City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: 06/13/11 Item Number: J-1
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AGENDA ITEM:
Selection of Three Developers to Submit Proposals for the Redevelopment of City-
Owned Property at 9300 Culver Boulevard.
Contact Person/Dept.:
Joe Susca/CDD
Todd Tipton/ CDD
Phone Number:
(310) 253-5763
(310) 253-5783
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes [] No [X] Date: _______________
Public Notification (E-Mail) Redevelopment Agency Projects (05/27/11); (E-Mail) Meetings
and Agendas – City Council (06/08/11); (E-Mail) Meetings and Agendas –
Redevelopment Agency); (E-Mail) The Downtown Business Association (05/27/11); (E-
Mail) The Advisory Committee on Redevelopment (05/27/11); (E-Mail) The Gateway
Neighborhood Association (05/27/11); (E-Mail) The Seven Developer Respondents to the
RFQ; (E-Mail) The Downtown Neighborhood Association (05/27/11); (E-Mail) The Culver
City Chamber of Commerce (05/27/11); (E-Mail) Members of the public who attended the
11/09/10 workshop on the subject matter (05/27/11); (E-Mail) Members of the public who
pulled speaker cards on the subject matter during the Agency Board meeting of 10/04/10
and 02/14/11 (05/27/11); (U.S. Post) A public notice was mailed to businesses, residents,
and property owners in excess of a 500’ radius of the site (05/27/11); (U.S. Post and E-
Mail) Rush Pacifica LLC (05/27/11).
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld (06/01/11)
City Attorney:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (06/08/11)
Agency Counsel Approval:
Murray Kane: (06/02/11)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (06/08/11)
City Manager/Executive Director Approval:
John M. Nachbar (06/08/11)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council and Culver City Redevelopment Agency Board
(Agency Board) select the Tolkin Group, Combined Properties/Hudson Pacific, and
Macerich as the most qualified developers to submit proposals to redevelop 9300
Culver Boulevard (Parcel B) as the first step in the RFQ/RFP process.
BACKGROUND:
On February 14, 2011 the Agency Board approved a two-step process to select a
developer for Parcel B.|1010| The first step involves issuing a Request for Qualifications
(RFQ) to premier firms in order to identify those that are most qualified to develop
Parcel B. The second step involves issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) to City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
those respondents considered the most qualified in the RFQ process in order to
obtain the best development proposals for Parcel B.
The RFQ issued to secure a new developer for Parcel B included the list of
community goals outlined in a workshop held on November 9, 2010 along with the
following Agency Board goals (collectively with the community goals, the
Community Goals):|1010|
§ Maintain the existing Parcel B entitlements to reduce project costs and
development timeframes.|1010|
§ Modify the project to create an “iconic” design that is “pedestrian friendly”
and to avoid development of a “fortress-like” or “monolithic” building.
The intent of the RFQ is to identify qualified developers that demonstrate the ability
to undertake the project. The subsequent RFP is designed to obtain a highly
technical and detailed response from each developer that meets the Community
Goals and generates the best project for Downtown Culver City.
DISCUSSION:
The RFQ was sent to 17 developers and seven responded. The respondents’
qualifications vary as do the projects they develop. Staff verified references and
performed a detailed qualitative and quantitative analysis of the firms. The
developers were rated in the categories of experience, financial feasibility, financial
capability, design goals, adherence to development parameters, entitlement
consistency, project schedule, and ability to achieve the Community Goals.
Eight criteria were established to evaluate the submittals based upon the
Community Goals. The categories are defined as follows:
Experience: The development team (architects, developer, financial firms, and
tenant broker) have experience with projects of similar size, scale and
redevelopment objectives.
Financial Feasibility and Capability: The developer’s ability to obtain a construction
loan and raise the necessary equity to complete their projects. This category also
includes the developer’s anticipated return on investment, longevity, capital on
hand, individual equity commitment, and debt to equity ratio.
Design and Adherence to Development Parameters:Conformance to the
development parameters and creativity in identifying new opportunities through
tenant mix and the development program.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Entitlement Consistency: Conformance with the entitlement development program
consisting of a 115,108 total square feet building consisting of 40,335 square feet of
restaurant/retailers and 74,773 square feet of office space with a maximum height
of 56 feet.
Project Schedule: Ability to dedicate staff and other resources to the project based
on existing workload to allow completion of a project within reasonable time frames.
Achieve Community Goals: The ability to achieve the goals outlined by the
community and the Agency Board within the context of the existing entitlement.
A detailed summary of the individual category ratings for each developer are
included in Attachment No. 1.
Based upon the criteria and evaluations of submittals, staff recommends that the
Tolkin Group, Combined Properties/Hudson Pacific, and Macerich receive RFP’s
with the following requirements:
§ Evidence of potential tenants and evidence of such tenants’ interest in
locating in a completed project on Parcel B.
§ Conceptual plans in color, including a site plan and elevations and details of
design intent.
§ Detailed financial pro forma, including an offer to purchase the land.
§ Timeline to complete the project.
Next Steps:
1. Prepare and issue a RFP to the developer finalists, allowing a 60-day
response time.
2. Proposal evaluations based upon development criteria and developer
interview.
3. City Council/Agency Board selection of development firm.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
Issuance of an RFP to the recommended developers will not have a significant
fiscal impact.
If the selected developer built a project with the existing entitlements whose building
cost the same as the prior development, staff estimates it would generate Tax
Increment receipts of approximately $5.5 million over the remaining life of the
Agency Project Area. The City would receive building permit fees (approximately
$1 million in one-time permit fees), and Sales Tax, Business Tax and Utility Users
Tax totaling approximately $265,000 annually.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Summary of Developer Ratings by Category
MOTION:
That the City Council and Agency Board:
1. Selectthe Tolkin Group, Combined Properties/Hudson Pacific and Macerich
as the most qualified developers to submit a proposal for redevelopment of
Parcel B; and
2. Authorize the City Manager/Executive Director to prepare and issue the RFP
to the developer finalists.
NOTES:
|1010|The Agency and the City entered into a Cooperation Agreement dated January 15, 2011, as
amended on February 22, 2011 and March 7, 2011 (collectively the “Cooperation Agreement”). In
furtherance of the Cooperation Agreement and to achieve important public purposes, the Agency has
conveyed the Parcel B property and other Agency-owned properties to the City and has transferred
the Agency’s cash accounts to the City to carry out the duties and obligations of the Agency (without
resulting liability to the City), devoid of relieving the Agency of its duties and obligations to fulfill the
goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan for Component Area No. 3. |1010|The 11-9-10 community workshop recommendations included:
§ Mixed Use Commercial / Residential Development
§ A hotel
§ Cultural uses on the upper floors should replace the office.
§ The design should be open with less massing and architectural design should complement
those buildings that surround it.
§ Adopt the prior OliverMcMillan design for the site.
§ Require the project to be Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certified.
§ Create more green space, and the tenants should include a stationery store and a book store.
§ Reduce or eliminate the office use due to the glut of office space now for lease on the market.
§ Include retail and cultural uses that draw more people to downtown.
§ Adopt a use similar to the FerryBuilding in San Francisco and its farmers’ market.
§ Additional parking should be built as part of the project.
§ Provide more downtown retail to balance existing restaurant and office uses.
§ Build green space on the roof.
§ The project should preserve the view of The Culver Studios Mansion and the Culver Hotel.
§ The project should adhere to the initial goals outlined for Parcel B in the 1991 Downtown
Charette.
§ Affordable housing should be built on the upper floors.
§ Public bathrooms should be built within the project for use by town plaza event attendees.
§ Given the financial hardships the City now faces, we need to mindful of the revenue impacts of
any proposed project.
§ The project should complement the Transit Oriented Development located at the
Washington/National Exposition Light Rail Station.
§ City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
|1010|Parcel B has entitlements for a three-story, 118,000 square feet office and retail development with
84 subterranean parking spaces. Redevelopment of the property using the current entitlements
requires conformance to the permitted development program consistent with the environmental
review for the project (i.e. the development must be consistent with the project height, vehicle trip
generation and other environment factors identified in the environmental clearance.)
MEETING DATE: 06/13/11
AGENDA ITEM: JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY BOARD ITEM: Approve the Selection of
Three Developers to Submit Proposals for the
Redevelopment of City-Owned Property at 9300
Culver Boulevard.
ATTACHMENTS
Item Description Pages
1
Summary of Developer Ratings by Category
1
Summary of Developer Ratings by Category
Developer
Total
Points
Design
Development
Parameters
Entitlement
Consistency
Track Record
Financial
Feasibility
Financial
Capability
Project
Schedule
Achieves
Community Goals
Tolkin
Group
17 3 3 1 3 1 2 1 3
Combined
Properties/
Hudson
Pacific
16
2 3
1 3 1 3 1 2
Macerich
14 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 2
Cardiff
Realty/N3
Retail
Investors
12
2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2
Runyon
Group
12 3 2 1 0 1 2 1 2
Legado
11 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2
Stark
Enterprises
6 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 0
Point Scale: 0 to 3 (3 highest)
Rating Criteria:
Design/Adherence to Development Parameters: Conformance to the development parameters and creativity in identifying new
opportunities through tenant mix and the development program.
Entitlement Consistency: Conformance with the entitlement development program consisting of a 115,108 total square feet
building consisting of 40,335 square feet of restaurant/retailers and 74,773 square feet of office space with a maximum height of
56 feet.
Track Record/Experience: The development team (architects, developer, financial firms and tenant broker) have experience with
projects of similar size, scale and redevelopment objectives.
Financial Feasibility and Capability: The developer’s ability to obtain a construction loan and raise the necessary equity to
complete their projects. Also includes the developer’s anticipated return on investment, longevity, capital on hand, individual
equity commitment and debt to equity ratio.
Project Schedule: Ability to dedicate staff and other resources to the project based on existing workload.
Achieve Community and Agency Board Objectives: The ability to achieve the goals outlined by the community and the Agency
Board within the context of the existing entitlement.
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
Page 1