Excerpt:

BACKGROUND

In April 2014, the City Council provided direction to staff to issue two Requests for Qualifications (RFQ) from developers for two development sites at Alameda Point, as well as approved a form of Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA). Attachment 1 depicts a map of Sites A and B. The RFQs were issued on May 1, 2014 (Attachments 2 and 3). An offering sheet summarizing the development opportunity and inviting developers to review and submit a response to the two RFQs was sent to an extensive list of developers; an ad was placed on the Urban Land Institute website (a national land development association); and prominent articles announcing the RFQs were run in the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco Business Times.

Site A consists of 68 acres within the Waterfront Town Center (WTC) zoning sub-district and Site B consists of a total of 82 acres, of which 14 acres are within the WTC sub-district, 38 acres within the Enterprise 1 (E-1) zoning sub-district, 23 acres within the Enterprise 2 (E-2) zoning sub-district, and seven acres within Enterprise 3 (E-3) zoning sub-district.

The RFQ for Site A solicited interest from developers interested in developing a residential/commercial mixed-use project consistent with the recently approved Town Center Waterfront Plan and Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP); and the RFQ for Site B solicited interest from developers/users interested in developing commercial projects with a focus on a major sales tax generator, such as a premium retail outlet (not a "big box" store) and/or a corporate "build-to-suit" user(s) that generates significant jobs, business-to-business sales tax or other catalytic economic benefits (consistent with the Town Center Waterfront Plan, the rezoning and MIP).

The RFQs required developers to submit a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) that included a project understanding and approach; description of project team; project description; a summary of previous experience; financial qualifications; and an acceptance of conditions, including any requested modifications to any aspect of the form of ENA approved by the City Council on April 15th. The SOQs were due to the City by June 16, 2014.

The City received 10 responses to the Site A RFQ and seven responses to the Site B RFQ. One of the Site A responses and three of the Site B responses were not submitted in a timely fashion and/or did not meet the minimum requirements of the RFQ. These responses were disqualified and not reviewed. As a result, there were nine complete qualified responses to the Site A RFQ and four to the Site B RFQ. On September 2, 2014, the City Council approved two developer finalists for Site A: Alameda Point Partners and Brookfield Homes. This evening's staff report focuses on the selection of two finalists for Site B: Catellus Development Corporation and Mission Bay Development Group. The following summarizes the names of the four developers who submitted qualified responses for Site B:

1. Catellus Development Corporation (Catellus)
2. CIM Group
3. Mission Bay Development Group (MBDG)
4. Trumark Homes

All qualified SOQs submitted in response to the Site B RFQ are attached (Attachment 4).

An inter-departmental team of City staff reviewed the submittals based on the evaluation criteria in the RFQ: (1) responsiveness to the RFQ; (2) evidence of relevant experience and proven track record; (3) technical capability and relevant experience of the project management staff; (4) evidence of financial capacity, resources, and relationships, and clear corporate/organizational structure; and (5) in depth understanding of, and reasonable approach to the project. Based on this evaluation process, City staff invited three developers for Site B to an interview. The interviews were held in July with a panel that included an inter-departmental team of City staff and members of the community, including representatives of the Planning Board, Alameda Point Collaborative, Association of Realtors, Alameda Point tenants, Chamber of Commerce, and West Alameda Business Association.
The Site B interview panel recommended two developers as finalists for Site B: CIM Group and MBDG. However, CIM Group withdrew their interest in Site B due to the uncertainty of the market for commercial uses at Alameda Point. As a result, staff selected Catellus as the other proposed finalist for Site B. Despite not being selected initially by the panel, staff has significant confidence in recommending Catellus as a highly qualified development firm for Site B. Both finalists include very qualified urban design and planning firms, architecture, and landscape architecture firms, presented in greater detail in their SOQs.

Both of the finalists for Site B are proposing significant commercial development with a focus on build-to-suit corporate users, including office/R&D and light industrial uses, and also potentially retail, hospitality and other commercial uses. The details of an exact project description was not the primary focus of the RFQ process, but will be explored in much greater detail and more clearly defined during the ENA period.