EBG Studios · Development Atlas · DRAFT — For review & feedback
Chapter I · Discover
Can we responsibly acquire and develop this property?
Stage 3 · Questions, problems & people
Each lead brings the answer together with the people named below. Maya represents the developer and enterprise owner; specialists and public reviewers retain their own responsibilities.
Bring survey, soils, groundwater, environmental and utility findings together and identify effects on the buildable area, budget and schedule.
With: Morgan (project architect); Noor (power & cooling engineer).
Surveyors, geotechnical engineers and environmental specialists own their investigations.
Check title, restrictions, access, easements and investigation deadlines before the enterprise makes an irreversible land commitment.
With: Eli (site & civil engineer).
Real estate counsel and the title team lead the legal review.
Target further investigation and price or redesign around substantiated constraints instead of simply treating every risk as an allowance.
With: Sam (construction manager); Morgan (project architect).
Align investigation rights and decision dates with the reports; negotiate conditions or reconsider the site when critical evidence is missing.
With: Eli (site & civil engineer).
Counsel advises on the site-control agreement.
What this milestone needs to produce
A documented site-risk decision and site-control terms that reflect the findings and remaining conditions.
Why this stage matters
Site control reserves the opportunity while the team tests it. A purchase contract or option can define investigation rights, conditions, deadlines and remedies. Due diligence is an organized search for reasons the project may fail: title, environmental conditions, ground conditions, utilities, access and legal use. An unresolved issue needs an owner, a cost or schedule allowance, and a decision before the relevant contingency expires.
The decision map
People & information
Checks rights, obligations and contract conditions.
Shares evidence with the development lead and the other stage disciplines.Investigates contamination and recommended next steps.
Shares evidence with the development lead and the other stage disciplines.Characterizes ground conditions for design.
Shares evidence with the development lead and the other stage disciplines.Parallel work, shared decisions
Illustrative relative activity, not a duration schedule. A stage can loop back as evidence changes. Select another discipline to see where it contributes.
| Workstream | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market & Tenancy | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Land & Approvals | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Design & Engineering | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Finance & Investment | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| Construction & Procurement | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Delivery & Operations | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Stakeholder | 1 · Opportunity & vision | 2 · Market & site | 3 · Diligence & control | 4 · Planning & feasibility | 5 · Approvals & commitment | 6 · Design & procurement | 7 · Construction & delivery | 8 · Commissioning & handover | 9 · Tenancy & stabilization |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developer | Set the thesis | Choose the search criteria | Own the acquisition decision | Integrate design and economics | Align approval and capital | Approve scope and contracts | Authorize verified changes | Accept documented handover | Review performance and strategy |
| Investor & lender | Set risk and capital limits | Challenge demand assumptions | Review acquisition risks | Test equity need and returns | Define conditions precedent | Review the committed budget | Review eligible draw evidence | Confirm completion conditions | Monitor coverage and evaluate exit |
| Design & engineering | Explore user requirements | Screen site constraints | Investigate physical conditions | Develop and compare concepts | Address authority conditions | Coordinate detailed packages | Resolve technical field questions | Verify systems and as-built records | Review feedback from operation |
| Contractor & suppliers | Offer early feasibility insight | Advise on site access | Identify construction uncertainty | Estimate scope and sequencing | Test schedule feasibility | Price packages and lead times | Execute work and record quality | Complete tests and defects | Respond to warranty obligations |
| Users & community | Explain unmet needs | Test location and access | Identify local impacts | Review functional usefulness | Participate in applicable review | Confirm use requirements | Coordinate tenant interfaces | Receive usable and safe space | Report performance and changing needs |
| Operator & asset manager | Define operating objectives | Assess serviceability | Identify inherited liabilities | Estimate operating burden | Plan the operating transition | Review maintainability | Prepare asset and service records | Receive manuals and training | Manage leasing, costs and capital plans |
Roles may overlap within one organization. The project’s contracts and local requirements determine actual authority and responsibility.
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Priority score | Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contamination | 3 | 5 | 15 | Verify evidence; assign an owner, mitigation and decision deadline. |
| Missing access rights | 2 | 5 | 10 | Verify evidence; assign an owner, mitigation and decision deadline. |
| Expired contingencies | 3 | 4 | 12 | Verify evidence; assign an owner, mitigation and decision deadline. |
Choose a concept. Choose your depth.
Can we responsibly acquire and develop this property?
Overview · Understand · ApplyWhat are we buying, and what income can it support?
Overview · Understand · ApplyWhat could change the conclusion, and does the model reconcile?
Optional practice
Try the enterprise data-center decision, then compare it with the logistics exercise below.
Juniper Ridge · make the call
Survey, geotechnical and environmental reports, title review, utility evidence and a risk register.
Apply the same development principles to Riverton Logistics Center. This supporting case uses its own warehouse assumptions and preserves your recorded logistics decisions.
Decision studio · Stage 03
You are the project’s development lead. Read the diligence file, flag unsupported assumptions and defend a decision. Use the fictional evidence below, make a choice and explain what you would verify.
Historic fill is visible near the northeast corner. Additional sampling is recommended before soil disturbance.
Capacity review is pending. This letter is not a commitment to serve the proposed load.
The existing driveway crosses Parcel 14. No recorded access easement was supplied for review.
Current tax payments are confirmed. This does not verify title or environmental condition.
0/3 unresolved risks identified. Historic fill needs sampling, utility capacity is not committed, and the driveway lacks supplied evidence of access rights. A current tax record is not a red flag by itself. A conditional revision or withdrawal preserves the ability to respond to missing evidence. Saving “revise” adds a clearly provisional $200K risk allowance to the evolving case; that allowance does not resolve the legal or technical issues.
