• 0.0CE., (.c, _ ..,, .., = go x ;-...- — (7)- r- .- : -6 , . o s. -.- Bts 0 c 0 CD cn Sn 1: 0 C_ a m o --I < 73 ca S 0 ca .„, ,.... -0 a> 0 CO ", • a> -4* 0" (t) 0 0 0: 0 . 3 = u.) a 0 0 - 0 ,..-, 3 ua • ifi c. B. 0 <3 5 e, 0- 0 (0 .0 0 < 0 0 0 n s< 0 0 0 • CP- CD, 73 0 ,.., 7.... CD ,., ,,, CO. A3 2 — — ai = 0. o ri --■ R- a: c o 0 - c-D-,-o 03 wa3 0 9 5. 0 P < 0 c •-,.. ...,, a. CD FF ca. 0 a 2 — ="-01--<01:Nc2 a> a...8 .<,- . ...... . ci, (f) 7 C 0 N-. 0 23 �' 3 00 3 0 CD c -• ch 0 (., c 5:1.CD 01 a. 62 ..,0 tl> FT * cr "* 0 ° ..._.: 0 73 . 0 c 0 — O c0 * c 0 ° . cp - = United World Infrastructure 0 5a c so > Fs.--•.: sT o 3 A) 0 a 7 A) o -0 o. . _ 5 -1 CD A) 3 N' 0 a) < CD 1:3 3 CD 0 0 0 3 -0 co (D = 0 co' a) 6: ' 9 cp'cc40:74. ,---2, R.: co c o g ill ,z5- a) ,. o.(0 co vl -0 — • -• - — 3 --; - - -0 - 0 ...- 0 0 _ 3 cs) 5 y), 2, -I.Z - o 3 so -). 0 0 ci) < 0 3 o co 2 cl. > 2 0 o -I 52, 0- * o a- 2 su . o. 2 -- 0 = 2 c s-s- •;...- 3 CD — 10 0 5D x- u) 0 * c o _ 0 ,-,21:000oco -.120•<0 2 2. ma:•.) o ‘.., -, - c -, *59 5- s- 08-..:*-6. )< _C co T, Er ° so as --• 3 5 a s 3 52. 3 ° 9.229,, ..,>..-<„,.(c�occ0.0Q <co-u-D-..„ 6 0 a,- 2 co A) -rs 3 0 dal X TA 0 — —. 0 --.' 0 -... 0 7 ,G — 0- -0 - 9) -0 - 'V O. 0 -0 :It .-^ a...' CD 0 0 c -' A) $1) , = ='' (c," * > 0 a ...■ 0 , CD M, ,,,, 0 5 3 CD CD 0 0- al .....- o) 2- 0 2 3 . 0 - (0. C2 '0 r- sa. . 0 0 mg,),?...o0g--..a.0 cwo = a CD CD -, CD A) 0 • 0 co 0 m „fo_ 2 As a land developer, Catellus has experience across residential, office, industrial and retail uses. Catellus indicates that they are a "one -stop shop" with horizontal (land) and vertical development capabilities across product types. However, they are experienced primarily in horizontal development and nonresidential vertical construction, and have indicated that they will use multiple third -party builders for residential development, and will only do commerciatindustrial vertical development themselves. Rating: Strong/Moderate 0 E- o 0 3 0 0 sa) =. - 0 *5 a 0 P., 3 .„.-. 2 0 00,051,3 ° -, r- -• = - CD7'0„CDK°R) M.7-0°00000C su 18 a) 2 so. <..5.2. •‹. sa) - su or10,0200-0-01?)0.=o, ss< -••• c 0 2. co P.. l'E ii3 -, -6* 5 2 g -^ ° Fo` 0. 0 a c a 0 n• 0- 0 3 ..... 1 2.3: 0 -, — ,... — 3 3 CD 0 ' 43 • 2.2.• 2*0°,1,0 i'^-,= 70:' -0 ''' cE--i-c cDocom m5 0 6 Cr '0. A) 0.51"DCD(D000n,000,!aci) WS:a ra, c2r: (cDo 0 oc A3 oo n l i0 .,..-- . (,-! A. C — o .. a 1o::1 0a 10 hems_u . ia i 1 ;.n i l . 1 6 2 o 3 5 ...., 9.- to .-s. cn - Lennar Communities is a major national homebuilding company. In recent years, they have gotten into the land development business, primarily to secure lots for their homebuilding business. Lennar would bring in partners or do third -party land sales to develop the nonresidential components of the plan. They would seek to do as much of the homebuilding as possible. They focus on for -sale housing. Rating: Moderate Lennar --* 0 = '-■ Cr -a > '0 CD * .5. > o -n (1) ar LT * CO 0" a 0 CD 0,-,ccx0-.c),-.-As22002 x- C- 00 7- 6 CI . * 1 9 17 C ■ LI ( D- • Ca a -0 0 K o D ( Z-- c,o ' ... 5 rn - 6.Q° — 0 2, 3 a, C (0 0 2 ceD" 5.1. 0 0 ..-I 3 0 0 51) 3 •-• = < .... zi 00 ,..., FD- — 0- 0. -4 - =-0 r- ..< „,,, a) 0- 0 3.... 0 .,. 3 5 A -. o i.:: fp E' -0 0 m m 005 2."--3°-,c1.8_,.2 00). cx_-.,...3(A) o>512 02- '' ,a, (5 K - 3 a a, ' C3 D 0 0 — ,•0 - •,•,• ••0 7< . : c- 2ot - ..a" .) a'-' 0 r- 0 0 CD 0 C 0 o = SunCal is strictly a land development company. They have substantial experience in all facets of and acquisition, entitlement, horizontal development and marketing to third - party builders and developers. SunCal does not specialize in either residential or commercial development. SunCal indicates that it would finalize the and use plan and design and will develop all of the infrastructure for the project, but will engage various residential builders and commercial developers to construct the buildings. Rating: Strong c 2 0 xi o-rn-o=o0 00 12 c -I 10 00c-socooziocoso,8; co 2 _ c La 3 a 0 o 3 0 0 * m 2 X" (1 c 5 ) .- 2.0 E.,-<DQ),._ 03 •4 > rr, 0 m st: a 0) -• A) — c0 — " • - 0 co a 2 0 o) o) 0 2 o = r.t. -0 :I' cat 0 3,..xCco 0 c3 pi 0 RI CD 0 , a 0 o co. -00c <0"1.00.. Eo 'a 2oa ca 2: 5 0) g (0 = (13 e 0 C A) C 0) 0 = a- "rii- UWI describes itself as a real estate and infrastructure investment and development management organization. They provide "...project and risk analysis, financial structuring, capitalization and monetization planning, feasibility studies, marketing, tender management, evaluation and contractual support'. UWI does not appear to have development expertise, per se, and they seem to have focused primarily on large -scale infrastructure projects, rather than land development. Rating: Weak United World Infrastructure 4. Financial Capability /Approach Catellus is an integral part of ProLogis, a global REIT with a market capitalization (shareholder equity) of $5.5 billion in 2005. ProLogis has a $3.4 billion global credit line, which allows it to self- finance the Alameda Point Project, including predevelopment. While large and higher risk mixed use developments are familiar to the Catellus subsidiary historicall such .ro'ects are new to 33 0 9 o m m ....1 m (... o- o o 5 o.7 e „.. 2 5,(D ,..?, 730 at 2 ...-_,T 77 CD < 'V cp&T,T7°00 CD • 00 V' 0 °- 0 2 0 il 0 — 94.. - g- a. a) 0- 0(g*P051,) 2m(D. DD OSOff iil 3!" 0 p3 .-. 7 a *0 ,-.. la fa < in- 5-- .7.....Q. a' ,- 0' fa :-._..z .....= 0 ,_,-- E.-- ft * 0.- 0° 0 '''' °- ° >a<' u) c U., 0 M" = �D0 0 0:44 3 '< 0 07 0-... ,.., - * - 53 o 3 cn x. 0 0 --c CDSA< _0,0'j:1 „„,-$7(130,2 .3-`0w‘-' ....*=w0..-..(0 - 0- a) @ EL.' 2 a) o ,-, O •-« m cx.o3 -,..,03 -.0 -..coc....mw..„-K 0- 0 5 1/4-, i,-; 9. 9- , (Dc' --I * Q.— L' 0— a; 00 st › p a t;" -'< ..? o ir) Fp' a CD :--• p) 0 < `" A) 0 3 - mr. ,;,.. 3 -D. 2 a w 5: = co m 5- 1> (1, if, (7; (c3 0 43) < D3 w m 5: a. = 5< cn 12 - . . . . . - , 2 0. 0. a) a) '< (D to" 7. * 0 CD (D 0 0 a ..... (p -0 Catellus Lennar Communities is a publicly traded company with a market capitalization in excess of $5 billion at the end of 2005. The company has a strong track record of growth and earnings, and has established relationships with both equity and lending financial sources. However, Lennar's stock price has declined significantly over the past 12 months. Lennar indicates that it would most 02 p,,, to 2. ii3 m 3, _. 0000z (p 0 C — 0 O. '0 (0 0 (0, 9) , m • 0- cr; = 3 • '-;-...' 0 5 o- cr; (1) w = a) v 0 .,....: 0. , . a Fii. CO 0) Lennar SunCal, a privately held company, has established relationships with various equity funding sources including Lehman Brothers and Calsters Pension Fund, and indicates that they are expanding their relationships with hedge funds and other private equity concerns. They state that they have the ability to purchase the Alameda Point site without a financial partner and in fact did •urchase the former 33 "o 5' 5 0 8 lz co a °: a. 3 0 a . -Th r.-... m...-(--D• 5 2 a ro iF -12. (7, -0 o 9 - ... m 3 CD --, .,_, .0.: 0 0. (D CD 0 w SP,, -, (D Ct. 7.- •-. 0) c 0 Fp' 0 0. o fil 3 m 0. 0 (0 • (p ■-. 0 at 0 7 0) 23 SD — ill 0cm....,•< 3 -* WI CD —0, CD CI) g 0 a Jumeirah Capital is the core ownership of UWI. Funding for UWI comes from very significant funds held by private Middle Eastern families, primarily derived from oil revenues. Jumeirah Capital's balance sheet is atypical relative to more conventional real estate firms. Its assets are virtually all retained earnings, and there are very small liabilities. UWI indicates that it can fund the .roject entirel from its United World Infrastructure 5. Development Approach Catellus acknowledges the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) as the basis for its proposal. They mention some possible refinements, including a more diverse residential product mix, and more retail. Catellus would expect to do vertical development of retail and office, and have multiple third -party builders do the residential. Rating: Strong 33 ,.... 0 9 a o 0, ii M 0 0 0- 5. 0- ar 0 co so ,...-..., 0 5. > ‘,<D 0.. 0... 8 :4-,. F2,. 8.• 5." 17 92. 0" 0 CD a) a g . s< a> f.i.' 0 0 „so. a), 3 •-< 3 5 •-, s10 0 -, .52, 0 A., lc a ns• a am 7.-,=„,-5.0) 0 , a. 0 _ ...-- 3 ET 0 0. 0 g o' if, P. o. B. • 0 5-2 0 .... CD -• . 0 0 0- CD 0 c 0 0 P ct. 0 6," co csA ,50.) = 0 c 0 0 0 c, 3 Eir •-.2 co B > 0 cn FP • `S. = 0 3 .. co 0 — - -,, •-•• _.1 CD 0 c = 0(0 0 • =, 7.: = -. 0 CD 0 . sz go _ 0. — 3 o 0 5 0 '0 CO 0 0 CD 0 = 0 < ^-•• 0 0 -g w (D o 3 (1) o • c - 5 . > * .....,( g o 0 3 co 0, CO 0 0 CD _7 5- o i a) cAt CD a' (D ir 0 0 sn r.:... ,... 0 0 m 0 —0 = CD 0 7 0 0 2 0 Z 0 0 . 5- T G ..< 7 --• CT ••< * . 74. ,- : 6 o st n- = = 0 C 0 a> o co CD 0, Catellus Lennar acknowledges the vision in the PDC, but would want to conduct detailed due diligence on the plan and work with the City and community to refine it. They indicated that, based on their extensive experience with base reuse, they have various concerns with the plan and the term sheet that they would need to resolve. On vertical development, Lennar would give first opportunity to their home building group. They would likely +artner or do third -•art land sales for ro a 0 a) a -o o3 -0 7 3 O. (1) — —. < 7.-, co -. CD (1) — 0 r-r CD CD ...<- 0 0 c. --, to --.- . --17 - DI -0 CD -.. •-■ .. • 0 7 CD c.„ --,. c , z 0 0 E 0 0. (2•■ Baca.om&-' 0 0 ;9 CD CD 0. mCD 0 it; o 0 0-000°01—x2M (7). 3 (D la -- .71," 3 0 CD 0 -, ..< • •• 0 w -. o ...< -. CD %) • 7 o co. < a. 5 6 .--..-, CD •• Lennar SunCal acknowledges the PDC as the framework for development of Alameda Point. They have mentioned several areas where they might like to explore refinement of the plan, including the configuration and requirements of the historic district, and the early activation of the marina. SunCal has also expressed a willingness to explore a more "visionary" land plan if desired by the community. SunCal would do only horizontal — 7 :-.: c• 0 C.5. °.., (a .....- 0 = 0. * =,' 7 ',Z a = --... — 0 0 0 5' CD 7 •-••• t. . co 2 0. 5t -(3 0 * D.) gi B. •-Z 1 < ' Be 5: 0' P u) 2) co ,< 3 -0 .-. ..... * 0, 5* •-• = ,..,. .0 0, -cp, 0 < (a _c 5 . 0 r \),< — - - . = " i 0 0 O. CD 0 •-••• CO 0 5:0 Pr; 73. F., 4:1 6-, 0 0 (1.3 .?... CD ,7 c, = 0 (17 0 < • :.-..: P3-0-2)a)-' -, co B . co CD 0 , C, i , ; .1 5 ' i ?) 4.3 5 0= 5^ B iii•<7.....00.0<o-ma-0o c....... = o CD 5 0. 3 . . 5: 0 ... sp c..). DJ ;,■,, — 0 G -02 11) 5 co co --< 0 '.< CD = ,,, a ...., CD 0 a. . Q. o 0 o SunCal UWI proposes a "Green Island" community that wit attract industries involved in altemative energy and alternative transportation technologies associated with a CNCI. These industries would be integrated with a mixed - income residential community, a town center and multiple neighborhood commercial centers, transit facilities, and ecologically oriented parks and open space. In its interview with the evaluation team, UWI has said that it would not proceed with the project without ma'or chan•es to the land +Ian. 31 0 FP * * a 0 ‘42.' 0o� , -. m.' P—FoR)coo — w CD cr 0 8 -, a. 3 CD D 0 0 7 5' • A, -,- = 0 0 CD ° C 0 --K D -0 < CD a SD a « 3 •,- 0' 5' p, 0 0 United World Infrastructure 03 5,-, c 5 0 D � CP CD -I fir CD a B CD CD 0 MI X. = CL:1 33 C3 7.1° ii3 (T) 4Z6) 11"5-2'0° 0.3. F6 0E-)03a3c7;00°0 CD- ° E- ta .-. 0- 0 -. °. hi 0 c ii-, 2 - 43= =°. r• 0 5 a. 3 ° * • ---..„. -• fij '..."' .5-'' 0) co 0 0 co 0_, - ,,-, 5 0. o a) ,, cr 0 W 0 a a at ta : • • • , A ) C D . = ° ° A ) E.).. F-3. tic 0. 0 a ,-. a 0 ,_.• 11 • - (7, -j• cp 0 ...- ....,=-a.)....c 'O E°- s7) c er (c9 m • ii) -,0 (Dm' cn 9, 3 .-, a) 0, Z73 D) 'eh. CD ,... - °. 0 2. •-1 0 ;:;:.< o 0 o, -3. °. - 0 < ..... 0 5, ' > 0 5. -0 0 Er ry CD •< co 0 4. 2 o) 0 3 4.-7 a) (0 cr -... 0- 0 CD C ::. 5- a; c .--, 4,, 5' 2 --. -0 E * 0 o - .''''-i' Q co c-.I..) - 0 9" 7, — 5' 8=---o -1 =*-0 0 ,f) (7; 3 E.- .< = [1,7 - CD co a' E 5. ° cr Catellus 21 ill' mcl• (Da -8 5-' 2 8 2 gi ,a,) .9. c7, §.. CD 14.1 0 ;••■• CD CD -, co Er': < 0 0 co 5-'' 0 5' o 0 1::' 0: --( E3 Fri (0 "'" 0 11) 0 .-- --( ---' °" co 0 0 10 a 0 E., ,F? Pag,',14g5.-.6.Sislt,(D.- 0 -0cr.-.00D-° Dx a a> a> 0 a 0 = a,- -• 0 C 0 -. ...., 0 = CO 0 ••••• 3 a) - - 0 - ° - cc) ia a> =' - s.Z . '..Z" (..1. -) - m a CD ?‹ 0 0- 0 -.... 0.. o ..... A 0 0 C D Fr; CD -0 •••■• 0 •-• 0 ''. la 5: co a--.. - 0 - o , ,..., 3 = a) < * 0 SA 0. -, > .,...• ••*. a ° a - 0, 0' D) ,a) 5 a 0. •-•• CD 03 A) CDM 0 a all the office, industrial and retail. LNR, now a separate company from Lennar, would be a candidate partner for commerciaUndustrial uses, as would KIMCO, and Wilson, Meany, Sullivan. Rating: Strong/Moderate Lennar a) --*. 5 9 0 0. 9' a) Er . _. , _,. , 0 0 •-•• _.1 -1 •-•• ra la CD > 5 3) a) Ci) a" a ''' A) CD CD fl) CD -.• A) . a 0_ = ,„ 0. Ea. -a 0 2. A) = a 0 -, CD A) •••• 0 a) 3 5 - c ..., 0 0 - ,... 0 a a -• CD 0 -1 cr sl, 0- 7 0 °. ry 0 0 51) E■ a) • - 3 < 2 0 05 a 0 S' 0 * E..) 3 a CD CD CD CO *0 ... Cr a ■-•• ^ %., CD "" z ,-.. 0 * ° 0 3 .:.Z- '0 s.---. ,„ • . rz cp. 0 3 — cc, =- ,..-..., .... or, 0. • < -", = o- ...,. ,..., 7 - 2 5-' a 0 5-'' 0 0 a -.• . -I ;,--,• *0 0 .< ). 0 -, 5 (ID (3,1 ° 3 o ';',', E, E = 5 7 -5 F. --•• o) - 2 co ....: 0 ,.,,, '3' CD -0 Ci...) A) a• 3 8 st 4(' CD 9).. 5 zi; -1 5 j' ° g g 45 cb a 57 g a -. a m 0 -.• "" 5 2. _. 0 0 0T- -, - . ,0.•-,• 0 0c 0 -. . 0 -c, ca <7,9 ---- 4 ,25) <T, _. 0 < < 5 ,..• 0 •-•• a 0 F) 6 5. a °- Cr , 114. CO= 0..... CD all 0 • •••t A, 0 ,.... -. A) , C -•• ,. 5 CD CD 2 caa.,<a) 3 - 0 a) Fri P development, using third -party builders for the vertical. They would use multiple builders, bring them in early in the project, and use existing relationships on other projects to maximize land price. They typically negotiate price or profit participation as well. Rating: Strong (/) c a 0 a) 33 5. 5Z * 1?, 5' Z C .t. (13 8- 8- , 0 ..* — = 3 c 5- , 5 5* , -: n r 0 ‘.< " a' ... a. ■1 5 r. a) 0 a = 3 -.• ,a a) 0 . 0 in ' c• = -.. C) i. 5 ° < 2, ° o "< 0 2 5' a 0 -03 a) 2 - 0 -.. 0 a> 3 m 22, CD 5,-c) 5 = ? CD ••••• •a = j = .. . 5 ' < l . 2, E3 . -o a> 0 . . F.2. . E. - •$1) .9-. 5 g <2 na3 - 0.0 X A) • :-.• a. 0 A) a. 0 UWI did not reiterate that position at the public open house and it is unclear whether it is still a prerequisite to completing the project. Rating: Moderate/Weak United World Infrastructure M :■J x. -o m co o. = o 0 co = 3 a) m 0) DJ co B CD CI: 63- *. 5 = Catellus has substantial experience with environmental remediation on a variety of properties, including the redevelopment of a former oil refinery in Hercules and, to a lesser degree, from its Bayport project in Alameda. They have established relationships with environmental regulators and insurers, but have not engaged in significant negotiations with the Navy over environmental cleanup programs and funding. They indicate that they are the largest real estate client for the insurer, AIG. Rating: Strong/Moderate Catellus Lennar has extensive experience with environmental remediation as a result of their base reuse activities, and has developed working relationships with state and federal regulators, environmental consultants, and insurance companies. They also have been involved extensively in negotiations with the Navy on environmental mitigation and conveyance issues. Lennar is the only developer who has been involved in a transfer under a Finding of Suitability for Early Transfer. Rating: Strong Lennar SunCal will be remediating asbestos and lead based paint contamination as they demolish existing structures on the site of the former Oak Knoll Naval Hospital in Oakland. They have also been responsible for toxics remediation in the course of demolishing the 2.5 million- square foot former campus of Hughes /Raytheon for the Amerige Heights project in Fullerton, California. Rating: Strong/Moderate SunCal One of the UWI team members is described as specializing in sustainable housing and property environmental remediation, but listed projects do not appear to involve the type of remediation work required for Alameda Point. Rating: Weak United World Infrastructure