Six Peak Capital - Weekly L10

• The meeting reviewed Q3 rock planning, project finance issues, contract status, and fundraising progress across multiple projects.
• Participants confirmed document reviews, scheduling for a Resida call, and detailed finance and contract negotiations with MRK and other counterparties.
• Q3 rocks and operating cadence: Bob uploaded meeting artifacts into Claude and produced a Q3 rock output in the shared Google Sheet.
• Owners must confirm company vs. individual rocks, SMART definitions of done, and due dates; rock deadlines should be no later than August 31 given a target ROCS session around September 1 and a 30-day-before-quarter-end rule.
• Bob will finalize the weekly scorecard and a finance dashboard; weekly L10 meetings will include rock stand-ups, IDS, and conversion of unresolved items into assigned rocks or to-dos.
• The L10 portal link and meeting materials were posted for ongoing use.
• Resida communication: Derek and Schuyler reviewed the letter/memo; Derek recommended a pre-distribution conversation with Resida.
• Chris proposed scheduling a call midweek and sending the letter one to two hours before the call.
• Schuyler reported Resida indicated near-term availability and would be given the team’s broad availability from the Google calendar.
• Contracting and schedule issues (Hillman and others): Derek reported the Hillman construction contract is nearly ready; Greg must align exhibits and budget items.
• The team recommended executing the construction contract now as the execution version and updating the construction schedule exhibit at signing/close to align liabilities with the JVA.
• Closing timelines have repeatedly shifted later; MRK’s unilateral 90‑day extension contributed to delays.
• Genesis has not responded to a memo; DWP invoice for U-permit/street damage is pending; operator proposals expected by late June/early July.
• MRK, pricing, and reimbursable costs: Recent calls with MRK raised major disputes over legacy/disallowed costs from when Francis was market-rate.
• MRK initially insisted Six Peak bear auditor-disallowed costs rather than treating them as a GP loan or waterfall repayment.
• The team referenced an original term sheet approach to treat disallowed costs as a GP loan; Bob will locate that language.
• Participants debated whether disallowed costs should be cash reimbursements or GP loans, with estimated prior-costs exposure of roughly $300–$500K.
• Pricing uncertainty (83¢ vs.
• 84¢) and potential repricing from R4 were discussed; delays may push delivery into 2029 and force a reprice.
• Roles were framed: MRK assumes development and construction risk; leasing and asset management remain operator responsibilities.
• Asset management fee structuring and splits were clarified.
• Fundraising and partnerships: LLJ is only interested in one property, making bidding premature until an equity term sheet covers both properties; a term sheet is unlikely before the July 4th period and may stall until late summer.
• Schuyler reported progress on TEFRA paperwork (awaiting city staff action before council recess), signing LOIs with GC/design-build firms, materials and cost agreements with Gores Group, and an expected placement-agent engagement with Stiefel within a week.
• A City Lab competition submission is due July 21.
• Administrative and open items: Bob will email calendar documents for easier access.
• The team had confusion viewing L10 notes due to caching.
• A conference room participant was asked to send an edited combined conditional waiver to the bank.
• Outstanding open questions include LLJ’s term sheet timing, MRK’s partnering response, city council TEFRA scheduling, GC LOI finalization, and Stiefel placement-agent status.

None.

None.