DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
LOCALLY FUNDED REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR P38602 LINDBERGH CENTER STATION TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (“TOD”) PROJECT DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
November 22, 2016
TO: ALL PROSPECTIVE PROPONENTS
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NUMBER P38602 (RFP) LINDBERGH CENTER STATION TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) PROJECT
You are invited to submit to the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (“MARTA” or “Authority”) a proposal for the above-captioned solicitation. A Pre-Proposal Conference to discuss the Request for Proposals Number P38602 (“RFP”) will be held at the MARTA Headquarters Building, located at 2424 Piedmont Road, N.E., Lobby Floor, Bid Opening Room, Atlanta, Georgia 30324-3330, on December 7, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., (local time).
To be eligible for consideration your proposal must be received by the Authority no later than 2:00 p.m., (local time) on January 23, 2016. The RFP can be reviewed and downloaded from MARTA’s website www.itsmarta.com. On the home page, point to “About MARTA”/click Vendor Opportunities/Current Opportunities/ click on RFP P38602/Download Invitation for Bids/Request for Proposals/Log-in (first time Users must register).
All questions regarding this RFP should be submitted in writing to MARTA’s contact person, Mr. Reginald Bryant, Contract Specialist III, Office of Contracts, Procurement and Materials, via e-mail [email protected]. The deadline for receipt of questions is December 31, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. (local time). Written inquiries received on or prior to 5:00 p.m. (local time) on December 31, 2016 by MARTA will be answered and posted as a Response to Inquiries to this RFP MARTA’s website at www.itsmarta.com. If you need additional information, please contact Reginald C. Bryant, Contract Specialist III, at 404-848-4158.
Sincerely,
Lisa DeGrace Chief Contracts Officer Contracts, Procurement and Materials
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
RFP P38602- LINDBERGH CENTER STATION TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) PROJECT
PART 1: INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPONENTS
1. General Background Information 2. Services Being Procured 3. Definitions 4. Minimum Qualifications 5. No Offer by MARTA; Firm Offer by Proponent 6. Pre-Proposal Conference 7. Additional Documentation 8. Procurement Questions; Prohibited Contacts 9. Proposal Deadline 10. Required Submittals 11. Ownership of Proposals 12. Proposal Evaluation, Award and Multiple Award 13. Submission of Proposals 14. Rejection of Proposals; Cancellation of RFP; Waiver of Technicalities 15. Georgia Open Records Act 16. Representation 17. Protests 18. Equal Employment Opportunity and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 19. Insurance Requirements 20. Environmental Purchasing 21. Electronic Solicitation Documents 22. Award of Contract; Execution
PART 2: CONTENTS OF PROPOSALS AND SUBMITTALS
1. General Content of Proposals 2. Technical Proposal 3. Response to All Requirements 4. Organizational Structure and Key Personnel 5. Experience and Qualification 6. Financial Information 7. Preferred Terms and Deal Structure
PART 3: TOD AND STATION INFORMATION/DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Introduction 2. Transit Oriented Development Objectives 3. Site Constraints 4. Local Land Use 5. Market Analysis 6. Developer Responsibilities
Page 2 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
PART 4: SUBMITTAL FORMS
1. Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act Affidavit (Form 1) 2. Contractor Affidavit (Form 1a) 3. Subcontractor Affidavit (Form 1b) 4. Sub-Subcontractor Affidavit (Form 1c) 5. Acknowledgement of Addenda (Form 2) 6. Reserved (Form 3) 7. No Conflict of Interest (Form 4) 8. List of Proposed Subcontractors (Form 5) 9. Proponents’ Qualifications and Business References (Form 6) 10. Reserved (Form 7) 11. Office of Diversity and Inclusion Requirements (Appendix A)
PART 5: FORM OF TERM SHEET
1. Term Sheet
PART 6: ATTACHMENTS
1. Attachment A – Location Map, Site Map, and Survey 2. Attachment B – Transit Oriented Development Guidelines 3. Attachment C – Phase II Master Plan for Lindbergh Center Station 4. Attachment C-1 – Lindbergh Lender CC&Rs
Page 3 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Part 1: Information and Instructions to Proponents
1. General and Background Information: The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (“MARTA”) is the ninth largest public transit system in North America, providing bus, rail and paratransit services in the greater metropolitan Atlanta area. MARTA transports over 500,000 people in the city of Atlanta and counties of Clayton, DeKalb and Fulton daily. MARTA has approximately 4,540 employees.
MARTA is soliciting proposals from Developers for the Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (“TOD”) Project for MARTA’s Office of Transit Oriented Development and Real Estate pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in that certain Term Sheet for Transit Oriented Development at Lindbergh Station attached hereto Part 4 (“Term Sheet”) and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. Services Being Procured: MARTA is seeking Development Proposals from qualified Developer(s) that are capable of developing a mixed-use development and structured parking facilities on MARTA’s real property located at MARTA’s Transit Oriented Development (“TOD”) project in the City of Atlanta. Proponents may submit a Development Proposal for the redevelopment of 2562 Piedmont Road (approx. 0.87-acres vacant lot) and 572 Morosgo Drive (approx. 0.329 acres with a small structure). MARTA’s intent is to convert the property into a high-quality mixed-use development consisting of residential, retail, commercial and/or hospitality components that will complement the existing Lindbergh Station Transit Oriented Development Project (“Lindbergh TOD” or “Lindbergh Center”).
3. Definitions: The following definitions shall apply when used throughout this Request for Proposals (“RFP”):
Proponent(s): Each Company or aggregation of Companies (which may include a joint venture partnership, limited liability company or limited liability partnership) submitting a proposal in response to this RFP with the intent of performing the services as the prime contractor.
Developer(s): A Developer or Development Team capable of securing financing for the construction, management and on-going maintenance of a mixed-use Transit Oriented Development (“TOD”) project in the City of Atlanta that has or will obtain, prior to the execution of any contract awarded hereunder, all necessary licenses required by the State of Georgia to perform the Services and is authorized to do business in the State of Georgia.
Development A written response to this RFP prepared by a Proponent and submitted to the Proposal(s)or Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority’s (“MARTA”) Office of Contracts, Proposal(s) Procurement and Materials (“CPM”) for the lease, sale or both of the TOD Projects.
4. Minimum Qualifications: To participate in this procurement, Proponent must satisfy the minimum qualifications required by this RFP. Where the Proponent is a partnership, joint venture arrangement, limited liability company, limited liability partnership or other multiple entity
Page 4 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
organization, the entity that holds a majority ownership interest in the Proponent (i.e., over 50% ownership) must meet the minimum requirements set forth in this RFP. Additionally, prior to execution of the Contract, the successful Proponent will be required to demonstrate that it is duly authorized to conduct business in the State of Georgia.
No Proponent or entity comprising Proponent may submit more than one Proposal under the same or different names or as part of multiple organizations. MARTA reserves the right to disqualify any Proponent or entity comprising Proponent that submits more than one Proposal in response to this solicitation. NOTE: This restriction set forth in this paragraph is not applicable to subcontractors.
By submitting a Proposal in response to this RFP, the Proponent represents and warrants to MARTA that Proponent has or will acquire all of the licenses, certifications, permits, bonding and insurance to complete the project.
By submitting a proposal concerning this procurement, Proponent acknowledges that it is familiar with all laws applicable to this procurement, including, but not limited to, all of MARTA’s policies and procedures (as the same may change from time to time), all of which is incorporated into this RFP by this reference.
5. No Offer by MARTA; Firm Offer by Proponent: This procurement does not constitute an offer by MARTA to enter into an agreement and cannot be accepted by any Proponent to form an agreement. This procurement is only an invitation for offers from interested Proponents and no offer or proposal shall bind MARTA. However, Proponent’s offer is a firm offer to MARTA for a period of 180 calendar days from the Proposal Deadline and may not be withdrawn during such 180-day time period.
6. Pre-Proposal Conference: A pre-proposal conference is scheduled for December 7, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. (local time) at the MARTA’s headquarters building located at 2424 Piedmont Road N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30324-3330. Proponents are advised that notwithstanding the address, MARTA’s headquarters building is located west of Piedmont Road on Morosgo Drive across from the Lindbergh Rail Station. Attendance at the pre-proposal conference is not required but is strongly encouraged. Each Proponent is responsible for being fully informed regarding all existing and expected conditions and matters that may affect the cost or the performance of the Services. Any failure to fully investigate the requirements of this RFP shall not relieve any Proponent from the responsibility to properly estimate the difficulty or cost of successfully performing the Services being sought under this RFP.
7. Additional Documentation: Each Proponent, if successful, acknowledges and agrees to submit such additional documentation (e.g., insurance/bonds, etc.) promptly after an award pursuant to any notice provided by MARTA and as required by the terms of this RFP and the Contract.
8. Procurement Questions; Prohibited Contacts: Any questions regarding this procurement must be submitted in writing to MARTA’s contact person, Mr. Reginald Bryant via electronic mail [email protected], on or before December 30, 2016. Questions submitted after 5:00 p.m. (local time) will not be considered by MARTA. Any response made by MARTA will be provided in writing to all Proponents by posting the same to MARTA’s website at www.itsmarta.com. It is the
Page 5 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
responsibility of each Proponent to obtain a copy of all responses and/or any addenda issued for this procurement by monitoring MARTA’s website. No Proponent may rely on any verbal response to any question concerning this procurement. All Proponents (and any representative thereof) are strictly prohibited from contacting any MARTA employees (or third-party representatives or consultants of MARTA) on any matter having to do with this procurement. All communications by any Proponent must be made with MARTA’s contact person or any other MARTA employees or representatives designated by the head of MARTA’s Contracts, Procurement and Materials Department.
9. Proposal Deadline: To be considered responsive, a Proponent must complete and submit its Proposal and all required submittals and attachments in accordance with the instructions contained or referenced in this RFP. All responses to this RFP must be received by MARTA’s Department of Contracts & Procurement and Materials, 2400 Piedmont Road N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30324-3330, on or before January 23, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. (local time). Any Proposal received after this time will not be considered/reviewed and will be rejected and returned.
10. Required Submittals:
a. Forms 1a, 1b, and 1c: Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act. Each Proponent must complete and submit a Contractor’s Affidavit with its proposal. This RFP is subject to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011 (“Act”), as amended. Pursuant to the Act, the Proponent must provide with its proposal proof of its registration with and continuing and future participation in the E-Verify program established by the United States Department of Homeland Security. Under state law, MARTA cannot consider any proposal which does not include a completed Contractor’s Affidavit. It is not the intent of this notice to provide detailed information or legal advice concerning the Act. All Proponents intending to do business with MARTA are responsible for independently apprising themselves of and complying with the requirements of the Act and assessing its effect on MARTA procurements and their participation in those procurements. For additional information on the E-Verify program or to enroll in the program, go to https://e-verify.uscis.gov/enroll.
b. Form 2: Acknowledgement of Addenda. Each Proponent must complete and submit an acknowledgement with its Proposal that it has received all Addenda issued by MARTA for this RFP. This form is provided and may be used to satisfy this requirement.
c. Form 3: Reserved.
d. Form 4: No Conflict of Interest. Each Proponent must furnish with their proposal the information called for by the form. If the form is omitted or if the information furnished is incomplete or inadequate, the Authority may require that additional information be submitted after the Proposal deadline and before an award is made.
e. Form 5: List of Proposed Subcontractors. Each Proponent is requested to furnish with their proposal the information called for by the form. If the form is omitted or if the information furnished is incomplete or inadequate, the Authority may require that additional information be submitted after the proposal deadline and before an award is made.
Page 6 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
f. Form 6: Proponent’s Qualification and Business References. Each Proponent is requested to furnish with their proposal the information called for by the form. If the form is omitted or if the information furnished is incomplete or inadequate, the Authority may require that additional information be submitted after the proposal deadline and before an award is made.
g. Form 7: Reserved.
h. Appendix A: Office of Diversity and Inclusion Requirements. MARTA’s Department of Diversity and Inclusion (“DNI”) program(s) applicable to this procurement and any Contract that may be awarded pursuant to this procurement are set forth in Appendix A attached hereto. Each Proponent must furnish the information requested by Appendix A with their proposal.
11. Ownership of Proposals: Each proposal submitted to MARTA will become the property of MARTA, without compensation to a Proponent, for MARTA’s use, in MARTA’s sole discretion.
12. Proposal Evaluation, Award and Multiple Awards:
a. Upon receipt and review of the Proposals, MARTA shall determine which Proponent(s) are responsive and responsible. MARTA will notify each Proponent in writing of MARTA’s determination. After the Proposal Deadline, MARTA’s Source Evaluation Committee (“SEC”) will evaluate each responsive proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in this RFP. If MARTA elects to award this RFP, MARTA will award the same to the most responsive and responsible Proponent(s) that submits a proposal that is in the best interest of MARTA to accept. Proponents may be required to make an oral presentation to the SEC at any stage of the selection and evaluation process.
b. The selection of the successful Proponent(s), if any, will be based on the following criteria, which are listed in descending order of importance:
I. Developer/Development Team Composition and Experience: Proponents industry experience and resources to successfully plan, develop and implement a mixed-use and/or TOD project.
II. Financial Proposal and Overall Business Plan: Fair and equitable financial return to MARTA and the Development Team.
III. Project Concept and Development Plan: Alignment with MARTA’s TOD Guidelines, objectives and goals to provide compact, mixed use, pedestrian-oriented, equitable, high-quality development around transit stations which leads to higher transit ridership and economic development.
IV. Phasing Strategy and Business Management Plan: Evidence that the project is supportable in the market, is financially feasible and has a detailed long-term phasing and management plan.
Page 7 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
13. Submission of Proposals:
a. Proposals must be submitted according to the requirements of this RFP. All blank spaces must be typed or hand written in blue or black ink. All dollar amounts must be typed or hand written in BOTH in word and numeric form (e.g., One Dollar and No Cents ($1.00)). Proponents are advised that the written figures will prevail over the numerical figures in the event of a discrepancy between the two in any Proposal document. For example, only, if a final proposal of “One Dollar and No Cents ($2.00)” is received, then the written figure of One Dollar and No Cents is the amount of the final proposal. All corrections to any entry must be lined out and initialed by the Proponent prior to Proposal submission. Do not use correction tape or fluid.
b. Proposals shall be signed by hand by a principal of the Proponent with the authority to bind the Proponent and enter into an agreement with MARTA. Joint ventures or partnerships must designate one joint venture member/partner to represent the joint venture or partnership, respectively, with the authority to submit and execute a Proposal, bind the entity as well as enter into an agreement with MARTA. Each Proponent is responsible for the preparation of its Proposal and for the costs associated therewith.
c. Each Proponent must submit a complete proposal in accordance with the requirements of this RFP. The format for the submission of a proposal mandated by this RFP is not negotiable. The name and number of the project is: RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project. Proposals must be submitted in sealed envelope(s) or package(s) and the outside of the envelope(s) or package(s) must clearly identify the name of the Project, Project Number, Proponent’s Name and address, and Proponent’s Federal Work Authorization User Identification Number. All proposals must be submitted to:
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Department of Contracts, Procurement and Materials 2400 Piedmont Road, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30324-3330 Attn: Contract Control (RFP P38602)
(See Map at the end of Part 1)
d. Proposals must be submitted to the above address between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. (local time) Monday through Friday. Proposals will not be accepted on the following days: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King, Jr’s birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, the day after Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Any Proposal received after this time will not be considered and will be rejected and returned.
e. Proponents should arrive well in advance of the deadline set forth herein because all packages/deliveries to MARTA are scanned prior to acceptance thereof. Proponents should allocate adequate time to have their package scanned so the same is received by MARTA prior to the deadline set forth herein.
Page 8 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
f. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the project shall not be contingent upon Proponent obtaining public funding.
g. A Proponent must submit one (1) original, marked “Original”, and sixteen (16) USB drive [a.k.a., jump or flash drive]) copy of its proposal. The Proponent’s USB drive copy should be submitted in an unlocked Portable Document Format (i.e., .pdf). Each proposal must be submitted on 8-½” x 11” double-sided, typed pages, using 12–point font size and such pages must be inserted in a standard three-hole ring binder. To the extent Proponent requires a larger page size to demonstrate its experience, MARTA will accept 11”x 17” sheet size but it must be folded to 8- 1/2” x 11” size. Each proposal must contain an index and separate sections for the information requirements set forth in this RFP, as well as for the forms required to be submitted.
h. Each Proponent shall promptly notify MARTA in writing, prior to the proposal due date, should the Proponent find discrepancies, errors, ambiguities or omissions in any of Proponent’s proposal documents or should the intent or meaning set forth in Proponent’s proposal documents appear unclear or ambiguous.
i. Each Proponent shall promptly notify MARTA in writing should the Proponent find discrepancies, errors, ambiguities or omissions in any of the RFP documents prior to the end of the question/comment period set forth herein. MARTA will reply to such notices, if necessary, by issuing an addendum to the RFP. It is the responsibility of each Proponent to obtain a copy of any addendum issued for this RFP by monitoring MARTA’s website at www.itsmarta.com.
14. Rejection of Proposals; Cancellation of RFP; Waiver of Technicalities: MARTA reserves the right to reject any Proposal or all Proposals or to waive any technical defect in a Proposal before or after Proposal submission. MARTA also reserves the right to cancel this RFP at any time for any reason or no reason. Additionally, MARTA may, by addendum, modify any provision or part of this RFP at any time prior to the Proposal due date and time. The Proponent shall not rely on oral clarifications to the RFP unless they are confirmed, in writing, by MARTA in an issued addendum. MARTA also reserves the right to award based upon a Proponent’s original submission without discussion.
15. Georgia Open Records Act: Information provided to MARTA is subject to disclosure under the Georgia Open Records Act (“GORA”). Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(34), “[a]n entity submitting records containing trade secrets that wishes to keep such records confidential under this paragraph shall submit and attach to the records an affidavit affirmatively declaring that specific information in the records constitute trade secrets pursuant to Article 27 of Chapter 1 of Title 10 [O.C.G.A. § 10-1-760 et seq.].”
16. Representation: By submitting a Proposal in response to this RFP, Proponent acknowledges and represents that: (a) the accompanying Proposal is made by a person or business entity that is neither a high cost lender nor a predatory lender, nor is the Proponent an affiliate of a high cost lender or a predatory lender, as defined by the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (“Code”) Section 58-102; (b) it has read all of the RFP documents (including, without limitation, the Contract) and acknowledges that, if successful, Proponent shall be bound by the requirements stated therein; (c) the signatory to the Proposal is the Proponent (or Proponent’s duly authorized agent or employee of the Proponent with the authority to bind Proponent hereto); (d) any information or disclosure provided Page 9 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
in response to this RFP are fully restated herein and remain truthful and accurate representations up to and including the date Proponent submits its proposal to MARTA; (e) MARTA will not agree to make any substantive revisions to the Contract; (f) it will be bound by MARTA’s Code of Ethics available at http://www.itsmarta.com/Code-of-Ethics-Revised-8-12-2013.pdf, as the same may be amended from time to time in MARTA’s sole discretion; and (g) it agrees that it will voluntarily notify MARTA immediately if any information or disclosure provided to MARTA during any part of this procurement process changes, is no longer accurate or would be misleading in any way.
By submitting a Proposal in response to this RFP, Proponent is representing and warranting to MARTA that none of the following, during the term of the Contract or for one (1) year thereafter, have or will have any interest, direct or indirect, in the Contract or in any part of the proceeds, therefor: (a) members of the MARTA Board of Directors; (b) officers or employees or former employees of MARTA, or of any representative of MARTA in the administration of this Contract, pursuant to MARTA’s Code of Ethics. This Section also applies to members of or delegates to the United States Congress or the Georgia legislature; and members of the governing body, and all other officers and employees, of the City of Atlanta or the counties of Clayton, DeKalb or Fulton.
17. Protests: Any protest or objection to this RFP or the solicitation process related to this RFP must be submitted, in a timely manner, in accordance with the Protest Procedures set forth on MARTA’s website at http://www.itsmarta.com/Protest-10359.pdf.
18. Equal Employment Opportunity and Disadvantaged Business Utilization: All Proponents are (a) strongly encouraged to consider the use of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (“DBE(s)”) in all aspects of the Contract that will be awarded pursuant to this solicitation process and (b) will be required to document their good faith efforts in this regard as an integral part of their Proposal. Refer to the Equal Employment Opportunity and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Requirements.
A current listing of DBE’s certified with the Georgia Unified Certification Program DBE Directory, as the same may change from time to time, is located at http://www.dot.ga.gov/doingbusiness/dbePrograms/Pages/default.aspx.
MARTA has assigned a 25% goal for Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) participation in this project, the Proponent agrees and warrants that Proponent:
(a) Not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin; (b) comply with all the provisions of Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, and of the rules, regulations and other relevant orders of the US Secretary of Labor, and Proponent will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, and by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act effective June 12, 1968, and will permit access to books, records and accounts by the Authority, the Secretary of Labor and/or the Secretary of Transportation, for purposes of investigation to ascertain Proponent’s compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders; (c) take affirmative action to assure that Disadvantaged Business Enterprises are strongly pursued for participation on this contract and will document their best efforts to ascertain DBE participation in different aspects of the project as an integral part of their submitted Proposal. The breach of any of the foregoing agreements and warranties shall be a material breach of this contract, for which MARTA, in
Page 10 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
addition to all other remedies, shall have the right to cancel the contract; and (d) provide MARTA with a written copy of its equal opportunity policy statement if less than fifty (50) employees and a copy of current written affirmative action plan if fifty (50) or more employees, which will be accomplished prior to Contract award.
19. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: Proponents are advised that the successful Proponent will be required, at its sole expense, to maintain at least the following coverage and limits of insurance in effect during the term of the Contract:
(a) Commercial General Liability, Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Contractual Liability and Products/Completed Operations Liability without the explosion, collapse and underground (XCU) exclusions eliminated of not less than $50,000,000 single limit per occurrence. Limits of Liability may be provided under a Commercial General Liability policy and Umbrella Liability policy if desired.
(b) Workers Compensation –Georgia: Statutory coverage and Employers Liability of not less than $1,000,000.
(c) Automobile, Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability: Not less than $10,000,000 single limit per occurrence.
(d) Professional Liability: Not less than $1,000,000 single limit per occurrence.
(e) Pollution Liability: Not less than $1,000,000 single limit per occurrence.
(f) Builders Risk: During the course of construction, Builders Risk insurance is required on a completed value basis against all risks of physical loss, covering the replacement cost value of worked performed and the equipment supplies and materials.
All policies shall contain a Waiver of Subrogation as applicable. MARTA must be listed as an Additional Insured on all policies as applicable. The foregoing coverages must be secured from insurers and on forms of policies acceptable to the Authority and must include provisions that such insurance cannot be canceled, nor its limits reduced, without at least thirty days prior written notice to MARTA, Office of Risk Management, 2424 Piedmont Road, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30324-3330.
The Proponent will be required to furnish evidence of insurance in the form and format requested by the Authority to the Office of Contracts, Procurement and Materials, 2424 Piedmont Road, N.E, Atlanta, Georgia 30324-3330.
20. Environmental Purchasing: MARTA desires to use Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) criteria when making purchases for commodities and services. Environmentally Preferable Purchasing refers to securing products that have a lesser or reduced effect on human health and the environment when compared with competing products that serve the same purpose. These products minimize the consumption of resources, energy and water; prevent the creation of solid waste, air pollution or water pollution; minimize the use of materials or processes which
Page 11 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
compromise the environment; and/or promote the use of non-toxic substances and avoid toxic materials or processes.
(a) Twelve basic categories are used to provide guidance as to what constitutes an environmentally preferable product. These categories include:
(1) Alternative Energy Source (2) Bio-Based (3) Biodegradable (4) Compostable (5) High Recycled Content (6) Low Toxicity (7) Low Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) (8) Pollution (air, water, solid waste) Reduction (9) Recyclable (10) Repairable (11) Resource Efficient (water conserving and/or energy efficient) (12) Reusable
(b) In an effort to promote greater use of recycled and environmentally preferable products and minimize waste, all Proposals submitted should comply with the following guidelines:
(i) All copies should be printed double-sided. (ii) All submittals and copies should be printed on recycled paper with a minimum post- consumer content of 30% or on tree-free paper (i.e., paper made from raw materials other than trees, such as kenaf). All Proposals should note the level of recycled content contained in the paper being used. (iii) Unless absolutely necessary, all Proposals and copies should minimize or eliminate the use of non-recyclable or non-reusable materials, such as plastic report covers, plastic dividers, vinyl sleeves and GBC binding. Three-ringed binders, glued materials, paper clips and staples are acceptable. (iv) Proponents should submit materials in a format that allows for easy removal and recycling of paper materials. (v) Proponents are encouraged to use other products that contain recycled content in their Proposal documents. Such products may include, but are not limited to, folders, binders, paper clips, discs, envelopes, boxes, etc. Where appropriate, Proponents may wish to note which products in their Proposals are made with recycled materials.
(vi) Unnecessary samples, attachments or documents not specifically asked for should not be submitted with the Proposals.
21. Electronic Solicitation Documents: This RFP is being made available to all Proponents by electronic means. By responding to this RFP, Proponent acknowledges and accepts full responsibility to ensure that it is responding to the correct form of RFP, including any addenda issued by MARTA’s Department of Contracts, Procurement and Materials. Proponent acknowledges and agrees that in the event of a conflict between the RFP in the Proponent’s possession and the version maintained
Page 12 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
by MARTA’s Department of Contracts, Procurement and Materials, the version maintained by MARTA’s Department of Contracts, Procurement and Materials shall govern. The RFP document is available at www.itsmarta.com.
22. Award of Agreement; Execution: If MARTA awards a Contract pursuant to this procurement, MARTA will prepare and forward to the successful Proponent(s) a Contract for execution substantially in the form included in solicitation document.
Page 13 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
The address for receiving all deliveries to MARTA Headquarters Complex (HQ - 2424 Piedmont Rd NE and HQ Annex - 2400 Piedmont Rd NE) is:
MARTA HQ Annex Directions from MARTA HQ to MARTA Receiving at the HQ Annex (see map below): 2400 PIEDMONT RD NE East on Morosgo Drive to Piedmont Rd. NE
ATLANTA GA 30324 South on Piedmont Rd to Garson Dr. NE
404-848-5081 Annex Mail Center West on Garson Dr. NE to third driveway on the right 404-848-4773 Mail Services Supervisor
RECEIVING HOURS: Monday – Friday 9:00 am – 2:00 pm
Closed: New Year’s Day/Martin Luther King, Jr Holiday/Memorial Day/Independence Day/Labor Day/Thanksgiving Day/Friday Following//Thanksgiving Day/Christmas Day
Driving Directions from I-75 S
From I-75 S,
Use the left 3 lanes to take exit 251 to merge onto I-85 N, follow signs for I-85 N
Take the Buford Hwy N exit
Merge onto GA-13 N
Take the GA-237 N/Piedmont Rd NE exit
Turn right onto Piedmont Rd NE
Turn left onto Garson Dr. NE (turn into third driveway on right)
OVER FOR DRIVING DIRECTIONS FROM I-75 N/I-85 N, I-85 S AND GA - 400
&
DIRECTIONS TO THE HQ ANNEX MAIL CENTER LOADING DOCK
Page 14 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Driving Directions from I-75/I-85 N Driving Directions from I-85 S Driving Directions from GA-400 S
From the I-75 N/I-85 N Connector From I-85 southbound, From GA-400 southbound, northbound, Take exit 88 for Lenox Rd toward GA-400 Take exit 18 for Sidney Marcus Blvd Keep left at fork to stay on I-85 N, N/Cheshire Br Rd follow signs for I-85 N Turn left onto GA-237 S/Piedmont Rd Turn left onto Cheshire Bridge Rd NE NE Take the Buford Hwy N exit Turn right onto GA-236 W/Lavista Rd Turn right onto Garson Dr NE (turn Merge onto GA-13 N NE/Lindbergh Dr NE into third driveway on right)
Take the GA-237 N/Piedmont Rd NE exit Turn left onto GA-237S/Piedmont Rd NE
Turn right onto Piedmont Rd NE Turn right onto Garson Dr NE (turn into
third driveway on right) Turn left onto Garson Dr. NE (turn into third driveway on right)
Directions to the HQ Annex Mail Center Loading Dock Enter the driveway (note signage on fence for MARTA HQ Annex, MARTA Police) and proceed to the
gate and intercom. Press the intercom button and provide the Protective Specialist:
Your Name Your Company Name Purpose for Your Visit
From the gate, proceed to the first stop sign and turn left to the HQ Annex Mail Center and loading dock. The pedestrian entrance and doorbell are to the left of the loading dock.
Page 15 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Part 2: Contents of Proposals and Submittals
1. General Contents of Proposals: A Proponent must submit a complete proposal in response to this RFP in the format specified in this RFP. A proposal consists of the information and submittals that are required by the RFP or being provided by Proponent as part of its proposal.
2. Technical Proposal:
(a) Title Page: The title page should show the RFP number and title, the Proponent’s name, address and telephone and e-mail address of the contact person(s) for Proponent and the date of Proponent’s proposal and identify which service the Proponent is proposing.
(b) Table of Contents: The table of contents should outline and index the contents of the proposal and correspond to the requirements of this RFP.
(c) Transmittal Letter: A letter that briefly states the Proponent’s understanding of the work to be performed, its commitment to perform the work, and a statement of the reason(s) why the Proponent believes it is the best qualified individual or entity to perform the work.
(d) Executive Summary: Each Proponent is required to provide an overview of the Proponent’s qualifications to provide the services being procured through this RFP and a high level description of the proposed solution. At a minimum, the Executive Summary must contain the following information:
(i) Contain the complete legal name of the Proponents and the name of the legal entities that comprise the Proponents; and
(ii) Proponents must provide the domicile where Proponents and each entity comprising Proponents is organized, including name, brief history, contact name, address, phone number, and facsimile number; and
(iii) The legal structure of the entity; as well as
(iv) Provide an overview of the Proponent’s qualifications and statement of why Proponent believes it is the best qualified entity to perform the Project.
3. Response to all Requirements: The Proponent’s response to all requirements must include, but is not limited to, each of the following information.
(a) Financial Proposal and Overall Business Plan. The Financial Proposal must be included in the Proposal and contain the following at a minimum:
(i) Sources and Uses of Funds: The Proponent must include a balance statement showing proposed sources of funds including all debt, equity, public financing, and all fund uses including predevelopment, construction, financing and operations.
Page 16 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
(ii) Feasibility Analysis: The Proponent must provide a leveraged and unleveraged project specific financial pro forma analysis including all project development and construction costs and a 10-year operating cash flow with project returns in Excel format.
a. Construction and absorption budget assumptions:
(1) Land acquisition costs (2) Site preparation costs (3) Hard and soft construction and design costs (4) Lease-up costs, including working capital until building breaks even (i.e., capital necessary to operate a less-than-full building)
b. Stabilized annual operating budget assumptions (net cash flow of completed building at or near its expected long term occupancy level):
(1) Potential gross income (2) Vacancy allowance (3) Operating expenses (4) Net operating income
c. Fundamental return measures and valuation assumptions:
(1) Internal rate of return (2) Net present value (for example, what is the net present value of the development project investment apart from land costs?) (3) Summary of the proposed financial economic returns to MARTA
(iii) Proposed Lease and Revenue Terms: The Proposal must include an outline of financing terms for the project including projected long term ground lease and/or sale revenue to MARTA.
(iv) Proponents are advised that their Proposals should not be contingent on the receipt of any public funding/financing. However, Proponents are free to seek public funding.
(b) Project Concept and Development Plan. The Development Plan must be included in the Proposal and contain the following at a minimum:
(i) Overall Concept and Vision: Describe the development plan and state the vision of the proposed development, including key architectural and community goals. Provide a site plan for the proposed development at a scale of no greater than 1"=100' and a schematic illustration showing massing, project scale and design character;
(ii) Development Program: Provide a tabular summary of the mix of uses within the proposed development including the amount and type of residential (including, without limitation, affordable housing units as referenced by MARTA TOD Policy #4), retail, hotel, office and civic spaces. Summary should also include the estimated total square feet of land area,
Page 17 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
gross and net densities, Floor Area Ratios, public green space, number of parking spaces, and an estimated total cost of the development program once 100% build-out. Include the following:
a. Quantity per land use b. Absorption period, sales pace or lease-up pace c. Market rates (for example, rent per SF, market price) d. Describe philosophy of programming/management/ and maintenance of public space e. Describe how proposed land uses activate public spaces
(iii) Compliance with MARTA TOD Guidelines and Policy Goals: Describe any Sustainable Building Practices – (as referenced in Chapter #3 of MARTA’s TOD Guidelines and MARTA TOD Policy #5); explain how the proposed project addresses station access hierarchy and pedestrian connectivity including connectivity with the MARTA station, common areas within the development, and other surrounding land uses (as referenced in Chapter #3 of MARTA’s TOD Guidelines and MARTA TOD Policy #2); explain how the proposed project’s overall building and site design is compatible with design and site planning standards that create a great public realm (as referenced in Chapter #3 of MARTA’s TOD Guidelines); and
(iv) Community Engagement: Describe how you would work with MARTA, the City of Atlanta, residents, businesses and property owners within the Lindbergh Center Station area.
(c) The Phasing Strategy and Business Management Plan. The Phasing Strategy and Business Management Plan must be included in the Proposal and contain the following at a minimum:
(i) The final build out of the Lindbergh Center TOD project is expected to take an extended period of time to complete. The Proponent should describe their plan for executing the Project, highlighting the role played by member Proponents and key individuals of the Project Team. Separately address the following:
a. Predevelopment; b. Construction, shell completion; c. Lease-up and tenant finishes, development completion; d. Estimated absorption and/or sales; e. Long term phasing strategy and land use type; and f. Continuing operations, property management and security plan.
4. Organizational Structure and Key Personnel: The Proponent must provide (a) an organizational chart of the Proponent's management structure and (b) corresponding resumes for each of the individuals listed on the organizational chart provided. The organizational structure and resumes must clearly identify the Proponent's management and project teams.
(a) Legal form of the Proponent and the state in which it is domiciled. In the case where the Proponent is a partnership, joint venture or affiliation of two or more firms, please provide information for all participants and the nature of the relationship. This should include organizational documents and a brief description of the rights and obligations of the parties.
Page 18 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
(b) Resumes must include at least the following information:
(i) Name and Title; (ii) Tenure; (iii) Professional Background; (iv) Relevant Work Experience; (v) Education; and (vi) Current and Past Employment.
(c) The Proponent must also include a statement that clearly identifies the level of authority vested to each individual within Proponent's management structure to make decisions on behalf of the Proponent.
(d) The Proponent must also include the geographical location of the personnel that would provide services.
(e) The Proponent should include the name, address, telephone, email and fax number for the contact person authorized to communicate and negotiate on behalf of the Proponent.
(f) List any outstanding disputes or business relationships between the Proponent and the following entities, if any:
(i) MARTA; (ii) The United States Department of Transportation; (iii) Federal Transit Administration; (iv) Georgia Department of Transportation; (v) City of Atlanta; (vi) County of Clayton; (vii) County of Cobb; (viii) County of DeKalb; (ix) County of Fulton; and/or (x) County of Gwinnett.
Describe any other outstanding disputes involving the Proponent that may affect either Contract, which MARTA should be made aware.
5. Experience and Qualifications: To allow MARTA to fully understand the capabilities of Proponent, the Proponent must provide the information requested below for Proponent and if Proponent is a partnership or joint venture, then each member of Proponent shall provide the following information. Please provide the information stated below for each member of the Proponent’s team. Use additional sheets, if necessary.
(a) The Proponent must describe the experience it has within the last ten (10) years with large commercial, residential, hospitality, institutional and/or mixed-use development projects comparable to the proposed project highlighting each of the following, if applicable.
Page 19 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Proponents should highlight, at a minimum, each of the following:
1. Experience in the Atlanta Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA); 2. Experience with Transit Oriented Development projects; 3. Experience with affordable housing; and 4. Experience working with federal, state and local governments, quasi- governmental entities, and public agencies and authorities, specifically public transit agencies.
(b) The Proponent must describe each mixed-use project completed within the last ten (10) years. Proponents should highlight, at a minimum, each of the following:
1. Size in total land area and building area; 2. Scope of the project; 3. Location of the project; 4. Approximate development value; 5. Year completed; 6. Specific role of Firms; 7. Specific role(s) of individuals expected to work on Project (if applicable); and 8. Client references with contact information and authorization to contact them. Please highlight any previous experience with public agencies (if applicable).
NOTE: By submitting a response to this RFP, Proponent acknowledges and agrees that MARTA may directly contact any of Proponent’s references or clients provided.
NOTE: If the Proponent is a partnership, joint venture or newly formed entity (e.g., limited liability company or corporation), the minimum requirements set forth throughout the RFP must be satisfied by the entity or individual(s) that own and control a majority equity interest (i.e., over 50% ownership) of the partnership, joint venture or newly formed entity.
6. Financial Information: Given the nature of this project, MARTA needs to understand the Proponent’s financial capability to undertake and successfully complete this project. Proponents must provide the following:
(a) Audited financial statements for the past three (3) years (i.e., 2015, 2014, and 2013). If Proponent’s current year’s audited financial statements are not yet complete, Proponent may provide either (a) audited financial statements for 2015, 2014 and 2013 or (b) audited financial statements for 2015, 2014 and unaudited summary statements for the current year. The statements must include each of the following at a minimum:
(i) Balance sheet; (ii) Income statement; and (iii) Statement of change in financial position, if any.
(b) The names and phone numbers of references for the following:
Page 20 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
(i) Two commercial banks; and (ii) Two institutional partners.
(c) Terms and conditions of any significant contingent liabilities, such as guaranteed loans or other obligations which could affect the ability of Proponent to obtain financing for this project.
(d) ANY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS THAT PROPONENT DEEMS TO BE CONFIDENTIAL SHOULD BE MARKED AS PROPRIETARY. FAILURE TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION WILL RESULT IN PROPONENT BEING DEEMED NON-RESPONSIVE.
NOTE: If the Proponent is a partnership, joint venture or newly formed entity (e.g., limited liability company or corporation), the minimum requirements set forth throughout the RFP must be satisfied by the entity or individual(s) that own and control a majority equity interest (i.e., over 50%) of the partnership, joint venture or newly formed entity.
7. Preferred Terms and Deal Structure: MARTA’s preferred terms and general deal structure are set forth in the Form of Term Sheet attached as Part 4 of this RFP. The terms and conditions of the Term Sheet will be similar to those contained within the Form of Term Sheet.
Page 21 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
PART 3: TOD AND STATION INFORMATION/DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Introduction: Lindbergh Center is MARTA’s first TOD project. In 1997 MARTA released a Request for Proposals for the development of 47 acres surrounding the Lindbergh Center Station. The selected development team included: Carter and Associates, Post Properties, Federal Realty Investment Trust and Dawson Company. This initial phase of development comprised 208,000 square feet of retail, 1,000,000 square feet of office and 715 residential units. MARTA now seeks to implement a second phase of development at the Lindbergh Center Station to bring the TOD project to completion.
Lindbergh Center TOD is located at the juncture of MARTA’s Red (North Springs) and Gold (Doraville) lines. With approximately 23,000 average weekday boarding Lindberg Rail Station is MARTA’s second-busiest rail station. Lindbergh Center is a significant intermodal transfer point, with five MARTA and Georgia Regional Transit Authority (GRTA) bus routes feeding the MARTA rail system. Because of its adjacency to the interchange of I-85 and GA-400, Lindbergh Center is also an important park-and-ride access point with approximately 1,100 weekday park-and-ride users.
In preparation for the implementation of a second phase of development MARTA developed a Phase II Master Plan for Lindbergh Center Station (“Master Plan”). Through this solicitation, MARTA is seeking Proposals for two (2) parcels within the Lindbergh Center Station area. Proposals should demonstrate the vision for and phasing of the project and a workable plan and business financing framework for developing the property consistent with MARTA’s TOD Guidelines and the Master Plan. The TOD Guidelines and Master Plan documents can be found in Attachments B and C.
MARTA requests qualified Proponents to submit a Development Proposal for the redevelopment of an approximately 0.87-acre vacant lot at 2562 Piedmont Road and an approximately .329-acre property with a small structure at 572 Morosgo Drive. The intent of this RFP is to solicit Proposals from private developers to convert the Piedmont Road frontage into a high-quality, mixed-use, transit oriented development, consisting of residential and commercial components (collectively, the "Project").
Aerial photographs as well as a survey are set forth in Attachment A and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. Transit Oriented Development Objectives: In November 2010, MARTA's Board of Directors adopted TOD Guidelines ("TOD Guidelines"), which sets forth, among other things, MARTA's commitment to TOD and joint development projects on MARTA property. Concurrently, MARTA adopted Policies for Implementing MARTA’s TOD Guidelines ("TOD Policies"). The TOD Guidelines and TOD Policies are available on MARTA’s website at http://www.itsmarta.com/guidelines-policies.aspx. MARTA’s interest in TOD projects reflects the following three over-arching strategic goals:
To generate greater transit ridership which is a natural consequence of clustering mixed-use development around stations and along corridors; and
To promote a sustainable, affordable and growing future for the people of Metro Atlanta; and
Page 22 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
To generate a return on MARTA’s transit investment—through enhanced passenger revenues, greater federal support, and, where applicable, development on MARTA property.
The TOD Guidelines provide a framework for designing and constructing successful TOD projects. The TOD Guidelines are built around four principles:
(a) Station-area development that is compact and dense relative to its surroundings. TOD seeks greater density so that more people can live, work, shop, or go to school within walking distance of the station. In so doing, revenue is generated for MARTA and other transit providers; and people drive less, use less gasoline and save money.
(b) A rich mix of land uses. TOD creates places where the clustering of uses allows people to do what they need and want to do more conveniently. A lively mix of uses strengthens the link between transit and development as station areas become “24/7” places where people use transit at night and on weekends. Combining transit origins like housing with transit destinations like jobs and schools allows the system to carry rush-hour commuters in both directions, functioning more cost-effectively by serving more riders with the same fleet.
(c) A great public realm. Transit-oriented development is pedestrian-oriented development, particularly within the quarter-mile radius of the station that most people will walk. In a TOD environment, a grid of small, navigable blocks has sidewalks throughout, with attractive amenities, lighting, way-finding and active uses at street-level. The streets, sidewalks, plazas and stations are safe, active and accessible.
(d) A new approach to parking. TOD does not mean “no cars”. Even with high transit utilization, many people will come and go by automobile and need a place to park. A defining characteristic of TOD is that it requires less parking than similar development in non-transit locations. Parking is shared as much as possible, taking advantage of dove-tailing uses and reducing further the actual number of spaces provided. Essential parking is designed so as not to dominate the visual or pedestrian environment.
The selected Firm will be expected to coordinate its planning, design, engineering and development efforts with MARTA and the appropriate representatives of the City of Atlanta.
MARTA serves an ethnically and economically diverse metropolitan area and encourages Proponents to use good faith efforts to include the participation of small businesses that are owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals in this Project.
3. Site Constraints: A new retaining wall will need to be constructed on the western side of both parcels in order to accommodate a new roadway which will provide vehicular access to Morosgo Drive from 2562 Piedmont Road.
As-builts will need to be created for the existing detention pond in order to determine volume and storage. The Project will require stormwater and water quality improvements in accordance with the City of Atlanta’s new Green Infrastructure Practices for Small Commercial Development.
Page 23 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
4. Local Land Use:
a) Zoning: The property owned by MARTA at the Lindbergh Center Station is currently zoned C-3 Commercial-Residential and portions of it are zoned C-3-C Commercial-Residential Conditional. MARTA is working with the City of Atlanta to rezone this property to Sub Area 9 of the SPI-15 Lindbergh Transit Station Area Special Public Interest District. This district was established to: create a diversified urban environment where people can live, work, meet and recreate; enhance and protect the Lindbergh Transit Station area as a model for retrofitting an existing automobile-oriented commercial strip into a transit and pedestrian oriented mixed-use and multi-family urban neighborhood; improve the visual aesthetics of the streets and the area; provide for a pedestrian-oriented environment on streets and sidewalks; maximize access to transit; encourage use of transit infrastructure; encourage a compatible mixture of residential, commercial, and cultural and recreational uses; provide parking in an unobtrusive manner; reduce parking requirements by encouraging shared parking and alternative modes of transportation; encourage a sense of activity and liveliness along the street level of building façades; encourage a grid of connected streets to improve access and reduce congestion; provide sufficient, safe and accessible open space for active and passive enjoyment by residents and workers; facilitate safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle circulation and minimize conflict between pedestrians and vehicles; and reduce vehicular congestion by encouraging a smooth uninterrupted flow of traffic. For more information on the development controls for SPI-15; refer to the Code of Ordinances via the following link: http://www.municode.com
b) Building Height: Maximum building height of property fronting along the westerly portion of Piedmont Road shall not exceed two hundred twenty-five feet.
c) Parking: For residential uses SPI-15 regulations permit a maximum of one parking space per bedroom for up to two bedrooms and one-half parking space for each bedroom unit of three and above per dwelling unit. For hotels, one space per rental unit plus one-half space per employee; one space per 100 square feet of restaurant/lounge gross leasable area; one space per 300 square feet of other convention facilities is required. A maximum of two and one-half spaces for each 1,000 square feet of floor area is permitted for office uses. For eating and drinking establishments, one space is required for each 100 square feet of floor area. The Director of the Office of Planning may reduce parking requirements provided there is a shared parking arrangement. MARTA encourages the use of innovative technologies in project garages, including but not limited to the availability of electric vehicle charging infrastructure at certain spaces and the use of instrumentation to provide customers with real-time information on availability and rates.
d) Workforce Housing: MARTA's TOD policies state that for Joint Development Projects on its property, MARTA will apply a goal of 20% housing affordability, on average. For this Project, MARTA has established a goal that 20% of residential units be reserved for families earning at or below 80% percent of the Atlanta Metropolitan Statistical Area Median Income ("AMI"). Priority is placed on the provision of housing for families. Special consideration will be given to Firms who submit Proposals which exceed this goal. Maximum Rent Limits will be the lesser of 35% of the qualified tenant’s gross income or the maximum LIHTC rent for a four-person
Page 24 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
household at 80% of AMI published annually by HUD. The workforce housing units should reflect the unit types and unit mix proposed for the Project.
5. Market Analysis: The Phase II Master Plan for Lindbergh Center Station contains a market study. The analysis found that MARTA property could support a successful high-density, mixed-use TOD project. More specifically, demand exists for the following uses: 215-235 apartment units annually; 40-45 condominium units annually, at prices ranging up to approximately $300,000 and averaging approximately $200,000-$225,000; up to 121,500 square feet of new office space through 2020; a smaller-scale specialty or discount grocer or chain drug store; additional restaurants; 400 hotel rooms in the limited- or select-service category.
6. Developer Responsibilities: This section provides a general overview of the anticipated responsibilities of the selected Proponent. Following the selection of the Firm, MARTA intends to address development responsibilities in more specifically defined and detailed definitive agreements which will ultimately be approved by the MARTA Board of Directors as negotiated between the parties.
Land Purchase or Lease: The selected Firm is expected to purchase and lease the subject property in order to implement a plan meeting MARTA’s TOD objectives. To the extent allowed by law, MARTA is open to phased take-down of the land commensurate with the expected development and phasing plan.
Market Research: The selected Firm will be responsible for conducting the necessary market research and analysis to determine the marketable property types and supportable lease, sales and absorption rates. The associated cost of all market research shall be borne by the selected Firm.
Site Planning: In conjunction with MARTA and the City of Atlanta, the selected Firm will be responsible for designing and implementing a plan for a market supported and financially feasible mixed-use TOD that achieves the development objectives of MARTA and the City of Atlanta as previously stated. This plan must be governed by the influences of the site’s natural and transit characteristics, as well as the demand for growth and development based on existing trends within the Atlanta region. In addition, the plan will define a vision of the future, incorporating thoughts on planning for urban development, environmental stewardship, equity and how infrastructure and services will be provided to support the development of the site.
Entitlements and Development Approvals: The selected Firm will be responsible for effectuating any necessary land use changes and obtaining permits or regulatory approvals for development of the site from the City of Atlanta and other governing entities. This includes rezoning, any required environmental site assessments, documentation, reports, approvals, building permits, and any similar necessary requirements. As previously stated, MARTA is actively seeking rezoning for this property to Sub Area 9 of the SPI-15 Lindbergh Transit Station Area Special Public Interest District. MARTA will assist the selected Firm in securing additional zoning entitlements and permits for the site as required by the City of Atlanta.
Page 25 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Securing Project Financing: The selected Firm will be responsible for financing the entire cost of the proposed Project. These costs include all pre-development and development costs such as infrastructure, public communications, entitlements, environmental, traffic, soil, or other studies, design and construction costs, and off-and-on-site work, including all utilities.
MARTA will work with the selected Firm to seek any available public financing opportunities to support infrastructure-related improvements at the Project. THE PROJECT MUST NOT BE CONTINGENT UPON RECEIPT OF PUBLIC FINANCING. Invest Atlanta offers the following public financing tools:
Tax Exempt Bond Financing: The Urban Residential Finance authority may issue tax exempt bonds for multi-family housing. These bonds provide low interest rates on borrowing and access to higher leverage. Tax exempt rates can be below 6% for long term “AAA” rated fixed-rate housing bonds. Variable rate (floating rate) bonds currently have rates around 3%. Eligible projects must include an affordable housing component and may be eligible for Federal and State Low-Income Housing Tax Credits.
Lease Purchase Bonds: Invest Atlanta may issue lease purchase bonds for new capital investment leading to job creation and/or retention and workforce housing in the City of Atlanta. In this program, property taxes are reduced by 50% and then over a ten-year period the reduction is reduced by 5% a year. Invest Atlanta will issue a minimum of $10 million in lease purchase bonds to support new capital investment; however, exceptions to this minimum issuance amount may be made by Invest Atlanta, in its sole discretion, if a compelling economic development reason is demonstrated. Currently, there is no maximum per project principal amount of lease purchase bonds Invest Atlanta will issue. All projects applying for this incentive must demonstrate economic development benefits to the City, which can be shown through the creation of new jobs and retention of existing jobs. Additional economic and community development benefits Invest Atlanta may consider include, but are not limited to, attraction of a target industry, capital investment, infrastructure development and affordable workforce housing. Lease Purchase Bonds can be layered with other financing sources.
The Atlanta Housing Authority (“AHA”) offers Project Based Rental Assistance (“PBRA”) to encourage private real estate developers and owners to develop and/or provide affordable housing in quality mixed-income rental communities. AHA utilizes PBRA as a strategic tool to promote the expansion of affordable housing opportunities for families, the elderly and persons with disabilities. Unlike a tenant-based voucher, which may transfer with the resident, PBRA remains with the PBRA rental community and is available only to households residing in a PBRA-assisted unit. AHA now is soliciting proposals to fund PBRA based on rent levels at or below market rate rents, as defined by HUD for the Atlanta Metropolitan Statistical Area. To review the Request for Proposals, please visit: http://www.atlantahousing.org/cms/uploads/file/2016-0092_pbra-areas-of-opportunity_final- reduced.pdf TOD1-2013 Horizontal and Vertical Development: The selected Firm will be responsible for the construction of all necessary off-site and selected on-site improvements including, but not limited to, all required site infrastructure such as utilities and roads; building cores and shells; tenant improvements; furniture, fixtures and equipment; and landscaping. The Firm shall be responsible for the Page 26 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
management, direction, design, integration, scheduling, control, review and approval of all subcontract work and services, and will be required to comply with all applicable MARTA, City of Atlanta, State of Georgia and U.S. federal regulations.
Facilitating Community Engagement: MARTA will work with the selected Firm to build neighborhood support for the proposed Project by assisting with community outreach initiatives as the project advances. MARTA strongly encourages Proponents to develop a detailed community outreach plan that provides a comprehensive strategy for community involvement.
Project Management: Subject to MARTA’s reasonable review and approval, the selected Proponent will be responsible for the operation and management of the Project.
Page 27 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Part 4: Submittal Forms
1. Contractor Affidavit (Form 1a)
2. Sub-Contractor Affidavit (Form 1b)
3. Sub-Sub-Contractor Affidavit (Form 1c)
4. Acknowledgement of Addenda (Form 2)
5. Reserved (Form 3)
6. No Conflict of Interest (Form 4)
7. List of Proposed Subcontractors (Form 5)
8. Proponent’s Qualification and Business References (Form 6)
9. Reserved (Form 7)
10. Office of Diversity and Inclusion Requirement Submittals (Appendix A)
Page 28 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
FORM 1 ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND ENFORCEMENT ACT FORMS
All Proponents must comply with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011, O.G.G.A § 13-10-90, et seq. (“Act”). Proponents must familiarize themselves with ACT and are solely responsible for ensuring their compliance therewith. Proponents may not rely on these instructions for that purpose. These instructions are offered only as a convenience to assist Proponents in complying with the requirements of MARTA’s procurement process and the terms of this IFB.
1. The attached Contractor Affidavit must be filled out COMPLETELY and submitted with the response to the solicitation prior to the solicitation’s due date.
2. The Contractor Affidavit must contain an active Federal Work Authorization Program (E-Verify) User ID Number and Date of Registration.
3. Where the business structure of a Proponent is such that Proponent is required to obtain an Employer Identification Number (EIN) from the Internal Revenue Service, Proponent must complete the Contractor Affidavit on behalf of, and provide a Federal Work Authorization User ID Number issued to, the Proponent itself (see Example 1 below). Where the business structure of a Proponent does not require it to obtain an EIN, each entity comprising Proponent must submit a separate Contractor Affidavit (see Example 2 below).
Example 1: ABC, Inc. and XYZ, Inc. form and submit a bid/proposal as TransitService, LLC. TransitService, LLC must enroll in the E-verify program and submit a single Contractor Affidavit in the name of TransitService, LLC which includes the Federal Work Authorization User ID Number issued to TransitService, LLC.
Example 2: ABC, Inc. and XYZ, Inc. execute a joint venture agreement and submit a bid/proposal under the name TransitService, JV. If, based on the nature of the JV agreement, TransitService, JV is not required to obtain an Employer Identification Number from the IRS. The bid/proposal submitted by TransitService, JV must include both a Contractor Affidavit for ABC, Inc. and a Contractor Affidavit for XYZ, Inc.
4. All Contractor Affidavits must be executed by an authorized representative of the entity named in the Affidavit. All Contractor Affidavits must be notarized.
5. Subcontractor and sub-subcontractor affidavits are not required at the time of bid/proposal submission, but will be required at or prior to Contract execution or in accordance with the timelines set forth in ACT.
Page 29 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
FORM 1a CONTRACTOR AFFIDAVIT O.C.G.A. § 13-10-91(b)(1)
By executing this Contractor Affidavit, the undersigned contractor verifies its compliance with O.C.G.A. § 13-10-91, stating affirmatively that the individual, firm or corporation which is engaged in the physical performance of services on behalf of MARTA has registered with, is authorized to use and uses the federal work authorization program commonly known as E-Verify, or any subsequent replacement program, in accordance with the applicable provisions and deadlines established in O.C.G.A. § 13-10-91. Furthermore, the undersigned contractor will continue to use the federal work authorization program throughout the contract period and the undersigned contractor will contract for physical performance of services in satisfaction of such contract only with subcontractors who present an affidavit to the contractor with the information required by O.C.G.A. § 13-10-91(b). Contractor hereby attests that its federal work authorization user identification number and date of authorization are as follows:
______Federal Work Authorization User Identification Number Date of Authorization
Name of Contractor: ______
Name of Project: ______
Name of Public Employer: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct.
Executed on ______, ____, 20__ in ______(city), ______(state)
______Signature of Authorized Officer or Agent
______Printed name and Title of Authorized Officer or Agent
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME ON THIS THE ___, DAY OF ______, 201______
______NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires: ______
Page 30 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
FORM 1b SUBCONTRACTOR AFFIDAVIT O.C.G.A. § 13-10-91(b)(3)
By executing this Subcontractor Affidavit, the undersigned subcontractor verifies its compliance with O.C.G.A. § 13-10-91, stating affirmatively that the individual, firm or corporation which is engaged in the physical performance of services under a contract with ______(name of contractor) on behalf of MARTA has registered with, is authorized to use and uses the federal work authorization program commonly known as E- Verify, or any subsequent replacement program, in accordance with the applicable provisions and deadlines established in O.C.G.A. § 13-10-91. Furthermore, the undersigned subcontractor will continue to use the federal work authorization program throughout the contract period and the undersigned subcontractor will contract for the physical performance of services in satisfaction of such contract only with sub-subcontractors who present an affidavit to the subcontractor with the information required by O.C.G.A. § 13-10-91(b). Additionally, the undersigned subcontractor will forward notice of the receipt of an affidavit from a sub-subcontractor to the contractor within five business days of receipt. If the undersigned subcontractor receives notice of receipt of an affidavit from any sub-subcontractor that has contracted with a sub-subcontractor to forward, within five business days of receipt, a copy of such notice to the contractor. Subcontractor hereby attests that its federal work authorization user identification number and date of authorization are as follows:
______Federal Work Authorization User Identification Number Date of Authorization
Name of Subcontractor: ______
Name of Project: ______
Name of Public Employer: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct.
Executed on ______, ____, 20__ in ______(city), ______(state)
______Signature of Authorized Officer or Agent
______Printed name and Title of Authorized Officer or Agent
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME ON THIS THE ___, DAY OF ______, 201______
______NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires: ______
Page 31 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
FORM 1c SUB-SUBCONTRACTOR AFFIDAVIT O.C.G.A. § 13-10-91(b)(4)
By executing this affidavit, the undersigned sub-subcontractor verifies its compliance with O.C.G.A. §13-10-91, stating affirmatively that the individual, firm or corporation which is engaged in the physical performance of services under a contract for ______(name of subcontractor or sub-subcontractor with whom such sub-subcontractor has privity of contract) and ______(name of contractor) on behalf of MARTA has registered with, is authorized to use and uses the federal work authorization program commonly known as E-Verify, or any subsequent replacement program, in accordance with the applicable provisions and deadlines established in O.C.G.A.§13-10-91. Furthermore, the undersigned sub-subcontractor will continue to use the federal work authorization program throughout the contract period and the undersigned sub-subcontractor will contract for the physical performance of services in satisfaction of such contract only with sub-subcontractors who present an affidavit to the sub- subcontractor with the information required by O.C.G.A. §13-10-91(b). The undersigned sub- subcontractor shall submit, at the time of such contract, this affidavit to ______(name of subcontractor or sub-subcontractor with whom such sub-subcontractor has privity of contract). Additionally, the undersigned sub-subcontractor will forward notice of the receipt of any affidavit from a sub-subcontractor to ______(name of subcontractor or sub-subcontractor with whom such sub-subcontractor has privity of contract). Sub-subcontractor hereby attests that its federal work authorization user identification number and date of authorization are as follows:
______Federal Work Authorization User Identification Number Date of Authorization
Name of Sub-Subcontractor: ______
Name of Project: ______
Name of Public Employer: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct.
Executed on ______, ____, 20__ in ______(city), ______(state)
______Signature of Authorized Officer or Agent
______Printed name and Title of Authorized Officer or Agent
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME ON THIS THE ___, DAY OF ______, 201______
______NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires: ______
Page 32 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
FORM 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ADDENDA
Each Proponent or Proponents must complete and submit an acknowledgement with its proposal that it has received all Addenda issued by MARTA for this solicitation. If none were issued check the box next to the word “NONE” below. This form has been included and may be used to satisfy this requirement. This is to acknowledge receipt of the following Addenda for RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project.
NONE [ ]
1. ______; 2. ______; 3. ______; 4. ______; 5. ______; 6. ______; 7. ______; 8. ______; 9. ______; 10. ______; and 11. ______.
Date: ______, 20_____ Date: ______, 20_____
Corporate Proponent or Proponent: Non-Corporate Proponent or Proponent: [Insert Corporate Name] [Insert Proponent Name]
By: By:
Print Name: Print Name:
Title: Title:
Corporate Secretary/Assistant Notary Public (Seal) Secretary (Seal) My Commission Expires:
Page 33 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
FORM 3
RESERVED
Page 34 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
FORM 4
CERTIFICATION OF NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Except as may be identified and explained below, the undersigned hereby certifies that (a) no member of the Board of Directors, officer, and employee of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, (b) no elected, appointed, and employed official or employee of the State of Georgia and of a governing body, instrumentality, or political subdivision within the territory comprising the Counties of Fulton, DeKalb or Clayton, Georgia, and (c) no relative of any persons described above, (d) no member of and delegate to the Congress of the United States has an interest whatsoever (regardless of how indirect and how remote that interest may be) in Consultant's organization and in the proceeds of a Contract and agreement which might be made between Consultant and the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority as a result of the proposal, quote, bid and/or qualification statement accompanied by this certification, and (e) no person who is or who during the past twelve months has been a member of the Board of Directors, an officer, or an employee of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority is employed by or on behalf of the Consultant's organization.
The undersigned certifies that he/she is legally authorized by the Consultant to make the above representation, and that the representation is true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief and without deliberate omission of any inquiry which would to the best of his/her belief tend to change the above representation. The undersigned understands that any representation made knowing it to be false may disqualify the Consultant from being awarded the Contract and future work by MARTA.
NOTE: THIS CERTIFICATION MUST BE SIGNED AND SUBMITTED TO MARTA.
Signature Print Name Title Telephone #: ( ) Name of Consultant Company Address ______
Page 35 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
FORM 5 LIST OF PROPOSED SUBCONTRACTORS PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FOR EACH PROPOSED SUBCONTRACTOR
1. NAME: ______
ADDRESS: ______
TELEPHONE NUMBER: ______
SUBCONTRACT EFFORT: ______
AGE OF FIRM: ______YEAR(S) ______MONTH(S) % DBE % NON-DBE
ANNUAL GROSS RECEIPTS OF FIRM:
% $0 - $99,999 % $100,000 - $499,999 %$500,000 - $999,999 %$1,000,000 - $4,999,999
% $5,000,000 - $9,999,999 %$10,000,000 - $14,999,999 %$15,000,000 – 24,999,999
2. NAME: ______
ADDRESS: ______
TELEPHONE NUMBER: ______
SUBCONTRACT EFFORT: ______
AGE OF FIRM: ______YEAR(S) ______MONTH(S) % DBE % NON-DBE
ANNUAL GROSS RECEIPTS OF FIRM:
% $0 - $99,999 % $100,000 - $499,999 %$500,000 - $999,999 %$1,000,000 - $4,999,999
% $5,000,000 - $9,999,999 %$10,000,000 - $14,999,999 %$15,000,000 – 24,999,999
3. NAME: ______
ADDRESS: ______
TELEPHONE NUMBER: ______
SUBCONTRACT EFFORT: ______
AGE OF FIRM: ______YEAR(S) ______MONTH(S) % DBE % NON-DBE
ANNUAL GROSS RECEIPTS OF FIRM:
% $0 - $99,999 % $100,000 - $499,999 %$500,000 - $999,999 %$1,000,000 - $4,999,999
% $5,000,000 - $9,999,999 %$10,000,000 - $14,999,999 %$15,000,000 – 24,999,999 Page 36 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
4. NAME: ______
ADDRESS: ______
TELEPHONE NUMBER: ______
SUBCONTRACT EFFORT: ______
AGE OF FIRM: ______YEAR(S) ______MONTH(S) % DBE % NON-DBE
ANNUAL GROSS RECEIPTS OF FIRM:
% $0 - $99,999 % $100,000 - $499,999 %$500,000 - $999,999 %$1,000,000 - $4,999,999
% $5,000,000 - $9,999,999 %$10,000,000 - $14,999,999 %$15,000,000 – 24,999,999
5. NAME: ______
ADDRESS: ______
TELEPHONE NUMBER: ______
SUBCONTRACT EFFORT: ______
AGE OF FIRM: ______YEAR(S) ______MONTH(S) % DBE % NON-DBE
ANNUAL GROSS RECEIPTS OF FIRM:
% $0 - $99,999 % $100,000 - $499,999 %$500,000 - $999,999 %$1,000,000 - $4,999,999
% $5,000,000 - $9,999,999 %$10,000,000 - $14,999,999 %$15,000,000 – 24,999,999
6. NAME: ______
ADDRESS: ______
TELEPHONE NUMBER: ______
SUBCONTRACT EFFORT: ______
AGE OF FIRM: ______YEAR(S) ______MONTH(S) % DBE % NON-DBE
ANNUAL GROSS RECEIPTS OF FIRM:
% $0 - $99,999 % $100,000 - $499,999 %$500,000 - $999,999 %$1,000,000 - $4,999,999
% $5,000,000 - $9,999,999 %$10,000,000 - $14,999,999 %$15,000,000 – 24,999,999
(Use Additional Sheet(s) as Required)
Page 37 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
FORM 6 PROPONENT’S QUALIFICATIONS AND BUSINESS REFERENCES
Name of Proponent
Principal Office (Street Address or P.O. Box Number)
______(State) (Zip Code)
( ) ( ) ______(Telephone Number) (Fax Number)
Federal ID Number: ______(Social Security Number in case of an individual)
1. Are you registered to do business in Georgia? ______Classification ______
2. Do you hold a valid Business License? ______Municipality/ License No.______
3. Are you an individual , a partnership , a corporation , or a joint venture ? (Check as applicable)
If a partnership, list names and addresses of partners; if a corporation, list names of officers and directors and State of incorporation; if a joint venture, list names and addresses of ventures and, if any venturer is a corporation, partnership, or joint venture, list the same information for each such corporation, partnership, and joint venture.
4. How many years has your organization been in business under your present business name? ____Yrs.
5. How many years of experience has your organization had in work similar to the work of this Contract?
(a) As a prime contractor?
(b) As a subcontractor?
Page 38 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
6. List all the contracts which your organization has completed during the last 5 years, and which demonstrate qualifications to perform the work of this Contract. (For joint venture work shows the sponsoring individual or company.)
Name and Address of Year Contract Price Kind of Contract Location of Work Customer
7. Have you or your organization, or any officer or partner thereof, failed to complete a contract?
If so, give details
8. In what other lines of business are you financially interested?
Page 39 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
9. Give information about the experience of the principal individuals of your present organization.
Present Position Years of Individual's or Office in Similar Magnitude and In what Name your organization Experience Type of Work Capacity
10. List similar contract work which you have currently underway, or for which you are committed:
Name and Contract Kind of Location Completion Expected address of Price Contract of Work Date Completion Customer
Page 40 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
11. References: List customers, including public bodies, for whom you have done work during past five (5) years:
Name Address Business
12. Reference is hereby made to the following financial institutions as to the financial responsibility of the Proponent:
Name of the Bank:
Street Address:
City and State: Telephone:
Officer familiar with Proponent’s Account:
Name of the Bank:
Street Address:
Page 41 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
City and State: Telephone:
Officer familiar with Proponent’s Account:
Name of the Bank:
Street Address:
City and State: Telephone:
Officer familiar with Proponent’s Account:
13. Reference is hereby made to the following surety/insurance company or companies as to the financial responsibility and general reliability of the Proponent:
Name of Surety/Insurance Company:
Name of Local Agent (if different):
Local Street Address:
City and State: Telephone:
Person familiar with Proponent’s Account:
Name of Surety/Insurance Company:
Name of Local Agent (if different):
Local Street Address:
City and State: Telephone:
Person familiar with Proponent’s Account:
14. Is any litigation pending against your organization or has your organization been engaged in any litigation or adversarial proceedings within the last five (5) years? [check the correct response below]
Yes ______No ______
If your response is yes, please provide a detailed description of each proceeding below. (Use additional pages if necessary)
Page 42 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
____
____
_
The undersigned certifies that he is legally authorized by the Proponent to make the statements and representations contained in this form, and represents and warrants that the foregoing information is true and accurate to the best of his knowledge, and intends that the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority rely thereon in awarding the Contract.
PROPONENT’S NAME
DATE OF SIGNING
SIGNATURE
TITLE
Page 43 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
FORM 7 RESERVED
Page 44 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
APPENDIX A OFFICE OF DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION REQUIREMENT SUBMITTALS
1. See attached.
Page 45 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE REQUIREMENTS FOR REVENUE GENERATING CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
This document is issued pursuant to Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Americans w ith Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, as amended, Environmental Justice Executive Order No. 12898, Executive Order 11246, Executive Order 11625, 49 CFR Part 23 and 26, and the MARTA Board Policies on equal employment opportunity (Exhibit A), and the utilization of disadvantaged business enterprises (Exhibit B). The Contractor is required to take certain actions designed to assure equitable participation of minority persons and women in its work force, as well as the maximization of opportunities for disadvantaged business enterprises.
Part I details the equal employment opportunity requirements; Part II outlines the disadvantaged business utilization requirements; and Part III requires the Contractor's employment data, details on disadvantaged business utilization, and certification.
PART I - EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY (EEO)
A. Utilization Analysis
1. This submittal requirement is applicable to each entity, including each separate partnership, corporation, company, joint venture, or other entity, regardless of its level of participation, comprising the business organizations or entities submitting the bid(s). Each Contractor, desirous of doing business with the Authority, shall be required to submit a current affirmative action program if their workforce is 50 or more employees. The affirmative action program should include a utilization analysis by job category, an underutilization analysis, a program of goals and timetables to correct any such underutilization, and other data called for by the Authority's Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity. A current Equal Employment Opportunity Policy statement is required if the Contractor’s workforce is less than 50 employees.
B. Underutilization Analysis
1. "Underutilization" is defined as employing fewer minorities in a particular job category than would reasonably be expected between their availability in the general population, or fewer women in a particular job category than would reasonably be expected based on their availability in the labor market. In determining whether minorities or women are being underutilized in any job category, the Contractor will consider all of the following factors:
a. The minority population of the area encompassed by the MARTA system;
b. The size of the minority and female unemployment force in the labor area encompassed by the MARTA system;
April, 2006 (revised 12/08; 06/13) DEO/DBE Page 1 of 19
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
c. The percentage of minority and female work forces as compared with the total work force in the labor area encompassed by the MARTA system;
d. The general availability of minorities and women having requisite skills in the labor area encompassed by the MARTA system;
e. The availability of minorities and women having requisite skills in an area from which the Contractor can reasonably recruit;
f. The availability of promotable minority and female employees within the Contractor's organization;
g. The anticipated expansion, contraction and turnover in the work force;
h. The existence of training institutions capable of training minorities and women in the requisite skills; and
i. The degree of training which the Contractor is reasonably able to undertake as a means of making all job classes available to minorities and women.
C. Goals and Timetables
1. In the event there is an underutilization of minority or female employees, the Contractor shall also be required to include in its affirmative action plan, a program, including goals and timetables, for correcting these deficiencies.
2. An effective affirmative action program shall contain, but not necessarily be limited to, the following elements: (a) development or reaffirmation of the Contractors' equal employment opportunity policy in all personnel actions; (b) formal internal and external dissemination of the Contractors' policy; (c) establishment of responsibilities for implementation of the Contractor's affirmative action program; (d) identification of underutilization by organizational units and job categories; (e) where underutilization occurs, development and execution of a program establishing corrective and affirmative goals and objectives by organizational units and job category, including timetables for completion; (f) design and implementation of internal audit and reporting systems to measure effectiveness of the total program; (g) internal active support of local and national community action programs. Support data for the above analysis and program shall be compiled and maintained as part of the affirmative action program. This data should include progression line charts, seniority rosters, applicant flow data, and applicant rejection ratios indicating minority and female status.
3. Goals shall be targets reasonably attainable by means of applying every good faith effort to make all aspects of the entire affirmative action program work. The use of goals is not intended and should not be used to discriminate against any applicant or employee because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
D. Reports
1. All Contractors doing business with the Authority shall submit at least quarterly reports as may be requested by the Executive Director, Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity or a designee. Such employment reports shall include such information
April, 2006 (revised 12/08; 06/13) DEO/DBE Page 2 of 19
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
as to the practices, policies, programs, and statistics of the Contractor, and shall be in such form, as the Authority may prescribe.
E. Subcontractors
1. Subcontractors are bound by the same requirements as Contractors, who shall be responsible for the compliance of their Lower tier contractors.
F. Responsibility for Implementation
1. Each Contractor shall designate, and notify the Authority of the person who will be responsible for implementing its equal opportunity policy and plan.
G. Compliance
1. The Contractor agrees to comply, and assures the compliance of each sub recipient, lessee, third party contractor, or other participants at any tier of the Project, with all equal employment opportunity (EEO) provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 5332, with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 2000e, and implementing Federal regulations and any later amendments thereto. Except to the extent FTA determines otherwise in writing, the Contractor also agrees to follow all applicable Federal EEO directives that may be issued.
2. Failure to comply with the Authority's Equal Employment Opportunity policy may constitute cause for cancellation or termination of the contract and may render a Contractor ineligible for future contracts with the Authority. Immediately upon finding that a Contractor is in noncompliance, the Authority shall issue a notice to the Contractor giving it thirty (30) days to show cause why the contract should not be terminated. If the Contractor fails to develop and implement an acceptable affirmative action program within thirty (30) days, the Authority shall issue a notice of proposed cancellation or termination of existing contracts and subcontracts and debarment from future contracts and subcontracts. The Contractor shall have ten (10) days to request a hearing. If a request has not been received in ten (10) days, the Contractor will be declared ineligible for future contracts and contracts will be terminated for default.
3. During the "show cause" period of thirty (30) days, every effort shall be made by the Authority through conciliation, mediation and persuasion to resolve the deficiencies that led to the determination of noncompliance.
4. Any prime Contractor or Subcontractor declared ineligible for further contracts or subcontracts may request reinstatement in a letter directed to the Authority. In connection with the reinstatement proceeding, the prime Contractor or Subcontractor shall be required to show that it has established and will carry out employment policies and practices in compliance with the Equal Employment Opportunity requirements.
H. Records
1. The Contractor and Subcontractor shall permit access to their books, records, and accounts by OFCCP, the Federal DOT, or the Federal Transit Administration and April, 2006 (revised 12/08; 06/13) DEO/DBE Page 3 of 19
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
the Authority's Executive Director, Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity or a designated representative for purpose of investigation to ascertain compliance with the foregoing requirements.
I. Federal Nondiscrimination Provisions Pursuant to 41 CFR Part 60-1.4(b)
During the performance of this contract, the Contractor agrees as follows:
1. The Contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, sex or national origin. The Contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated equitably during employment without regard to their race, religion, color, sex, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, promotion, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees, and applicants for employment, notices to be provided setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
2. The Contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the Contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, religion, color, sex or national origin.
3. The Contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice to be provided advising the said labor union or workers' representative of the Contractor's commitments under this section, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment.
4. The Contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and of the rules, regulations and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor.
5. The Contractor will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and by rules, regulations and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to his books, records and accounts by the Administering Agency and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations and orders.
6. In the event of the Contractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination clauses of this contract or with any of the said rules, regulations or orders, this contract may be canceled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part and the Contractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts or Federally assisted contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and such sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as provided in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, or by rule, regulation, or order, of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law.
April, 2006 (revised 12/08; 06/13) DEO/DBE Page 4 of 19
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
7. The Contractor will include the portion of the sentence immediately preceding paragraph (I.1) and the provisions of paragraphs (I.1) through (I.7), in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules, regulations or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Section 204 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, so that such provisions will be binding upon each Subcontractor or vendor. The Contractor will take such action with respect to any Subcontractor or purchase order as the Administering Agency may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance. Provided, however, that in the event a Contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a Subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction by the Administering Agency, the Contractor may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.
J. Federal Nondiscrimination Provisions Pursuant to 49 CFR Part 21.
During the performance of the Contract, the Contractor agrees as follows:
1. The Contractor shall comply with the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination in Federally assisted programs of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, as they may be amended from time to time (hereafter referred to as the Regulations), which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of the contract.
2. The Contractor, with regard to the work performed by it during the Contract, shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, sex, creed or national origin in the selection and retention of Subcontractors, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment. The Contractor shall not participate, either directly or indirectly, in the discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 of the Regulations, including employment practices when the Contract covers a program set forth in Appendix B of the Regulations.
3. In all solicitations, either by competitive bidding or negotiation, made by the Contractor for work to be performed under a subcontract, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment, each potential Subcontractor or supplier shall be notified by the Contractor of the Contractor's obligations under the Contract and the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, color, sex, creed or national origin.
4. The Contractor shall provide all information and reports required by the Regulations and directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information and its facilities as may be determined by the Authority or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such Regulations, orders, and instructions. Where any information required of a Contractor is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information, the Contractor shall so certify to the Authority, or the Federal Transit Administration, as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information.
5. In the event of the Contractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of this Contract, the Authority shall impose such contract sanctions as it or the Federal Transit Administration may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to:
April, 2006 (revised 12/08; 06/13) DEO/DBE Page 5 of 19
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
a. Withholding of payments to the Contractor under the contract until the Contractor complies, and/or
b. Cancellation, termination or suspension of the contract, in whole or in part.
6. The Contractor shall include the sentence immediately preceding paragraph (J.1) and the provisions of paragraph (J.1) through (J.6) in every subcontract, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations, or directives issued pursuant thereto. The Contractor shall take such action with respect to any subcontract or procurement as the Authority or the Federal Transit Administration may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance. Provided, however, that, in the event a Contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a Subcontractor or Supplier as a result of such direction, the Contractor may request the Authority to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the Authority, and, in addition, the Contractor may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.
PART II - UTILIZATION OF DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES
A. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Participation Contract Specifications Pursuant to Executive Order 11625, 49 CFR Part and 26, and MARTA Policy.
1. It is the policy of the Federal Government and the Authority to ensure a “level playing field” and foster equal opportunity for small businesses pursuant to the Department of Transportation’s 49 CFR Part 26. In this regard, the Contractor to whom any award of this solicitation is made shall take all necessary and reasonable steps in accordance with this solicitation to ensure that disadvantaged business enterprises have a “level playing field” and foster equal opportunity for small businesses. The contractor, sub recipient or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the bases of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor shall carry out applicable requirement of 49 CFR Part 26 in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy as the recipient deems appropriate. The Contractor shall use its best efforts to carry out the DBE policy consistent with efficient performance on the project.
2. Contractors are hereby informed that the Authority will consider the establishment of goals for the participation of disadvantaged business enterprises in all contracts it awards. Subsequently, any Subcontracts awarded by the Contractor successful in this solicitation to firms owned by disadvantaged persons, and to joint ventures of which such firms are a part, are essential to the achievement of the Authority's DBE goal. Therefore to be considered for award, Contractors must comply with the requirements of this Part II. By submitting his/her bid, each Contractor gives assurance that he/she will meet the Authority's percentage goal target set forth in Parts II.A.3 for participation by disadvantaged business enterprises in the performance of any contract resulting from this solicitation or, as an alternative, that he has made or will make good faith efforts toward meeting the DBE goals, and will demonstrate to the Authority's satisfaction that he/she has made such efforts. April, 2006 (revised 12/08; 06/13) DEO/DBE Page 6 of 19
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Contractors are encouraged to submit with their bids, on the form set in Part III.B, the names, respective scope of work, and the dollar values of each DBE Subcontractor that the Contractor proposes for participation in the contract. In any case, this information shall be submitted within such time as the Authority requires. If the information so submitted indicates that the Authority's goals will not be met, the Contractor shall also submit Exhibit G, to show sufficient evidence to the Authority's satisfaction that the Contractor has in good faith made every reasonable effort, in the Authority's judgment, to meet such goals. Examples of efforts that may be appropriate are found in Part II.A.5. If any Contractor fails to submit, within the time stipulated or any extension the Authority may allow, the required information concerning DBE participation, or if, having failed to meet the Authority's goals or fails to demonstrate to the Authority's satisfaction his/her good faith efforts to do so, the Authority may, in its discretion, reject his/her contract.
3. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Goals.
The Authority has established a DBE contract goal of 25% of the total dollar value of the proposal total, including amendments, modifications, options and change orders. Credit towards the DBE goal for a contract shall be limited to the participation of firms performing within the designated NAICS code(s) for which the firms have been certified as a DBE.
4. The Contractor must promptly notify MARTA’s Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity, whenever a DBE subcontractor, performing work related to this contract, is terminated or fails to complete it work, and must make good faith efforts to engage another DBE subcontractor to perform at least the same amount of work. The Contractor may not terminate any DBE subcontractor and perform that work through its own forces or those of an affiliate without prior written consent of MARTA’s Executive Director of Diversity and Equal Opportunity.
5. Contractors are informed that price alone does not constitute an acceptable basis for rejecting DBE quotes unless the Contractor can demonstrate that no reasonable price can be obtained from a DBE. A Contractor's failure to meet the DBE goal or to show reasonable efforts to that end will, in the Authority's discretion, constitute sufficient grounds for rejecting his/her proposal. Such reasonable efforts may include, but are not limited to, some or all of the following:
a. Attendance at the pre-proposal conference if any;
b. Follow-up of initial solicitations of interest in a timely fashion by contacting DBEs to determine with certainly whether the DBEs are interested;
c. Efforts made to select portions of the work (including, where appropriate, breaking down contracts into economically feasible units) proposed to be performed by DBEs in order to increase the likelihood of achieving the DBE goals;
RFP P38602 Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
April, 2006 (revised 12/08; 06/13) DEO/DBE Page 7 of 19
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
d. Efforts to negotiate with DBEs for specific subcontracts, including at a minimum:
(i) The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of DBEs that were contacted;
(ii) A description of the information provided to DBEs regarding the plans and specifications for portions of the work to be performed; and
(iii) A detailed statement of the reasons why additional prospective agreements with DBEs, needed to meet the stated goals, were not reached;
e. Advertisement in general circulation media, trade association publications and disadvantaged-focus media for a reasonable period before bids are due;
f. Notification, in writing, to a reasonable number of specific DBEs that their interests in specifically delineated contract work is solicited, in sufficient time to allow the DBEs to participate effectively;
g. Concerning each DBE the Contractor contacted but rejected as unqualified, the reasons for the Contractor's conclusion;
h. Efforts made to assist the DBEs contacted that needed assistance in obtaining bonding, lines of credit, or insurance required by the Contractor or the Authority;
i. Designation, in writing, of a liaison officer who administers the Contractor's disadvantaged business enterprise utilization program;
j. Expansion of search for DBEs to a wider geographic area than the area in which the Contractor generally seeks Subcontractors, if use of the customary solicitation area does not result in meeting the goals by the Contractor; and
k. Utilization of services of available disadvantaged community organizations; disadvantaged Contractors' groups; local, state, and federal minority business technical assistance offices; and other organizations that provide assistance in the recruitment and placement of DBEs.
5. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise means a small business concern owned and controlled by a socially and economically disadvantaged individual or individuals. For purposes of this definition:
a. Small business size standards vary by type of industry. Contractors should refer to 13 CFR, Part 121, for current standards. Disadvantaged business enterprise firms will be considered ineligible and will be graduated from the disadvantaged enterprise program if their average annual gross receipts over the preceding three fiscal years exceed $22,410,000.
April, 2006 (revised 12/08; 06/13) DEO/DBE Page 8 of 19
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
b. An individual is socially disadvantaged if (i) he or she is a citizen of the United States or a lawfully admitted permanent resident, and (ii) because of his or her race, color, national origin, gender, physical handicap or mental disability, long term residence in an environment isolated from the mainstream of American society, or other similar cause beyond the individual's control, he or she has been negatively affected with respect to his or her entry into or advancement in the business world.
c. A socially disadvantaged individual is economically disadvantaged if he or she and his or her business are in a more difficult economic situation than most businesses and owners that are not socially disadvantaged.
d. Any group or individual may, upon a proper showing, be found to be socially and economically disadvantaged. There is a presumption, which, however, may be rebutted by evidence of any appropriate kind, that members of the following groups are socially and economically disadvantaged; (i) "Black Americans," which includes persons having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa; (ii) "Hispanic Americans," which includes persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, regardless of race; (iii) "Native Americans," which includes persons whose origins are American Indians, Eskimos, or Native Hawaiians; (iv) "Asian-Pacific Americans," which includes persons whose origin are from Japan, China, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, the Philippines, Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Trust Territories of the Pacific, or the Northern Marianas; (v) "Asian-Subcontinental Americans," which includes persons whose origins are from India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh; and (vi) "Women," regardless of race, ethnicity, or origin.
e. Owned and Controlled means a business (i) which is at least 51 per cent owned by one or more disadvantaged persons or women or, in the case of a publicly owned business, at least 51 per cent of the stock of which is owned by one or more disadvantaged persons or women, and (ii) whose management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more such individuals.
f. The definition of a disadvantaged business enterprise is in Part II.A.5 based upon DOT regulation 49 CFR Part and 26 as amended. The Contractor agrees to abide by this DOT regulation and any subsequent amendments thereto affecting the foregoing definition.
6. The Contractor may rely on written representation by Subcontractors regarding their status as disadvantaged business enterprises in lieu of an independent investigation, however:
a. Prior to award of this contract, as requested by the Authority, Contractors shall cause disadvantaged business enterprises and joint ventures involving disadvantaged businesses to submit, through the Contractor, appropriate certification to the Authority as shown in the Disadvantaged Business Disclosure Requirements (Exhibits D and E). On the basis of these disclosures and any other relevant information, should the Authority determine any firm to not be a legitimate DBE, Contractors shall be permitted to substitute bona fide DBEs for the Authority's consideration.
April, 2006 (revised 12/08; 06/13) DEO/DBE Page 9 of 19
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
b. After proposal deadline and during contract performance, Contractors are required to make every reasonable effort to replace a DBE Subcontractor that is unable to perform successfully, with another DBE. Prior to substituting a DBE which is not performing satisfactorily, the Contractor shall seek written approval from the Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity. The Authority's Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity shall approve all prior substitutions, in writing, in order to ensure that the substitutions of firms are bona fide DBEs.
c. In the event of the Contractor's non-compliance with the disadvantaged business requirements of the contract, the Authority shall impose such contract sanctions as it or the Federal Transit Administration may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to:
(i) Withholding of payments to the Contractor until the Contractor complies, and/or
(ii) Cancellation, termination or suspension of the contract, in whole or in part.
7. For the information of Contractors, Exhibit F outlines the Authority's rules, guidelines and criteria for (a) making determinations as to the legitimacy of DBEs (b) ensuring that contracts are awarded to Contractors that meet DBE goals, and (c) counting DBE participation toward DBE goals.
8. The Contractor shall cooperate with the Authority's Executive Director, Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity or a designee in any reviews of the Contractor's procedures and practices with respect to disadvantaged business enterprises which the Executive Director, Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity may from time to time conduct.
B. DBE Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.
1. The Contractor shall submit periodic reports (i.e. dependent upon the duration of the contract) of contracting with disadvantaged business enterprises in such form and manner and at such time as prescribed by the Authority (Exhibit C-1 is currently required to be submitted within 10 calendar days following the end of each calendar quarter) for contracts with 12 months duration. If the contract duration is for less than 12 months period, reports must be submitted within 10 calendar days following the end of each month. Any failure to submit this report within 10 days of the end of a month or quarter, as specified by MARTA, could potentially cause a delay in future progress payments.
3. The Contractor and Subcontractors shall permit access to their books, records, and accounts by the Federal DOT or the Federal Transit Administration and the Authority's Executive Director, Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity, or a designated representative, for purpose of investigation to ascertain compliance with these specified requirements. Such records shall be maintained by the Contractor in a fashion, which is readily accessible to the Authority for a minimum of three years following completion of the contract.
April, 2006 (revised 12/08; 06/13) DEO/DBE Page 10 of 19
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
4. To ensure that all obligations under any contract awarded as a result of this proposal solicitation are met, the Authority will conduct periodic reviews of the Contractor's DBE involvement efforts during contract performance. The Contractor shall bring to the attention of the Authority's Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity any situation in which regularly scheduled progress payments are not promptly made to DBE Subcontractors. Prompt payments to disadvantaged businesses are a requirement of 49 CFR Part 26 and are subject to interest charges, when not made within five (5) days of the Authority paying the Prime Contractor.
C. Miscellaneous Requirements.
1. There should be no restrictions through, for example, law provisions, partnership agreements, or charter requirements for cumulative voting rights or otherwise that prevent the minority or women owners, without the cooperation or vote of any owner who is not a minority or woman, from making a business decision of the firm in accordance with 49 CFR 26.27(c).
2. The Contractor shall take affirmative steps in establishing local banking requirements for funds received from this project. Failure to investigate the opportunities to use banking institutions owned and controlled by minorities and women in good faith may cause a Contractor to be in non-compliance with 49 CFR 26.27. The Federal requirement states that deposits in banking institutions are not to be considered toward fulfillment of the DBE goals.
3. Subcontractor Agreements. After Contract Award, the Contractor will be required to submit copies of signed subcontract agreements with all subcontractors and sub recipients they will use to the Executive Director of Diversity and Equal Opportunity for review and approval. All subcontract agreements shall denote the Contract Assurance clause 49 CFR Part 26.13; the name of the person authorized to sign for the Subcontractor; the date on which the subcontract agreement was signed; the names of witnesses required; the Scope of Work and compensation for services rendered; and the beginning and ending date for the tasks assigned to the subcontractors. The Authority will not allow any subcontractor or sub recipient to perform any work under the Contract unless its subcontract agreement(s) has been received at least ten days prior to commencement of the subcontractor’s and sub recipient’s work. The subcontractor and sub recipient agreement shall contain language governing how the subcontractor will be paid that mirrors how MARTA will pay the prime in those instances where work is delayed because of terroristic, color coded alerts issued by Federal Homeland Security.
4. Prompt Payment and Retention. Prompt Payment and Retention for Subcontractors. It is the policy of the Authority that prompt payment is made to all subcontractors. Each subcontract the prime contractor signs with a subcontractor must include the following assurance: The Contractor is required to pay subcontractors for satisfactory performance of their contracts within 5 days after the Authority has paid the Contractor for such work. The Contractor will not be paid for work performed by a subcontractor until the prime ensures that the subcontractor is paid. The Contractor shall not require retainage of subcontractors that is greater than the retainage required of the Contractor by the Authority. In addition, the Contractor must return any retainage payments to those subcontractors within 14 days after the subcontractor’s work related to this contract is satisfactorily April, 2006 (revised 12/08; 06/13) DEO/DBE Page 11 of 19
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
completed; or any retainage payments after incremental acceptance of the subcontractor’s work by MARTA and Contractor’s receipt of the partial retainage payment related to the subcontractor’s work.
The Contractor’s failure to pay subcontractors, as provided herein, shall be a material breach for which the Authority may cancel the Contract. In addition, 49 CFR 26.29 cites that all progress payments not promptly processed by the prime within specified time limits (i.e. 5 days from receipt of payment by MARTA) will bear interest of 1% per month on the unpaid balance. The Contractor shall not delay or postpone payment to a subcontractor without prior written approval from the Executive Director of Diversity and Equal Opportunity.
5. Prompt Payment and Retention for Lower Tier Contractors. It is the policy of the Authority that prompt payment is made to all lower tier contractors. Each lower tier contract the subcontractor signs with a lower tier contractor must include the following assurance: The Subcontractor is required to pay the lower tier contractors for satisfactory performance of their contracts within 5 days after the Prime has paid the Subcontractor for such work. The Contractor will not be paid for work performed by the lower tier contractor until the subcontractor ensures that the lower tier contractor is paid. The subcontractor shall not require retainage of the lower tier contractors that is greater than the retainage required of the Contractor by the Authority. In addition, the Contractor must return any retainage payments to the lower tier contractors within 14 days after the lower tier contractor’s work related to this contract is satisfactorily completed; or any retainage payments after incremental acceptance of the lower tier contractor’s work by the Prime and subcontractor’s receipt of the partial retainage payment related to the lower tier contractor’s work.
The subcontractor’s failure to pay the lower tier contractor, as provided herein, shall be a material breach for which the Prime may cancel the Subcontract. In addition, 49 CFR 26.29 cites that all progress payments not promptly processed by the prime within specified time limits (i.e. 5 days from receipt of payment by MARTA) will bear interest of 1% per month on the unpaid balance. The Subcontractor shall not delay or postpone payment to the lower tier contractor without prior written approval from the Executive Director of Diversity and Equal Opportunity.
6. Arbitration. The Contractor is required to include, in each subcontract, a clause requiring the use of appropriate arbitration mechanisms to resolve all payment disputes. The Contractor must promptly notify The Authority when a DBE subcontractor performing work related to this contract is terminated or fails to complete its work, and must make good faith efforts to engage another DBE subcontractor to perform at least the same amount of work. Before transmitting to MARTA its request to terminate, the prime contractor must give notice in writing to the DBE of its intent to do so. A copy of this notice must be provided to MARTA prior to consideration of the request to terminate. The DBE will then have five (5) days to respond and advise MARTA of why it objects to the proposed termination (the five day period may be reduced if the matter is one of public necessity, e.g., safety). The Contractor may not terminate any DBE subcontractor and perform that work through its own forces or those of an affiliate without prior written consent of the Executive Director of Diversity and Equal Opportunity. April, 2006 (revised 12/08; 06/13) DEO/DBE Page 12 of 19
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
7. Upon receipt of the Administrative Notice to Proceed and prior to Site Notice to Proceed, the contractor must submit a schedule of work indicating scope of work for each subcontractor and the time frame in which it is anticipated that this work will be performed.
8. The Contractor must provide MARTA’s Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity with the name and contact information for the EEO officer who will be responsible for all matters pertaining to Affirmative Action and DBE participation for the duration of the contract. During the term of the contract, the contractor’s EEO officer will be responsible for the completion and submission of all quarterly reports to MARTA’s Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity. In addition, the EEO officer will also be responsible for serving as the Contractor’s liaison for all matters pertaining to DBE firms participating on the contract, including but not limited to, payment and performance issues, substitutions, etc.
9. Contract Compliance. The Contractor shall comply with all Davis Bacon, Affirmative Action, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) laws, Executive Orders, and regulations. The Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity shall provide technical assistance to contractors on their compliance obligations; identify instances of non-compliance, and the implementation of timely and effective remedies to address non-compliance.
10. The contractor shall establish and maintain policies that provide opportunities for the full utilization and skill-improvement opportunities to assure the increased participation of minority groups and disadvantaged persons and women on their projects.
11. The contractor shall fully comply with Federal laws, directives, executive orders and implemented regulations for the duration of this contract. The Contractor shall display, on a bulletin board in the job site trailer in an accessible and visible location, posters that provide Federal information pertaining to safety (OSHA), wage and hour (Davis Bacon), Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), and Americans with Disability Act (ADA).
12. The contractor shall provide the Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity their full cooperation and support during the Equal Opportunity Compliance Reviews of their company.
D. Civil Rights Requirements
The Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable civil rights statutes and implementing regulations including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Nondiscrimination in Federal Transit Programs. The Contractor agrees to comply, and assure the compliance of each subcontractor at any tier of the Project, with the provisions of 49 USC § 5332, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or age, and prohibits discrimination in employment or business opportunity.
April, 2006 (revised 12/08; 06/13) DEO/DBE Page 13 of 19
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
2. Nondiscrimination – Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Contractor agrees to comply, and assure the compliance of each subcontractor at any tier of the Project, with all requirements prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., and US DOT regulations, “Nondiscrimination in Federally-Assisted Programs of the Department of Transportation – Effectuation of title VI of the Civil rights Act,” 49 CFR Part 21, and any implementing requirements FTA may issue.
3. Equal Employment Opportunity. The Contractor agrees to comply, and assure the compliance of each subcontractor at any tier of the Project, with all requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 USC 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and 49 USC 42 U.S.C. § 5332 and any implementing requirements FTA may issue. The contractor agrees that it will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, sex, disability, age, or national origin. Affirmation action will be taken to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed, sex, disability, age, or national origin. The Contractor also agrees to comply with any implementing requirements FTA may issue. Failure by the Contractor to carry out the terms of the EEO program will be treated as a violation of the Contract or Agreement.
4. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise. The Contractor agrees to comply with section 1101 (b) of TEA-21, 23 USC 42 USC § 101 note, and US DOT regulations, “Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs, “49 CFR Part 23. The Contractor agrees that it shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of any subcontract supported with Federal assistance derived from the US DOT or in the administration of its DBE program or the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26. The Contractor agrees to take all necessary and reasonable steps set forth in 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of all subcontracts supported with Federal assistance derived from the USDOT. The Authority’s DBE program, as required 49 CFR Part 26 and approved by the USDOT, is incorporated by reference and made part of the Contractual Agreement.
5. Discrimination on the Basis of Sex. The Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, 20 USC 42 USC §§ 1681 et seq., with implementing USDOT regulations, “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or activities receiving Federal Financial Assistance, “49 CFR Part 25, and with any implementing directives that US DOT or FTA may promulgate, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex.
6. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age. The Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, 42 USC §§ 6101 et seq., and implementing regulations, which prohibit employment and other discrimination against individuals on the basis of age.
7. Access Requirements for Persons with Disabilities. The Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of 49 CFR § 5301 (d), which states the Federal policy that elderly persons and person with disabilities April, 2006 (revised 12/08; 06/13) DEO/DBE Page 14 of 19
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
have the same right as other persons to use mass transportation service and facilities, and that special efforts shall be made in planning and designing those services and facilities to implement that policy. The Contractor also agree to comply with all applicable requirement of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, 29 USC § 794, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicaps, with the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 (ADA), as amended, 42 USC §§ 12101 et seq., which requires that accessible facilities and services be made available to persons with disabilities, including any subsequent amendments to the Act, and with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended, 42 USC §§ 4151 et seq., which requires that buildings and public accommodations be accessible to persons with disabilities, including any subsequent amendments to that Act. In addition, the Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of the following regulations and any subsequent amendments thereto:
a. US DOT regulations, “Transportation Services for Individuals with Disabilities (ADA), “ 49 CFR part 37;
b. US DOT regulations, “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of handicap in Programs and Activities Receiving or Benefiting from Federal Financial Assistance,” 49 CFR Part 27;
c. Joint US Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (US ATBCB)/US DOT regulations, “Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Accessibility Specifications for Transportation Vehicles, “36 CFR Part 1192 and 49 CFR Part 38;
d. US DOJ Regulations, “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services,” 28 CFR Part 35;
e. US DOJ Regulations, “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in commercial Facilities,” 28 CFR part 36;
f. US General Services Administration (US GSA) regulations, “Accommodations for the Physically Handicapped,” 41 CFR Subpart 101-19;
g. US Equal Employment Opportunity commission, “regulations to Implement the Equal Employment Provisions of the Americans with Disability Act,’ 29 CFR Part 1630;
h. US Federal Communication Commission regulations, “Telecommunications Relay Services and Related Customer Premises Equipment for the Hearing and speech Disabled,’ 47 CFR Part 64;
i. US ATBCB, “electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards,” 36 CFR Part 1194;
j. FTA regulations, “Transportation for Elderly and Handicapped persons,’ 49 CFR Part 609; and
k. Any implementing requirements FTA may issue.
April, 2006 (revised 12/08; 06/13) DEO/DBE Page 15 of 19
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy as MARTA deems appropriate.
8. Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency. The Contractor agrees to comply with Executive Order No. 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Person with Limited English Proficiency,’ 42 USC § 2000d-1 note, and US DOT Notice, “DOT Policy Guidance concerning Recipients’ Responsibilities to Limited English Proficiency (LEP), 70 Federal Regulation 74087, December 14, 2005.
9. Environmental Justice. The Contractor agrees to comply with the policies of Executive Order No. 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” 42 USC § 4321 note.
10. Drug or Alcohol Abuse-Confidentiality and Other Civil Rights Protections. To the extent applicable, the Contractor agrees to comply with the confidentiality and other civil rights protections of the Drug abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972, as amended, 21 USC §§ 1101 et seq., with the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970, as amended, 42 USC §§ 4541 et seq., and with the Public Health Service Act of 1912, as amended, 42 USC §§ 201 et seq., and any amendments to these laws.
11. Other Nondiscrimination Statutes. The Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable requirement of any other nondiscrimination statute(s) that may apply to this Contract
12. The contractor also agrees to include these requirements in each subcontract financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance provided by FTA, modified only if necessary to identify the affected parties.
13. Contract Assurance. (a) Each financial assistance agreement you sign with a DOT operating administration (or a primary recipient) must include the following assurance: The recipient shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of any DOT-assisted contract or in the administration of its DBE program or the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26. The recipient shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts. The recipient's DBE program, as required by 49 CFR part 26 and as approved by DOT, is incorporated by reference in this agreement. Implementation of this program is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of this agreement. Upon notification to the recipient of its failure to carry out its approved program, the Department may impose sanctions as provided for under part 26 and may, in appropriate cases, refer the matter for enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.). (b) Each contract you sign with a contractor (and each subcontract the prime contractor signs with a subcontractor) must include the following assurance:
April, 2006 (revised 12/08; 06/13) DEO/DBE Page 16 of 19
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
The contractor, sub recipient or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy as the recipient deems appropriate.
April, 2006 (revised 12/08; 06/13) DEO/DBE Page 17 of 19
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
PART III – EEO STATISTICAL DATA FOR PRIME CONTRACTORS
A. Employment Data
The Bidder shall provide the following information pertaining to its workforce. If the Bidder has an Atlanta-area workforce, it should be shown; if the Contractor does not have an Atlanta-area workforce, total permanent workforce should be shown.
ALL EMPLOYEES TOTAL MINORITY EMPLOYEES TOTAL MALES FEMALES JOB CATEGORIES MALES AND ASIAN AMERICAN ASIAN AMERICAN FEMALES MALES FEMALES BLACK AMERICAN INDIAN HISPANIC BLACK AMERICAN INDIAN HISPANIC Officers
Managers
Supervisors
Professionals
Technicians
Sales Workers
Office & Clerical
Craftsman (skilled)
Operatives (semi-
skilled)
Laborers (unskilled)
Service Workers
Apprentices
TOTALS
The above reflects (check one): Atlanta-area workforce Total permanent workforce (outside Atlanta area) * Bidders with 50 or more employees are required to submit a copy of their written Affirmative Action Plan ** Bidders with less than 50 employees are required to submit a copy of their Equal Opportunity Policy statement signed by an authorized company official.
April, 2006 (revised 12/08; 06/13) DEO/DBE Page 18 of 19
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
B. SCHEDULE OF DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PARTICIPATION
As specified in Part II of these EEO/DBE specifications, Contractors are to present the details of disadvantaged business participation below.
Type of work and contract item or Projected commencement & * Agreed Upon Price w/ DBEs * Agreed Upon Price w/ DBEs Name of Disadvantaged Business Address parts thereof to be performed completion date of work owned and controlled by owned and controlled by Enterprise minorities women
*Dollar value of each DBE agreement should be listed in one, not both of the “Agreed Totals Upon Price” column; totals of the columns are to at least equal the DBE goals.
C. CERTIFICATION
The undersigned certifies that he/she has read, understands, and agrees to be bound by Parts I, II, and III of this section, including the accompanying Exhibits, regarding EEO and DBE, and the other terms and conditions of the Invitation for Bids. The undersigned further certifies that he/she is legally authorized by the Contractor to make the statements and representations in this Part III and that said statements and representations are true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge and belief. The undersigned will enter into formal agreement(s) with Disadvantaged Business Enterprise(s) (which are otherwise deemed by the Authority to be technically responsible to perform the work) listed in Part III B for the work listed in Part III B at the price(s) set forth in Part III B conditioned upon execution of a contract with the Authority. The contractor must promptly notify The Authority when a DBE subcontractor performing work related to this contract is terminated or fails to complete its work, and must make good faith efforts to engage another DBE subcontractor to perform at least the same amount of work. Before transmitting to MARTA its request to terminate, the prime contractor must give notice in writing to the DBE of its intent to do so. A copy of this notice must be provided to MARTA prior to consideration of the request to terminate. The DBE will then have five (5) days to respond and advise MARTA of why it objects to the proposed termination (the five day period may be reduced if the matter is one of public necessity, e.g., safety). The contractor may not terminate any DBE subcontractor and perform that work through its own forces or those of an affiliate without prior written consent of the Executive Director of Diversity and Equal Opportunity. The undersigned understands and agrees that if any of the statements and representations are made by the Contractor knowing them to be false, or if there is a failure of the successful Contractor to implement any of the stated agreements, intentions, objectives, goals, commitments, and substitutions set forth herein without prior approval by the Executive Director, of Diversity and Equal Opportunity or a designee, then in any of such events the Contractor's act or failure to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such remedy as MARTA deems appropriate.
Print Name: ______Signature:______Title:______Date of Signing: ______
Title: ______Firm or Corporate name: ______Telephone: ______Fax: ______
Address: ______
April, 2006 (revised 12/08; 06/13) DEO/DBE Page 19 of 19
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
OFFICE OF DIVERSITY AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
EXHIBITS
Title Exhibit Equal Employment Opportunities A Minority Business Enterprise B Disadvantaged Business Enterprise B-1 Monthly Construction Workers Utilization Report C * Quarterly Report of Disadvantaged Business C-1 Enterprise Exhibit D Intentionally Not Included D Joint Venture Disclosure E Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Goal F Requirement Good Faith Efforts G ** Minority-Owned Banks H TVM Certification of Compliance I ***
*Exhibit C (To be included in construction contracts only) **Exhibit G (To be included only in contracts with DBE goals) *** Exhibit I (To be included in TVM contracts only)
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES ADOPTED BY THE MARTA BOARD AUGUST 9, 1971
The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) desires to give all citizens equal opportunities in the building and operation of its transit system; and
Discrimination based on race, color, sex and religion or national origin is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 11246 prohibits discrimination in federally funded and federally-assisted projects; and
MARTA has an obligation concerning its employment practices and the employment practices of its contractors and their subcontractors to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants and employees are not discriminated against based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that MARTA shall recruit, screen, hire and promote its personnel and require all of its contractors and subcontractors to recruit, screen, hire and promote their personnel without regard to race, color, sex, religion and national origin; and
It shall be the policy of MARTA to achieve and maintain in all of its organizational units and to require all of its contractors and their subcontractors to achieve and maintain in all of their organizational units, levels of minority manpower utilization at least equal to the goals which MARTA shall establish for each segment of its activities after making appropriate factual determinations through its Department of Equal Opportunity and Compliance Review in accordance with the attached utilization plan, affirmative action plan and guidelines which are made a part of this Resolution by reference. The Department shall be established and it shall make factual findings and set goals as soon as practicable after favorable vote at the referenda and in any case before MARTA lets contracts for construction of its rapid transit system. The goals as they relate to those job categories which are enumerated in the Atlanta Plan of the Department of Labor shall in no case be less than the numbers specified in said Atlanta Plan. As to the other job categories, goals must be targets reasonably attainable by means of applying every good faith effort to make all aspects of the entire program work effectively; and
In any situation of under-utilization of minority manpower, MARTA and its contractors and their subcontractors shall undertake affirmative action programs, within contemplation of Executive Order 11246, including the provision of training to minority workers, to achieve and maintain the objectives of this policy.
This policy statement shall be distributed, both internally and externally, and shall be made a part of all of the Authority’s invitations to bid.
Exhibit A DEO/DBE 12/2008 Page 1 of 1
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION: ADOPTION OF REVISED MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CONTRACTING GOALS ADOPTED BY THE MARTA BOARD DECEMBER 22, 1980
WHEREAS the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) desires to afford all citizens equal opportunity to participate in the design, construction and operation of the transit system; and
WHEREAS discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion and national origin is prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 11246, as amended; and
WHEREAS Executive Order 11625 of 1971 prescribes the development of a program to achieve full participation of minority businesses in the free enterprise system; and
WHEREAS Title VI of the Civil Rights Act requires that appropriate steps be taken to ensure access of all citizens to the services derived from federally assisted programs; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Department of Transportation Administration has promulgated regulation (49CFR 23) for implementation of programs by transit properties to ensure participation by businesses owned and controlled by minorities and women; and
WHEREAS MARTA recognizes its obligations concerning practices and the contracting practices of its contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to ensure that minority and women-owned businesses are given an equitable opportunity to share in contract opportunities.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, that MARTA shall continue to assure that minority business enterprises have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in all MARTA contracting opportunities and to that end the MARTA Board of Directors hereby establishes overall contracting goals of 20 percent for the participation of firms owned and controlled by minorities and 5 percent for the participation of firms owned and controlled by women.
RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the General Manager, through the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, is directed to administer the implementation of this Resolution in accordance with the Authority’s Minority Business Enterprise Program and applicable federal guidelines which are made a part of this Resolution by reference.
Exhibit B DEO/MBE 12/2008 Page 1 of 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION: DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) desires to afford all citizens equal opportunity to participate in the design, construction and operation of the transit system; and
WHEREAS, Executive Order 11625 of 1971 prescribe the development of a program to achieve full participation of disadvantaged businesses in the free enterprise system; and
WHEREAS, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 8 requires that appropriate steps be taken to ensure access of all citizens to the services delivered from federally-assisted programs; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Transportation has promulgated regulations 49 CFR 23 for implementation of programs by transit properties to ensure participation by businesses owned and controlled by disadvantaged persons; and
WHEREAS, MARTA recognizes the obligation of its contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to ensure that disadvantaged businesses are given equitable opportunity to share in contract opportunities.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, that MARTA shall continue to assure that disadvantaged business enterprises have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in all MARTA contracting opportunities and all contracts, whether funded with federal or local monies, shall be subject to MARTA’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and shall have a 25% goal for the utilization of disadvantaged businesses.
RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the General Manager, through the office of Equal Opportunity is directed to administer the implementation of this Resolution in accordance with the Authority’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and applicable federal guidelines which are made a part of this Resolution by reference.
(2nd Revision5/9/94) Exhibit B-1 DEO/DBE Page 1 of 1
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Contract Number: ______
QUARTERLY REPORT ON DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES PRIME CONTRACTOR REPORTING ON DBE SUBCONTRACT ACTIVITY APPLICABLE ON THIS CONTRACT
Calendar Quarter covered by this report: If contract is complete please indicate if report is final: ___1st ___3rd 20___ Yes: ____ No: ______2nd ___4th Year Date Completed:
I. DISADVANTAGED SUBCONTRACTORS Instructions: List all disadvantaged subcontractors which have performed work since NTP, are currently performing work during the duration of the MARTA contract. Disadvantaged- minority joint ventures should show complete joint ventures name and total dollars committed and paid, although only the share in which the disadvantaged firm is participating will be tabulated. Disadvantaged business enterprises which are owned and controlled by women should be denoted with an asterisk (*). The Contractor shall not require retainage of subcontractors that is greater than the retainage required of the Contractor by the Authority. Contractor must return all retainage payments to subcontractor upon satisfactory completion and acceptance of work by MARTA within 14 days; or any retainage payments after incremental acceptance of the subcontractor’s work by MARTA and Contractor’s receipt of the partial retainage payment related to the subcontractor’s work. All payments not promptly processed and paid by the prime within the specified time limits will bear inters of1% per month on the unpaid balance. The Contractor shall not delay or postpone payment to a subcontractor without prior written approval from the Executive Director of Diversity and Equal Opportunity. Dollars Dollars Paid Dollars Paid Retainage Total Date Retainage Name of DBE/Non-DBE Firm Committed This Quarter Since NTP Withheld ($) Retainage Paid Paid
Exhibit C-1 Page 1 of 5 12/09; Revised 10/13
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Contract Number: ______
PRIME CONTRACTOR REPORTING ON SUPPLIERS, VENDORS AND SERVICE FIRMS
II. DISADVANTAGED SUPPLIERS, VENDORS AND SERVICE FIRMS Instructions: List all disadvantaged subcontractors which have performed work since NTP, are currently performing work during the duration of the MARTA contract. Disadvantaged- minority joint ventures should show complete joint ventures name and total dollars committed and paid, although only the share in which the disadvantaged firm is participating will be tabulated. Disadvantaged business enterprises which are owned and controlled by women should be denoted with an asterisk (*). The Contractor shall not require retainage of subcontractors that is greater than the retainage required of the Contractor by the Authority. Contractor must return all retainage payments to subcontractor upon satisfactory completion and acceptance of work by MARTA within 14 days; or any retainage payments after incremental acceptance of the subcontractor’s work by MARTA and Contractor’s receipt of the partial retainage payment related to the subcontractor’s work. All payments not promptly processed and paid by the prime within the specified time limits will bear inters of1% per month on the unpaid balance. The Contractor shall not delay or postpone payment to a subcontractor without prior written approval from the Executive Director of Diversity and Equal Opportunity. Dollars Dollars Paid Dollars Paid Retainage Total Date Retainage Name of DBE/Non-DBE Firm Committed This Quarter Since NTP Withheld ($) Retainage Paid Paid
Exhibit C-1 Page 2 of 5 12/09; Revised 10/13
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Contract Number: ______
III. MINORITY-OWNED BANKING Instructions: List all minority-owned banking institutions in which dollars were deposited during the quarter. Dollars should reflect the contractor’s average balance during the quarter in Both “time” and “demand” accounts.
NAME OF MINORITY-OWNED DOLLARS DEPOSITED DOLLARS DEPOSITED BANKING INSTITUTIONS IN TIME ACCOUNTS IN DEMAND ACCOUNTS
IV. CERTIFICATION
Sworn to and subscribed before me this ______day of ______,20___. ______Firm or Corporate Name
______Notary Public Signature of Firm’s EEO Officer
______Telephone Number (Notary Seal)
______Fax Number My Commission Expires______
______Email Address
Exhibit C-1 Page 3 of 5 12/09; Revised 10/13 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Contract Number: ______
QUARTERLY REPORT ON DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES EEO ACTIVITIES OF THE PRIME CONTRACTOR ONLY
Calendar Quarter covered by this report:
___1st ___3rd 20___
___2nd ___4th Year
1. How many positions were filled in the last quarter? ______
2. How many positions were filled with minorities in the last quarter? ______
3. How many positions were filled with women in the last quarter? ______
4. What efforts were made to recruit minorities and/or women? ______
5. Please list all minorities promoted in the last quarter, including their former and current positions.
Former Position Current Position
6. Please list all women promoted in the last quarter, including their former and current positions.
Former Position Current Position
7. Comments (optional). ______
______
______
Exhibit C-1 Page 4 of 5 12/09; Revised 10/13
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Contract Number: ______
Employment Data as of: ______
EEO STATISTICAL DATA ON THE PRIME CONTRACTOR’S STAFF ONLY
ALL EMPLOYEES TOTAL MINORITY EMPLOYEES TOTAL MALES FEMALES JOB CATEGORIES MALES AND ASIAN AMERICAN ASIAN AMERICAN FEMALES MALES FEMALES BLACK AMERICAN INDIAN HISPANIC BLACK AMERICAN INDIAN HISPANIC Officers
Managers
Supervisors
Professionals
Technicians
Sales Workers
Office & Clerical
Craftsman (skilled)
Operatives (semi- skilled)
Laborers (unskilled)
Service Workers
Apprentices
TOTALS
The above reflects (check one): Atlanta-area workforce Total permanent workforce (outside Atlanta area)
The undersigned certifies that he/she is legally authorized by the bidder to make the statements and representations contained in this report; that he/she has read all of the foregoing Statements and representations, and they are true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge and belief. The undersigned understands that if any of the statements and representations are made knowing them to be false or there is a failure to implement any of the stated intentions or objectives, set forth herein, without prior notice to the Executive Director of Diversity And Equal Opportunity or the Manager of Economic Opportunity, the contractor will be subject to the loss of any existing contracts and all future contract awards.
Signature: ______Title: ______
Firm Corporate Name: ______
Name of MARTA DBE Analyst assigned this contract: ______
Exhibit C-1 Page 5 of 5 12/09; Revised 10/13
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
JOINT VENTURE DISCLOSURE OF REQUIREMENTS
In order to evaluate the extent of the meaningful disadvantaged involvement being proposed by a Joint Venture proponent in satisfaction of its affirmative actions obligation, the Authority requires that certain relevant information be provided initially, prior to award, and be continually updated throughout contract performance. This information must be in the form of an affidavit and submitted through the prime contractor by the Joint Venture. The statements should clearly identify and explain the extent of the disadvantaged business participation in the joint venture including, but not limited to, the information on this form. All information must be furnished or properly addressed before the business entity can be evaluated and approved as an acceptable Joint Venture that meets DBE contract goal requirements.
Description Joint Venture Firm #1 Joint Venture Firm #2
Official Name, Address and Telephone Number of Each Joint Venture Firm
Nature of Business of Each Joint Venture Firm
Number of Years Each Joint Venture Has Been in Business Joint Venture Firm #1 Joint Venture Firm #2
Official Name, Address and Telephone Number of Each Joint Venture Firm
Nature of Business of Each Joint Venture Firm
Number of Years Each Joint Venture Has Been in Business
2. Percent of disadvantaged ownership in joint venture in terms of profit and loss sharing:______
______
3. Capital contributions by each joint venture and accounting therefore: ______
______
4. Financial controls of joint venture (e.g. will a separate cost center be established; who will be responsible for keeping the books, accounts payable, bank deposits; how will the expense therefore be reimbursed: ______
______
______
______May 1990 (Revised 12/10) Exhibit E EEO/DBE Page 1of 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
5. The authority that each joint venture partner has in relation to committing or obligating the other:
______
______
6. Describe in specific details the work to be performed on the contract by the disadvantaged business enterprise joint venture firm and the non-minority joint venture firm:
______
______
7. Identify and explain the terms of any ownership, options for ownership or loans between the joint ventures partner:
______
______
8. Specify the contract cash contributions that will be provided by each joint venture partner in support of the contract:______
______
______
9. Denote all personnel, their crafts and positions that will be assigned by the disadvantage business enterprise and non-minority joint partner respectively: ______
______
______
10. How and by whom will the on-site work be supervised, carried out and satisfactorily completed. Please itemize and list the SOW requirements that will be respectively carried out by each joint venture partner:
______
______
11. How and by whom will the administrative office be supervised and administered:
______
______
May 1990 (Revised 12/10) Exhibit E EEO/DBE Page 2 of 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
12. Which joint venture partner will be responsible for material purchases including the estimated cost thereof, as well as, the financing of required purchases:
______
______
13. What equipment will each joint venture partner provide for support of the joint venture? Please itemize and list equipment provided by each joint venture partner:
______
______
14. The experience and business qualifications of each joint venture: % enclosed % not enclose
15. Evidence of authority to do business in the State of Georgia, as well as locally, include all necessary business license: % enclosed % not enclose
16. Provide a detailed and delineating copy of the joint venture agreement: % enclosed % not enclose
17. Identification of control and participation in venture; list those individual who are responsible for day-to-day management and policy decision making including, but not limited to those with prime responsibility for:
R S Original Supervision a *Financial *Management @Human Name e Title Organization of Field c Decisions Decisions Resources x Affiliation Operations e
*(including, but not limited to, estimating, marketing and sale, hiring and firing of management personnel, and purchasing of major items or supplies.) @obligation of Human Resources needed to successfully complete this contract.
Brief Summary of information listed above:
Years of Person’s Name Qualifications Responsibilities Experience Experience
May 1990 (Revised 12/10) Exhibit E EEO/DBE Page 3 of 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
I HEREBY DECLARE AND AFFIRM that I am the ______(title) duly authorized representative of (the Joint Venture of) ______.I (name of venture) hereby declare and affirm that I am a disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) as defined by MARTA in the specification for ______. (contract number and name)
The undersigned does hereby swear that the foregoing statements are true and correct and include all materials and information necessary to identify and explain the operations of our joint venture and the intended participation by each joint venture in the undertaking. Further, the undersigned does covenant and agree to provide to MARTA current, complete, and accurate information regarding actual joint venture work and the payment therefore, and any proposed changes in any of the arrangements hereinabove stated and to permit the audit and examination of the books, records and files to the joint venture, or those of each joint venture, authorized representatives of the Authority or Federal Government. It is recognized and acknowledged that the statements herein are being given under oath and any material misrepresentation will be grounds for terminating any contract which may be awarded in reliance hereon and for initiating action under federal and state laws concerning false statements.
I DO SOLEMNLY DECLARE AND AFFIRM UNDER THE PENALIES OF PERJURY THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE FIRM TO MAKE THIS AFFIDAVIT.
______Signature of Joint Venture’s Authorized Representative(s)
______Signature of Joint Venture’s Authorized Representative(s)
STATE OF ______
COUNTY (CITY) OF______
On this _____ day of ______20___, before me______
personally appeared ______, know to me to be the person described in the foregoing Affidavit and acknowledge that he/she executed the same in the capacity therein stated and for the purpose therein contained.
In witness thereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
______(Notary Pubic)
My Commission Expires______
(Seal)
May 1990 (Revised 12/10) Exhibit E EEO/DBE Page 4 of 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
DETERMINATIONS REGARDING DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE GOALS
It is the policy of the Authority and the Federal Government to ensure that DBEs have a full opportunity for meaningful participation in work performed under Authority contracts. The Authority views meaningful disadvantaged business enterprise participation as being something more than mere tokenism or feigned DBE involvement and looks to the substance of proposed commitments in terms of the legitimacy of the disadvantaged business enterprise and its actual involvement in performance of the contract work. Thus, meaningful disadvantaged business enterprise participation needs to be defined, understood, and evaluated to determine if the proposed disadvantaged business enterprise involvement will provide opportunities to increase the experience and expertise of the DBE as well as to enhance its potential to achieve economic viability.
Determination of DBE Status
To ensure that the Authority’s DBE Program benefits only DBEs which are owned and controlled in both form and substance by one or more disadvantaged persons or women, the Authority requires that each business including the DBE partner in a joint venture, wishing to participate as a joint venture DBE complete and submit Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Business Disclosure Requirements (Exhibit D). Additionally each entity wishing to participate as a joint venture DBE must complete and submit Joint Venture Disclosure Requirements (Exhibit E). The Disclosure Requirements are to be signed and notarized by the authorized representatives of the business entity and are to be submitted through the Bidder to the Authority prior to contract award. Under the following circumstances, a business seeking to participate as a DBE need not to submit Exhibits D and E.
1. If the potential DBE contractor states in writing that it has submitted the same information to or has been certified by the Authority, any U.S. Department of Transportation element, or another Federal Agency that uses essentially the same disadvantaged business enterprise definition and ownership and control criteria as U.S. D.O.T. The potential DBE contractor is to obtain the information and certification (if any) from the other agency and submit to the Authority or cause the other agency to submit it. The Authority may rely upon such a certification, but the authority reserves the right to require that additional information be submitted and to make an independent determination. Where another agency has collected information but not made a determination concerning eligibility, the Authority will make its own determination based on the information it has obtained from the other agency.
May 2008 Exhibit F DEO/DBE Page 1 of 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
(d) A UCP is not required to process an application for certification from a firm having its principal place of business outside the state if the firm is not certified by the UCP in the state in which it maintains its principal place of business. The ``home state'' UCP shall share its information and documents concerning the firm with other UCPs that are considering the firm's application.
2. If the potential DBE contractor has been determined by the Small Business Administration to be owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals under Section 8 (a) of the Small Business Act, as amended. In this circumstance, the potential DBE contractor is to furnish conclusive evidence of the SBA determination to the Authority.
The Authority reserves the right to request and review additional relevant information pertaining to the legitimacy of any purported DBE.
DBE Eligibility Standards
In general, to be eligible for the DBE program, persons must own 51% or more of a "small business," establish that they are disadvantaged within the meaning of DOT regulations, and prove they control their business. The following general guidelines, taken in part from the applicable regulation (49 CFR Part 26), will help business owners determine whether they are eligible for the DBE program:
Eligibility Guidelines (in general):
1. Ownership - Your business must be 51% owned by a socially and economically disadvantaged individual(s).
2. "Disadvantaged" - You may be eligible if you are a member of a group of persons the Department considers as disadvantaged. The Department presumes certain groups are disadvantaged, including women, Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian-Pacific Americans, Subcontinent Asian- Pacific Americans, or other minorities found to be disadvantaged by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). Persons who are not members of one of the above groups and own and control their business may also be eligible if they establish their "social" and "economic" disadvantage. The Department notes, for example, that people with disabilities have disproportionately low incomes and high rates of unemployment, and that many may be socially and economically disadvantaged. A determination of whether an individual with a disability meets DBE eligibility criteria is made on a case-by-case basis. More information on how social and economic disadvantage is determined can be found in Appendix E to 49 CFR Part 26.
May 2008 Exhibit F DEO/DBE Page 2 of 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
3. Business Size Determination - A firm (including its affiliates) must be a small business as defined by SBA standards. It must not have annual gross receipts over $22,410,000 in the previous three fiscal years ($52,470,000 for airport concessionaires in general with some exceptions). Under SAFETEA-LU, this threshold will be adjusted annually for inflation by the Secretary.
4. Personal Net Worth - Only disadvantaged persons having a personal net worth (PNW) of less than $1,320,000 can be considered as a potential qualified DBE. Items excluded from a person's net worth calculation include an individual's ownership interest in the applicant firm, and his or her equity in their primary residence. Additional exclusions are available for owners of airport concessionaires (See 49 CFR Part 23).
5. Independence - The business must not be tied to another firm in such a way as to compromise its independence and control.
6. Control - A disadvantaged owner seeking certification must possess the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of the firm. The owner must also have an overall understanding of, and managerial and technical competence and experience directly related to, the type of business in which the firm is engaged.
7. Burden of Proof Allocation - Applicants carry the initial burden of proof regarding their eligibility and must demonstrate that they meet all requirements concerning group membership or individual disadvantage, business size, ownership, and control.
Additional program requirements and certification procedures are found in the Department's regulations 49 CFR Parts 23 and 26. Specific information can also be found within the Department of Transportation's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. In addition to the foregoing standards, the Authority gives special consideration to the following circumstances in determining DBE eligibility.
1. Newly formed firms and firms whose ownership and/or control have changed since the date of the advertisement of the contract are closely scrutinized to determine the reasons for the timing of the formation of or change in the firm.
2. A previous and/or continuing employer-employee relationship between or among present owners are carefully reviewed to ensure that the employee-owner has management responsibilities and capabilities discussed herein.
3. Any relationship between a DBE and a business which is not a DBE which has an interest in the DBE is carefully reviewed to determine if the interest of the non-DBE conflicts with the ownership and control requirements of the DBE definition and guidelines.
May 2008 Exhibit F DEO/DBE Page 3 of 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Once approved by the Georgia Uniform Certification Program (GUCP) as a DBE, each DBE is expected to update its submission annually by submitting, Exhibit D and/or E, as appropriate, certifying that Exhibit D and/or E on file is still accurate. At any time there is a change in ownership or control of the firm, the DBE is to submit a new Exhibit D and/or E, at the time of such occurrences.
The denial of DBE status to an entity by the U.S. D.O.T. or the GUCP is to be considered final, for the contract and other contracts being led by the Authority at the time of denial of DBE certification, except that any firm which believes that it has been wrongly denied certification as a DBE may file an appeal with the U.S. Department of Transportation pursuant to 49 CFR 26.89. DBEs and joint ventures denied certification may correct deficiencies in their ownership and control and apply for DBE status one year from the date of denial.
Counting DBE Participation Toward DBE Goals
DBE participation is counted toward meeting DBE goals as follows:
1. Once a firm is determined to be an eligible DBE, the total dollar value of the contract awarded to the DBE is counted toward the applicable DBE goal. If a DBE is found to be ineligible after contract award, the prime contractor is not relieved of the DBE requirement. When a prime contractor has made a commitment to using the ineligible firm, or you have made a commitment to using a DBE prime contractor, but a subcontract or contract has not been executed before you issue the decertification notice provided for in paragraph (g) of this section, the ineligible firm does not count toward the contract goal or overall goal. You must direct the prime contractor to meet the contract goal with an eligible DBE firm or demonstrate to you that it has made a good faith effort to do so. The contractor may substitute or provide good faith efforts as stated in 49 CFR Part 26.87 i (1).
2. The total dollar value of a contract to a DBE owned and controlled by both disadvantaged males and non-minority females is counted toward the goals for disadvantaged and women, respectively, in proportion to the percentage of ownership and control of each group in the business. The total dollar value of a contract with a DBE owned and controlled by disadvantaged women is counted toward either the disadvantaged goal or the goal for women, but not for both. The contractor employing the firm may chose the goal to which the contract value is applied.
3. When a DBE subcontracts part of the work of its contract to another firm, the value of the subcontracted work may be counted toward DBE goals only if the DBE's subcontractor is itself a DBE. Work that a DBE subcontracts to a non- DBE firm does not count toward DBE goals.
May 2008 Exhibit F DEO/DBE Page 4 of 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
4. A contractor may count toward the DBE goals a portion of the total dollar value of contract with a joint venture equal to the percentage of the ownership and control of the DBE partner in the joint venture.
5. A contractor may count toward the DBE goals only expenditures to DBEs that perform a commercially useful function in the work of a contract. A DBE is considered to perform a commercially useful function when it is responsible for execution of a distinct element of the work of a contract and carrying out its responsibilities by actually performing, managing, and supervising the work involved. To determine whether a DBE is performing a commercially useful function, the Authority will evaluate the amount of work subcontracted, industry practices and other relevant factors.
6. Consistent with normal industry practices a DBE may enter in subcontracts. If a DBE contractor subcontracts a significantly greater portion of the work of the contract than would be expected on the basis of normal industry practices, the DBE shall be presumed not to be performing a commercially useful function. The DBE may present evidence to rebut this presumption to the Authority. The Authority’s decision on the rebuttal of this presumption is subject to review by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
7. A DBE trucking company is performing a commercially useful function: The DBE may also lease trucks from a non-DBE firm, including an owner-operator. The DBE who leases trucks from a non-DBE is entitled to credit only for the fee or commission it receives as a result of the lease arrangement. The DBE does not receive credit for the total value of the transportation services provided by the lessee, since these services are not provided by a DBE.
8. A contractor may count toward its DBE goal expenditures for materials and supplies obtain from DBE suppliers and manufactures, provided that the DBEs assume the actual contractual responsibility for the provision of the materials and supplies. The contractor may count its entire expenditure to a DBE manufacture (i.e., a supplier that produces goods from raw materials or substantially alters them before resale). The contractor may count 60 percent of its expenditures to DBE suppliers that are not manufactures, provided that the DBE supplier performs a commercially useful function in the supply process. No percentage amount will be authorized by the Authority to be counted if DBE suppliers do not perform a commercially useful function and are a totally passive conduit.
May 2008 Exhibit F DEO/DBE Page 5 of 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Examples of DBE Participation
The degree of DBE goal attainment through utilization of DBEs and disadvantaged- majority joint ventures will be calculated as in the following examples.
A joint venture consisting of a disadvantaged business and a majority business, functioning as a prime contractor, will be credited with disadvantaged participation on the basis of percentage of profit to accrue to the DBE. For example, if a joint venture composed of a disadvantaged business and a majority business proposes to perform 50 percent of a project quoted at $500,000 and 50 percent of the profits are to accrue to disadvantaged partner in the joint venture, disadvantaged participation will be credited as 25 percent of the work, or 125,000.
A DBE distributor or supplier, which performs a commercially useful function, will be credited with 60 percent of the total dollar value of an order toward the DBE goal. For example, A DBE supplier which plays a substantial role in the delivery arrangements and which actually possesses risk of liability for defective products or late delivery may credit $ 300,000 or 60 percent of a total supply order of $500,000.
No meaningful DBE goal is achievable unless great care is taken to ensure that contracts let pursuant to the goal requirements are let only to bona fide DBEs. MARTA bidders and contractors are expected to exercise the greatest possible care that disadvantaged firms with whom joint ventures are formed and subcontracts are let and bon fide.
May 2008 Exhibit F DEO/DBE Page 6 of 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY GOOD FAITH EFFORTS
In order to evaluate the extent of the meaningful Good Faith Efforts being submitted by a bidder/proposer in satisfaction of the contract requirements, the Authority requires that certain relevant information be provided prior to contract award. This information must be in the form of an affidavit and submitted by the prime contactor. A bidder/proponent must show reasonable good faith efforts to obtain DBE participation. MARTA treats bidder’s/proponent’s compliance with good faith efforts requirements as a matter of responsiveness. Such reasonable efforts may include, but are not limited to, some or all of the following:
Utilization of the Georgia Unified Certification Program. “UCP” DBE Directory to identify currently certified DBEs: http://www.dot.ga.gov/PS/Business/DBE
Attendance at pre-bid/pre-proposal meetings, advertising and/or written notices;
Follow-up of initial solicitations of interest by contacting DBE’s to determine with certainty whether the DBE’s are interested;
Efforts to provide DBE’s with adequate information about the plans, specifications, and requirements of the contract in a timely manner to assist them in responding to a solicitation;
Efforts made to select portions of the work (including, where appropriate, breaking down the contract into economically feasible units) proposed to be performed by DBE’s in order to increase the likelihood of achieving the DBE goal;
Efforts to negotiate with DBE’s for specific sub-bids, including at a minimum;
The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of DBE’s that were contacted;
A description of the information provided to DBE’s regarding the plans and specifications for portions of the work to be performed and;
A detailed statement of the reasons why additional prospective agreements with DBE’s needed to meet the stated goals, were not reached.
Administrative Reconsideration
The bidder/proponent must make a written request for administrative reconsideration five (5) days prior to the award of the contract for lack of good faith efforts. That notice may be faxed to:
Mr. Jonathan Hunt Chief of Corporate Law MARTA - Legal Services Department 2424 Piedmont Road, NE Atlanta, GA 30324 Fax: (404) 848-5225
March, 2015 Exhibit G DEO/DBE Page 1 of 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
I HEREBY DECLARE AND AFFIRM that I am the ______(title)
duly authorized representative of______. (name of firm)
The undersigned does hereby swear that the foregoing statements are true and correct and include all materials and information necessary to identify and explain the efforts put forth to meet the DBE goal requirements of this contract. Further, the undersigned does covenant and agree to provide to MARTA current, complete, and accurate information regarding good faith efforts. It is recognized and acknowledged that the statements herein are being given under oath and any material misrepresentation will be grounds for terminating any contract which may be awarded in reliance hereon and for initiating action under federal and state laws concerning false statements.
I DO SOLEMNLY DECLARE AND AFFIRM UNDER THE PENALIES OF PERJURY THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE FOREGOING DOCUMENT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT I AM AUTHORIZED ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE FIRM TO MAKE THIS AFFIDAVIT.
______Signature of Authorized Representative(s)
STATE OF ______
COUNTY (CITY) OF______
On this _____ day of ______20___, before me personally appeared
______, know to me to be the person described in the foregoing Affidavit and acknowledge that he/she executed the same in the capacity therein stated and for the purpose therein contained.
In witness thereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
______(Notary Public)
My Commission Expires______
(Seal)
September 2014 Exhibit G DEO/DBE Page 2 of 3
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Exhibit G – GOOD FAITH EFFORTS DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) GOOD FAITH EFFORTS Will DBE Solicitation DBE
Certified Date Solicitation Sent to Sent Via Submit a DBE Firms Contacted: Scope of Work Bid $ Comments DBE Bid? Name, Address and Telephone Number Y N US Fax Email Y N Mail
September 2014 Exhibit G DEO/DBE Page 3 of 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY
OFFICE OF DIVERSITY AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
MINORITY- OWNED BANKS RECOMMENDED
FOR CONSIDERATION
MINORITY-OWNED BANKS STATE OF GEORGIA Bank Name Address Telephone/Fax Contact/Title Carver State 701 MLK Jr., Blvd, T: (912) 447-4200 Mr. Robert E. James Bank Savannah, GA 31402 F: (912) 232-8666 President Citizens Trust 75 Piedmont Ave., Ste. T: (404) 575-8306 Ms. Cynthia Day Bank 1200, Atlanta, GA F: (404) 575-8311 President and CEO 30303 Metro City Bank 5441 Buford Hwy, Ste. T: (770) 455-4989 Mr. Farid Tan 109, F: (770) 455-4988 President & CEO Doraville, GA 30340 Quantum 505 Peachtree T: (770) 945-8300 Mr. Bryan J. Cohen National Bank Industrial Blvd, F: (770) 945-4888 CEO Suwanee, GA 30024 State Bank of 131 Gingercake Road, T: (770) 719-1200 Ms. Kathy Hulsey Georgia Fayetteville, GA 30214 F: (770) 716-0024 CFO
UTILIZATION OF MINORITY-OWNED BANKS DISCLAIMER
MARTA encourages all of its contactors and their subcontractors, suppliers and vendors to consider utilizing the services of Minority-owned Banks for funds received from Authority projects. Failure to investigate the opportunities to use banking institutions owned and controlled by minorities and women in good faith may cause a contractor to be in non-compliance with 49 CFR 26.27. The Federal requirement states that deposits in banking institutions are not to be considered toward the fulfillment of DBE goals.
Source: www.fms.treas.gov Exhibit H Revised: (02/2009; 01/2012; 3/2015); 7/2016)
Page 1 of 1
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
PART 5: FORM OF TERM SHEET
TERM SHEET FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AT LINDBEGH CENTER STATION
This Term Sheet for MARTA’s Transit-Oriented Development at Lindbergh Center Station (“Term Sheet”) by and between Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority and ______dated ______, 2017 is intended to summarize the principal terms of a proposal being considered by the undersigned parties regarding a possible [ ground lease or sale] (the “Proposed Transaction”) of certain real property described in Exhibit A. The property is located at (a) 2562 Piedmont Road, Fulton County, Georgia and (b) 572 Morosgo Drive, Fulton County, Georgia (collectively, the “Property”). The undersigned parties wish to negotiate one or more definitive written agreements providing for the Proposed Transaction (collectively, the “Definitive Agreement”). Except where expressly provided otherwise herein, the provisions of this Term Sheet do not constitute, and will not give rise to, any legal binding obligation on the part of any of the undersigned parties. Moreover, no past or future action, course of conduct, or failure to act relating to the Proposed Transaction or relating to the negotiation of the Proposed Transaction or the Definitive Agreement will give rise to or serve as the basis for any obligation hereunder or other liability hereunder on the part of any of the undersigned other than those provisions expressly made binding herein.
1. Owner:
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (“MARTA”).
2. Developer: ______
3. Property:
Those certain parcels located at (a) 2562 Piedmont Road, Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia and (b) 572 Morosgo Drive, Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia (Parcel No. D3202 and Parcel No. D3140) as further described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Improvements to be developed by Developer on the Property for residential, commercial, hospitality and/or certain other ancillary but related uses hereinafter referred to as the “Project Improvements”.
4. Property Condition:
In the Definitive Agreement, MARTA will and is not warranting title to the Property, the environmental history/condition or other condition of the Property, or fitness of the Property for any use. Upon the execution of the Definitive Agreement, Developer shall accept its interest in the Property in an “AS IS-WHERE AS” condition.
Page 46 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
5. Type of Definitive Agreement:
The Definitive Agreements shall be between MARTA and Developer and shall include [(a) a 99-year unsubordinated ground lease between MARTA and Developer (a “Ground Lease”); or (a) Purchase and sale agreement] (b) a confidentiality and access agreement granting Developer access to the Property for purposes of performing site preparation and constructing roads, utilities and other infrastructure improvements (the “Infrastructure”) prior to the commencement of the term of the Ground Lease (a “Confidentiality and Access Agreement”); (c) one or more agreements setting forth the terms and conditions for the development, construction, use, operation and maintenance of the Infrastructure, any required MARTA patron parking and any modifications to the Transit Station (the “Infrastructure Agreement”); and (d) a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”). The Definitive Agreement shall include, but not be limited to, the documents listed on Exhibit C attached hereto.
A. Ground Lease(s).
The rent provisions of each Ground Lease and Air Rights Lease shall be as follows:
I. Interim Rent prior to commencement of Base Rent
Interim Rent shall occur prior to the commencement of Base Rent. Interim Rent shall commence on the date of execution of the Definitive Agreement (“Execution Date”). During the period from the date of execution of the Definitive Agreement to the date of commencement of meaningful and material construction activities (including w/out limitation, environmental remediation), as evidenced by the receipt of permits (Land Development and Building Permit), Interim Rent payments shall equal __% of Initial Base Rent commencing twelve months after Execution Date and increasing by __% of Initial Base Rent on each ______(__) month anniversary of such Interim Rent start date. Interim Rent payments shall cease upon commencement of Base Rent as described below. Interim Rent shall be paid quarterly in advance.
II. Base Rent
Base Rent shall commence upon the issuance of certificate of occupancy for any Project Improvements, but in no event later than _____ calendar months after execution of the Definitive Agreement. Initial annual Base Rent shall equal __% of the appraised value of the Property and shall be paid quarterly in advance. Base Rent shall increase every year at the lesser of (a) the change in the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) or (b) 2.0% per annum. Base Rent shall be increased or decreased as determined by an independent appraisal of the underlying land on the ______(____th), ______(____th) and ______(______th) lease years.
III. Capital Event Participation Rent – XX%
Capital Event Participation Rent means ____ (___%) of the amount actually received by Developer from a Capital Event (i.e., sale to an unrelated third party or refinancing of such Project Improvements), after (a) return to Developer of all cash invested by Developer as verified and confirmed by audited financial statements (which Developer shall make available to MARTA for
Page 47 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
review), (b) payment of required amounts to Developer’s equity investors, as disclosed to MARTA prior to execution of the applicable arm’s length equity agreement or amendments thereto with unrelated third parties, and arm’s length lenders. Capital event participation expires after the first arm’s length sale to an unrelated third party, excluding foreclosures or a transfer in lieu of foreclosure. Upon payment of Participation Rent upon a sale/transfer of the Air Rights Lease or Ground Lease, Developer shall be released from the requirement to pay additional Participation Rent.
Condo Fee
PSA Term
6. Good Faith Deposit:
MARTA shall not execute this Term Sheet unless and until Developer (or its designated Developer) deposits with MARTA wired federal funds (or other immediately available funds) in the amount of Eighty Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($80,000) as a good faith deposit to be held by MARTA during negotiations of the Definitive Agreement (such good faith deposit and any interest accrued thereon, should MARTA choose in its sole discretion to hold the good faith deposit in an interest-bearing account, shall be referred to hereinafter as the “Deposit”). Upon execution of the Definitive Agreement by the parties: (a) MARTA shall retain, as reimbursement for MARTA’s expenses in negotiating the Definitive Agreement and not as a penalty, a portion of the Deposit equal to the total amount of out-of-pocket fees and expenses incurred by MARTA (including, but not limited to, fees and expenses charged by attorneys and other legal personnel and by business and financial consultants, and MARTA staff salaries and overhead expenses) in negotiating the Definitive Agreement (collectively, “MARTA’s Transactional Costs”) and any amounts otherwise due and payable from Developer to MARTA; and (b) MARTA shall return to Developer any portion of the Deposit remaining after the amounts described in Subsection 6(a) are subtracted from the Deposit. Upon retention/disbursement of the Deposit in accordance with this Section 6, Developer shall have no recourse against MARTA, except as may be provided under the Definitive Agreement. This Section 6 shall be binding upon the parties hereto upon execution of this Term Sheet by both parties.
7. Termination by MARTA:
MARTA may void this Term Sheet and terminate the negotiations relating to this Term Sheet in the event that: (a) by the 150th calendar day after execution of this Term Sheet, the parties have not firmly agreed (as indicated in a letter or other writing executed by each party) on the issues of rent, size of Project Improvements and completion date; (b) the parties hereto do not execute the Definitive Agreement by the 270th calendar day after execution of this Term Sheet (the “Closing Date”); or (c) MARTA notifies Developer in writing that the negotiations for an executed Definitive Agreement are not progressing in a manner reasonably calculated, in MARTA’s judgment, to arrive at a Definitive Agreement by the Closing Date; provided, however, that prior to any such termination by MARTA pursuant to this Section 7(c), MARTA shall provide Developer, fifteen (15) days prior to the exercise of such termination right, written notice specifying the relevant unresolved issues. Upon any termination pursuant to this Section 7, or upon termination by Developer pursuant to Section 9(b) below, MARTA shall return the full Deposit to Developer.
Page 48 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Upon disbursement of the Deposit and expense reimbursement in accordance with this Section 7 (if any), MARTA shall have no recourse against Developer relating to the Proposed Transaction, and Developer shall have no recourse against MARTA relating to the Proposed Transaction. This Section 7 shall be binding upon the parties hereto upon execution of this Term Sheet by both parties.
8. Termination by Developer:
If Developer terminates the negotiations for the Definitive Agreement by written notice to MARTA other than pursuant to and in accordance with Section 9(b) hereof, MARTA shall retain 100% of the Deposit as compensation for MARTA’s time and expenses in negotiating the Definitive Agreement, for MARTA’s transactional costs, and for MARTA’s forgoing the opportunity to market the Property to other developers, and not as a penalty. Upon retention of the Deposit in accordance with this Section 8, MARTA shall have no recourse against Developer relating to the Proposed Transaction, and Developer shall have no recourse against MARTA relating to the Proposed Transaction. This Section 8 shall be binding upon the parties hereto upon execution of this Term Sheet by both parties.
9. Inspection Period:
(a) Provided that MARTA and Developer have entered into a mutually acceptable Confidentiality and Access Agreement, Developer shall have until the 120th calendar day after execution of this Term Sheet (the “Inspection Period”) to continue to conduct testing and obtain reports relating to the Property (such reports to include title, survey, environmental and engineering reports). Should the results of any such reports (other than title or survey, which are addressed separately in Section 9(b) below) obtained by Developer during the Inspection Period be unacceptable to Developer with respect to any circumstance or condition, Developer may give MARTA written notice, prior to expiration of the Inspection Period, that Developer will not execute a Definitive Agreement; and upon receipt of such notice: (i) MARTA shall retain a portion of the Deposit equal to MARTA’s Transactional Costs and any amounts otherwise due and payable from Developer to MARTA, as reimbursement for MARTA’s time and expenses in negotiating the Definitive Agreement and not as a penalty; and (ii) MARTA shall return to Developer any portion of the Deposit remaining after subtracting the amounts described in Subsection (9)(a)(i). Upon retention/disbursement of the Deposit in accordance with this Section 9, MARTA shall have no recourse against Developer relating to the Proposed Transaction, and Developer shall have no recourse against MARTA relating to the Proposed Transaction, except pursuant to the Confidentiality and Access Agreement. In the event of a conflict between the Confidentiality and Access Agreement and this Section 9, the Confidentiality and Access Agreement shall control. The provisions of Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 for termination of recourse upon disbursement of the Deposit shall neither abrogate nor otherwise affect the parties' obligations under the Confidentiality and Access Agreement.
(b) The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that MARTA provided a copy of MARTA’s existing title policy to Developer on or before [______, 2017]. In the event that title or survey defects prevent a title company from actually insuring title or eliminate the availability of financing, then Developer may terminate negotiations for a Definitive Agreement and MARTA shall
Page 49 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
return the full Deposit to Developer and reimburse Developer as required by Section 7 hereof. Upon such return of the Deposit, MARTA shall have no recourse against Developer relating to the Proposed Transaction, and Developer shall have no recourse against MARTA relating to the Proposed Transaction.
(c) This Section 9 shall be binding upon the parties hereto upon execution of this Term Sheet by both parties.
10. Proposed Use:
Developer shall construct the Project Improvements in a manner reasonably consistent with the description set forth on Exhibit A, together with other accessory facilities serving the foregoing improvements. If applicable, the Project Improvements will include at least twenty percent (20%) of the total housing units constructed set aside as “affordable” housing, meaning restricted to households with an annual income of no more than 80% of the area median income for the Atlanta- Sandy Springs-Marietta Metropolitan Statistical Area as established annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or other mutually agreed upon definition of affordable housing as defined in the Definitive Agreement. All Project Improvements must be developed substantially in accordance with the Proposal submitted by Developer in response to the Request for Proposals for the development of the Property.
11. Required Commencement of Construction:
In the event that meaningful and material construction activities (including any necessary Brownfield remediation), as evidenced by the receipt of permits (Land Development and Building Permit), consistent with the terms of the Definitive Agreement has not commenced, or is not being diligently prosecuted, by the second anniversary of the date of execution of the Definitive Agreement (the “Recapture Date”) MARTA shall be entitled to terminate the Definitive Agreement at any time. In the event of such termination: (a) Developer shall have no recourse against MARTA; and (b) MARTA shall be entitled to require Developer to restore the Property either to the condition it was in at the time of Definitive Agreement execution or to a graded “construction ready” site, at MARTA’s option. Any Recapture Date may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties.
12. Substantial Completion:
Developer shall cause the Project Improvements to be substantially complete (subject to force majeure for a reasonable period) on or before the date that is __ months after the Recapture Date (each, a “Required Substantial Completion Date”). In the event that Developer has not substantially completed the Project Improvements on or before the Required Substantial Completion Date, then MARTA shall be entitled, after written notice and a reasonable amount of time (not less than 90 days) to cure, and subject to rights of mortgagees as set forth in the Air Rights Lease and Ground Lease, to terminate the Definitive Agreement, in which event all right, title and interest of Developer in the Property automatically, and without further act or documentation, shall revert to MARTA. In the event of such termination: (a) Developer shall have no recourse against MARTA; and (b) MARTA shall be entitled to require Developer to restore the Property either to the condition it was in at the time of Definitive Agreement execution or to a graded “construction ready” site, at MARTA’s option.
Page 50 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
The Required Substantial Completion Date may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties.
13. Rezoning Approvals:
Developer shall be responsible for pursuing any rezoning, variances, special use permits, zoning modifications, site plan approvals or other approvals necessary for construction or similar actions relating to the Property (collectively, “Rezoning”) required to allow the development of the Project Improvements. Developer shall fund any and all costs of the Rezoning. Developer shall diligently pursue any necessary Rezoning. All Rezoning applications, any amendments thereto, and any Rezoning actions must be pre-approved by MARTA and must be submitted to MARTA and its counsel at least ten (10) business days prior to the required or anticipated submittal to governmental authorities. MARTA shall review and respond to such submissions within five (5) business days after MARTA’s receipt of such submissions. Developer also shall be responsible for, and shall diligently and expeditiously pursue, all necessary permits and approvals, including, without limitation, land disturbance permits, building permits, and state-mandated soil and erosion control measures; all of the costs of the foregoing permits and approvals shall be funded by Developer. Prior to commencing any construction, Developer will represent and warrant to MARTA that the Property has been properly zoned and otherwise entitled for its intended purposes. MARTA agrees to cooperate, at no expense to MARTA, with all reasonable rezoning and other entitlement requests required to undertake the proposed plan.
14. Debt and Equity Strategy:
Developer will procure the construction and permanent debt financing and any and all equity financing necessary for the Project Improvements. Developer shall have the right to pledge or otherwise grant security interests in its interest in the Property and Project Improvements as collateral for one or more loans, subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable Air Rights Lease or Ground Lease. MARTA shall, promptly upon request, execute and deliver consents reasonably requested consenting to same, subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable Air Rights Lease or Ground Lease.
15. Pre-Construction Expenses:
Any out-of-pocket costs associated with the development of the Property prior to the execution of the Definitive Agreement shall be paid for by Developer.
16. Infrastructure:
All off-site and infrastructure contributions required by any governmental authority or adjoining property owner or other third party in order for Developer to commence development on the Property are the sole responsibility of the Developer. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the project shall not be contingent upon Developer obtaining public funding.
17. Property Taxes:
To the extent accruing subsequent to the execution of the Definitive Agreement, Developer shall bear any and all real and personal property taxes attributable to the Property, to any and all Page 51 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
improvements on the Property, and to any and all furniture, fixtures and equipment thereon, as well as any and all taxes attributable to any interest in any of the foregoing. MARTA shall promptly provide Developer with copies of all tax bills applicable to the Property and/or Project Improvements and received by MARTA with respect to any period after execution of the Definitive Agreement. Provided that no defaults exist under the Definitive Agreement, MARTA shall reasonably cooperate, at no expense to MARTA, with any appeals to any taxation of the Property or Project Improvements brought by Developer.
18. Approval Rights:
Except for sales, transfers or assignments to a Pre-Approved Entity (as defined herein) which shall not require any consent from MARTA, Developer may not sell, assign, lease or otherwise transfer the Air Rights Lease, Ground Lease or any interest therein or thereunder, without MARTA’s prior written approval, which shall be withheld or granted in MARTA’s reasonable discretion. MARTA and Developer shall agree on criteria for MARTA’s reasonable discretion in the Definitive Agreement. MARTA shall provide notice of any such approval or disapproval within thirty (30) days after receipt of Developer’s written request therefor, and in the event that MARTA fails to provide notice of approval of such request, such request shall be deemed approved. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer may not make any such sale, assignment or sublease to: (a) entities that have been disbarred or disqualified from performing work for governments; (b) entities purported to be a government of a foreign nation; (c) entities that have ever been convicted of a crime; (d) entities that would interfere with MARTA’s powers under the MARTA Act, cause MARTA to be in violation of the MARTA Act, or cause MARTA not to be able to receive all possible funds from any governmental entity; (e) any entity that is competing with MARTA as a provider of mass transit services within the areas MARTA serves; and (f) any entities (other than a Pre-Approved Entity (as hereinafter defined)) that are reasonably deemed by MARTA to be not as creditworthy as the Developer, or otherwise financially unstable, to the extent that, in MARTA’s reasonable determination, MARTA’s ground rent payments, would be jeopardized by the proposed buyer, assignee, or sublessee as set forth in written notice of non-approval delivered within such thirty (30) day notice period, together with copies of all information relied upon by MARTA in making such determination of non-approval. For purposes of this Section 21, a “Pre-Approved Entity” shall mean the entities described in this section 21 (A), (B) or (C) below, Developer must give MARTA at least sixty (60) days’ advance notice of a proposed transaction with a Pre-Approved Entity or such transfer will not be valid: A Pre-Approved Entity is either a (A) publicly-traded company (including, without limitation, publicly-traded REITs), (B) institutional investor (e.g., insurance companies, retirement or pension funds, hedge funds and mutual funds) or (C) party with a liquid net worth (not including equity required for the transaction) of at least $25,000,000.00, provided that any such entity (or if such entity is a newly formed special purpose entity (“SPE”) then the principals that actually hold the controlling beneficial interest of such entity) described in clauses (A), (B) or (C) hereof and have at least ten (10) years of commercial real estate operations experience or have contractually engaged a third party property management company with commercial real estate operations experience that is reasonably adequate and appropriate to properly manage and operate the Project Improvement.
Page 52 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
19. Contractors:
Developer shall cause all of the Project Improvements to be constructed by one or more reputable contractors which have a performance record of successfully and timely constructing similar projects and which are eligible to cause all such construction to be covered by 100-percent performance and payment surety bonds with a nationally recognized corporate surety. MARTA shall determine, in MARTA’s reasonable discretion, whether surety bonds shall be required in connection with the development of the Project Improvements. In the event they are required (or otherwise obtained), such bonds shall name MARTA as a co-obligee and Developer shall be the primary obligee.
Developer must cause compliance with all requirements of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act, O.C.G.A. § 13-10-90, et seq. (“E-Verify”) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-36-1 (“SAVE”). Developer, and any contractor or subcontractor of Developer, shall provide MARTA with affidavits and any other necessary documentation to evidence compliance with the requirements of E-Verify and SAVE.
20. Guarantors:
Prior to the commencement of construction of the Project Improvements, the full and timely (subject to force majeure for a reasonable period) and lien-free completion of construction of the Project Improvements shall be guaranteed (under a guarantee instrument in favor of and satisfactory to MARTA) by one or more parties satisfactory to MARTA. Prior to the commencement of meaningful construction activities, Developer shall also demonstrate to MARTA’s reasonable satisfaction the availability of the full amount of funding necessary to complete each element of the Project Improvements.
21. Design Approvals:
Concurrently with the execution of the Definitive Agreement, and as a condition thereof, Developer must obtain MARTA’s approval of a site plan of the Project Improvements and related improvements to the Property to the extent then available (such as site layout, streetscape, plazas, sidewalks, safety and engineering issues and landscaping). MARTA’s approvals are to ensure compliance with the TOD Guidelines and MARTA’s need to maintain satisfactory continuing control of the property for federal purposes and shall be limited to these purposes. To the extent not available at the execution of the Definitive Agreement, Developer shall submit all such plans and specifications to MARTA following execution of the Definitive Agreement as soon as such plans are available, and MARTA shall coordinate its internal reviews and respond to such plans within fifteen (15) business days. Subsequent modifications to the design and engineering plans and specifications (i.e., site layout, streetscape, plazas, sidewalks, landscaping, safety and engineering issues) for the Project Improvements shall be subject to MARTA’s reasonable prior approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, including whether the design of the Project Improvements are oriented in a manner to encourage the use of MARTA transit facilities by tenants, residents, customers and employees (as applicable) traveling to and from the Project Improvements. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, Developer shall not need any approval from MARTA for any subsequent changes to the plans and specifications that do not, in the
Page 53 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
aggregate, increase or decrease the construction costs with respect to the Project Improvements by more than ten percent (10%). Should Developer desire to make such changes, then Developer shall submit all such plans and specifications to MARTA for its approval, said approval not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. If MARTA does not respond within fifteen (15) business days with written notice of noncompliance (with TOD Guidelines or CC&Rs, or specific deficiencies in such plans), such submittals shall be deemed approved. All construction on the Property shall be structurally sound, duly completed in a timely manner, and consistent with the terms hereof.
22. Future Costs:
Developer will bear the prospective risk of incremental costs attributable to legal requirements enacted in the future because of the close involvement of the Project Improvements with MARTA.
23. Transit Operations:
Neither the construction nor the operation of the Project Improvements shall interfere with MARTA’s transit operations. Developer (and its space tenants and others holding any interest by, through or under Developer) shall release MARTA from any claims that MARTA operations upon real property owned or controlled by MARTA and not leased to or owned by Developer creates any taking or eminent domain-related damages with respect to the Property, except as to such claims arising from material changes in MARTA’s future operations. In all events, Developer (and its space tenants and others holding any interest by, through or under Developer) shall release MARTA from any such liability attributable to the future use of 90-second headways or longer trains for transit operations, express rail service, increased bus service, the introduction of light rail operations, and maximizing the number of passengers utilizing transit facilities at the Transit Station or any other MARTA facility.
24. MARTA Systems:
Developer acknowledges that it has had the opportunity to review as-built mechanical and electrical systems plans and specifications possessed by MARTA and showing locations of any and all of such systems on the Property. Developer hereby confirms that the locations and other attributes of such systems either (a) will not interfere with Developer’s construction or operation of the Project Improvements or (b) subject to MARTA’s approval thereof, will be relocated or rearranged, at no cost or expense to MARTA, in order to eliminate such interference.
25. Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R) Compliance:
Developer acknowledges that the construction and operation of the Project Improvements will be subject to CC&Rs applicable to the overall project at the Transit Station and other rules and regulations, which will most likely include architectural controls, use restrictions and similar items. Developer agrees to be bound by the CC&Rs and related rules and regulations, which shall be a part of the Definitive Agreement.
Page 54 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
26. Common Area Maintenance (CAM) Participation:
Developer understands that it is solely responsible for all common area maintenance costs at the Property, including but not limited to security. The Property will be a part of the Lindbergh Owners Association.
27. Customary Covenants:
Developer shall do the following throughout the term of the Air Rights Lease and Ground Lease: (a) to the extent permitted by applicable law, indemnify MARTA for any losses arising out of the construction or operation of the Project Improvements; (b) maintain insurance for the Project Improvements in types, coverage amounts and deductible amounts as required by the applicable provisions of the Definitive Agreement; (c) maintain and keep in good repair the Project Improvements as required by the applicable provisions of the Definitive Agreement; (d) remove and discharge any and all liens or other encumbrances affecting the Property as required by the applicable provisions of the Definitive Agreement; and (e) comply with all laws, regulations, and government requirements as required by the applicable provisions of the Definitive Agreement.
28. Records and Reports:
The Definitive Agreement shall require that Developer maintain records and provide reports with respect to the Project Improvements in accordance with the following terms and conditions (all of which shall be kept confidential by MARTA to the extent permitted by federal, state and local laws, including, without limitation, the Georgia Open Records Act):
(a) Maintain, complete and accurate books and records with respect to the performance of the Project Improvements, including, without limitation, the status of construction, occupancy, leasing activity, and all forms of revenue and income with respect to the Project Improvements, including gross revenues and Adjusted Net Cash Flow, all costs and expenses, and investments (both equity and debt), all in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and other sound accounting principles and procedures.
(b) Permit representatives of MARTA to inspect and examine and make abstracts from any of Developer’s books and records at any reasonable time and as often as may reasonably be desired and to discuss the business, operations, and financial and other conditions of Developer with Developer’s independent certified public accountants and shall provide MARTA with such other financial information and reports related to the Project Improvements or Developer as MARTA may reasonably request.
(c) Provide a report to MARTA of the construction schedules (until 100% completion has been achieved) within thirty (30) calendar days after the close of each calendar quarter.
(d) Within thirty (30) calendar days after the close of each calendar quarter, provide a report to MARTA of the occupancy and leasing activity of the Project Improvements.
Page 55 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
(e) Within forty-five (45) calendar days after the close of each calendar year, deliver to MARTA an unaudited financial report for Developer and the Project Improvements, prepared on a basis consistent with Developer’s methods of accounting, including: (i) a balance sheet; (ii) a profit and loss statement; (iii) a schedule identifying the variances between actual and budgeted items; and (iv) such other matters as MARTA may reasonably request.
(f) Within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days after the end of each calendar year, deliver to MARTA audited financial statements for the Project Improvements, including a statement of profit and loss for such calendar year and a balance sheet as of the end of such calendar year, which financial statements shall be accompanied by an auditor’s unqualified report. The reasonable cost of the annual audit shall be paid for by the submitting party.
[Signatures on following page]
Page 56 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR TERM SHEET AND INTERIM AGREEMENT FOR TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AT ARTS CENTER STATION BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND ______
AGREED this ____ day of ______, 2017, by
MARTA: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority By: ______Printed Name: Keith T. Parker, AICP Its: General Manager/CEO
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
_ MARTA’s Chief of Corporate Law and Real Estate
DEVELOPER: By: Printed Name: Its:
Attest: By: Printed Name: Its:
Page 57 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
ATTACHMENT A
LOCATION MAP, SITE MAP, AND SURVEY 1. See attached.
Page 58 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
SHARONDALE CIR NE
ARLENE W HARONDALE DR NE S
AY NE
GH LN NE
R
LINDBE SIDNEY MARCUS BLVD NE 1
MOROSGO DR NE 2
LN NE
NE
AMELLIA
C
NOLIA LN
G OROSGO PL
M
MA MAIN ST NE
Lindbergh Center NE
ABBEY RD NE Station
NE
LN SON DR NE
R PIEDMONT RD
OLIA LN NE
GA MARKET ST NE
MAGN
CAMELLIA
LINDBERGH LN NE
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus LINDBERGH DR NE DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
MARTA TOD Opportunity Property Key at the Lindbergh Center Station 1. 2562 Piedmont Road
Legend 2. 572 Morosgo Drive Rail Station Potential Development I Rail 0 150 300 600 Feet Lindbergh Center Boundary Office of Dev. & Regional Coordination DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
ATTACHMENT B TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
7. The TOD Guidelines and Policies for Implementing TOD Guidelines are available on MARTA’s website at http://www.itsmarta.com/guidelines-policies.aspx
Page 59 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
ATTACHMENT C PHASE II MASTER PLAN FOR LINDBERGH CENTER STATION
1. See attached.
Page 60 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
LINDBERGH STATION PHASE II TOD MASTER PLAN
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Executive Summary
2.0 Market Analysis 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Market Area Summary 2.3 Future Real Estate Market Demand Analysis
3.0 Parking Analysis 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Existing Conditions 3.3 Potential Joint Development and Associated Parking 3.4 Reallocation of Surplus Office and Retail Spaces 3.5 MARTA’s Park and Ride Capacity 3.6 Conclusions
4.0 The North Block and Core Block 4.1 Introduction 4.2 The North Block 4.3 The Core Block
5.0 The Station Blocks and the MARTA Annex 5.1 Introduction 5.2 The Station Blocks 5.3 The MARTA Annex
6.0 The Larger Context 6.1 The Piedmont Road Corridor 6.2 The Extended Station Area 6.3 A One-Mile Radius
7.0 Implementation Strategy 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Parking 7.3 A Joint Development Strategy ‘ 7.4 Implementation Funding: Infrastructure and Affordable Housing DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction In 2015, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) undertook this Phase II Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan for Lindbergh Station. Lindbergh is located at the juncture of MARTA’s Red (North Springs) and Gold (Doraville) lines, and with some 23,000 average weekday daily boardings is MARTA’s second-busiest rail station (surpassed only by the downtown inter-line transfer station at Five Points).
Lindbergh is a significant intermodal transfer point, with five MARTA and Georgia Regional Transit Authority (GRTA) bus routes feeding the MARTA rail system. Because of its adjacency to the interchange of I-85 and GA 400, Lindbergh is also an important park-and-ride access point, with some 1,100 weekday park-and-ride users.
Lindbergh became MARTA’s first major TOD project, and one of the preeminent first-generation TOD projects in the United States, through the 47-acre mixed-use project undertaken by master developer Carter & Associates, beginning in 1998. MARTA has determined that it is appropriate to view the Carter & Associates project as Phase I of Lindberg Station’s development and to undertake this Master Plan for Phase II. A new Master Plan is timely for several reasons: Nearly two decades have passed since the original Lindbergh project was initiated, and a substantial volume of development was implemented as a result. Undeveloped parcels remain, however, in the area south of Morosgo Drive, and the area north of Morosgo Drive, where MARTA is the principal land owner, is today a mix of undeveloped land and obsolete stand-alone commercial uses. TOD is an emerging market niche in Metro Atlanta’s economic recovery, and MARTA has undertaken an ambitious TOD program. It is guided by MARTA’s comprehensive TOD Guidelines and Implementing Policies, adopted by the MARTA Board of Directors in 2010. The proposed introduction of the Atlanta BeltLine and Clifton Corridor transit services to Lindbergh could expand the Lindbergh TOD footprint, eventually including the large MARTA Annex property south of Lindbergh Drive. Extensive development is occurring east of Piedmont Road, on land within easy walking distance of Lindbergh Station but not yet drawn into its orbit.
The TOD Guidelines and Lindbergh In November 2010, MARTA adopted its comprehensive TOD Guidelines and Implementing Policies. The Guidelines use a seven-category Station Typology to describe MARTA’s 38 rail stations; Lindbergh is categorized as a “commuter town center station”—functioning both as regional-scale, mixed-use TOD community and a significant node of “feeder” and park-and-ride access.
The TOD Guidelines and Implementing Policies envision two distinct roles which MARTA may play in station-area development: For joint development—that is, development built on, connected to, or otherwise using MARTA property—MARTA is a TOD sponsor. The Carter & Associates master developer undertaking of 1998 is a large-scale example of joint development.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Introduction & Executive Summary 1-1
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
For all other station-area development, MARTA is a TOD stakeholder. It will participate appropriately in zoning reviews, zoning changes, Development of Regional Impact Reviews, Livable Centers Initiative (LCI) plans or plan updates, and other forums in which stakeholders are invited to comment.
Both of these roles apply to the undeveloped lands around Lindbergh Station, where MARTA is a principal property owner but several key parcels are owned by others, especially in the sector north of Morosgo Drive and west of Piedmont Road.
The TOD Guidelines also address four “foundational principles” of transit-oriented development: 1. Station-area development that is compact and dense relative to its surroundings. Compared to the surrounding areas, TOD seeks greater density, so that more people can live, work, shop, or go to school within walking distance of the station, driving less, using less gasoline, and saving money. 2. A rich mix of land uses. The clustering of uses allows people to combine everyday activities more conveniently and strengthens the link between transit and development, as station communities become “24/7” places where people use transit at night and on weekends. Mixed-use stations also allow the transit system to function more cost- effectively, carrying rush-hour commuters in both directions and serving more riders with the same fleet. 3. A great public realm. TOD is pedestrian-oriented development, especially within the quarter- to half-mile radius that many people will walk to a transit stop as part of a daily commute. In a TOD environment, a grid of human-scale blocks has sidewalks, attractive amenities, lighting, and way-finding. The sidewalks, plazas, and stations are safe, active, and accessible. There are no blank walls, and at street level shops, restaurants, and other active uses bring the public realm indoors. Bicycling is encouraged by the design of the street grid and by the provision of bicycle parking and amenities. 4. A new approach to parking. Even with high transit utilization, many people will come and go by automobile and need a place to park. But a defining characteristic of TOD is that it requires less dedicated parking than similar development in non-transit locations. Parking is shared as much as possible, taking advantage of dove-tailing uses and reducing further the actual number of spaces provided. And the parking that is required is designed so as not to dominate the visual or pedestrian environment.
In MARTA’s judgment, Phase I of its Lindbergh TOD program has achieved, in part, the density and mixed-use goals of TOD. Greater density would be appropriate, and the planned Main Street retail environment has yet to materialize in an economically sustainable way. The public realm goals, as well, have been achieved only in part. If designed today the blank garage walls and deep front setbacks of some buildings would be avoided. It is in the area of parking that the Phase I results most plainly fall short of the stated principle; a challenge and opportunity in Phase II will be to use the over-built parking supply as a resource for new buildings and to mitigate the blank- wall character of the existing decks.
The Lindbergh Station Area Defined The Lindbergh Station area could be defined in several ways—by distance from the station; by land ownership (MARTA versus non-MARTA properties); or by perceived connection to the
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Introduction & Executive Summary 1-2
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
existing development surrounding the station. In this Master Plan, the station area is defined as a series of figurative “concentric circles”, the inner-most of which is the MARTA TOD Area—some 62 acres of land located west of Piedmont Road and east of the Norfolk Southern Railroad, within a quarter-mile walking distance of the station entrances.
As shown in Figure 1-1, the MARTA TOD Area Figure 1-1: The MARTA TOD Area consists of four distinct subareas: The North Block is an area of roughly 3.8 acres, in mixed ownership, located north of Sidney Marcus Boulevard. The Core Block is an area of approximately 15 acres located between Sidney Marcus Boulevard and Morosgo Drive. About 7.1 acres are developable, and ownership is mixed here as well. The Station Blocks are the roughly 32- acre grid between Morosgo Drive and Lindbergh Drive. Except for the private parcel at the southeast corner (inside the “jughandle” roadway loop), the Station Blocks are owned or controlled by MARTA.1 They contain the two station entrances and most of the completed Phase I TOD. The MARTA Annex is the 13-acre property (roughly 11 acres of it developable) located south of Lindbergh Drive. The Annex is owned and actively used by MARTA.
The MARTA TOD Area can be fully understood only in the context of Lindbergh Station’s larger “zone of influence”. As illustrated in Figure 1-2, this consists of two geographically larger areas: An Extended Station Area of approximately 380 acres, bounded by the Norfolk-Southern Railroad on the west, the I-85 and GA 400 expressways on the east, and the MARTA Rail Yard on the south. These are “hard boundaries” that separate the station area from its wider environs both physically and perceptually, and interrupt the local road network. A one-mile radius, which captures important neighborhoods, transit and trail connections, and other features that have current or potential impacts on the MARTA TOD Area and the Extended Station Area.
1 This property is included for planning purposes only; MARTA does not contemplate any involvement in the ownership or potential redevelopment of this site.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Introduction & Executive Summary 1-3
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Figure 1-2: Extended Station Area and One-Mile Radius
1.2 Executive Summary
The remaining sections of this report may be summarized as follows:
2.0 Market Analysis. A market analysis was conducted in early 2015 by consulting team member Bleakly Advisory Group. It encompasses the residential, office, retail, and hotel sectors in a Lindbergh submarket defined as the Extended Station Area. For the next several years, the study developed the following demand projections: Rental apartments, 215-235 units annually. For-sale new homes: 100-150 units, priced between $200,000 and $300,000, absorbed at a rate of 40-45 annually. Office: slightly over 120,000 square feet total. Retail: modest shopping and restaurant demand, with a potential niche for a small specialty grocery store and a small chain drug store.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Introduction & Executive Summary 1-4
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Hotel: up to 400 rooms in the limited- or select-service product type, with room for two or even three hotels at the 100-150 room scale.
The analysis suggests that the residential, office, and hotel markets may all gravitate to Lindbergh as a mid-market location, with rental and sales prices below those of Midtown and Buckhead but one-seat MARTA access to those markets as well as the airport.
3.0 Parking Analysis. An integral aspect of the Phase II TOD strategy is to understand how the station’s existing parking supply is used and the extent to which it could be repositioned to support future development. To the extent that it can, MARTA’s Lindbergh properties may gain a competitive advantage in both economic and practical terms. The built parking supply resulting from the Phase I Lindbergh development program consists primarily of three shared-use parking decks owned by MARTA—the Garson, City Center, and Sidney Marcus Decks, with a combined capacity of approximately 4,600 parking spaces.2 While MARTA allows park-and-ride in all three decks, and today’s nominal park-and-ride capacity exceeds 2,000 spaces, average daily park-and-ride patronage is about 1,100. The decks contain, in the aggregate, more parking than MARTA, AT&T, the Phase I retail, and the remaining Phase I development will need. Assuming all of the Phase I uses with parking allocations are built and occupied, the surplus parking capacity could approach 1,000 spaces. Significant Phase II parking demand could be accommodated through any or all of three strategies: The allocation of Office and Retail Parking Spaces in the City Center and Garson Decks could be revisited by MARTA, Carter & Associates, and the other Phase I parties. AT&T’s surplus capacity on the upper floors of the Sidney Marcus Deck could be made available for new development through negotiations initiated by MARTA. MARTA could determine, based on an evaluation of overall costs and benefits, that it would be advantageous to shift some of its 1,100 occupied park-and-ride spaces to joint development use. A spreadsheet model prepared by the consulting team indicates that MARTA could realize a net gain in both ridership and revenue by doing so. MARTA also has an interest in consolidating its park-and-ride operations into two decks. This could be achieved if park-and-ride capacity were reduced to 800 or 900 spaces. If MARTA’s share of the Sidney Marcus Deck were freed up, a substantial portion of the parking requirement for future development in the North Block and Core Block could be addressed in this existing structure.
4.0 The North Block and the Core Block. These two subareas constitute the MARTA TOD Area north of Morosgo Drive. Between them, the North Block and the Core Block contain about 10.9 acres of developable land, owned mostly by MARTA but with five key parcels fronting on Piedmont Road owned by private parties. One—the owner of the former
2 AT&T owns an additional deck (“Deck X”), in which MARTA has an allocation of spaces for staff and visitors. MARTA also operates a 120-space employee surface lot.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Introduction & Executive Summary 1-5
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Shoney restaurant site—has indicated a specific, near-term interest in redevelopment. In addition to their developable acreage, the North Block and Core Block have access to any surplus parking capacity that MARTA can make available in the Sidney Marcus deck.
Figure 1-3: North Block, Master Plan Concept A
Detailed concepts were developed for both the North Block and the Core Block, with two alternatives—Concept A and Concept B—shown for each. An improved public realm template is common to both concepts, while the treatment of individual development sites varies. Each concept is a composite of different development approaches that could be “mixed and matched”; in general, the more conservative set of assumptions is represented in Concept A, the more aggressive set in Concept B.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Introduction & Executive Summary 1-6
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Figure 1-4: North Block, Master Plan Concept B
The Master Plan concepts are consistent with the MARTA TOD Guidelines and with the anticipated rezoning of the entire North Block and Core Block as SPI-15.3 Proposed building heights range from a baseline of six stories to a tower of eight to fifteen stories on the “100% corner” of Piedmont Road and Morosgo Drive. The Floor Area Ratios (FARs) implied by these concepts are compatible with SPI-15 limits.4 The concepts are also
3 Currently, the MARTA properties are zoned C-3, the private properties fronting on Piedmont SPI-15. 4 SPI-15 specifies FAR 4.2 for all-market residential projects; 8.2 for residential with at least 20% affordable units; 8.2 for mixed-use (4.0 commercial plus 4.2 residential), and 12.2 for mixed-use with 20% affordable units.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Introduction & Executive Summary 1-7
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
consistent with the market analysis presented in Section 2.0. Concepts A and B for the North Block are illustrated in Figures 1-3 and 1-4; Concepts A and B for the Core Block are illustrated in Figures 1-5 and 1-6.
Figure 1-5: Core Block, Master Plan Concept A
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Introduction & Executive Summary 1-8
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Figure 1-6: Core Block, Master Plan Concept B
5.0 The Station Blocks and the MARTA Annex. The Station Blocks—the 32-acre grid bordered by Morosgo Drive, Piedmont Road, Lindbergh Drive, and the Norfolk Southern railroad— are the developed heart of the station area. As a result of the Phase I TOD initiative, these blocks contain the AT&T office towers; an adjoining office and retail building; the EON and Uptown Square apartment complexes; Pike’s Nursery; the multi-use City Centre and Garson parking decks; the Main Street retail zone; and a trio of stand-alone restaurants
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Introduction & Executive Summary 1-9
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
along Piedmont Road. Although mostly developed, the Station Blocks are incomplete in two important ways: The built environment is “one-sided”, gravitating northward toward the station entrance on Morosgo Drive. Two parcels designated for development remain unbuilt: Parcel N and the air rights above the City Center Deck. The view from south of the station is dominated by the blank walls of the Garson and City Centre Decks, undeveloped land flanking the open “boat section” of the MARTA tracks, and the suburban configuration of Lindbergh Drive with its “jughandle” intersection. Except for the EON/Uptown Square residential area, the pedestrian environment is weak from a public realm, amenity, and connectivity perspective. It has yet to generate a diverse, commercially sustainable retail environment, particularly on Main Street and in the street frontage of the AT&T complex. In the near term, MARTA will encourage the completion and enhancement of the Main Street retail zone and the development of the two unbuilt parcels. It is recommended that the allowed uses—retail on Parcel N, an office building on the parking deck air rights—be expanded, to make development more feasible and to create retail clientele south of Main Street sooner rather than later.
Figure 1-7: Station Blocks, Concept A
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Introduction & Executive Summary 1-10
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
In the mid- to long-term, MARTA must address the master plan implications of Lindbergh as an intermodal hub. It is recommended that the two existing bus loops be consolidated into the north loop, freeing up the south loop real estate either as a new development parcel or as transit space to help accommodate the future Clifton Corridor and Atlanta BeltLine surface transit platforms. These two services, which will both approach Lindbergh Station from the south, must be accommodated in a way that is convenient for passengers, compatible with the street network around the station, and supportive of TOD. Concept A (Figure 1-7) would create a “transit plaza” by decking over the open MARTA tracks, while Concept B (Figure 1-8) would place the plaza on the south bus loop site.
Figure 1-8: Station Blocks, Concept B
Section 5.0 also addresses the Annex, which in the long term represents an 11-acre TOD opportunity, in 100% MARTA ownership, within a quarter-mile walk of Lindbergh Station’s south entrance. When the BeltLine and Clifton Corridor services are operating next to the south entrance, and the Lindbergh Drive “jughandle” has been replaced by a normal urban intersection, the Annex will be well positioned for redevelopment.
6.0 The Larger Context. This section places the MARTA TOD Area in the context of the Extended Station Area and the station’s one-mile radius. The discussion begins with Piedmont Road, which defines the MARTA TOD Area’s eastern boundary and connects it to the neighborhoods north and south of Lindbergh. As shown in Figure 1-9, the privately
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Introduction & Executive Summary 1-11
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
owned land east of Piedmont Road, which lies entirely within a half-mile walk of the station (most of it closer), is being densely developed. However, the Piedmont frontage remains mostly in strip retail and surface parking use, and the new development is not yet within the station’s pedestrian orbit.
Figure 1-9: Piedmont Road Corridor, Land Use and Intersections
MARTA will work with the City of Atlanta, the Georgia Department of Transportation, the Buckhead Community Improvement District, and others to advance the recommendations of the 2007 Piedmont Area Transportation Study, which include:
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Introduction & Executive Summary 1-12
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Widening Piedmont Road and converting it to a raised-median boulevard, with more ample sidewalks, amenities, and bicycle lanes. Redesigning the Sidney Marcus, Morosgo, and Lindbergh Drive signalized intersections. Eliminating the Lindbergh “jughandle”, replacing the superfluous intersection with a signalized turn and crossing at Main Street. The large private parcels inside the jughandle loops could be redeveloped as part of a normal street network. Piedmont Road is the spine of the 380-acre Extended Station Area. Figure 1-10 illustrates the existing land use pattern, dominated by the multi-family residential developments built since the 1990s (several of them under development at present).
Figure 1-10: Extended Station Area Land Use
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Introduction & Executive Summary 1-13
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
The non-residential areas have long-term TOD implications: The largely automobile-oriented commercial areas could be densified by consolidating their parking into decks. The strip commercial development fronting Piedmont Road could be redeveloped as pedestrian-friendly TOD, in response to the Piedmont Road improvements and MARTA’s own Phase II development. The aging industrial-commercial areas along Peachtree Creek could be redeveloped over time, for both employment and mixed uses, as recommended in the BeltLine Subarea 7 Master Plan.
Beyond the Extended Station Area, the one-mile circle around Lindbergh Station contains residential neighborhoods with limited vehicular access to the station and the MARTA TOD Area. Within that circle, however, are key mobility opportunities that can, over time, connect Lindbergh to surrounding areas. These include the planned Clifton Corridor and Atlanta BeltLine transit services, and a trail system connecting Lindbergh Station to the BeltLine, Peachtree Creek, the North and South Forks, and PATH400.
7.0 Implementation Strategy. Section 7.0 addresses the critical question of how to plan, concretely yet flexibly, for the phased implementation of this Phase II Master Plan. The key strategic points are as follows: The plan was developed with implementation in mind. While still conceptual, individual components are designed to be realistically achievable in the near, mid, or long term. Equally important, the plan is structured such that all components are compatible and mutually reinforcing, but to the greatest degree possible, components do not sequentially depend on one other. The aggregate development capacity of the parcels identified in the Master Plan exceeds the more conservative projections of the market analysis. The difference is intentional: the market analysis is focused on the next several years, while the strategic opportunities outlined in this Master Plan represent a long-term exercise in city-building. Successful implementation will demand that MARTA work closely and reciprocally with other agencies and jurisdictions, including the City of Atlanta, Invest Atlanta, Atlanta BeltLine, Inc., the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), the Buckhead Community Improvement District (CID), and the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA). With respect to zoning, MARTA has stated its intent to seek the rezoning of the entire area east of the Norfolk Southern tracks as SPI-15, and in the process to explore whether any modifications are worthwhile. It is important that the parking provisions reflect the strategies outlined in this Master Plan. It is a key premise of this Master Plan that surplus parking capacity in the existing decks be utilized, to the degree practicable and feasible, to absorb the needs of future TOD in the North Block, Core Block, and the remaining parcels in the Station Blocks. This will avoid the land and dollar cost of building more new garage capacity than today’s market requires. To the extent that new parking is required,
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Introduction & Executive Summary 1-14
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
MARTA will make every effort to accommodate it in efficiently designed shared- use decks, rather than encouraging individual projects to include their own dedicated parking structures. A critical component of the implementation strategy is MARTA’s approach to procuring joint development partners. The solicitation of a master developer could be advantageous for a number of reasons. It is understood, however, that the redevelopment of the Shoney site, in combination with one or conceivably two abutting MARTA properties, could precede the engagement of a master developer, if the Shoney ownership is prepared to advance a project of the scale and quality that MARTA wishes to see at this “100% corner”. As an alternative to a master developer, MARTA could select a master development advisor. Section 7.0 concludes by outlining potential funding and financing resources, which include but are not limited to: the Atlanta BeltLine Tax Allocation District (TAD), for affordable housing and transit infrastructure; a new Community Improvement District, similar to the nearby Buckhead CID, to finance street, trail, and other district infrastructure improvements; the Atlanta Regional Commission’s Livable Centers Initiative (LCI) program; applicable federal surface transportation funding and financing programs, including the expanded TIFIA loan mechanism.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Introduction & Executive Summary 1-15
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
2.0 MARKET ANALYSIS
2.1 Introduction In order to establish reasonable density expectations and a projected timeframe for absorption of future development in the Lindbergh station area, the consulting team completed a comprehensive TOD market analysis for Lindbergh and its real estate submarket. The analysis included the retail, residential, hotel, and office markets.1
Through years of investments by MARTA and surrounding developers, a TOD district has begun to emerge where none existed previously. The Lindbergh area has attracted a mix of residents, employees and shoppers and is a key attractor in the city of Atlanta of a younger professional and older student population seeking an urbane and active lifestyle.
Area residents are typically younger, more affluent, and more educated than residents of the city of Atlanta as a whole.
Area employees typically earn somewhat higher salaries and commute farther distances than the typical Atlanta employee.
The area has great appeal to price-conscious consumers seeking urban amenities but unable (or unwilling) to afford Midtown or Buckhead.
Growth in the area has created potential demand for future retail offerings.
Market Perspective: Keys to Success MARTA property is the prime real estate in the entire Lindbergh market area. Other developments are finding success nearby, but few have the highest-quality access to MARTA that residents, employees, and customers desire.
An opportunity exists to enhance enhance the Lindbergh area’s lifestyle and attractiveness, through improvements to Main Street and through additional real estate development.
The Lindbergh area found success prior to the Great Recession, leveled off during the down-cycle, and with the economic recovery underway, the opportunity for greater success is at hand. But the time is now, and the window for MARTA’s next wave of development at Lindbergh is open.
Fixing the “front door” is essential. The blighted properties along Piedmont Road are an eyesore that prevents Lindbergh from reaching its full TOD potential. These parcels must be developed in a way that enhances the urban experience developing nearby.
2.2 Market Area Summary
The market analysis is focused on the Extended Station Area (as defined in Section 1.1), where the great majority of Lindbergh-related demand will occur. This area features mixed-use commercial centers, a large number of multifamily residential units, and retail anchored by “big box” tenants. Its boundaries are the Norfolk Southern rail corridor, the GA-400 and I-85 expressways, and the MARTA rail yard.
1 The full market study report is available as an appendix.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Market Analysis 2-1
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Figure 2-1: Lindbergh Market Area
Demand Drivers Demographics
Currently, the market area has an estimated 5,682 residents and 3,311 households.
The area is projected to grow at a faster rate than the city of Atlanta over the next five years to a total of 6,198 residents and 3,718 households by 2020, due to rapid expansion of the housing supply.
The market area has a younger population than the city of Atlanta with a 2015 estimated median age of 32 compared to the city-wide median age of 34.
Nearly half of Lindbergh residents are Millennials (16-33), compared to a third city-wide.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Market Analysis 2-2
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Millennials are more likely to live in apartments and take public transportation to work than any other age cohort and are thus attracted to the Lindbergh area.
The market area is home to a more diverse population than the city of Atlanta overall.
The Lindbergh area is home to a greater proportion of the population with a four-year college degree or higher than the city of Atlanta overall.
Households in the market area tend to be smaller than city of Atlanta households, with a 2015 average size of 1.7 people per household compared to Atlanta’s 2.1.
Households in the market area tend to have a higher income than households city-wide.
Table 2-1: Lindbergh Market Area Demographic Summary
Population Market Area City of Atlanta 2000 Census 5,343 418,156 2010 Census 5,036 420,003 2015 Estimate 5,682 451,577 2020 Projection 6,198 477,556 Growth Rate 2000-2015 0.4% 0.5% Forecast 1.8% 1.1%
Households Market Area City of Atlanta 2000 Census 2,214 169,050 2010 Census 2,750 185,484 2015 Estimate 3,311 204,281 2020 Projection 3,718 220,188 Growth Rate 2000-2015 2.7% 1.3% Forecast 2015-2020 2.3% 1.5%
Based on data from Nielsen Employment
There are over 9,627 jobs in the immediate Lindbergh area.
Workers employed in the Lindbergh area make up 2% of all city of Atlanta employees.
A higher proportion of market area residents (18%) take public transportation to work than Atlanta residents (11%).
While workers in the city of Atlanta are distributed across a wide range of employment sectors, workers in the market area are largely employed in the transportation and warehousing and information sectors (see Figure 2-2).
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Market Analysis 2-3
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Figure 2-2: Employment by Sector
Real Estate Supply The local area has seen tremendous enhancements over the past 10-year period. Local market conditions bear this out:
Apartments
Since 2000, 2,028 apartment units have been added in the market area.
Apartment rents in the market area average $1,322/month or $1.46 per square foot.
EON at Lindbergh which was built as a condo and converted to rental, garners the highest rents on a per square foot basis ($1.65). It is located immediately west of the MARTA station.
The area will be adding over 700 units (market-rate all-age) in the next 12-18 months, 19% of current inventory.
For-Sale New Homes
Townhomes are the only new residential units to be sold in the market area since 2010.
Fifty-three new townhome units have sold over the last five years at an average sale price of $286,138.
The average townhome sale price has increased by 5% annually since 2010.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Market Analysis 2-4
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
From 2008 to 2010. 137 new condo units were sold at an average sale price of $186,000. No new condo units have been sold in the market area since 2010.
No new single-family homes have been sold in the market area in the last seven years.
Retail
The market area contains 1.5 million square feet of retail space and serves as a major commercial center for area residents.
Over 500,000 square feet of retail was added from 2000 to 2007; since 2007 only 1,800 SF have been added.
102,447 square feet are currently vacant, resulting in a 6.8% vacancy rate.
The vacancy rate has decreased 58% from its peak of 16% in 2009.
Office
The market area contains 1.5 million square feet of office space in 12 buildings.
There are currently 28,700 square feet vacant, resulting in a 1.9% vacancy rate.
Vacancy rates have not exceeded 2% in the past 15 years, even at the height of the Great Recession. However, “soft” vacancies are known to exist in some area office spaces (that is, space that is still under contract but whose tenants have vacated).
Hotel
Market area hotel properties range in size from 75 rooms to 230, and in age from 10 years to 40+ years. Except for the nearby DoubleTree, all are limited- or select-service.
Occupancy ranges of the competitive set of hotels are between 70% and 82%, and average daily rate (ADR) ranges between $94 and $127.
Holiday Inn Express and TownePlace Suites (located on Sidney Marcus Boulevard east of Piedmont Road) report the lowest ADR (<$100).
Extended stay hotels report the strongest occupancy levels, due to the nature of the guest and product design.
2.3 Future Real Estate Market Demand Analysis
The market analysis provided the following projections with respect to demand and absorption over the next several years.
Apartments
Sufficient future demand exists to begin planning for new units at Lindbergh to come on- line by 2017.
The potential demand for the Lindbergh Station area is estimated at: 215-235 units annually. This represents 60% of recent peak absorption years and 140% of the recent 10-year average (which included the recessions years).
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Market Analysis 2-5
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Potential new units on MARTA property must heed the delivery timing of other local new units in order to successfully meet market demand.
For-Sale New Homes The potential will exist for a building of approximately 100-150 units, at prices ranging up to approximately $300,000 and averaging approximately $200,000-$225,000. These units will appeal to price-conscious buyers seeking urban amenities but unable to afford new units in Midtown or Buckhead.
Based on a statistical demand analysis, such a building could absorb approximately 40- 45 units annually.
This product could face competition from conversions of rental apartments to condominiums that may begin to occur in the coming years.
Office
Statistical office demand analysis applies future employment projections for the Lindbergh area to the actual ratio of office square feet per employee in the area.
Assuming employment growth is sustained at 2002-2009 levels, demand exists for up to 121,500 square feet of new office space through 2020.
This projection appears conservative, given that at 25,000 square feet of new office space annually through 2020, the Lindbergh area would sustain its historical fair share capture rate of office space in the City of Atlanta.
Retail The existing retail space along Main Street at Lindbergh could be improved with contemporary urban retailing strategies, including: higher-visibility signage and store entrances; eliminating blank spaces that detract from the pedestrian experience; lively programming and activities on the street to attract residential and transit patrons; a tenant strategy that targets local brands, particularly restaurants that could attract patrons from beyond the immediate area.
Given recent and anticipated residential growth in the Lindbergh area, additional retail potential exists. This potential in the MARTA TOD Area may be limited by recent and future growth in big-box retailers, including the future new Kroger supermarket on the other side of Piedmont Road.
Nevertheless, a smaller-scale specialty or discount grocer might be attracted by the new rooftops in the area, if an appropriate site is available. This type of grocer could serve as a retail anchor on the west side of Piedmont and could spawn additional retailers nearby.
A chain drug store could also have potential in the area, although demand support today is slightly below requisite levels.
Additional restaurants could find success in the area, assuming concepts and execution that meet target market audience demand.
Demand potential could be enhanced by additional local-serving office space, particularly medical clinics.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Market Analysis 2-6
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Hotel
There appears to be market support for 400+ rooms in the limited- or select-service category. It is noted, however, that:
Major brand availability in this market area is constrained by territory or impact clauses.
Some available sites are complicated by shared parking structures, mixed-use projects with high density requirements to support rising land and construction costs.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Market Analysis 2-7
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
3.0 PARKING ANALYSIS
3.1 Introduction An integral aspect of the Phase II Lindbergh Center joint development strategy is to understand how the station’s existing parking supply is used and the extent to which it can be applied to future development. This is a key consideration, because structured parking is costly and the surface parking alternative is too land- consumptive to be used extensively on a long-term basis. To the extent that existing garage capacity can be used to support new development, MARTA’s Lindbergh properties may gain a competitive advantage in both economic and practical terms.
The built parking supply resulting from the Phase I Lindbergh development program undertaken by MARTA, Carter & Associates, and BellSouth (now AT&T) consists of three shared-use parking decks owned by MARTA—the Garson, City Center, and Sidney Marcus Decks. The decks have a combined capacity of approximately 4,600 parking spaces; MARTA has an allocation of spaces in each. MARTA also maintains a 120-space employee parking lot.1
Figure3-1: Lindbergh Parking Facilities
1 The smaller “Deck X” is owned by AT&T, with 200 spaces allocated to MARTA staff and visitors. These spaces are fully utilized and do not enter further into this analysis.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): Parking Analysis 3-1 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Future development planning must take into account three factors with respect to parking demand: The nature of transit-oriented development, a foundational principle of which is that parking ratios for development should be lower than in non-transit settings and that physical spaces should be shared as much as possible. This principle is embodied in MARTA’s TOD Guidelines. The allocation of parking spaces between MARTA and other users in the agreements governing the use of the three decks. MARTA’s current park-and-ride utilization and its best judgment as to the optimal future balance between park-and-ride and parking for TOD.
3.2 Existing Conditions The City Center and Garson Decks are governed by the 2010 Amended and Restated Parking and Easement Agreement, while the Sidney Marcus Deck is governed primarily by the BellSouth Parking Agreement.2 The current space allocations—which may be altered by mutual agreement among the parties—are as follows:
Table 3-1: Parking Decks, Current Allocation per Parking & Easement Agreements
Office AT&T Retail Residential Hotel MARTA Total Deck 2 (City Center) 600 0 596 0 0 409 1,605 3 Deck 3 (Garson) 0 0 177 195 0 423 795 Deck 6 (Sidney Marcus) 0 1,750 0 0 0 527 2,227 Total 600 1,750 773 195 0 1,359 4 4,677
MARTA offers free daytime parking in all three decks. In addition, overnight MARTA parking (at a current rate of $8.00 a day) is available, primarily in the Sidney Marcus deck. Daytime parkers in any deck must validate their garage tickets at machines inside Lindbergh Station and then have 30 minutes to exit the garage without being charged the otherwise applicable rate.
MARTA’s total current allocation of spaces under the governing agreements is 1,359. Until Carter & Associates or a successor builds the planned office air rights project above Deck 2, the 600 Office Parking Spaces are also available to MARTA. The same is true of unused Retail Parking Spaces in Decks 2 and Deck 3. Consequently, MARTA today has nominal use of over 2,000 spaces, a capacity far exceeding daily demand.
At this time, MARTA reports that its stabilized weekday park-and-ride utilization, including both daytime and overnight parkers, is approximately 1,100 spaces.5 This means that counting only its 1,359 permanently allocated spaces, MARTA has a daily surplus of approximately 250 spaces.
2 First Amended and Restated Parking and Easement Agreement for Lindbergh City Center Project, Parking Deck #2 and parking Deck #3; February 1, 2010; and Amended and Restated Parking and Easement Agreement for Lindbergh City Center Transit-Oriented Development BellSouth Facility; August 1, 2003. 3 The total number of spaces for Deck 2 (1605) includes 36 On-Street Spaces which are part of the retail allocation. 4 In the First Amended and Restated Parking and Easement Agreement, MARTA is given a maximum allocation of 896 spaces in Decks 2 and 3 combined. However, the current allocations to other parties limit MARTA to 832 of these (409 plus 423). Arguably, MARTA’s total allocation could be stated as 1,423 (1,359 plus the 64 “missing” spaces in Decks 2 and 3). However, this distinction has no practical effect because MARTA, as explained in the next paragraph, has access to hundreds of Office and Retail Parking Spaces that are not yet being used for those purposes. 5 MARTA Research Department, April, 2015.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): Parking Analysis 3-2 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
MARTA also provides 120 employee parking spaces, with virtually 100% utilization, in the surface lot behind its headquarters building. This land, which occupies the core of the block formed by Sidney Marcus Boulevard, Piedmont Road, and Morosgo Drive, is integral to future joint development. Removing employee parking from this lot, without imposing a costly replacement parking burden on the eventual development, is critical. This could be done by absorbing the 120 employee spaces into MARTA’s surplus capacity in one of the decks. After freeing up MARTA land for development, this move would still leave a small “net” surplus in MARTA’s allocated deck capacity to support joint development.
Table 3-2: MARTA Parking Space Surplus in Decks 2, 3, and 6 Total MARTA Parking Space Allocation 1,359 Current Park-and-Ride Utilization (approx.) 1,100 MARTA Surplus Spaces (approximate) 259 Employee Spaces to be Absorbed (120) MARTA Net Surplus (approximate) 139
3.3 Potential Joint Development and Associated Parking
As part of this Lindbergh Master Plan study, a real estate development market analysis was performed by Bleakly Advisory Group. It is summarized in Section 2.0 of this report. Its relevance for the parking analysis is the potential parking demand that would be generated by new development on MARTA land and its adjacent outparcels. Table 3-3 converts the estimates of potential new development into approximate parking demand, based on the parking ratios assumed in the second column.
Table 3-3: Potential New Development
Spaces/unit Low Range High Range Use or 1000 sf Units or sf Spaces Units or sf Spaces Apartments (Rental) 1.00/unit 300 300 600 600 Condominiums 1.00/unit 50 50 100 100 Office 2.00/1000 50,000 100 120,000 240 Retail + restaurant 2.00/1000 25,000 50 50,000 100 Hotel 1.00/key 125 125 400 400 Total Residential 350 700 Total Non-Residential 275 740 Total Spaces 625 1440
The parking ratios in Table 3-3 reflect the MARTA TOD Guidelines, the immediate proximity of the MARTA land to the station entrances, and the fact that, in the market, Lindbergh enjoys easily understood, one-seat MARTA access to Buckhead, Midtown, Downtown, and the Airport. For apartments, condominiums, and offices, the suggested ratios are consistent with the current parking provisions of the SPI-15 Zoning District, which MARTA and the City of Atlanta propose to expand over the entire station area.6
6 There are no minimum parking ratios for residential and office use in the SPI-15 district. There are maximums instead: for residential, 1.0 space per bedroom up to two bedrooms and .5 spaces per bedroom thereafter; for office, 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): Parking Analysis 3-3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
For general retail and for restaurants, the SPI-15 requirements are higher—3.7 spaces and 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet, respectively. However, the SPI-15 language encourages shared parking. The 2.00 spaces per 1,000 square feet assumed in the table are directed at weekday 9-5 demand; both the MARTA Spaces and the Office Spaces will be available to absorb the peak shopping and dining demand on evenings, weekends, and holidays. For hotels, which could be an important component of future Lindbergh development, the SPI-15 zoning requires one space per guest room, ½ space per employee, 3.00 spaces per 1,000 square feet of conference space, and the normal restaurant ratio if applicable. These requirements appear somewhat high for a transit setting, especially given the Buckhead/Midtown focus of Lindbergh as a hotel market. Through shared parking, and perhaps through reducing this requirement as part of rezoning, Table-3 assumes that the net requirement for hotel use can be held to one space per “key”.
The table thus provides a rough estimate of the parking requirements associated with “low” and “high” development scenarios that fall within the current market analysis. This estimate helps frame the question to which this parking analysis is addressed: to what extent could parking for new development be absorbed in the surplus capacity of the existing decks? The new parking requirement is broken into residential and non- residential subtotals, reflecting the likelihood that shared off-site parking for office, hotel, or retail use would be an easier “sell” than for residential.
The modest MARTA surplus identified above (roughly 250 spaces, of which 130 would be available after employee parking is consolidated) could accommodate a small portion of the new demand. Significantly more of this demand could be accommodated through any or all of three strategies, which are explored in the following sections: The allocation of Office and Retail Parking Spaces in the City Center and Garson Decks could be revisited by MARTA, Carter & Associates, and the other parties to the Parking & Easement Agreement. AT&T’s apparent surplus capacity on the upper floors of the Sidney Marcus Deck could be made available for new development through negotiations initiated by MARTA. MARTA could determine, based on an evaluation of overall costs and benefits, that it would be advantageous to shift some of its utilized garage capacity from park-and-ride to parking for joint development.
3.4 Reallocation of Surplus Office and Retail Spaces
The City Center and Garson Decks are visibly underutilized today, largely because the uses that account for most of their parking space allocations are not operating. The office building which Carter & Associates has the right to develop on the Deck 2 (City Center) air rights has yet to materialize, and much of the retail space in the BellSouth tower podium is vacant. The key question is this: if the office building were in place and the retail areas fully leased, would their parking allocations be right-sized or excessive? In the case of the office building, the maximum rentable square footage allowed under the Office Facility Lease is 225,000. The maximum parking ratio for office space allowed under the proposed SPI-15 zoning is 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. If that ratio were applied, a maximum of 563
https://www.municode.com/library/ga/atlanta/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIIICOORANDECO_PT16ZO_CH18OSP15LITRST ARSPPUINDIRE
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): Parking Analysis 3-4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
spaces would be needed. If a ratio of 2.25 spaces per 1,000 square feet were used, the requirement would be 507 spaces. It is thus likely that when the office building is eventually developed, and the Office Facility Lease modified accordingly, at least a modest portion of its 600-space maximum parking allocation could be redirected to other purposes. The Retail Spaces are pegged to a parking ratio of 3.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet—specifically, a maximum of 636 spaces for the roughly 175,000 square feet contemplated in the Carter Retail Lease, and 137 for Wells REIT (which controls the roughly 37,000 square feet in the two BellSouth towers).7 Even at full occupancy, it is questionable that retail in this location would occupy 3.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet on an exclusive dedicated basis Monday through Saturday from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM (the Exclusive Use Period provided in the Parking Agreement). In the likely event that a lesser ratio would suffice during those hours on Monday through Friday, retail customers would have access to the MARTA and Office spaces at night, on weekends, and on holidays. The 2,277-space Sidney Marcus deck has separate entrances for MARTA’s 527 spaces and AT&T’s 1,750. At this time, MARTA is informed that AT&T has 1,188 spaces assigned to employees.8 Even allowing for possible staffing growth and other AT&T-related use, there is an apparent surplus of several hundred spaces. (It is clear from repeated observation that the roof level, with approximately 240 spaces, is normally empty.) A permanently unused surplus in this deck is costing AT&T money every month.9 MARTA could initiate a discussion about whether, and on what terms, it would be mutually beneficial for those spaces to be made available for joint development on MARTA lands directly across Sidney Marcus Boulevard and Lindbergh Lane.
3.5 MARTA’s Park-and-Ride Capacity
MARTA’s TOD Guidelines contemplate that as joint development opportunities arise at stations with significant park-and-ride capacity, the decision as to whether 100% of that capacity need be maintained will be decided case-by-case. The criterion is whether an alternative scenario with less park-and-ride would generate at least as much ridership and revenue—taking into account park-and-ride passengers, joint development passengers, and ground lease proceeds—as a scenario with the original parking capacity.10
The spreadsheet model displayed in full at the end of this section and summarized in below enables MARTA to compare its existing park-and-ride utilization at Lindbergh with up to three scenarios involving different combinations of park-and-ride and joint development. The upper part of the spreadsheet estimates the revenue which MARTA can expect to receive in a horizon year (currently set at 2020) under existing conditions—that is, if today’s park-and-ride utilization (roughly 1,100 spaces) is maintained. The spreadsheet allows the user to input the percentage of spaces used for daily and overnight parking, and the rate charged for each (currently zero for daily, $8.00 for overnight). The model calculates:
7 First Amended and Restated Parking and Easement Agreement for Lindbergh City Center Project, Parking Deck #2 and parking Deck #3; February 1, 2010; esp. Attachment C. Carter’s 636 spaces are reduced by the number of any spaces they build outside the garage to serve these retail leases. 8 MARTA Research Department, April 2015. 9 AT&T is 100% responsible for O&M (other than security, which is a MARTA responsibility), and for the preponderance of capital replacement costs. 10 MARTA TOD Guidelines (2010), Chapter 4; Policies For Implementing MARTA TOD Guidelines (2010), Policy 3.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): Parking Analysis 3-5 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Table 3-4: Summary of Park-and-Ride / Joint Development Comparison Model
STATUS QUO: CURRENT STABILIZED PARK-AND-RIDE USAGE Total spaces controlled by MARTA 1359 Total spaces utilized for park-and-ride 1100 Annual MARTA trips from existing park-and-ride usage 505,484 Net operating income attributable to park-and-ride $1,703,395
ALTERNATIVE JOINT DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Park-and-Ride Number of garage spaces 1100 900 700 Annual MARTA trips from park-and-ride 508,245 423,674 339,103 Net operating income attributable to park-and-ride $1,745,478 $1,445,005 $1,144,531 Joint Development Residential (units) 250 250 500 Office (square feet) 40,000 40,000 80,000 Retail (square feet) 25,000 25,000 50,000 Hotel (rooms) 100 100 200 Total annual MARTA trips from joint development 215,707 215,707 431,413 Annual net farebox revenue from TOD $464,755 $464,755 $929,509 Total annual NOI from P&R + TOD $2,210,232 $1,909,759 $2,074,041 Development Lease Proceeds from Lot and Garage Annualized lease proceeds $526,273 $1,150,273 $1,565,773 Bottom Line: Summary Comparison A. Total Annualized Trips 723,951 639,381 770,517 B. Total Annualized Revenue (including land) $2,736,505 $3,060,032 $3,639,813 Compared to Status Quo: A. Net New Annualized Trips 218,467 133,896 265,032 B. Net New Annualized Revenue (including lease) $1,033,109 $1,356,636 $1,936,418
the MARTA trips and associated farebox revenue generated by passengers who use the park-and- ride spaces; the revenue generated by MARTA’s park-and-ride fees; the total revenue attributable to park-and-ride—that is, the combination of farebox and parking revenues.
The spreadsheet allows MARTA’s O&M cost per space to be deducted from park-and-ride revenues; however, at present MARTA has no O&M funding responsibility under the parking agreements governing the three decks.11 There is also a line item for any ancillary revenue generated by retail and restaurant parking in the MARTA spaces during non-commute hours; at present that value is assumed to be zero, since the MARTA spaces are either segregated or separately accessed and there is already excess retail capacity.
11 First Amended and Restated Parking and Easement Agreement for Lindbergh City Center Project, Parking Deck #2 and parking Deck #3; February 1, 2010; and Amended and Restated Parking and Easement Agreement for Lindbergh City Center Transit-Oriented Development BellSouth Facility; August 1, 2003.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): Parking Analysis 3-6 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
The spreadsheet then allows the user to input key variables to create up to three alternative scenarios. In each, the user may vary: The number of park-and-ride spaces to be retained by MARTA, and the daily and overnight rates to be charged for each. The number of residential units, square feet of offices, square feet of retail, and hotel rooms in each scenario. In this case, the scenarios all “fit” within the higher development scenario shown for Lindbergh in Table 3 above.
Both the park-and-ride spaces and the development are converted into MARTA trips and associated farebox revenues, and the parking rates are converted to revenue as well, just as in the existing conditions analysis. In the hypothetical scenarios shown in the spreadsheet, daily park-and-ride is assumed to remain free of charge, but the model allows any potential future rate to be input, as well as any future ancillary revenue from off- hours retail use of MARTA spaces.
The model calculates estimated ground lease revenues from the development, counting only the two sources directly attributable to the use of MARTA’s excess garage spaces: the full ground lease proceeds for the MARTA employee lot, since this parcel is freed up for development by transferring the employee parking into surplus MARTA garage spaces; the payments the developer would make for the number of garage spaces leased from MARTA. While any lease terms are entirely hypothetical at this point, the model assumes that the developer would pay a negotiated annualized share of the capital cost per space (recovering a portion of MARTA’s original capital investment), and that MARTA would retain a share of revenue collected from these spaces and/or charge the developer a share of the annual O&M cost. From the developer’s perspective, paying only a fraction of the capital and operating cost of structured parking is a major pro forma advantage.12
The bulk of any future ground lease revenues—the payments which the developer(s) would make for the MARTA parcels other than the employee lot—are not counted in this model, thus maitaining a conservative view of the development versus park-and-ride comparison.
The hypothetical analysis shown here uses as its three scenarios: A. Retaining 1,100 park-and-ride spaces and attaining the “low” development scenario form Table 3-4. B. Reducing park-and-ride to 900 spaces and attaining the “low” development scenario. C. Reducing park-and-ride to 700 spaces and attaining the “high” development scenario.
At the bottom of the spreadsheet, the net new MARTA trips and net new MARTA revenues are calculated for each scenario—that is, the trips and revenues compared to those generated by today’s park-and-ride usage. While the scenarios are hypothetical and may be varied in any number of ways, and some of the values in the spreadsheet are still merely allowances or “plugs”, the overall result is clear: The MARTA transit trips resulting from a substantial Phase II joint development program would exceed those lost to a reduction of park-and-ride capacity.
12 While MARTA makes no O&M contribution, it is responsible for security in all three decks and for a pro rata share of capital maintenance and replacement costs. It also funds its own revenue collection staffing and equipment in the Sidney Marcus Deck. An O&M-related component of a developer lease would be appropriate.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): Parking Analysis 3-7 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
The revenues from those trips, and from only those lease revenues most directly associated with the shift of spaces from park-and-ride to joint development, would significantly exceed the revenues lost to the park-and-ride reduction. In the three hypothetical scenarios shown, the net new revenues to MARTA range from roughly $1 million to $2 million.
3.6 Conclusion
The summary conclusions of this parking analysis are two-fold: 1. The Lindbergh decks contain, in the aggregate, more parking than MARTA, AT&T, the Carter and BellSouth (Wells REIT) retail, and the future Carter air rights office building will need. The excess parking, assuming the office building is developed and all Carter and BellSouth retail is fully built out and leased, is in the hundreds of spaces and may exceed one thousand. 2. MARTA has an allocation of 1,359 spaces in the City Center, Garson, and Sidney Marcus Decks, of which approximately 1,100 are currently utilized for park-and-ride. Some of this surplus can be used to absorb the employee parking that now occurs on the future development parcel behind MARTA headquarters. Additionally, if MARTA wishes to shift some of its spaces from park-and-ride use to joint development, it would realize a net gain in both ridership and revenue.
MARTA could continue to set aside 1,100 spaces for park-and-ride and require its future joint development designees to provide all of their own required parking in new garages. However, there are three reasons that MARTA should strive to absorb both residential and non-residential parking from future joint development in the existing decks, to the greatest degree possible.13 1. The significant cost to developers of building and maintaining new structured parking would be reflected in lower ground lease payments to MARTA. To the extent that developers can instead lease existing surplus spaces from MARTA (or from Carter and AT&T through negotiations supported by MARTA), the avoided cost can be shared by the developer and MARTA. Moreover, to the extent that development projects do not require garage construction, the residential and commercial programs themselves become simpler to design and build; this reduction in total development cost would also be reflected in more favorable lease payments to MARTA. 2. The Lindbergh Station TOD has long been recognized (and criticized) as “over-parked”. Building more decks rather than using surplus built capacity would be an unfortunate planning outcome, either inviting excessive automobile traffic or perpetuating the excess capacity problem. 3. It may be cost-advantageous to MARTA, all things considered, to consolidate its park-and-ride operations from three decks into two. It appears that if designated park-and-ride capacity were reduced to the 800-900 range, park-and-ride could be consolidated into the City Center and Garson Decks, which enjoy superior access from Piedmont Road and Lindbergh Drive. If MARTA could remove park-and-ride operations from the Sidney Marcus Deck, the roughly 400 MARTA spaces left over once the employee parking lot is absorbed there could all be dedicated to new joint development north of Morosgo. If AT&T were also motivated to make some of its excess capacity available, much of the new development program could be parked in this existing deck.
13 Note that the Residential Parking Spaces in the shared-use Garson Deck serve the Uptown Square apartments located next door. Residential development on the current MARTA employee lot or on the MARTA land immediately across the street from the northern end of the Sidney Marcus Deck could conceivably have at least some of its parking in that deck.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): Parking Analysis 3-8 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
APPENDIX: PARK-AND-RIDE / JOINT DEVELOPMENT SPREADSHEET MODEL
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): Parking Analysis 3-9 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
4.0 THE NORTH BLOCK AND CORE BLOCK
4.1 Introduction
Phase II of the Lindbergh TOD program will be focused on the area north of Morosgo Drive and west of Piedmont Road. The properties comprising this area are shown in Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1: MARTA and Third-Party Sites North of Morosgo
.
While MARTA owns over 25 acres of land north of Morosgo Drive, much of it is occupied by MARTA’s own transit facilities, already developed (with MARTA Headquarters and the Sidney Marcus Deck), or preserved as woods and stormwater detention. The seven MARTA-owned sites outlined in red as potential development parcels total approximately eight acres.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): North Block and Core Block 4-1 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
As explained in Section 1.1, the subarea north of Sidney Marcus Boulevard is designated the North Block, and the subarea between Sidney Marcus Boulevard and Morosgo Drive is designated the Core Block. In each case, the master plan consists of two sets of elements: the public realm template: the set of streets, sidewalks, and public spaces that define the planning area, break it into appropriately sized development sites, and connect them to the station and the surrounding district; the individual development sites defined by the template.
Detailed master plan concepts are presented for both the North Block and the Core Block, with two alternatives—Concept A and Concept B—shown for each. The public realm template is common to both concepts, while the treatment of individual development sites varies. Each concept is a composite of different development approaches that could be “mixed and matched”; in general, the more conservative set of assumptions is represented in Concept A, the more aggressive set in Concept B.
The master plan concepts are consistent with the MARTA TOD Guidelines and the anticipated rezoning of the entire North Block and Core Block as SPI-15.1 Proposed building heights range from a baseline of six stories to a tower of eight to fifteen stories on the “100% corner” of Piedmont Road and Morosgo Drive. The Floor Area Ratios (FARs) implied by these concepts are compatible with SPI-15 limits.2
The concepts are also consistent with the market analysis performed for this master plan (Section 2.0 of this report). That analysis suggests that, notwithstanding the large recent influx of residential development east of Piedmont Road, there is potential Lindbergh station area demand for about 200 units per year, starting as early as 2017. The market study also supports Lindbergh as a niche hotel market easily reached on MARTA from Midtown, Buckhead, and the airport; with discrete product types, two or conceivably three hotels in the 100-125 “key” range might be achievable. Under current conditions and trends, there are modest markets for retail and office space. All of these uses are represented in the master plan concepts, in mid-range densities that would allow a near-term market response. Building out all of the developable land in the North Block and Core Block is not a single project but a multi-year, multi-project exercise in city-building.
The uses and massing proposed for individual development sites are intended to be illustrative and flexible. Sites fronting on Piedmont Road are described as mixed-use, meaning that any combination of retail, residential, hotel, office, civic, or institutional use would be appropriate. Other sites are designated as residential, because of their location on interior streets rather than Piedmont Road. Specific hotel sites are also identified, with the understanding that hotels could be built as part of one or more mixed-use projects instead.
A final, over-arching planning consideration is the surplus supply of existing parking spaces and the potential to concentrate much of this surplus in the Sidney Marcus Deck. (The parking analysis is presented in Section 3.0 of this report.) This plan strives to accommodate the parking needs of the North Block, and of the westerly residential buildings of the Core Block, in existing
1 Currently, the MARTA properties are zoned C-3, the private properties fronting on Piedmont SPI-15. 2 SPI-15 specifies FAR 4.2 for all-market residential projects; 8.2 for residential with at least 20% affordable units; 8.2 for mixed-use (4.0 commercial plus 4.2 residential), and 12.2 for mixed-use with 20% affordable units.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): North Block and Core Block 4-2 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
garage space to the greatest extent feasible. This would reduce the cost of these developments, enable them to build more residential or commercial square footage in the available envelope, and take strategic advantage of what is broadly recognized as an excess of parking constructed as part of the original Lindbergh TOD. For the same reason, to the extent that new parking deck capacity is needed, this plan seeks to develop it in shared-use structures rather than individual structures for single parcels.
4.2 The North Block
The North Block is bounded by Sidney Marcus Boulevard on the south, Piedmont Road on the east, the Georgia Power substation on the north, and the stream buffer along the MARTA-owned wooded area on the west. The North Block has an approximate area of 3.8 acres, and includes: the large, roughly triangular MARTA property on the west side of the block, at the head of Lindbergh Lane (approximately 2.2 acres); the rectangular MARTA lot containing the former Coverdale house and fronting on Piedmont Road (.64 acres); the recently constructed Chase Bank branch and its surface parking lot, at the corner of Sidney Marcus and Piedmont (.65 acres); the narrow rectangular parcel containing an adult bookstore (.32 acres).3
An obvious challenge in planning the development of the North Block is the fragmented land ownership along Piedmont Road, resulting in MARTA's rectangular lot being sandwiched between the bank and bookstore parcels. Master plan Concepts A and B differ primarily in how they respond to this property ownership constraint.
Countervailing the fragmented land ownership are two advantages: the proximity of Lindbergh Station, less than a quarter-mile away with a direct walking route on Lindbergh Lane; the availability of surplus parking in the Sidney Marcus Deck, with the potential to absorb much if not all of the parking needs of the North Block development.
Concepts A and B are shown in Figures 4-2 and 4-3, respectively. The key feature of the public realm template is an extension of Lindbergh Lane across Sidney Marcus Boulevard and into the North Block. In addition to breaking up the block and providing interior access, “Lindbergh Lane Extension” protects MARTA's below-grade train tunnel box. Because of the portal located immediately to the north, it is MARTA's intent to avoid vertical construction above the tunnel box; hence its value as a midblock street.
3 Land areas are from the Fulton County Property Records Parcel Map website (http://qpublic9.qpublic.net/qpmap4/map.php?county=ga_fulton&layers=parcels+roads+lakes&mapmode). Acreage of parcels that have defined boundaries within the developable area are taken from the individual property record; estimated acreage for development sites that are part of larger legal parcels are estimated using the website’s area measuring tool.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): North Block and Core Block 4-3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Concept A In Concept A, the land ownership pattern along Piedmont Road is assumed to remain generally as it is today, with the possible exception of MARTA’s designated developer acquiring the narrow adult bookstore parcel; this would expand MARTA’s rectangular lot from .65 acres to a full acre, facilitate access and circulation, and help buffer Site N-3 from the electrical substation. Site N-3 could accommodate a hotel in the 100-120 key range, of the product types identified in the market analysis. The hotel footprint, copied from a similar-sized hotel in a nearby district, would fit on this site and enjoy a Piedmont Road address. If the bookstore parcel cannot be secured, a hotel could be accommodated on the MARTA property alone, with access from Lindbergh Lane Extension.
Figure 4-2: North Block, Master Plan Concept A
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): North Block and Core Block 4-4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Lindbergh Lane Extension terminates at the northern edge of the development area. Multi-family residential buildings are envisioned on either side of Lindbergh Lane Extension (Sites N-1 and N- 2), with sidewalk frontage on both Lindbergh Lane Extension and Sidney Marcus. At five stories, a two-building development in the 170-180 unit range, depending on unit mix and sizes, would fit the site comfortably, and residents could literally look down Lindbergh Lane to the station.4
Aside from the small amount of surface parking that would fit on-site, it is proposed that parking for this development occur in the Sidney Marcus Deck, where, as explained in Section 3.0, MARTA can potentially assemble some 400 surplus spaces under its control, and could explore whether AT&T is interested in making its surplus capacity available for development. Applying the TOD parking ratios used in Section 3.0, the program envisioned in Concept A would require about 320 spaces.5 This arrangement would likely require that the residential spaces be physically dedicated within the northern portion of the garage and that a secure on-foot entry be created at that end for residential users.
Concept B Concept B is illustrated in Figure 4-3. To the west of Lindbergh Lane Extension, Site N-1 could accommodate a hotel, as shown here, or a residential structure as shown in Concept A. East of Lindbergh Lane Extension, Concept B assumes that MARTA’s designated developer would be able to negotiate a more ambitious consolidation of property with the abutting owners. In this scenario, not only the bookstore parcel but Chase Bank’s parking lot would be combined with the MARTA property. This would enable the entire area east of Lindbergh Lane Extension, except for the Chase Bank building itself and its pedestrian apron, to be treated as a single development site of roughly 2.3 acres. This mixed-use site could accommodate a market-driven combination of street-level retail, local services, and upper-floor residential, office, or hotel. Figure 4-3 suggests how this larger, more flexible site could be developed. Two buildings would provide frontage on both Piedmont and Sidney Marcus, with surface parking shifted to the interior of the block. The building footprint on Site N-2 could be configured to accommodate a small grocery store at street level.6
With 50,000 square feet of retail, 240 residential units, and a 120-room hotel, Concept B would require about 460 parking spaces, plus the 18 surface spaces currently provided by Chase Bank on its property. Surface parking for the bank and other drive-up retail would be provided on-site and at curbside on the new roadway connecting Piedmont Road to Lindbergh Lane Extension (buffering the development from the substation). The bulk of the parking would be absorbed, as in Concept A, in the existing surplus capacity of the Sidney Marcus Deck.
4 The rough estimate of gross square footage, listed in the table below the drawing, is 195,000 square feet for the two buildings. Assuming 90% efficiency, roughly 176,000 square feet would be available for net unit space. This plan will assume, as a convention, a unit mix with an average net area of 1,000 square feet. 5 The parking ratios developed in Section 3.0, reflecting the MARTA TOD Guidelines and anticipated SPI-15 zoning, are: residential, 1.00 spaces per unit; hotel, 1.00 space per guest room; office 2.00 spaces per 1,000 square feet; and retail, 2.0 dedicated spaces per square feet (assuming evening and weekend availability of MARTA commuter spaces to absorb additional peak retail and restaurant demand). 6 It the Chase Bank ownership were interested in redeveloping their entire site, a new branch office could be incorporated into the street floor of a mixed-use building fronting directly on the corner.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): North Block and Core Block 4-5 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Concept B also contemplates that Lindbergh Lane Extension could be continued northward beyond the development site, running between the MARTA tunnel portal and the Georgia Power substation and intersecting Piedmont Road at its existing signalized intersection with Miami Circle. This through-route would provide a vehicular and bicycle connection from Miami Circle to the Lindbergh Station area, bypassing Piedmont Road. Further study would be required to determine whether the modified Piedmont intersection would have adequate sightlines from the north and whether MARTA owns sufficient land (or can gain sufficient easement rights) to accommodate this alignment. An alternative to a full street would be a pedestrian-bicycle route.
Figure 4-3: North Block, Master Plan Concept B
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): North Block and Core Block 4-6 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
4.3 The Core Block
The Core Block is the area bounded by Sidney Marcus Boulevard on the north, Piedmont Road on the east, Morosgo Drive on the south, and the large wooded area owned by MARTA on the west. This land mass has an area of about 15.0 acres. However, half of this acreage consists of MARTA Headquarters, the AT&T and Sidney Marcus parking decks, and the existing right of way of Lindbergh Lane. The area available for development—approximately 7.1 acres—consists of the following (see the map in Figure 4-1): MARTA’s current employee parking lot (approximately 2.1 acres); MARTA’s rectangular lot fronting on Piedmont Road (the former Hubco property, approximately .87 acres); MARTA’s vehicle management building, located next to MARTA Headquarters on Morosgo Drive (approximately .34 acres); the vacant lot owned by MARTA on the north side of Morosgo Drive, west of the AT&T parking deck (approximately .87 acres); and three private properties: the Chick-fil-A restaurant at the corner of Sidney Marcus and Piedmont (1.19 acres); the Infusion restaurant and bar at the corner of Morosgo and Piedmont (.33 acres); the vacant former Shoney restaurant site fronting on Piedmont (1.39 acres).
As in the case of the North Block, two master plan concepts have been developed for the Core Block. Shown in Figures 4-4 and 4-5, they are composite and illustrative, with the more conservative assumptions reflected in Concept A. Here again, fragmented property ownership along Piedmont Road is an underlying challenge. Because of their differing circumstances, the three privately owned parcels are treated in different ways: The Chick-fil-A parcel is shown as unchanged, with the notation “Potential Redevelopment by Others”. The restaurant is actively in business, and its owners have not proposed any redevelopment or change of use. That said, this TOD master plan, by nature, would encourage a denser, less automobile-oriented use of this highly visible corner property, if market forces induce the private owners to pursue redevelopment. At 1.19 acres, the parcel is large enough to be redeveloped on its own if it can share parking with an adjacent development. Alternatively, its owners could seek to combine their property with adjacent MARTA land. The former Shoney property, by contrast, is treated as a redevelopment site. This reflects the fact that the restaurant is closed and the property owners have, since 2011, repeatedly indicated to MARTA that they intend to pursue mixed-use redevelopment. The small privately-owned parcel at the corner of Piedmont and Morosgo is assumed to be included in the Shoney redevelopment site. This parcel houses a one-story restaurant and bar, with surface parking directly on the “100% corner” frontage. This use is incompatible with the MARTA TOD Guidelines and non-conforming under the existing SPI-15 zoning.
The proposed public realm template for the Core Block includes three new features, which are common to Concepts A and B:
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): North Block and Core Block 4-7 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
A mid-block "New Street", running north-south parallel to Piedmont Road and Lindbergh Lane. Counting sidewalks on either side, New Street is approximately 45 feet wide. It connects Sidney Marcus Boulevard and Morosgo Drive, provides redundant north-south traffic circulation, and creates a small-block pedestrian grid ideal for TOD. New Street leaves development parcels in excess of 200 feet deep along the entire 700-foot frontage of Piedmont Road. A cross-block pedestrian-bicycle corridor, connecting Piedmont Road and Lindbergh Lane. While the conceptual alignment of New Street is fixed, the ped-bike corridor can "slide" north or south, accommodating and defining the size of the resultant development parcels. If necessary, the ped-bike corridor could have a "jog" at New Street rather than a continuous axis. At Lindbergh Lane, subject to negotiations with AT&T, it might be possible to continue the ped-bike route westward, between the AT&T and Sidney Marcus Decks and out to Sidney Marcus Extension, where it could connect to the park and trail described next. A new park on a portion of Site C-1, consisting of a green space fronting on Morosgo Drive and accessing the MARTA-owned hiking trails in the wooded area west of the parking decks. These trails are isolated and under-utilized today, but the introduction of residential development at either end, their incorporation into a highly visible park on Morosgo, and their potential connection to other trails converging on the station (see Section 6.3) could make them a valued amenity. In the future, MARTA and other stakeholders could explore more elaborate improvements to the trails, such as overlooks, stairs leading down to the stream, and lighting along the Sidney Marcus Deck retaining wall.
Concept A Concept A is shown in Figure 4-4. It includes three development sites that are assumed, because of their location on interior streets, to be most appropriate for residential use. Site C-1, on Morosgo Drive west of the station entrance, combines the new park described above and a small residential footprint of approximately 15,000 square feet. This building could accommodate 60-65 units in five stories, and could satisfy half of its parking need in surface spaces on-site if the existing playground were relocated. The remaining parking could be provided in the allocation that MARTA controls in the adjacent AT&T deck. Site C-2 consists of three single-loaded “liner” structures on the Lindbergh Lane façades of the Sidney Marcus and AT&T parking decks. The decks are set back sufficiently from the sidewalk to accommodate this construction. In addition to adding roughly 40 units, the liner buildings would improve the streetscape on Lindbergh Lane and reflect the façade of the residential building on Site C-3 across the street. Site C-3 is the current MARTA employee parking lot. As described in Section 3.0, MARTA would free up this parcel by moving its 125 employee spaces into the Sidney Marcus Deck. A built-in advantage, unique to this parcel, is its topography, which declines significantly from north to south. The existing employee lot is several feet below sidewalk grade on Sidney Marcus Boulevard and Lindbergh Lane, and a level of parking holding about 100 cars could be inserted beneath the building with a minimum of excavation and potentially without mechanical ventilation.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): North Block and Core Block 4-8 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
A four-story project of 140-145 units, as envisioned, could thus provide most of its parking on-site, with the remainder in the Sidney Marcus Deck directly across the street. This concept would allow pedestrian-scale frontage on Lindbergh Lane and New Street.
Figure 4-4: Core Block, Master Plan Concept A
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): North Block and Core Block 4-9 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
The Core Block’s prime opportunity for dense, mixed-use development is the assemblage of the 1.39-acre Shoney property and the smaller adjoining parcels: MARTA’s vehicle management shop and the one-story restaurant and bar. This combined footprint (Site C-4), comprising 2.06 acres at the “100% corner” of Piedmont Road and Morosgo Drive, is next door to the six-story MARTA Headquarters and across Morosgo from the 10-story AT&T towers—a target location for density and visibility.
The build-out on this site will be driven by two factors: market conditions and parking capacity. Unlike the residential buildings envisioned along Lindbergh Lane, this location, because of its relative distance from the existing decks, is assumed to require its own parking supply. The site’s depth will accommodate a two-bay park-on-ramp deck design with ample “wrapping” along Piedmont; the key variable will be the length of the deck from north to south.7 The deck can be accessed from New Street as well as via a right-in/right-our driveway from Piedmont Road.8
At 2.06 acres, Site C-4 can accommodate a deck holding roughly 85 cars per level, or 420 cars on five levels—sufficient capacity to support the program envisioned in Concept A (Figure 4-4): roughly 40,000 square feet of street-level commercial space (allowing for lobbies serving the upper-level uses) and from 240 to 340 residential units.9 The project could be phased, with the elements fronting on Morosgo and Piedmont built at different times and with physical separation, if desired. The tower element at the corner should be at least eight stories in height.
MARTA's Hubco parcel (Site C-5) could be developed separately as a hotel, with parking provided in the Shoney deck. Alternatively, this parcel could be held back until such time as the owners of the adjacent Chick-fil-A property are ready to explore redevelopment; if combined with the Chick- fil-A property, Site C-5 would enable MARTA to participate in a larger corner assemblage similar to that described here for the Shoney project.
Concept B Concept B is shown in Figure 4-5. While generally retaining the public realm template and street grid of Concept A, it accommodate greater height and density, both on the residential side of the Core Block and on the mixed-use side along Piedmont. This is achieved largely by providing additional parking (at the TOD ratios assumed throughout this plan). It is unlikely that all of the denser building alternatives will materialize, for both market and site capacity reasons. However, as in the case of the North Block, Concept B provides a menu of higher, denser outcomes, which can be “mixed and matched” over time with elements of Concept A.
On the residential side of the Core Block, greater density could be achieved as follows:
7 The Lindbergh Vista Apartments directly across Piedmont Road have a similar configuration on a site of similar depth. 8 This driveway must be designed as right-in/right-out, because a four-way signalized intersection would not be feasible or desirable in between the signalized intersections at Sidney Marcus and Morosgo (themselves only 700 feet apart). 9 At 240 units, there would be about 100 parking spaces left over. These could be used to shift some of the upper-floor space to office use (at the higher parking ratio of 2.0 per 1,000 square feet, compared to 1.0 space per residential unit), or to provide parking for a hotel on Site C-5 (see next paragraph).
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): North Block and Core Block 4-10 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Figure 4-5: Core Block, Master Plan Concept B
The building on Site C-1 is increased to as many as 15 stories and 200-205 units. This would require the repurposing of roughly that many parking spaces within the AT&T deck (although that number could be reduced if the surface parking assumed in Concept A
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): North Block and Core Block 4-11 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
were retained, or if the target market for the building were seniors, enabling a parking ratio of less than 1.0 space per unit).10 The multi-family building on Site C-3, the MARTA employee lot, is increased to 215-220 units by securing additional parking in the Sidney Marcus deck or in the extended shared- use deck proposed for Sites C-4 and C-5 (see below). If it were feasible to add a second below-grade layer of on-site parking, building C-3 could be even larger, but that outcome is not assumed.
Concept B features a denser and more expansive version of the Shoney redevelopment project— one in which MARTA's Hubco parcel (Site C-5) is added to the assemblage to create a 2.93-acre development site. (In this assemblage, MARTA’s share of land ownership exceeds Shoney’s.) The larger footprint can accommodate a two-bay parking deck 360 feet long, creating a capacity of roughly 135 cars per level. If built to five levels, this deck would hold about 675 cars, enough to support an illustrative mixed-use program of 50,000 square feet of retail, 375 residential units, and 100,000 square feet of office space, or an alternative mix with similar parking demand. The tower element at the corner of Piedmont and Morosgo should be the tallest building in the station area, with a signature element of at least 15 stories encouraged.11
If a sixth level were added, the capacity would be approximately 810. The additional parking could support the redevelopment of the adjacent Chick-fil-A property, enabling that site to be redeveloped when market conditions dictate. The Chick-fil-A developer could fund its share of the parking or compensate MARTA for its use. This concept would optimize the height and density of the Shoney project while preserving the ability of the Chick-fil-A site—which also occupies a key corner—to redeveloped in a more intense, transit-oriented fashion.
10 MARTA might be able to accommodate the full parking need for this building within its own allotment of spaces in the AT&T deck; MARTA’s use of those spaces, however, would presumably shift to the Sidney Marcus deck, reducing MARTA’s surplus capacity in that facility. As noted previously, AT&T has its own parking surplus in the Sidney Marcus deck; if it were mutually beneficial for them to make those spaces commercially available to support MARTA’s joint development program, both the North and Core Blocks would benefit. 11 Assuming adoption of SPI-15 zoning (Subarea 3, Piedmont Commercial), the maximum height would be 225 feet and the maximum mixed-use FAR 8.2. The residential-only maximum FAR is 4.2, and the non-residential only is 4.0. There are also bonuses available for affordable housing, public space, and other public benefits. For the SPI-15 parking provisions, see the Parking Analysis, Section 3.3. https://www.municode.com/library/ga/atlanta/codes/code_of_ordinances?searchRequest=%7B%22searchText%22:%22 table%20of%20land%20use%20intensity%20ratios%22,%22pageNum%22:1,%22resultsPerPage%22:25,%22booleanS earch%22:false,%22stemming%22:true,%22fuzzy%22:false,%22synonym%22:false,%22contentTypes%22:%5B%22C ODES%22%5D,%22productIds%22:%5B%5D%7D&nodeId=PTIIICOORANDECO_PT16ZO_CH18OSP15LITRSTARS PPUINDIRE_S16-18O.028SPRECOSU.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): North Block and Core Block 4-12 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
5.0 THE STATION BLOCKS AND THE MARTA ANNEX
5.1 Introduction
The detailed Master Plan concepts for the area north of Morosgo Drive developed in Section 4.0 must be seen in the context of the full station area, starting with MARTA’s land holdings south of Morosgo. Successful TOD in the Core Block and North Block will both influence, and be influenced by, what happens in the Station Blocks and, further in the future, the MARTA Annex. The Station Blocks, as defined in Section 1.1, are the territory between Morosgo and Lindbergh Drives. This area includes the station itself and most of the joint development that occurred under the Phase I Carter/BellSouth TOD initiative. As described below, there remain two (and potentially three) undeveloped parcels in the Station Blocks; an unfinished Main Street retail corridor; and future transit improvements that would significantly impact the station area from a development and connectivity standpoint. The Station Blocks are fully contained within the station’s quarter-mile walkshed. Also within that walkshed is the MARTA Annex property, the 10.8-acre former Wachovia operations center which lies south of Lindbergh Drive and well below street grade. While today the Annex is virtually invisible from the station, it represents a significant, and potentially very valuable, long-term joint development opportunity for MARTA.
5.2 The Station Blocks
Existing Conditions The 32-acre grid bordered by Morosgo Drive, Piedmont Road, Lindbergh Drive, and the Norfolk Southern railroad constitutes the developed center of the station area. In addition to the MARTA rail station, these blocks contain MARTA’s north and south bus loops; the BellSouth (now AT&T) office towers; an adjoining office and retail building; the Eon and Uptown Square apartment complexes; Pike’s Nursery; the multi-use City Centre and Garson parking decks; the Main Street retail zone; and a trio of stand-alone restaurants along Piedmont Road.1 Only two MARTA parcels currently designated for development remain unbuilt: Parcel N, located between the Garson Deck and Lindbergh Drive at the southern edge of the grid; and the air rights above the City Center Deck. The Station Blocks are shown in Figure 5-1. Although mostly developed, they are incomplete in two important ways: The built environment and the daily activity it generates gravitate northward toward the station entrance on Morosgo Drive. The station entrance south of Main Street is little used by comparison. The view from south of the station is dominated by the blank walls of the Garson and City Centre Decks, undeveloped land flanking the open “boat section” of the tracks, and the suburban configuration of Lindbergh Drive with its one-way “jughandle” intersection. This undeveloped Lindbergh frontage constrains the pedestrian and retail environment on Main Street, and its “back of the house” condition is a potential barrier to the future redevelopment of the MARTA Annex.
1 The 32-acre area also contains the privately-owned night club parcel located within the Lindbergh “jughandle” loop, at the southeast corner of the Station Blocks, This property is included for planning purposes only; MARTA does not contemplate any involvement in the ownership or potential redevelopment of this site.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): Station Blocks and Annex 5-1
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Figure 5-1: Station Blocks and Adjacencies, Existing Conditions
Except for the residential area on the west, the pedestrian environment throughout the Station Blocks is weak from a public realm, amenity, and connectivity perspective. Despite the presence of MARTA trains and buses, hundreds of office workers, and hundreds of residential units on either side of Piedmont, it has yet to generate a diverse, commercially sustainable retail environment, particularly on Main Street and in the street frontage of the AT&T complex. This is attributable in part to the “one-sidedness” of the development pattern thus far, with very little foot traffic originating south of Main Street.
In the near term, Carter & Associates and the separate development entity responsible for the AT&T retail frontage are responsible for leasing and activating their respective spaces. The marketability of the City Center Deck air rights and Parcel N could be enhanced by allowing more flexibility of use. The garage air rights are currently reserved for an office building, but in the near to mid-term, residential or hotel uses may be more achievable. Parcel N, which is reserved for retail, might also be a more practical residential or hotel site. Those uses would begin to create depth and density on the south side of Main Street, as well as additional foot traffic for the existing retail space.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): Station Blocks and Annex 5-2 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
In the mid to long term, the pedestrian network, retail environment, and future development opportunities in the Station Blocks and MARTA’s adjacent properties to the north and south are related to the station’s intermodal facilities. Currently, Lindbergh station has two bus loops, one of them barely used. The future integration of two surface rail projects—the Clifton Corridor and the Atlanta BeltLine—is in the early planning stages.
Intermodal Planning Lindbergh Station is currently served by five MARTA bus routes and one GRTA express route. The north bus loop is located immediately next to the station entrance on Morosgo Drive and handles virtually all existing bus operations. The station's traction power equipment is housed in the one-story building in the center of the loop; MARTA's police department also occupies a portion of this building. While affording intermodal passengers a convenient transfer between bus and rail, this loop impacts the pedestrian environment on Morosgo Drive.
The south bus loop is attached to the façade of the City Centre Deck at the southern edge of the Station Blocks . This loop is isolated and minimally used. Unless future service planning dictates the need for two separate bus loops, MARTA should consider consolidating operations into one location. This decision is related to the future integration of the two surface rail projects.
The proposed Clifton Corridor line will have its western terminus at Lindbergh Station. The alignment will approach Lindbergh Station from the south, running along the east side of the MARTA tracks, crossing under Garson Drive, climbing to grade alongside the MARTA Annex, and crossing Lindbergh Drive at a signalized grade crossing to enter the Station Blocks.2
The Atlanta BeltLine does not yet have a firmly established Lindbergh alignment, but based on current project documentation, the most probable routing would enter and exit the station along Garson Drive and its continuation, Market Figure 5-4: Proposed Clifton Corridor Station Street, running along the west side of the MARTA tracks and, like the Clifton Corridor, crossing Lindbergh Drive at a signalized intersection.3
Absent an alternative, the two surface rail lines will locate their passenger platforms alongside the open “boat section” of the MARTA tracks at the southern end of the station. The Clifton Corridor platform (shown in Figure 5-4) is proposed for Lindbergh Lane, in front of an entrance to the City Center Deck. If the BeltLine platform were located on Market Street, on the opposite side of the boat section, it would be in front of an entrance to the Garson Deck. The platforms would likely preclude garage access at these points.
2 The Clifton alignment is illustrated in Section 6.3, Figures 6-3 and 6-4. 3 The BeltLine alignment is discussed in further detail in Section 6.3 and illustrated in Figures 6-3 and 6-5.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): Station Blocks and Annex 5-3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Two alternative planning concepts are proposed; they are illustrated in Figures 5-5 (Concept A) and 5-6 (Concept B).
Figure 5-5: Station Blocks, Concept A
Common to both is the consolidation of bus operations into the north bus loop. This would allow the land currently occupied by the south bus loop and its adjacent, underutilized green space to be repositioned either as a joint development parcel or as a transit plaza. It is important that the pedestrian route through the north bus loop area be improved, connecting the improved Main Street plaza with the new park and trail access proposed on the north side of Morosgo Drive (see Section 4.2).4
4 This link would also facilitate a connection between the Atlanta BeltLine’s Lindbergh spur trail, which could be built in the next five years leading southward from the station, and the MARTA hiking trails leading northward from the proposed new park on Morosgo Drive.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): Station Blocks and Annex 5-4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
In Concept A, the south bus loop becomes a new development parcel. It would front on Lindbergh Drive, hiding the blank wall of the City Center Deck and, along with Parcel N, forming a symmetrical southern gateway to the station.
Figure 5-6: Station Blocks, Concept B
The Clifton Corridor and BeltLine stops are located side-by-side on a transit plaza built by decking over the MARTA boat section. Subject to engineering feasibility analysis, this space—roughly 110 feet wide from curb to curb and 275 feet long—could accommodate both sets of tracks and platforms.5 The transit plaza would provide more convenient transfers between the Clifton Corridor and the Atlanta BeltLine, create more pedestrian “breathing room” around the platforms, and allow Lindbergh Lane and Market Street to continue accessing their respective garages.
5 The Clifton Corridor and BeltLine platforms are specified at 200 feet in length, sufficient for two-car trains. Among the engineering questions to be addressed in evaluating the transit plaza/deck concept is whether the two alignments would have sufficient distance to cross Lindbergh Drive and transition onto the deck footprint, and whether the bridge carrying Lindbergh Drive over the MARTA tracks would need to be modified. If the entire track configuration operation could not be accommodated on the deck, alternatives might be explored in which light rail operations were partly on the deck and partly on the street.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): Station Blocks and Annex 5-5 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
In Concept B, the shared transit plaza is located on the south bus loop site. This alternative also requires engineering feasibility analysis. It would involve turning the Clifton Corridor alignment onto the bus loop site once it has crossed Lindbergh Drive, and routing the BeltLine on the sub- alignment that continues up Piedmont Road to Lindbergh Drive and then uses the Lindbergh jughandle right of way (which would be partly closed to vehicular traffic under the proposed Piedmont Corridor improvements) to enter the plaza. (This BeltLine sub-alignment is shown in Section 6.3, Figure 6-5). In either concept, MARTA would investigate whether a new, south-facing station entrance can be created near Lindbergh Drive. If feasible, this would provide more convenient Red and Gold Line access to Clifton and BeltLine passengers, as well as to the future TOD that will occur on Parcel N, on the new parcel replacing the south bus loop, and at the MARTA Annex.
Lindbergh Drive Common to both planning concepts is an expectation that the “jughandle” intersection of Piedmont Road and Lindbergh Drive will be modified, so that automobile traffic on Lindbergh follows a normal east-west route. On MARTA’s side of Piedmont, this would involve closing the jughandle leg connecting directly to Piedmont. The leg that connects Lindbergh Drive to Magnolia Lane (the narrow street accessing the City Center Deck and MARTA’s three tenant restaurants on Piedmont Road) would remain open, so that Magnolia Lane could remain a through-street. This leg could be reconfigured to accommodate the future development of the south bus loop site.
The introduction of transit activity on the south side of the station and the reconfiguration of the Lindbergh Drive intersection would serve three TOD purposes: It would support development of Parcel N and, in Concept A, the south bus loop site. Transit and development together would create foot traffic south of Main Street, ease the perceived “one-sidedness” of the station area, and expand the market for retail on Main Street and in the AT&T complex. The emergence of the area south of Main Street as an active transit and development zone would, in time, create the conditions for extending TOD across Lindbergh Drive and redeveloping MARTA’s Annex property.
5.3 The MARTA Annex
At 10.8 acres, the Annex property is by far MARTA’s largest contiguous holding at Lindbergh.6 Despite its present isolation from the station and the existing TOD, the entire Annex property is within a quarter-mile of the south entrance, and the walk from its Lindbergh Drive frontage to the turnstiles ranges from 400 to 850 feet. Although almost invisible from Piedmont Road in its current condition, the property has 500 feet of Piedmont Road frontage and a Piedmont address. It also has a physical advantage, in that its setting well below the grade of Lindbergh Drive would enable
6 MARTA’s full contiguous ownership, including its own operating right-of-way along the western edge of the property, is 13.1 acres. Allowing for the Clifton Corridor alignment. the developable site is roughly 10.8 acres. Fulton County Board of Assessors website (http://qpublic9.qpublic.net/qpmap4/map.php?county=ga_fulton&layers=parcels+roads+lakes&mapmode)
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): Station Blocks and Annex 5-6
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
parking and loading to be built below the ground floors of buildings, accessed from Garson Drive and Piedmont Road.
Redevelopment of the Annex is considered a long-term opportunity, for two reasons. In the near to mid-term, the market is likely to be attracted to the more immediate and visible opportunities in the Station Blocks, the Core Block, and the North Block. Second, MARTA’s active use of the building’s 220,000 square feet of space will require time to plan alternatives.
Figure 5-7: MARTA Annex Development Opportunity
The intent of this master plan is to anticipate this opportunity and take steps in the near to mid- term to reinforce it. The planning concepts presented in the prior section, particularly with respect to future transit and development activity in the southern part of the Station Blocks, are meant to extend the station’s active footprint to the northern edge of Lindbergh Drive. The proposed removal of the jughandle and normalization of the traffic pattern would help make Lindbergh Drive an urban street—albeit a busy arterial one—that people can imagine crossing at signalized intersections.
Because the Annex property is nearly the size of the Core Block, it will need to be developed in phases even when MARTA and the market are ready to proceed. The division of the site into blocks and parcels is a future exercise, made more complex because of the grade change and
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): Station Blocks and Annex 5-7 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
the lack of direct mid-block access on the west side (bordering the MARTA rail alignment). However, it is important to understand that because the physical building is set back 150-250 feet from Lindbergh Drive, and the site’s Lindbergh frontage is 600 feet long, there is sufficient depth to develop a substantial initial phase while the Annex building is still in use.
Figure 5-7 assumes that a north-south mid-block street would extend the line of the jughandle leg connected to Magnolia Lane, and that an east-west mid-block street would be accessed by a right-in/right-out curb cut acceptably distant from the Lindbergh-Piedmont intersection. The two conceptual development sites outlined in red would be roughly an acre and 1.25 acres in size. These sites would front on Lindbergh Drive, relate to the Station Block street grid, and enjoy close proximity to the south station entrance, the future BeltLine and Clifton Corridor platforms, and the south bus loop, containing either consolidated bus operations or new development.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan REVISED DRAFT (July 2015): Station Blocks and Annex 5-8
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
6.0 THE LARGER CONTEXT
The MARTA development areas discussed in the preceding sections of this Master Plan—the North Block, Core Block Station Blocks, and Annex—all lie within a quarter-mile of the north or south entrance to Lindbergh Station. To fully understand the TOD opportunity, it is essential to look at the larger context in which the station and its immediate surroundings are embedded. This section does so, in three figurative concentric circles: the Piedmont Road Corridor, which directly borders the MARTA development areas; an Extended Station Area of 380 acres, defined by prominent transportation barriers; a one-mile radius, containing outlying neighborhoods and important regional connections.
6.1 The Piedmont Road Corridor
Piedmont Road forms the eastern edge of MARTA's current and future joint development areas. The developing area immediately east of Piedmont Road extends out to the I-85 and GA 400 expressways, a half-mile from the station. Bringing this development into the pedestrian orbit of the station, and creating a walkable TOD environment on both sides of Piedmont Road, is critical not only for capturing ridership but for successfully developing MARTA’s side of the street.
Successful TOD on MARTA’s side of Piedmont Road bears a multi-faceted relationship to the roadway itself, its frontage, and the development occurring on the opposite side. Today, there are two realities. The Piedmont Road corridor, from the Norfolk-Southern and MARTA rail bridges near Miami Circle to Peachtree Creek and beyond, is a high-volume, suburban-style, arterial highway lined almost entirely with strip retail and other low-density, automobile-oriented uses, creating a poor pedestrian environment. Figure 5-8 shows that of the MARTA’s four TOD opportunity areas, today only the Core Block has contemporary, TOD-style development facing it across Piedmont (the multi-story Lindbergh Vista Apartments, which also include street-floor retail and services). The North Block, the Station Blocks, and the Annex all look across Piedmont to traditional strip retail. At the same time, in the blocks behind the Piedmont frontage hundreds of units of multi- family and senior housing are recently built, under construction, or in the pipeline. These new and recent developments extend out along Sidney Marcus, Morosgo, Lindbergh, and Adina Drive nearly to the station area’s “natural” boundary, the I-85 and GA 400 expressways. This entire development area lies within a half-mile of the station (most of it closer) and provides a reservoir or potential transit users, retail customers, and office workers. But with the exception noted above, this development does not show its face to Piedmont Road.
The challenge for the public stakeholders—GDOT, the City of Atlanta, MARTA, and others—is to guide the evolution of Piedmont Road to become less of a visual and pedestrian barrier between east and west, and to provide a more pedestrian- and bicycle- friendly north-south route without exacerbating traffic congestion. The most detailed study was the Piedmont Area Transportation
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): The Larger Context 6-1
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Study, undertaken in 2007 by the Buckhead Community Improvement District. For the segment in the Lindbergh Station area, the study proposed several actions over time:
Figure 6-1: Piedmont Road Corridor, Land Use and Intersections
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): The Larger Context 6-2
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Between the Sidney Marcus and Lindbergh intersections, widen Piedmont Road (using donated right-of-way) to create a median-separated boulevard. The new pattern would include a raised median, turning lanes, and 15-foot sidewalks with an additional five-foot amenity zone. The roadway would provide sufficient width for five-foot bicycle lanes in both directions; when the Norfolk-Southern Bridge near Miami Circle is replaced, allowing that segment of Piedmont to be widened, the north-south bicycle lanes would be captured by restriping. Redesign pedestrian conditions at the Sidney Marcus, Morosgo, and Lindbergh signalized intersections. Eliminate the “jughandle” traffic pattern at the Lindbergh Drive intersection, as described previously. This would allow the land-locked private properties within the two jughandle loops to become development parcels served by a normal street grid. It would also allow the more northerly of the two Lindbergh Drive signals to be eliminated and replaced with a signal at Main Street. 1 This would support the effort by Carter & Associates, AT&T, and MARTA to inject more pedestrian traffic onto Main Street and enhance its retail character; it would also support the transition of the strip retail on the east side of Piedmont, on axis with Main Street, to a more pedestrian and TOD-friendly use. Tap into the artist/design aesthetic which exists at Miami Circle, the Atlanta Decorative Arts Center, and other nearby design businesses to create a theme or “brand” for the corridor.
6.2 The Extended Station Area
Lindbergh Station, the MARTA development areas, the Piedmont Road Corridor, and the developed land east of Piedmont Road are hemmed in by man-made transportation barriers. These include the Norfolk Southern railroad on the west, the I-85 and GA 400 expressways on the east, and the MARTA rail yard on the south. These boundaries define a land area and local street network of approximately 380 acres, which is defined as the Extended Station Area.
In Figure 6-2, the land uses in the Extended Station Area are color-coded. Notably, there is no color for mixed-use development. Aside from the relative proximity of the residential and office components of MARTA’s Phase I TOD program, and the ground-floor retail on MARTA’s Main Street and in the Lindbergh Vista Apartments, there is no existing mixed-use development. The opportunity to create it lies on MARTA’s remaining developable land and on the private lands along Piedmont Road. The existing land use categories are as follows: Multi-family housing (shaded tan) occupies the most acreage. It includes four developments on the west side of Piedmont, including two (EON at Lindbergh and Uptown Square) that were part of MARTA’s Phase I TOD program. There has been extensive multi-family development east of Piedmont, some dating back to the 1990s but much of it (indicated by the hatch marking) developed since 2008, including several projects now in or awaiting construction. The senior housing market is just now reaching the Lindbergh Station area.
1 Piedmont Area Transportation Study, Final Report (2007), pp. 80ff.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): The Larger Context 6-3
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
Commercial development (shaded red) is generally automobile-oriented, including the renovated Lindbergh Plaza. These commercial properties are served by expanses of surface parking, fronting on Piedmont Road (directly opposite MARTA’s North Block development area) and Sidney Marcus Boulevard. Over time, as station area land values appreciate, the market may elect to free up some of this land for densification, by consolidating retail parking into private parking decks. One key commercial concentration is the Miami Circle Design District. Although parts of Miami Circle are nearly a mile from Lindbergh Station, its presence can reinforce other station area development. There would be value in connecting Miami Circle more effectively to MARTA’s Phase II TOD, including via the Lindbergh Lane Extension described in Section 4.2 if that connection proves feasible.
Figure 6-2: Extended Station Area Land Use
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): The Larger Context 6-4
DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3
The areas shaded yellow, at the southern end of the Extended Station Area, are in mixed industrial-commercial use. These include the former Home Depot Expo building, now used as a church, located between Garson Drive and Peachtree Creek, as well as the industrial and automobile-oriented businesses on the south side of Peachtree Creek, flanking Piedmont Road. In the BeltLine Sub-Area 7 Master Plan, these areas are envisioned as redeveloped, over time, with dense multi-family development at the Home Depot Expo site and multi-story mixed-use development (and some retained industrial businesses) on the lands south of the Creek.2 These potential redevelopment areas are mostly within a half-mile walk of Lindbergh Station’s south entrance, if the quality of that walk were sufficiently inviting. The development would benefit from the amenity of Peachtree Creek and its planned trail network, as well as from the Piedmont Road improvements described in Section 6.1. Redevelopment would also be supported by the proposed Atlanta BeltLine and Clifton Corridor connections described in below in Section 6.3. For the reasons discussed in Section 6.1, the strip commercial frontage along Piedmont Road has an outsized strategic importance. The properties shaded purple are located on the east side of Piedmont, directly opposite MARTA’s Station Blocks and Annex, and in the loops of the jughandle intersection with Lindbergh Drive. The “hinge” position occupied by these properties is obvious in this larger view, as is the potential benefit that mixed-use, pedestrian-scale redevelopment would bring, both to MARTA’s TOD efforts and to the amenity value of the residential developments east of Piedmont.
6.3 A One-Mile Radius
The 360-degree, one-mile circle surrounding Lindbergh Station contains 2,010 acres of land. The 380-acre Extended Station Area represents just 19% of that circle. The land in the remaining four- fifths of the circle has only limited roadway connections to the station: Piedmont Road provides connectivity to the Peachtree Park and Garden Hills residential neighborhoods north of the station area, and to the industrial-commercial area to the south. To the east, Lindbergh Drive and Sidney Marcus Boulevard cross beneath the expressways, connecting to Pine Hills, Lindridge Manor, and other residential neighborhoods. Sidney Marcus also connects to Buford Highway and its International District. To the west, only one vehicular street, Lindbergh Drive, crosses the Norfolk Southern rail line to reach the expansive residential areas of Peachtree Hills and Peachtree Heights. These neighborhoods generate some MARTA ridership and potential clientele for station area businesses, but they are plainly on the other side of a physical and perceptual barrier.
This geographic reality raises the stakes on creating dense, mixed-use TOD within the MARTA development lands and along Piedmont Road, and on connecting the station as effectively as possible to other parts of the Extended Station Area—the new development east of Piedmont, the future redevelopment areas along Peachtree Creek, and Miami Circle.
2 Atlanta BeltLine Master Plan, Sub-Area 7 (2009); pp. 2-34 ff.
Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): The Larger Context 6-5
LEGEND
D NoogtComood Boundanos Transit & Trails
• Lo ~ MARTASt>tion
BtIIUno~ 8tl!I....ft TI'01nSit Slop • ~Comdor~ - CIIIon C s~ C LINDBERGH MAS AREA CON ~ Imiltrfll .". ....tr. .•. A:COM' Bl~ o 0.25 0.5 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 Transit Connections Lindbergh Station’s position as a transit and TOD location is defined by MARTA’s Red and Gold Lines, which connect Lindbergh to the entire MARTA rail system. Of particular importance are the one-seat ride connections to the Airport, downtown, Midtown, and Buckhead. In the future, the planned construction of the Clifton Corridor and Atlanta BeltLine will connect Lindbergh, by high- capacity surface rail, to the entire northern and eastern quadrants of the MARTA system. Figure 6-4: Clifton Corridor, Lindbergh Area Alignment The Clifton Corridor, whose alignment is shown in purple in Figure 6-3 and detailed in Figure 6-4, will connect Lindbergh to Emory University, the Centers for Disease Control, the associated medical complex, and adjoining neighborhoods. Its station at Cheshire Bridge Road is just a mile from Lindbergh Station, and the area it would serve—a mixed industrial-commercial district where the BeltLine’s Sub-Area 6 Master Plan envisions significant improvements—could provide a work commute destination for Lindbergh residents.3 As noted in Section 5.2, the BeltLine does not yet have a firmly established alignment in and around Lindbergh Station, but based on current project documentation, the route shown in green in Figures 6-3 and 6-5 is believed to be the most probable at this time.4 Approaching from the southeast, this alignment runs along Piedmont Road and Garson Drive west of the MARTA tracks, crossing Lindbergh Drive at-grade and entering the Station Blocks on Market Street. Departing toward the southwest, the alignment runs back along Garson Drive, crosses Peachtree Creek near the Atlanta Decorative Arts Center, and continues to the west. 3 The Clifton alignment is as shown in the Clifton Corridor Locally Preferred Alternative Report (MARTA, 2014). Its platform and track configuration, and that of the BeltLine, are discussed in Section 5.2. 4 The green alignment was used to represent the BeltLine in the 2014 Urban Land Institute/Livable Centers Coalition study of the Lindbergh Station Area; it reflects the Preferred Alternatives in the 2009 Georgia Environmental Protection Act Final Decision and the 2013 Federal Transit Administration Record of Decision. The sub-alignments illustrated as dotted yellow segments were shown as alternatives in the Record of Decision. Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): The Larger Context 6-7 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 Figure 6-5: Atlanta BeltLine, Potential Lindbergh Area Alignment The BeltLine’s proposed stations on Piedmont Road would directly support the redevelopment of the areas along Peachtree Creek that were identified in the Sub-Area 7 Master Plan (the areas shaded in yellow in Figure 6-3). As shown in Figure 6-4, there is also the potential for a future Piedmont Road infill station on the Clifton Corridor, should conditions warrant. The long-term opportunity thus exists to develop a mixed-use, transit-rich area at the nexus of Piedmont Road and Peachtree Creek, accessible to Lindbergh Station on foot or by streetcar and with a one-seat ride to any point on the Clifton Corridor or the BeltLine. Lindbergh Station’s other regional transit connection is the MARTA bus route which runs along Sidney Marcus Boulevard and Buford Highway to Doraville Station. As shown in Figure 6-3, this route serves the Buford Highway International District, an important commercial corridor that is both a workplace and a shopping destination for Lindbergh residents. Trail Connections Numerous existing or proposed pedestrian-bicycle trails traverse the Lindbergh station area. While it is not practical to show all of them in this plan, it is important to recognize that several key trail segments converge at Lindbergh Station. With collaborative planning, Lindbergh could become a trail hub, attracting both transit users and fitness-conscious residents and businesses. The elements of this potential network, shown in Figure 6-6, include: MARTA’s existing Lindbergh trails, located to the west of the AT&T and Sidney Marcus parking decks and accessible from both Morosgo Drive and Sidney Marcus Boulevard. As Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): The Larger Context 6-8 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 discussed in Section 4.3, these trails represent an untapped amenity for existing and future TOD and are woven into the Master Plan. As suggested in Section 4.2, it would be desirable to extend Lindbergh Lane northward to the intersection of Piedmont Road and Miami Circle—if not as a vehicular street, at least as a ped-bike connection. This trail segment would connect at Miami Circle with PATH400, the five-mile north-south trail system being developed in phases by the Buckhead Community Improvement District, Livable Buckhead, and the Path Foundation.5 PATH 400 will run east of the station, between and parallel to Piedmont Road and the I- 85/GA 400 viaducts. The Lindbergh Lane Extension would integrate the station itself and the MARTA trails into this system. To the south, the Atlanta BeltLine plans to bring a branch of of its Peachtree Creek Spur Trail up Garson Drive, alongside the planned BeltLine streetcar alignment, and into Lindbergh Station. The northern end of the BeltLine trail and the southern end of the MARTA trails would be separated only by Main Street, the north bus loop, and Morosgo Drive; with proper wayfinding, amenities, and lighting, this connection can be easily made.6 There are long-term concepts to create continuous linear trail systems along both the North and South Forks of Peachtree Creek, which meet just west of I-85.7 The Cheshire Farm Trail, the initial segment along the South Fork at the I-85 crossing, opened in 2013. These future trails would converge with PATH400 and the BeltLine’s Peachtree Creek Spur Trail. 5 http://www.buckheadcid.com/projects/path-400-greenway-trail/ 6 Atlanta BeltLine Sub-Area 7 Master Plan, p. 24. 7 See, among many relevant sites: http://northforkconnectors.org/faq/; http://pathfoundation.org/trails/south- peachtree-creek-trail/; and http://buckheadview.com/2014/07/08/cheshire-farm-trail-opens-along-peachtree- creek-south-fork-under-i-85-flyover-ramp/. Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): The Larger Context 6-9 f-- _ . ~ '" f-- X i ! ; -u I :;:« I-!z~w f ~ j~ ~ :I: iii 0 ~ ~ .. t? ZO ~ @ 1:.: « 0 "' f Ihi W it: z al l- w Oi BulB 0 C) w z .... a 1- 1--' !. DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 7.1 Introduction The preceding sections of this Phase II Master Plan provided the following information: a market analysis of the Lindbergh station area and its real estate submarket, covering the residential, retail, and office sectors; a parking analysis, measuring the aggregate excess capacity that currently exists in the City Center, Garson, Sidney Marcus, and AT&T decks; detailed master plan studies, including a public realm template and alternative land use concepts, for the largely undeveloped area west of Piedmont Road and north of Morosgo Drive. This includes the “North Block” (north of Sidney Marcus Boulevard) and the “Core Block” (between Sidney Marcus and Morosgo); a conceptual plan for the area south of Morosgo Drive—including the “Station Blocks” (focus of the original Phase I TOD initiative) and the MARTA Annex; an examination of the 380-acre Extended Station Area, bounded by the Norfolk Southern, the MARTA rail yard, I-85, and GA 400, and of a larger context extending a mile out from the station entrances. This final section turns to the crucial topic of implementation. Several broad strategic directions can be stated at the outset: A. The Phase II Master Plan has been developed with implementation in mind. While still conceptual, individual components are designed to be realistically achievable in the near, mid, or long term. Equally important, the plan is structured such that all components are compatible and mutually reinforcing, but to the greatest degree possible, components do not sequentially depend on one other. B. There are four strategic TOD opportunities: Near- to mid-term Launching the development of the North Block and the Core Block. Concluding the development of the Station Blocks and strengthening the retail environment on Main Street. Mid- to Long-Term Transforming the south side of the Station Blocks through major public investments: the Clifton Corridor and BeltLine platforms and a redesigned Lindbergh/Piedmont intersection. Long-Term The redevelopment of the MARTA Annex property. C. The available parcels identified in the Master Plan, and their aggregate development capacity, exceed the more conservative findings of the market analysis. This is true of Concept A, the more conservative, lower-density approach to the North and Core Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Implementation Strategy 7-1 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 Blocks, and more true of Concept B, the more ambitious, higher-density approach. The difference is intentional: the market analysis is focused on the next several years, while the strategic opportunities outlined in this Master Plan represent a long-term exercise in city-building. D. Successful implementation will demand that MARTA work closely and reciprocally with other agencies and jurisdictions. These include, but are not limited to: the City of Atlanta for zoning; Invest Atlanta for economic development and affordable housing incentives; Atlanta BeltLine, Inc., for the coordination of transit, trails, affordable housing, and community development; the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) for surface transportation and Livable Centers Initiative funding; the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) for the redesign and reconstruction of Piedmont Road; the Buckhead Community Improvement District (CID) for the Piedmont Road initiative and other potential CID involvement in transportation, trail, and connectivity projects; and the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) for the coordination of bus services. E. With respect to zoning, the station area east of the Norfolk Southern railroad corridor is currently divided between the SPI-15 (Lindbergh Station Area Special Public Interest) and C-3 (Commercial-Residential) districts. Both are generally supportive of dense, mixed-use TOD. MARTA has stated its intent to seek the rezoning of the entire area east of the Norfolk Southern tracks as SPI-15, and in the process to explore whether any modifications are worthwhile. It is important that the ultimate parking provisions reflect the strategies outlined in this Master Plan. F. It is a key remise of this Master Plan that surplus parking capacity in the existing decks be utilized, to the degree practicable and feasible, to absorb the needs of future TOD in the North Block, Core Block, and Station Blocks. This will avoid the land cost and the dollar cost of building more new garage capacity than today’s market requires. It is not suggested that all of the new joint development could be “parked” in the existing surplus, but this approach should be a point of departure, especially for the early parcels. 7.2 Parking The parking analysis in Section 3.0 concludes: The Lindbergh decks contain, in the aggregate, more parking than MARTA, AT&T, the Carter and AT&T retail areas, and the future City Center air rights office building will need. The excess capacity, assuming the office building is developed and all Carter and AT&T retail is fully built and leased, is in the hundreds of spaces and may exceed one thousand. Is, as suggested in Section 5.2, the air rights development were converted to Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Implementation Strategy 7-2 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 hotel or residential use, its parking requirement would fall well short of the current 600- space allocation and the long-term excess capacity would increase. MARTA has a park-and-ride allocation, across the three public decks, of 1,359 spaces, of which about 1,100 are typically used. If MARTA chose to reduce its park-and-ride supply to a still-substantial 800-900 spaces, it could increase the surplus capacity available for joint development by 200-300 spaces and realize a net gain in both ridership and revenue. Based on the development approaches outlined in Sections 4.0 and 5.0, the following parking strategies are contemplated: To Free Up Core Block Parcel B for Development Move MARTA’s employee parking from its current surface lot into available capacity in the Sidney Marcus Deck. To Create Additional Excess Garage Capacity Consider reducing park-and-ride capacity to 800-900 spaces. Explore AT&T’s interest in making its excess spaces in the AT&T Deck available, on commercially reasonable terms, for joint development. To convert Excess Garage Capacity to TOD Use Strategy A: consolidate park-and-ride operations into the City Center and Garson Decks, leaving about 400 MARTA-controlled spaces in the Sidney Marcus Deck to accommodate North Block and Core Block development. Strategy B: depending on the sequence of projects, retain park-and-ride in the Sidney Marcus Deck, leaving capacity in the Garson Deck for the Parcel N development and in the City Center Deck for the proposed south bus loop development. In addition to exploiting the existing surplus deck capacity, MARTA will make every effort to accommodate any required new parking in efficiently designed shared-use decks, rather than encouraging individual projects to include their own dedicated parking structures. 7.3 A Joint Development Strategy The North and Core Blocks contain roughly 10.9 acres of developable land (3.8 acres in the North Block and 7.1 in the Core Block), the majority of it owned by MARTA. These MARTA holdings are not subject to the Carter & Associates master lease structure. The North and Core Blocks have Piedmont Road frontage and lie within a quarter-mile radius of the Morosgo station entrance. The Station Blocks contain an additional 3.7 acres of undeveloped land owned by MARTA and lying within a quarter-mile of the Main Street station entrance. MARTA’s TOD Guidelines and TOD Implementing Policies (adopted in 2010) define development on MARTA land as joint development. MARTA’s process for soliciting developers, responding to unsolicited proposals or requests from adjacent property owners, and entering into joint development agreements is described in Policy 1 of the TOD Implementing Policies. MARTA’s Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Implementation Strategy 7-3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 general intent with respect to parking, affordable housing, and sustainable building practices in its joint development projects is set forth in Policies 3, 4, and 5, respectively.1 A threshold decision for MARTA is how to package and manage the several development parcels which it controls. One method would be to competitively procure a master developer, who would be awarded control of the development rights for all or most of the MARTA-owned parcels. A master developer typically manages the overall development program, undertakes necessary site improvements, develops some of the parcels on its own account, and procures development partners for others. In the case of Lindbergh, a master developer could be well positioned to: participate in the building, and ideally in the financing, of infrastructure and site work; negotiate directly with the owners of the several “out-parcels” on MARTA’s side of Piedmont Road as to whether and how their land might be combined with MARTA’s to create the most attractive development sites;2 determine where in the portfolio of parcels one or more hotels could be successfully located, as suggested in the market analysis (Section 2.x); work with MARTA to determine strategically which buildings can best take advantage of existing surplus garage capacity;3 bring a developer’s perspective to the intangibles of branding, identity, and market niche. In soliciting a master developer, MARTA should be clear that it intends to retain design review of individual projects, as well as the right to review and approve development partners which the master developer proposes to add to the overall structure or to specific projects. It is also crucial that a master developer agreement anticipate the appreciation in land values over time and allow MARTA to participate appropriately in that upside, if and when it materializes. For reasons discussed below, it is uncertain whether the Shoney redevelopment project or the remaining development parcels in the Station Blocks would be included in the master developer portfolio. It is also possible, depending on the duration of the current real estate cycle, that MARTA might project a greater overall yield by waiting to procure developers for the choicest parcels until they are ripe for dense development. In that scenario, MARTA might choose to solicit a master development advisor, who would advise MARTA on the timing and packaging of developer RFPs, manage the developer selection and negotiation process at MARTA’s direction, and represent MARTA in the Shoney redevelopment, should that be ready to advance. 1 The TOD Policies are found at: http://itsmarta.com/uploadedFiles/About_MARTA/TOD/MARTA%20TOD%20Implementation%20Policies%20Adopted% 20Text%20November%202010(1).pdf. 2 Once the master developer has been selected through an open, competitive process and been awarded MARTA’s development rights, it would have greater freedom to enter into such negotiations than MARTA would likely have on its own account. 3 As discussed below, this would be particularly advantageous if the remaining parcels in the Station Blocks were included in the master developer solicitation. A single partner could then work with MARTA to determine how the excess capacity in each of the decks might best be allocated to adjacent new development, and how park-and-ride capacity might correspondingly be shifted among the decks. Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Implementation Strategy 7-4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 The Shoney Site The proposed redevelopment of the Shoney restaurant site would be undertaken by the private owner's development team. As described in Section 4.3, the Shoney redevelopment is an opportunity to anchor the Morosgo/Piedmont intersection with a robust mixed-use development project influenced by the height of the MARTA and AT&T buildings; depending on site configuration and market conditions, the Shoney project could be the tallest project, and the largest in gross floor area, in the North and Core Blocks. It is MARTA's intent that the project extend to the corner, encompassing the current MARTA fleet management parcel and the adjacent restaurant and bar; the latter could be acquired either by the Shoney team or by MARTA. As explained in Section 4.3, it is also possible that MARTA would make its Hubco parcel (Site C-5) available to create a larger footprint for the Shoney project; this expanded footprint would allow more parking, which would in turn support greater density. The inclusion of MARTA property in this privately-driven redevelopment project could occur either through negotiations undertaken by MARTA’s master developer if that entity has been selected, or through a separate Request for Proposals for the parcels in question, to which the Shoney ownership could respond. The latter approach would make sense if the Shoney group were prepared to advance a project of appropriate density and viability in the near term. As part of the joint development agreement, MARTA would secure appropriate site plan and design review of the development. The project would require construction of the southern end of the new north- south midblock street. As discussed in Section 4.3, the decision on whether to include the Hubco parcel in the Shoney project could also influence the redevelopment of the Chick-fil-A property, in either of two ways. If the Hubco parcel is included in the Shoney assemblage, the larger parking deck that would result could be sized to accommodate the separate Chick-fil-A project. Alternatively, MARTA could hold the Hubco parcel back, preserving the option for it to be combined with the Chick-fil-A property in a future assemblage. Strategic Phasing in the North and Core Blocks The buildout of the North and Core Blocks will unfold in phases, over a period of time to be determined by market conditions. A key strategic choice will be to identify an early phase of development (aside from the Shoney project) that would be impactful in its own right while setting the stage for subsequent phases of greater density and higher land values. One example of a strategic early-action phase is the proposed set of residential buildings grouped around the Sidney Marcus Deck. These could include Sites N-1 and N-2 in the North Block, and Sites C-1, C-2, and C-3 in the Core Block, as shown in Figure 7-1. Together, these buildings represent an undertaking of several hundred units and several years’ absorption; the buildings would themselves have to be implemented in phases. The developer would determine the optimal sequence of buildings, and, in collaboration with MARTA, the extent to which they can be "parked" in the Sidney Marcus Deck. In addition to the timely transfer of MARTA’s employee parking into the Sidney Marcus Deck, this cluster of development would require construction of the new north- south street, the cross-block ped-bikeway, and the new park on Site C-1. Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Implementation Strategy 7-5 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 An alternative early phase, shown in Figure 7-2, could consist of the entire North Block. This would make sense if discussions with the private parcel owners indicated that Concept B— combining the private parcels with the larger MARTA holdings—were viable. This cluster would require construction of the Lindbergh Lane Extension and an outlet to Piedmont Road. Figure 7-1: Early Phase, Residential Figure 7-2: Early Phase, North Block Finishing the Station Blocks and Main Street MARTA’s Phase II TOD opportunity is focused on the North and Core Blocks. However, the Station Blocks—where the Phase I TOD initiative was centered and most of the land has been developed—requires attention as well. The Station Blocks remain incomplete, in two ways: Two parcels under lease to Carter & Associates remain unbuilt—Parcel N and the City Center Deck air rights. In Section 5.2 of this report, the creation of a third parcel (unlinked to Carter & Associates) could be created on the site of the current south bus loop. Together, as shown in Figure 7-3, these sites, with a total surface area of roughly 3.7 acres, represent a large subset of MARTA’s land holdings south of Main Street. A vibrant, pedestrian-oriented retail corridor on Main Street has yet to materialize—partly because much of the intended retail space is still vacant (the AT&T ground floor) or unbuilt (the City Center Deck “loft retail”), and partly because the retail that exists, constrained by the “one-sidedness” of the development to date, has not attained a lively, footstep-driven quality. Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Implementation Strategy 7-6 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 Figure 7-3: Station Blocks, Remaining Development Parcels In the long term, as described in Section 5.2, the introduction of the Clifton and BeltLine streetcar platforms, the redesign of the Lindbergh/Piedmont intersection, and the redevelopment of the MARTA Annex will extend the active station area toward the south. In the near- to mid- term, the following strategies are proposed: Determine Carter’s intention with respect to Parcel N and the City Center Deck air rights. This is an appropriate time for MARTA to ascertain Carter’s interest in continuing to control the development rights for these two parcels. If Carter does not wish to retain control, it would give MARTA the opportunity to remarket these parcels in the same time frame as the North and Core Blocks.4 If MARTA adopts the master developer strategy, Parcel N and the City Center Deck air rights could be included in that solicitation. In addition to enhancing the value of the master developer portfolio, this would ensure that the completion of the Station Blocks and the launch of development in the North and Core Blocks would complement rather than compete with each other. It would also help optimize the allocation of surplus parking capacity across all three MARTA decks to new joint development projects. Expand the permitted uses. Regardless of who controls the development rights to Parcel N and the deck air rights, MARTA should allow a broader set of potential uses for both of them. Not only does a hotel or residential use appear more marketable for Parcel N, but these uses would help create demand for the retail corridor on Main Street. While 4 Carter has described several unsuccessful attempts to identify development partners to create retail on Parcel N and office space on the City Center Deck. Carter has also indicated that it has explored residential development (thus far without success) for the City Center Deck air rights and has received interest from hotel developers for Parcel N—uses not currently permitted under the applicable leases. Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Implementation Strategy 7-7 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 office development atop the City Center deck would also help Main Street, there is no reason to preclude housing or a hotel if the market so prefers. There are other potential office locations in this Master Plan (the North Block, the Shoney development, and the proposed new parcel on the south bus loop). Moreover, as long as the air rights remain undeveloped, the “loft retail space” (which fronts on Main Street at the second level of the deck structure) will go undeveloped as well. Determine the future use of the south bus loop site. As described in Section 5.2, the potential benefits of consolidating bus operations into the north loop are compelling, both for passenger convenience and for the alternative uses that this key site could accommodate. Presently, only five MARTA routes use the north loop and a single GRTA route uses the south loop, but future service expansions must also be anticipated. MARTA should undertake the necessary operations analysis to test whether a north loop consolidation will work and then, in collaboration with Atlanta BeltLine, Inc., determine whether or not the south bus loop site is likely to be needed for the BeltLine/Clifton Corridor transit plaza. If not needed for transit purposes, the south loop and the adjoining little-used green space should be designated a development parcel. Undertake near-term improvements on Main Street. The plaza where Main Street crosses over the MARTA station should be redesigned to create a more attractive pedestrian space, better integrated with the retail sidewalks to the east and the residential sidewalks to the west. This plaza also connects pedestrians on Main Street to the north bus loop and to the proposed new park site across Morosgo Drive, a connection that is currently not well designed. A second improvement is transactional. In 2017, AT&T’s lease with the lessor/developer of its ground-level retail space (Wells REIT) will be up for renewal. This space remains largely vacant, deadening the north side of Main Street. MARTA should encourage AT&T to enter into a more productive retail partnership. 7.4 Implementation Funding: Infrastructure and Affordable Housing There are a number of funding and financing options that MARTA may consider in implementing Phase II of the Lindbergh TOD. The BeltLine TAD The City of Atlanta created its largest-ever Tax Allocation District (TAD) to support development of the Atlanta BeltLine, the innovative 22-mile ring of trails, parks, housing, community development, and transit connecting over 45 of the city’s neighborhoods. The TAD is Georgia’s form of tax increment financing. As new development occurs around the BeltLine and property values increase, the property taxes generated from incremental values (above the baseline established determined when the district was formed in 2008) flow to a dedicated investment fund. TAD dollars are used for infrastructure, land assembly, parks, trails, public art, and affordable housing. As shown In Figure 7-4 below, most of the Lindbergh Station area—including the entirety of the North Block, Core Block, Station Blocks, and Annex—is included in the BeltLine TAD, which is shaded light blue. Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Implementation Strategy 7-8 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 Figure 7-4: Atlanta BeltLine TAD Boundary, Northeast Segment Affordable Housing. The BeltLine has set aside 15% of its TAD funding to support the creation and preservation of up to 5,600 affordable housing units. The BeltLine’s affordable housing commitment could generate up to $40,000 per affordable unit constructed. The BeltLine affordable housing policy is designed to encourage a minimum of 20% affordable units in mixed use housing developments and can serve as a supplement to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) in financing projects with a significant affordable component. The BeltLine has found it challenging, in high-cost locations, to find developers interested in doing mixed market-rate and affordable projects. The Lindbergh area, where market rents are at more modest levels, could provide a significant opportunity to tap into the BeltLine Affordable Housing Trust Fund. This could be a win-win-win opportunity for the BeltLIne, for MARTA (whose joint development policy contemplates at least 20% workforce or affordable units on average), and mixed income housing advocates. Transit Infrastructure. It is expected that the TAD will fund a major portion of the costs of the BeltLine transit system, in conjunction with other local and federal funds. This will include the extension of the future transit line into Lindbergh Station. As described in Section 5.2, this will likely be a costly and complex undertaking, with implications for station-area traffic and pedestrian connections and a possible integration with the Clifton Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Implementation Strategy 7-9 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 Corridor passenger platform. BeltLine funding from the TAD would help reduce MARTA’s share of this multi-modal interface. The MARTA Annex. The entire 10.8-acre MARTA Annex property is located within the BeltLine TAD. Although a longer term opportunity, the eventual redevelopment of the Annex could be supported by TAD funds. If the site were used for mixed income housing it could be eligible for the BeltLine Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The TAD could also potentially help with site preparation related to affordable housing or to the BeltLine infrastructure itself; the Annex site will need a street grid connecting to Lindbergh Drive, Garson Drive, and Piedmont Road, and ped-bike connections to the BeltLine station that safely negotiate the north-south grade change and the Lindbergh Drive crossing. The location of a substantial portion of the Lindbergh Station area in the BeltLine TAD could represent a key implementation mechanism. In return, the mixed use development envisioned in this Master Plan—much of it on MARTA land currently producing no property tax revenue at all— has the potential to generate significant incremental tax revenue for the BeltLine. It would be useful for MARTA’s TOD leadership and the BeltLine to begin exploring how the TAD could be used to in a coordinated fashion to accomplish key objectives of both organizations as they expand transit options and TOD. Creation of a Community Improvement District Another potential financing option that should be considered by MARTA is the creation of a Lindbergh Community Improvement District (CID). Community Improvement Districts are an increasingly common form of special purpose taxing district in Georgia, used to fund infrastructure and community improvements in designated commercial areas. CIDs date back to the 1980s, with the Cumberland CID in Cobb County and the Perimeter CID being two of the earliest and best known examples. Today there are over 20 CIDs in the Atlanta region, addressing a wide range of needs and projects. In the City of Atlanta there are three large CIDs—the Downtown Improvement District, the Midtown Improvement District, and the Buckhead CID CIDs are self-taxing districts established by a vote of the area’s commercial property owners to impose additional property tax millage on such properties.5 The funds raised are used to pay for infrastructure improvements, transportation projects, sidewalks, streetscapes, beautification, and security. To establish a CID takes a positive vote of owners representing 51% of the commercial properties and 75% of the commercial property value in the proposed district. Once established, all commercial property owners must pay the annual assessment. Every five years there is an election of the commercial property owners to determine if they wish to continue the CID or sunset its operations. The benefits to the Lindbergh Station area from creation of a CID could be significant. It would provide a financing vehicle for making streetscape and transportation improvements throughout the Master Plan area, and could be of particular importance in improving the Piedmont Road corridor. It could also provide a source of funding for other improvements, which would enhance the pedestrian experience throughout the station area. A great advantage of a CID is its ability to generate matching funds for federal, state, and Atlanta Regional Commission grants. 5 Residential property can be included in the CID but no additional millage is paid by residential property owners, and they have no say in the CID’s operations. Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Implementation Strategy 7-10 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 The creation of a Lindbergh CID would likely include a much broader area than the MARTA lands west of Piedmont Road. It could encompass the entire 380-acre Extended Station Area, reaching eastward to GA 400, southward to I-85, and northward to Miami Circle. This would expand the district’s commercial property base and support a more comprehensive program to address the area’s infrastructure needs.6 A CID would require MARTA’s support and advocacy; it is a strategy that merits MARTA’s serious consideration. The Atlanta Regional Commission Livable Cities Initiative MARTA should also consider asking the Atlanta Regional Commission to “grandfather” the updated Lindbergh Master Plan into the Livable Cities Initiative (LCI) program. The LCI program has been operational since 2000, and more than 100 locations throughout the Atlanta region have been designated. The benefits are two-fold. First, ARC provides planning funds to study the potential of the area for TOD and smart growth; since MARTA has already undertaken this updated Master Plan, such funding would not be applicable in the near term but might be available for follow-on studies and plans. The second benefit of the LCI program is ARC’s provision of significant capital funding for implementation of recommended infrastructure improvements. Grandfathering the updated Master Plan would require the support of the City of Atlanta, which administers the LCI program with the city limits. Federal Transportation Funding It is expected that in due course both the BeltLine transit system and the Clifton Corridor will seek funding through the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts Capital Investment Grant program. Either pursuit, if successful, would likely be limited to 50% of project costs, with the balance to be funded by MARTA, TAD, CID, or other non-federal funds. The integration of the BeltLine and Clifton Corridor tracks and platforms into the complex environment of Lindbergh Station, including the possible creation of a shared deck over the open section of the MARTA station, would be part of this funding structure. Several other federal transportation programs could prove relevant to the infrastructure needs of this Master Plan: The Federal Highway Administration’s core programs. These include the National Highway Performance Program, which could fund improvements to the eligible portion of Piedmont Road, and the set of highly flexible programs allocated through Metropolitan Planning Organizations like the ARC (Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, Highway Safety Improvement Program, and Transportation Alternatives).7 These programs are already used, in part, to fund ARC’s Livable Centers Initiative grants described previously. The “TIFIA” program. TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) is a federal loan mechanism which can be used to help finance virtually any surface transportation project that would be eligible for federal highway or transit funding. TIFIA 6 The alternative of adding the Extended Station Area to the existing Buckhead CID, whose boundary is to the north at the intersection of Pharr and Piedmont Roads, does not appear feasible at this time. 7 A summary description of these programs is provided in Congressional Research Service, Surface Transportation Funding and Programs Under MAP-21: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141), 2012. The segment of Piedmont Road from Morosgo southward is on the National Highway System and thus eligible for the National Highway Performance Program. Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Implementation Strategy 7-11 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 loans provide below-market interest rates (at the Treasury’s cost of money), amortization terms of up to 40 years, a five-year grace period, and several other advantageous features. The dedicated stream of non-federal revenues required to service a TIFIA loan may include, among other things, tax increment (TAD) or special assessment (CID) proceeds. A TIFIA loan can finance up to 49% of project costs; the minimum project size is $50 million, which would likely qualify the BeltLine and Clifton Corridor-related improvements at Lindbergh Station.8 The “TIGER” program. TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) is a discretionary and highly competitive grant program funded by Congress since 2009 through annual appropriations. The seventh round of TIGER grants will be awarded in 2015. These are generally in the $10-25 million range and can be used for a wide variety of roadway, transit, and ped-bike projects. (Atlanta’s previous TIGER grant was for the initial phase of the streetcar.) TIGER grants are well aligned with the public infrastructure side of TOD initiatives, since the primary selection criteria include livability, sustainability, and economic competitiveness. A package of Lindbergh TOD infrastructure improvements would make a credible TIGER application, assuming the program or a comparable successor continues to be funded. 8 Ibid. Lindbergh Phase II Master Plan DRAFT (July 2015): Implementation Strategy 7-12 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 ATTACHMENT C-1 LINDBERGH LENDER CC&RS 1. See attached. Page 61 RFP P38602: Lindbergh Center Station Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F1E5954B-5D75-4E26-8C7A-0901575960F3