The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 08141984 - 2.4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: August 14, 1984 'UBJECT: Airport Center Executive Park 4wific Request(s) or Recommendations & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATION L Designate Reynolds and Brown as project developer for Airport Center Executive Park as recommended by Public Works Director. 2 Direct Public Works Department to negotiate appropriate agreements with Reynolds and Brown. 3. Direct the County Administrator and Public Works Director to prepare a report on anticipated cash flow and how the income should be utilized. BACKGROUND The selection committee for developers of Airport Center Executive Park has recommended the designation of Reynolds and Brown as project developers. The recommendation is container) in the attached memorandum from Robert M. Rygh, Selection Committee Chairman. I concur with this recommendation. Continued on attachment: yes Signature: �awbmmendation of County Administrator Recommendation of Board Committee Approve Oth Signature(s): Action of Board on: / g Approved as Recommended Other Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN Unanimous (Absent ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE Ayes: Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. Absent: Abstain: Attested /� Jy-'1qrV (rig. Div.: Public Works (LM) J.R. OL CLERK AND cc: County Administrator County Counsel EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD By DEPUTY airex14.t8. 00242 ATTACHMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: August 8, 1984 TO: J. Michael Walford, Public Works Direct FROM: R. M. Rygh, Deputy Public Works Directo BuiI'd is and Grounds SUBJECT: AIRPORT CENTER EXECUTIVE PARK - SELECTION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION On July 10, 1984, development proposals for Airport Center Executive Park were received from The Hofmann Company, Reynolds & Brown, and Trammel Crow Company and referred to the Airport Center Selection Committee for evaluation. In accordance with the procedures established for the Airport Center Project the Selection Committee was created to study and evaluate each development proposal- on the basis of: A. Project quality B. Developer's qualifications C. Option price, overall return, and economic benefit The Selection Committee members represented a range of architectural engineer- ing, planning, and financial skills. The Selection Committee members were: 1. R. M. Rygh, Deputy Public Works Director, Buildings and Grounds (Selection Committee Chairman) 2. Ken Payne, Associate Vice President, Dean Witter & Company 3. Raleigh Davis, Architect/Partner, Davis, Rica & Associates 4. Dr. Claude Gruen, Economist, Gruen Gruen + Associates 5. Dan Vanderpriem, Senior Planner Contra Costa County Planning Department 6. Hal Wight, Manager of Airports 7. DeRoyce Bell, Deputy County Administrator B. . Bob Hill, , Supervising Architect 9. -W. -Alan Pfeiffer, Lease Manager On July 16, 1984, the Committee toured a number of projects representing the work of each developer in Concord, Pleasanton, San Jose, and Oakland. These projects were those selected by the individual developers as representing their qualifying work. 00243 J. Michael Walford 2 August 8, 1984 On August 2, 1984, the Committee met and conducted extensive interviews with each developer and evaluated each proposal on the basis of the requirements of the request for proposals. The Committee found all the proposals were excellent and represented a great deal of careful planning, time, and effort by each Developer. The Committee concluded the Reynolds & Brown proposal was the best based on: 1. A project of outstanding architectural quality. (See Exhibit 1) 2. A Developer of excellent qualifications to construct and manage the project. 3. A proposal that, after rigorous analysis, showed the highest overall return to the County. This economic analysis was done with varying parameters and economic conditions and showed greater return to the County in every case tested. (See Exhibit 21 Prior to the first meeting, the Selection Committee reviewed proposals individually for approximately two weeks. As the consulting member of the Committee, Dr. Gruen provided a. financial analysis of each proposal as presented by the Developer and did further study on each proposal based on a range of assumptions with regard to rental rates, inflation, absorption, and other factors affecting the value of all future payments expected from each proposal . The decision of the Selection Committee was unanimous. RMR:WAP:dp AirExMemo.t8 Attachments: 1. Selection Committee Report on Site Planning and Architectural Design 2. Summary of Values of Bids for Airport Center Based on Comparable Assumptions Made by Gruen Gruen + Associates EXHIBIT 1 page 1 File: (PD) 225-8401/A.6 August 8, 1984 Airport Center Executive Park Proposal Evaluation SELECTION COWITTEE REPORT ON SITE PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN The Selection Committee found that the site planning and architectural design for all three proposals were of high quality. The Committee, however, did conclude that the Reynolds and Brown design should be ranked first. The Committee members liked the textured driveway through the site, uninter- rupted between Concord Avenue and John Glenn Drive. They felt this driveway would provide the clearest and most convenient site access and circulation. The Committee found that the Reynolds and Brown design takes maximum advantage of potential views of both Buchanan Field and Mt. Diablo. Reynolds and Brown have included a restaurant on the northwest corner of the site on top of a planted, terraced parking structure, where customers will have a panoramic view of the airport. Another advantage of the Reynolds and _ Brown restaurant design is that a restaurant over the garage can be operated independent of the office buildings. The Reynolds and Brown office building facades are stepped to provide maximum views of Mt. Diablo. The Trammel Crow design has no identified restaurant and is essentially oriented away from the airport. The Hofmann Company design has a restaurant and bar located in a "garage/podium", oriented to the south, away from the airport, and with views of Mt. Diablo substantially blocked. The Committee was especially impressed with the quality and number of public amenities provided in the Reynolds and Brown design. The paved plaza, accessible from the main driveway and with steps, down to a reflecting pond with fountains, cascading water and seating island; the adjacent outdoor cafe; the sculpture and tree basques with seating and decomposed granite paving will create a special environment which will be used and appreciated by a public audience well beyond the building tenants. In contrast, the Trammel Crow amenities are two tennis courts and a reflection pond for tenant use and one sculpture element in a landscaped parking lot; the Hofmann amenities are a restaurant, bar and retail shops around an enclosed court, elevated two. stories above ground level over a- parking structure. The Reynolds and..Brown design includes a detailed description of the landscape planting. Notab1 :_features include contim ous shrubs along the edges_ of each parking garage floor level, five specimen Oak trees on Concord Avenue, and two tree basques with Magnolia trees. - The building designs for all three proposals include terraces. The major wall materials are precast concrete, painted metal and reflective glass 1 0024& EXHIBIT 1 page 2 for Reynolds and Brown; precast concrete, polished granite, solar grey glass and painted metal for Trammel Crow; and prefabricated synthetic stucco panels and solar bronze glass for Hofmann. The Committee felt that the designs with precast concrete wall panels would provide a richer, more durable image than the one with prefabricated synthetic stucco panels. And, while they appreciated the polished granite finish on the lower two floors of the Trammel Crow design, they preferred the dignified appearance of the Reynolds and Brown design. The Committee liked the terraced parking garage in the Reynolds and Brown design because it minimized the bulk of the structure and provided ample landscape planting at each floor level . The Committee was concerned that the Trammel Crow garage structures clad with open wire mesh might be a visual problem, especially since the main entrance from John Glenn Drive is squeezed between two garage structures. Also, the Committee was concerned that the metal mesh and metal trellises which are a main feature of the Trammel Crow garages would not support healthy plant growth. RDH.arpteval .t8 2 00246 EXHIBIT 2 page 1 TABLE 1 Summary of Values of Bids for Airport Center Based on Information Provided by the Bidders* The Trammell Reynolds Hofmann Projected Value Crow & Brown Company Option Purchase Price 250,000 1,200,000 250,000 Average Annual Payment (Years 1-10) 1,011,111 1,457,167 958,545 Net Present Value of Payments from all Sources 6,022,654 8,985,894 5,542,852 *Changed to reflect 10.65 percent payment by Trummell Crow instead of 8.65 percent as submitted. Source: Gruen Gruen + Associates Revised August 7, 1984 Y Gruen Gruen +Associates 00247 EXHIBIT 2 page 2 TABLE 2 Summary of Values of Bids for Airport Center Basad on Comparable Assumptions Made by GG+A • The Tr-ammell Reynolds Hofmann Crow* & Brown Company Fast Rent-up Case Option Purchase Price 250,000 1,210,000 250,000 Average Annual Payment (Years 1-18) 1,025,943 1,875,582 1,162,257 Net Present Value of Payments from all Sources in Op. Year 10 5,005,495 8,384,867 5,216,158 Net Present Value of Payments from all Sources in Op. Year 18 6,915,926 12,125,419 7,460,607 Medium Rent-up Case Option Purchase Price 250,000 1,210,000 250,000 Average Annual Payment (Years 1-18) 945,597 1,443,976 909,211 Net Present Value of Payments from all Sources in Op. Year 10 3,503,685 4,816,103 3,702,792 Net Present Value of Payments from all Sources in Op. Year 18 5,419,115 8,358,373 5, 545,525 Slow Rent-up Case Option Purchase Price 250,000 1,210,000 250,000 Average Annual Payment (Years 1-18) 834,249 1,017,280 945,201 Net Present Value of Payments from all Sources in Op. Year 10 2,924,012 2,957,243 2,940,759 Net Present Value of Payments from 311 Sources in Op. Year 18 4,818,153 5,663,598 5,166,061 *Based on 10.65 percent payment instead of 8.65 percent as submitted. Source: Gruen Grum + Associates Revised August 7, 1934 C@j Gruen Gruen +Associates OC248