HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-10-26; City Council; 12448; Financial Assistance For Villa Loma,. c-
.
i,
c- I’ OF CARLSBAD - AGEN- . BILL i$??
liB#,d,&& TITLE:
MTG. 10126193
DEPT.-
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPROVAL OF CITY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, INCLUDING
FEE/COST EXEMPTIONS AND/OR DEFERRALS, AND USE OF
CDBG AND REDEVELOP~~$,~USING SET-ASIDE FUNDS,
FOR THE VILLAS AT EL CAMIN REAL AFFORDABLE
HOST.
a-l9 p 73 -6
ADOPT City Council Resolution No. 93 -29 3 APPROVING financial assistance to the Villas
at El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project including fee/cost exemptions and/or deferrals and
use of federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Redevelopment Low &
Moderate Income Housing Set-Aside Funds.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The Villas at El Camino Real is an affordable housing project proposed for construction on a 21
acre parcel located adjacent to and west of El Camino Real, between Camino Vida Roble and
Alga Road. The proposed project includes a total of 344 apartment units to be affordable to low
(60% of County Median) and very low (50 % of County Median) income households. The project
is being developed by Aviara Land Associates in concert with Bridge Housing Corporation, a
non-profit housing developer, and PatricWPicerne, a partnership of two San Diego-based
builder/developers. The project is targeted in part to satisfy the affordable housing requirements
(160 units) of the Aviara Master Plan as stipulated in the Aviara Inclusionary Housing Agreement
adopted by the City Council on July 20, 1993.
On September 1, 1993, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended
approval with modification (6-O) of the Villas at El Camino Real project. The Housing
Commission also reviewed the project at three (3) separate meetings and made related financial
assistance recommendations. At their meeting of August 12, 1993, the Housing Commission
approved a recommendation to participate in the Villas at El Camino Real by acquiring the
property for the project with CDBG funds. The Commission recommended that the City use
$880,000 in CDBG funds previously allocated by the Council for affordable housing and also
apply for additional CDBG funding ($1.2 million) through the Section 108 Loan Program to
purchase the property. On October 14, 1993, the Housing Commission took additional action to
recommend that 1) Redevelopment Low and Moderate Income Housing Set-Aside Funds be used
as an interim financing source for the property acquisition, since it will take several months to
process a Section 108 CDBG Loan application, and 2) additional direct and indirect City
assistance be provided as follows:
0 $500,000 in Redevelopment Low and Moderate Income Housing Set-Aside Funds to be
used to assist in project construction activities and permanent financing;
l Exemption of the Public Facility Fee (PFF) for the project as permitted by City Council
Policy No. 17;
l Guarantee of project Grading Deposit from Redevelopment Set-Aside funds;
l Deferral of portion of Community Facilities District (CFD) fee; and,
l Deferral of all public improvement construction costs related to Poinsettia Lane.
, - Pm AGENDABILL& +f8 i PAGE 2
At the noted meetings of the Housing Commission, there was no public testimony which indicated
opposition to the above actions. Staff is recommending that the City Council accept the
recommendations of the Housing Commission and take the following seven (7) actions related
to the subject project:
1. Author& the acquisition of property for the Villas at El Camino Real Affordable
Housing Project on an interim basis using up to $2 million in Redevelopment Low and
Moderate Income Housing Set-Aside Funds and on a permanent basis using $880,000 in
previously approved CDBG Funds and $1.2 million in CDBG Section 108 Loan Funds,
if approved by HUD.
2. Authorize staff to initiate the process for applying for a CDBG Section 108 Loan in the
amount of $1.2 million for property acquisition.
3. Approve, in concept, the use of Redevelopment Low and Moderate Income Housing Set-
Aside Funds in the amount of $500,000 for project construction and permanent financing,
including on-site and/or off-site public improvements directly related to the project.
4. Approve the Public Facility Fee (PFF) exemption for the project as permitted by City
Council Policy No. 17.
5. Approve the guarantee of the project Grading Deposit from Redevelopment Set-Aside
funds.
6. Approve the Community Facilities District (CFD) fee deferral for the portion of the
project related to the additional 236 units resulting from the project’s proposed increase
in density.
7. Approve the deferral of public improvement costs related to the construction of Poinsettia
Lane for the entire project.
The above recommendations were based on staff’s financial analysis of the project and overall
assessment of the project and the development team. More detailed information regarding the
analysis is provided in the attached staff report to the Housing Commission dated October 14,
1993. Also, additional information regarding the property acquisition is provided in the attached
staff report to the Housing Commission dated August 12, 1993.
The only significant change in the financial analysis presented to the Housing Commission
resulted from an increase in the cost estimate for Poinsettia Lane. Exhibit 5 provides the updated
“Uses and Sources of Funds” and the “Subsidy Analysis” charts that reflect this change.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Villas financing structure is dictated largely by the Tax Credit investment that brings the
most significant subsidy to the project (approximately $15 million). City financial participation
in the project is provided in two (2) forms: direct (cash) financing and fee exemptions or
deferrals.
. AGENDA BILL k /
PAGE 3 a.
The direct financing package includes an expenditure of CDBG funds and Redevelopment Low
and Moderate Income Housing Set-Aside funds. A maximum of $2.5 million in direct (cash)
financial assistance to the project is proposed. A majority of these funds ($2 million) will be used
for property acquisition purposes. The indirect assistance will be provided by exempting the
project from the Public Facility Fee ($358,484), deferring a portion of the Community
Facilities District (CFD) fee (approx. $666,981), and deferring all of the costs related to the
construction of Poinsettia Lane (estimated at $1.6 million).
City direct financing and deferred fees/costs will be recoverable through future sale of Affordable
Housing Credits. This will allow City housing funds to “revolve” into future projects. Although
there is no established “price” for affordable unit credits at this time, it can be calculated that
roughly $26,000 per credit for the 184 available excess credits would return all City direct
financing and fee/cost deferrals. This compares favorably with the actual cost of producing an
affordable housing unit.
City participation of approximately $15,000 per unit (including fee/cost exemptions and deferrals)
accounts for approximately 22 % of the necessary project subsidy. Each City dollar will leverage
over $3.50 of additional subsidy capital from outside sources. The City’s direct financial
assistance (cash outlay) accounts for approximately 11% of the subsidy required and leverages
over $7.00 for each city dollar.
With a commitment of city assistance, the staff and development team will proceed
to apply for the other financing necessary to the project, including the Low Income Housing Tax
Credits. With City support, a quality project and a capable development team, the project should
be competitive for other subsidy program funds, but funding is not guaranteed.
EXHIBITS
1. City Council Resolution No. 93 - a? 3 approving city financial assistance to the
Villas at El Camino Real Affordable Housing Project.
2. Housing Commission Resolution No.002, 003, 93-009 and 93-010 (on file in the City
Clerk’s Office).
3. Housing Commission Staff Report dated October 14, 1993 (on file in the City Clerk’s
Office).
4. Housing Commission Staff Report dated August 12, 1993 (on file in the City Clerk’s
Office).
5. Updated “Sources and Uses of Funds” and “Subsidy Analysis” charts (on file in the City
Clerk’s Office).
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 93-297
8
9
10
11
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING CITY
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO AN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECT WHICH WILL PROVIDE A TOTAL
OF 344 RENTAL UNITS FOR LOW AND VERY LOW
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE
SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE CITY.
CASE NAME: “THE VILLAS” AT EL CAMINO REAL
APN: 215-020-1s
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has identified a need to provide at least 1400
housing units affordable to households of low and very low income by 1996; and
12 WHEREAS, a project, known as “The Villas” at El Camino Real, has been
13
14 proposed for construction which will provide 344 residential apartments on a 21 acre parcel
15 located adjacent to and west of El Camino Real, between Camino Vida Roble and Alga Road,
16 on parcel number 215-020-15 which will be affordable to low and very low income households;
l7 and /I 18
19
20
21
22
concludes that city financial participation in the project is necessary , appropriate and exceeded
by the public benefit received by the City; and
WHEREAS, the affordability level and the unit mix of the proposed project are
23 .’ consrstent with the City of Carlsbad’s Housing Element objectives, Comprehensive Housing
24 Affordability Strategy, Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Redevelopment Low and Moderate
25
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad’s comprehensive financial analysis of the project
Income Housing Set-Aside Spending Plan and Density Bonus Ordinance; and
26
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the project has been found to be consistent with the requirements of
the General Plan, the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, the Local Coastal Plan and the Growth
Management Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City
Council as follows:
1.
2.
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That the City will purchase property for the Villas at El Camino Real Affordable
Housing Project on an interim basis using up to $2 million in Redevelopment Low
and Moderate Income Housing Set-Aside Funds and on a permanent basis using
$880,000 in previously approved CDBG Funds and $1.2 million in CDBG Section
108 Loan Funds, if approved by HUD.
3. That the City Council of the City of Carlsbad hereby approves financial assistance
to the proposed tiordable housing project known as “The Villas” at El Camino
Real in the following form and as outlined in the Housing Commission staff
reports dated August 12, 1993 and October 14, 1993:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
Sell or lease city-owned land to project;.
Use of Redevelopment Low and Moderate Income Housing Set-Aside
Funds in the amount of $500,000 for project construction and permanent
financing, including on-site and/or off-site public improvements directly
related to the project.
Exemption from payment of the Public Facilities Fee for entire project
based on City Council Policy 17.
Guarantee of the project Grading Deposit from Redevelopment Low and
Moderate Income Housing Set-Aside Funds thereby waiving the deposit
requirement for the developer.
Deferral of a portion of the Community Facilities District (CFD) fees. The
CFD fees will be paid in full for the first 108 units within the project. The
remaining fees for the additional 236 affordable units, resulting from the
project’s proposed increase in density, will be deferred but paid to the City
from proceeds of the sale of Affordable Housing Credits, provided by the
subject project, to eligible developers to meet their inclusionary housing
requirements.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
.17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CC RESO. NO.
PAGE 3
. . . .
f. Deferral of public improvement costs related to construction of Poinsettia
Lane for the entire project.
4. That City Staff is authorized to initiate the process for applying for a CDBG
Section 108 Loan in the amount of $1.2 million for property acquisition.
5. That the development team for the subject affordable housing project shah enter
into appropriate agreements with the City of Carlsbad which outline the terms of
city participation and the conditions to be met prior to commitment of city
assistance as contained within the staff report to the Housing Commission dated
October 14, 1993.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 26th day of October, 1993 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Stanton, Kulchin, Nygaard, Finnila
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
ALETHARAUTENKRANZ,CITY&ERK
‘.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
\
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 93 - 2 9 7
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
F CARLSBAD, CALIFORNLA APPROVING CITY
ASSISTANCE TO AN AFFORDABLE
ROJECT WHICH WILL PROVIDE A TOTAL
4 RENTAL UNITS FOR LOW AND VERY LOW
OUSEHOLDS TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE
QUADRANT OF THE CITY.
VILLAS” AT EL CAMINO REAL
City of Carlsbad has identified a need to provide at least 1400
olds of low and very low income by 1996; and
known as “The Villas” at El Camino Real, has been
proposed for construction which will
located adjacent to and west of El
on parcel number 2 1%020- 15
residential apartments on a 21 acre parcel
Camino Vida Roble and Alga Road,
and very low income households;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad’
concludes that city financial participation in the
by the public benefit received by the City; and
WHEREAS, the affordability lev
consistent with the City of Carlsbad’s Housin
Affordability Strategy, Inclusionary Housing
Income Housing Set-Aside Spending Plan and
nancial analysis of the project
, appropriate and exceeded
of the proposed project are
s, Comprehensive Housing
pment Low and Moderate
\ ‘,
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- h
. . . .
WHEREAS, the project has been found to be consistent with the requirements of
the General Plan, the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, the Local Coastal Plan and the Growth
THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City
ecitations are true and correct.
1 of the City of Carlsbad hereby approves financial assistance
dable housing project known as “The Villas” at El Camino
form and as outlined in the Housing Commission staff
2, 1993 and October 14, 1993:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
the Villas at El Camino Real Affordable
on an interim basis using up to $2 million in
derate Income Housing Set-Aside Funds and
80,000 in previously approved CDBG Funds
and $1.2 million in BG Section 108 Loan Funds, if approved by HUD.
and Moderate Income Housing Set-Aside
000 for project construction and permanent
r off-site public improvements directly
e Public Facilities Fee for entire project
Guarantee of the project Grading
Moderate Income Housing Set-A
requirement for the developer.
elopment Low and
Deferral of a portion of the Community
CFD fees will be paid in full for
remaining fees for the addition
project’s proposed increase in
from proceeds of the sale of
subject project, to eligible d
requirements.
.
. .
c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
CC RESO. NO.
-.
PAGE 3
. . . .
. . . .
Deferral of public improvement costs related to construction of Poinsettia
Lane for the entire project.
ized to initiate the process for applying for a CDBG
ount of $1.2 million for property acquisition.
for the subject affordable housing project shall enter
with the City of Carlsbad which outline the terms of
onditions to be met prior to commitment of city
n the staff report to the Housing Commission dated
ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad, Cali on the 26th day of October, 1993 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
ALETHARAUTENKRANZ,CITYCLERK
S,MAYOR
. ’
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- EXHIBIT 2
HOUSING COMMISSION NO. 002
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF
APPROXIMATELY TWENTY (20) ACRES OF REAL
PROPERTY WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$2.1 MILLION FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEVELOPING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN CARLSBAD.
CASE NAME: LITTLE BRESSI
APN: 215-020-15 & 215-020-01
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has identified a need to purchase property for
the purposes of the development of affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, property located generally on the west side of El Camino Real
between Palomar Airport Business Park and Sunfresh Rose Greenhouses, APN: 215-020-l 5 &
215-020-01, is available for purchase for the purpose of causing the development of affordable
housing; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Commission supports the purchase of property for the
purposes of providing affordable housing within the City of Carlsbad;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing
Commission as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That the Housing Commission recommends that the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad APPROVE purchase of property identified by APN: 215-020- 15 and
215-020-01 subject to the following terms and conditions:
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Terms and Conditiom:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.*..
The City Council shall authorize expenditure of up to $2.1 million for the purchase
and. attendant costs of appraisals and closing.
Funds shall be drawn from the City’s Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Housing Fund and other CDBG funds which are approved for the
transaction by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The purchase shall be subject to all applicable HUD terms and conditions governing
the federal CDBG program, including but not limited to:
ii:
contract with HUD for repayment of any loans for the purchases;
pledge of grants made or for which the City may become eligible to repay any
loans for the purchase;
c. at discretion of HUD, provide other security which may be required for any
loans made to the City for the purchase;
d. repay any loans made to the City by HUD within a period not to exceed
twenty (20) years; and,
e. use the property for a purpose which provides direct benefit to low/moderate
income persons, such as affordable housing.
The value of the site in relation to the option purchase shall be supported with at
least one MA1 appraisal.
The purchase shall be subject to an agreement with Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnership (ALA), holder of the option on the subject property, whereby the land
shall be held for a period of at least eighteen (18) months exclusively for the
development of affordable housing as proposed by ALA and their partners and as
approved by the City of Carlsbad. If the ALA project does not commence within
eighteen (18) months, ALA shall have, for a period of six (6) months, the option of
purchasing the subject property from the City for its full purchase cost. In any
event, the subject property shall remain devoted exclusively to affordable housing
development.
HCRESONO.002
1
5
:
4
8 .
t
I (
I
!
l(
1:
1:
1;:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Housing
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 12th day of August, 1993 by the
following vote, to wit:
AlTEST:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Edward Scarpelli, Chairperson; Doug Avis; Jerry Rombotis;
Nancy Calverly; Bailey Noble; Cheri Sato; Kathleen Wellman;
Ofelia Escobedo; and Marvin Peterson, Commissioners
None
EVAN BECKER
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT’ DIRBCTOR
HC RESO NO. 002
HOUSING COMMISSION NO. 003
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FOR
SECTION 108 ‘LOAN THROUGH THE FEDERAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $1.2 MILLION FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PURCHASING PROPERTY FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
CASE NAME: LITTLE BRESSI
APN: 215-020-15 & 215-020-01
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has identified a need to purchase property for
the purposes of the development of affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, property located generally on the west side of El Camino Real
between Palomar Airport Business Park and Sunfresh Rose Greenhouses, APN: 215-020-15 &
215-020-01, is available for purchase for the purpose of causing the development of affordable
housing; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Commission supports the purchase of property for the
purposes of providing affordable housing within the City of Carlsbad;
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad currently has allocated $880,372.30 in federal
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Entitlement funds for the purpose of purchasing
1 property for the development of affordable housing for low/moderate income persons; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has the need to raise an additional $1.2 million
~ to purchase subject property through the federal Section 108 Loan program,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing
Commission as follows:
c ’
. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1c
11
12
12
14
If
1t
17
1E
1s
2c
21
22
2:
24
2f
2E
2’i
21
i- -
4
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That the Housing Commission recommends that the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad APPROVR submission of an application to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development for a Section 108 Loan in the maximum amount
of $1.2 million for the purposes of purchasing property for the development of
affordable housing for low/moderate income persons subject to the following
terms and conditions:
Terms and Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
The purchase of property with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
shall be subject to all applicable HUD terms and conditions governing the federal
CDBG program, including but not limited to:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
contract with HUD for repayment of any loans for the purchase;
pledge of grants made or for which the City may become eligible for to repay
any loans for the purchase;
at discretion of HUD, provide other security which may be required for any
loans made to the City for the purchase;
repay any loans made to the City by HUD within a period not to exceed
twenty (20) years; and,
use the property for a purpose which provides direct benefit to low/moderate
income persons, such as affordable housing.
The value of the site in relation to the option purchase shall be supported with at
least one MAI appraisal.
The City shall re’hnburse owner for all reasonable expenses he/she incurred for:
recording fees, transfer taxes, documentary stamps, evidence of title, boundary
survey and legal description of the real property; penalty costs and any other
prepayment charges; pro-rata portion of any prepaid real property taxes which are
allocable to the period after the City obtains title to the property. Whenever
feasible,these expenses shall be paid directly by the City so that the property owner
does not need to seek reimbursement.
HC RESO NO. 003
. ’ .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2c
21
22
22
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Housing
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 12th day of August, 1993 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Edward Scarpelli, Chairperson; Doug Avis; Jerry Rombotis;
Nancy Calverly; Bailey Noble; Cheri Sato; Kathleen Wellman;
Ofelia Escobedo; and Marvin Peterson, Commissioners
None
EVAN BECKER
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
HC RESO NO. 003 3
. ’
. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
J-iOUSlNG COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 93-009
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION OF THE.
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA TO APPROVE THE
APPROPRIATION OF $2,000,000 FROM THE
REDEVELOPMENT LOW AND MODERATE INCOME
HOUSING SET-ASIDE FUND FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
REAL PROPERTY AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS FORTHE
PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
RENTAL UNITS OUTSIDE THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad,
~ hereinafter referred to as “Agency”, is a Community Redevelopment Agency organized
I and existing under the Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safetv Code
Section 33000, et.seq., hereinafter referred to as the “Act”; and
WHEREAS, the Agency is authorized to implement the Redevelopment
Plan for the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Project Area; and
WHEREAS, Section 33334.2 of the Act requires that not less than
twenty percent (20%) of all taxes which are allocated to the Agency for purposes of
increasing and improving the community’s supply of low and moderate income
housing; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33334.2 of the Act, the Legislature
declares its intent that the Low and Moderate Income Housing Set-aside Fund shall be
used to improve and increase housing in the community; and
WHEREAS, to carry out the purposes of increasing and improving the
community’s supply of low and moderate income housing, Section 33334.2 (e) of the
Act states that the Agency may exercise any or all of its powers, including without
limitations, acquiring land or building sites, improving land or building sites with onsite
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
or offsite improvements, donating land to private or public persons or entities,
constructing buildings or structures, acquiring buildings or structures, providing
subsidies to, or for the benefit of, very low income households, lower income
households, or persons or families of low and moderate income, or other powers to
carry out the purposes of the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Commission recommends APPROVAL of the
expenditure of $2,000,000 from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Set-aside
Fund outside the Redevelopment Project Area for the purposes of providing property
and related improvements for the construction of 344 units of rental housing for
persons/families within low and very low income households;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. The above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the expenditures of monies from the Low and Moderate Income
Housing Fund for the purposes of acquiring property and constructing
related improvements for an affordable housing project containing 344
rental units outside the Redevelopment Project Area, in which such funds
are generated, are and will be of benefit to the respective Project Area
based on the following findings:
a. The Village Redevelopment Area currently consists of a number of
restaurants, hotels, time-share projects and small retail operations
which depend on and which offer employment at low to moderate
income wages. The proposed housing project offers affordable
housing opportunities to these employees which are currently not
available to them in the Village Redevelopment Area.
b. The proposed project is located on bus routes and connects to
major transportation corridors which will allow direct access to the
Village Redevelopment Area. The households residing within the
-2-
I ’ -.
1
2
3
4
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 EVAN BECKER, Housing and Redevelopment Director
26
27
28
proposed project will be able to take advantage of the public
transportation systems which will allow them to work and shop in
the Village Redevelopment Project Area. This will have a
significant impact on the Redevelopment Agency’s efforts to
revitalize the Village Project Area.
3. That the Low and Moderate Income Housing Set-Aside Funds will
promote the City of Carlsbad’s housing goals and satisfies specific
requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law to expend a portion
of its tax increment to produce affordable housing opportunities for low
and moderate income persons.
4. The Housing Commission recommends that the Housing and
Redevelopment Director be authorized to execute documents required for
the appropriation of 52,000,OOO in funds from the Redevelopment Low
and Moderate Income Housing Set-aside Funds in order to provide
property and related improvements for construction of a 344 rental unit
project for low and very low income persons within the City of Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Housing Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 14th day of
October, 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: AVIS, ROMBOTIS, CALVERLY, NOBLE, SATO, WELLMAN,
ESCOBEDO
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: SCARPELLI, PETERSON
ABSTAIN: NONE
DOUG AVIS, Vice Chairperson
Housing Commission
ATTEST:
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HOUSING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 93-010
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF CITY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO AN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT WHICH WILL PROVIDE
A TOTAL OF 344 RENTAL UNITS FOR LOW AND VERY
LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS TO BE LOCATED WITHIN
THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE CITY.
CASE NAME: “THE VILLAS” AT EL CAMINO REAL
APN: 215-020-15
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has identified a need to provide at least 1400
housing units affordable to households of low and very low income by 1996; and
WHEREAS, a project, known as the Villas at El Camino Real, has been proposed
for construction which will provide 344 residential apartments on a 21 acre parcel located
adjacent to and west of El Camino Real, between Camino Vida Roble and Alga Road, on parcel
number 2 15-020- 15 which will be affordable to low and very low income households; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad’s financial analysis of the project concludes that
1 city financial participation in the project is necessary and appropriate due to the public benefit
received by the City; and
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. ’ r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. . . .
.*..
WHEREAS, the affordability level and the unit mix of the proposed project are
consistent with the City of Carlsbad’s Housing Element objectives, Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy, Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and Density Bonus Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the project has been found to be consistent with the requirements of
the General Plan, the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, the Local Coastal Plan and the Growth
Management Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFOBE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing
Commission as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Housing Commission recommends to the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad approval of financial assistance to the proposed affordable housing
project known as the Villas at El Camino Real in the following form:
a. Exemption from payment of the Public Facilities Fee for entire project
based on City Council Policy 17.
b. Guarantee of the project Grading Deposit from Redevelopment Low and
Moderate Income Housing Set-Aside Funds thereby waiving the deposit
requirement for the developer.
C. Deferral of a portion of the Community Facilities District (CFD) fees. The
CFD fees will be paid in full for the first 108 units within the project. The
remaining fees for the additional 236 affordable units, resulting from the
project’s proposed increase in density, will be deferred but recaptured by
the City upon the sale of affordable housing credits, provided by the subject project, to eligible developers to meet their inclusionary housing
requirements.
. . . .
. . . .
.**.
s 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. . . .
d. Deferral of all costs to the Villas at El Camino Real related to construction
of Poinsettia Lane.
3. That the development team for the subject affordable housing project shall enter
into appropriate agreements with the City of Carlsbad which outline the terms of
city participation and the conditions to be met prior to commitment of city
assistance as contained within the staff report to the Housing Commission dated
October 14, 1993.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting ofthe Housing
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 14th day of October, 1993 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:' AVIS, ROMBOTIS, CALVERLY, NOBLE, SATO, WELLMAN,ESCOBEDO
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: SCARPELLI,PETERSON
ABSTAIN: NONE
DOUG AVIS, Vice Cbairperson
Housing Commission
ATTEST:
EVAN BECKER, Housing and Redevelopment Director
HC RESO NO. 93-010
PAGE 3
.*-.I
m
.
-
STAFF .-ARSON(S): ‘!?!$E&ER ?$&
STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT 3
DATE: OCTOBER 14, 1993
TO: HOUSING COMMISSION
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL,: Request for approval of a recommendation
to the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission to author&
acquisition of property with Redevelopment Low and Moderate Income Housing
Set-Aside Funds, and to authorize City assistance to the project.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Housing Commission ADOPT Housing Commission Resolution No. 93-009
recommending authorization of the acquisition of real property for the purpose of developing
affordable housing using up to $2 million in Redevelopment Low and Moderate Income Housing
Set-Aside Funds; and ADOPT Housing Commission Resolution No. 93-010 recommending
approval of City assistance to the project based on the findings and conditions contained therein.
II. BACKGROUND
The Villas at El Camino Real is a proposed affordable housing project resulting from the
inclusionary housing obligation of the Aviara Master Plan. The City and the development team have combined efforts to structure a project that satisfies the Aviara inclusionary requirement,
while also providing additional affordable units and affordability that is significantly greater than
the minimum requirement of inclusionary units.
On August 12, 1993, the Housing Commission approved two resolutions; Housing Commission
Resolution No. 002 recommending the purchase of the land for the proposed project with
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and Housing Commission Resolution No.
003 recommending application for acquisition funds from the CDBG Section 108 Loan Program.
Outlined below is staffs description and analysis of the proposed project, in particular the
affordability and financing. This analysis forms the basis for the staff recommendation regarding
City financial support for the project. The recommendation complements the previous Housing
Commission action of August 12, 1993, in terms of implementing this project.
VJLLAS AT EL CAM, 1 REAL m I OCTOBER 14, 1993
PAGE 2 *
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Location
The proposed project consists of 344 residential apartments on a 21 acre parcel located
adjacent to and west of El Camino Real, between Camino Vida Roble and Alga Road.
B. Unit Mix
The project proposes the following unit mix:
TYPE SQ. FT.
1 BR .634
2BR 953
3 BR 1052
C. Other Features and Amenities
NUMBER % OF TOTAL
120 35%
120 35%
JO4 30%
344 100%
The proposed project includes a common recreation complex containing a swimming pool,
exercise room, leasing office, gathering room, kitchen and restroom. A second recreation
area also includes a pool and children’s wading pool. There are two play areas for
children and flat grassy areas between buildings, driveways, and slope areas. The
project’s l-3 story buildings would feature contemporary architecture consisting of roofs
with varying roof lines, stucco exteriors and a patio or balcony for each apartment.
D. Assessment
This is an ideally located project that yields a substantial impact on Housing Element
goals with a project design that equals or surpasses Carlsbad market standards. The unit
mix will serve the needs of both seniors and larger families.
Iv. DEVELOPMENT TEAM
A. Developer
The project is being developed by Aviara Land Associates (ALA) in concert with Bridge
Housing Corporation (Bridge), a non-profit housing developer, and’ Patrick/Piceme, a
partnership of two San Diego-based builder-developers, Patrick Development and Piceme
Associates. ALA’s role in assembling the development team stems from the affordable
housing requirement of the Aviara Master Plan contained in the Aviara Affordable
-
VILLAS AT EL CAM .I REAL _ . OCTOBER 14, 1993
PAGE 3
Housing Agreement adopted by City Council on July 20, 1993. Exhibit 1: Development
Team Background, presents additional background about the individual team member.
B. Development Ornanization
Ultimately, the developer and owner will be a limited partnership in which Bridge
Housing Corporation will be the managing general partner. The sole limited partner will
be the entity providing equity to the project through the purchase of Low-Income Housing
Tax Credits (Tax Credits). Mission First Financial, an investment subsidiary of Southern
California Edison, is the prospective Tax Credit investor/limited partner. Bridge and
Mission First Financial have successfully joined efforts in similar affordable housing
projects. The PatrickIPiceme partnership and ALA may retain a general partnership
interest in the project, but not to the exclusion of Bridge’s managing role.
C. Builder
The Patrick/Piceme partnership will serve as contractor. This team is an experienced
multi-family apartment builder.
D. Architect
Design services are being provided by The McKinley Associates, also an experienced
multi-family architect.
E. Lenders
At this time neither a construction nor permanent lender has been selected. Significant
equity financing will be expected from the sale of the Tax Credits. Other planned sources
of financing will include the developer, the City and the Federal Home Loan Bank
Affordable Housing Program @HP).
F. Assessment
The development team is composed of highly experienced players, including one of the
nation’s foremost non-profit affordable housing developers. The Tax Credit structure of
this project requires that Bridge be in the pivotal ownership and management role which
is desired by the City. This structure is ultimately controlled by the City as well, since
the City’s financial participation will be required for a feasible project.
VILLAS AT EL CAM > REAL * . OCTOBER 14, 1993
PAGE 4
.
V. SITE
A. Site Control
The site is currently owned by the Bank of America (formerly Security Pacific National
Bank) as Trustee Under Declaration of Trust of Mary E. Bressi. ALA holds an option
to purchase the property for $2 million. The option agreement expires October 26, 1993.
B. Value
An appraisal ordered by Security Pacific National Bank valued the site at $3,995,000 as
of November 7, 1990. Two additional independent appraisals will be ordered to update
the value.
C. Site Accentabilie
The site is situated between light industrial and agricultural uses. It is close to major
existing and future employment generators, including a large proportion of moderate-wage
jobs. The site is located within one mile of commercial centers, and within l/3 mile of
a future community park and daycare center. The adjacent roadway, El Camino Real, is
a prime arterial and provides transit services.
D. Assessment
From an affordable housing standpoint, the site’s proximity to jobs and services is
superior. It is compatible with surrounding uses and creates minimal impacts. Land value
will be supported by two new appraisals, and it is proposed that site control be insured
by an expedited purchase of the land by the City.
VI. AFFORDABIIXI’Y
A. Rent and Income Levels
The project will serve families at income levels up to 50% and 60% of the area median
income for San Diego County. This results in the following approximate affordable rent
schedule:
UNIT 50% AMI* 60% AMI* RENT
One Bdrm
(120) $ 17,550 s 21,050 $381/$463
Two Bdrm
WV $ 21,950 S 26,350 $ 449/$ 548
Three Bdrm
(104) $ 25,450 $ 30,550 S 514tS626
* AMI - Area Median Income
<-
ViLLAS AT EL CAM. ) REAL
OCTOBER 14, 1993
PAGE 5
.
Consistent with other City programs, rents (including utility allowance) are based on
households paying 30% of income.
B. Targeted Ponulation
The project is designed as a family project but provides a large (35%) one-bedroom
component to serve independent seniors as well as young couples without children. The
project contains 30% three-bedroom units, addressing the identified Housing Element goal
of assisting larger families in a market area that provides few large units. While the
affordability of the project enhances its marketability, a market studv will be required to
support the market absorption for the project.
C. Term of Affordabilitv
The minimum required term of affordability will be 55 years. This will be a Tax Credit
requirement.
D. Consistency with Housing Element and other Affordable Housing Policies
The proposed affordability level and the unit mix are consistent with Housing Element
objectives and the City’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy. The project’s
entire 344 units would serve as credit toward the City’s five-year lower-income housing
“fair-share” goal of providing 1400 units; the project would provide for almost 25% of
the 5-year goal. The affordability of the project exceeds the requirement of the City’s
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Density Bonus Ordinance and Growth Management
policy.
E. Assessment
The project will be a major stride toward City affordable housing goals. The project will
also be a product of key City policies which were put in place to facilitate this result.
The project will be “100% low-income”, raising questions of project size and
concentration; however, the project location, design, financing and ownership/management
will be strong safeguards. Households making $20,000-$30,000 are low-income, but are
a critical part of the Carlsbad working population and can form a stable community.
As a “Combined Project” under the provisions of the Carlsbad Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance, the project satisfies ALA’s afhordable housing obligation off-site, that is, on
a site outside the Aviara Master Plan. Because the project goes beyond ALA’s
requirement of 160 affordable units, there are 184 additional affordable units available in
the nroiect to satisfv other developers’ inclusionarv reauirements. This presents the
advantage not only of greater numbers of affordable units, but also the potential to satisfy
developer obligations that may otherwise be difftcult to resolve with new units in other
locations. The participation of other developers in buying what will be referred to as
“Affordable Unit Credits” in the Villas project is a key element in the discussion of
financing which follows.
VJLLAS AT EL CAM J REAL . . OCTOBER 14, 1993
PAGE 6
VII. FINANCIAL
A. Sources and Uses of Funds .
The following summarizes the proposed sources and uses of funds which make up the
financing plan for the proposed project. Detailed development and operating proformas
are attached as Exhibit 2: Development and Operating Proformas.
THE VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
USES
Land
Construction Costs
Off-Sites
Site Work & Buildings
Subtotal
Fees & Permits
Soil costs
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST
$ 590,223.OO
16,475,885.00
SOURCES
TOTAL PER UNIT
$ 2,060,OOO.OO $ 5,988.OO
1,716.OO
47,895.OO
17,066,108.00 49,6 11 .OO
5,878,622.00 17,089.OO
6,324,439.00 18,385.OO
$31,329,169.00 $91,073.00
Bank Loan
Limited Partnership Equity (Tax Credit)
AffordabIe Housing Program Loan
Developer Equity (ALA)
City Loans:
CDBG
Set-Aside
Fee Exemptions/Deferrals (estimated):
PFF
Grading Deposit
Poinsettia Lane
CFD
Contingent Partner Equity
TOTAL SOURCES
S 8,730,OOO.OO $25,378.00
15,047,985.00 43,744.oo
2,064,000.00 6,OOO.OO
1,000,000.00 2,907.OO
$2,000,000.00
500,000.00
$ 2,500,OOO.OO S 7267.00
S 358,484.OO
104,046.OO
756,OOO.OO
666,98 1 .OO
S 1,885,511.00 s 5,481.OO
$ 101,673.OO $ 296.00
$31,329,169.00 $91,073.00
B. Develonment Costs
1. Total
The total proforma development costs are $9 1,073 per unit. This is considerably
below the Carlsbad prototype construction cost of $133,783 for a two-bedroom
VILLAS AT EL CAM 1 REAL
OCTOBER 14, 1993
PAGE 7
apartment. Recently, the State of California Tax Credit Allocation Committee
(TCAC) established development cost benchmarks for evaluating Tax Credit
projects. These benchmarks were established on a regional basis using project
“cost basis” per bedroom. The 1993 San Diego benchmark is $36,552 which
compares to $41.013 for the Villas. If projects exceed the benchmark by $5,490
(one standard deviation from the benchmark) the TCAC would require cost
justifications. Considering the Villas differential of approximately $4,461, the
costs are reasonable by TCAC standards. This is further supported by the fact that
Carlsbad is a generally higher cost location than those areas considered for the
TCAC benchmark. Also noteworthy are costs that are not developer-controlled,
such as local fees and off-site requirements. These are substantially above those
used to establish TCAC benchmarks.
TCAC also uses a cost per nerson benchmark. In this case, the Villas, at
approximately $27,342 per person, is considerably below the benchmark of
This reflects the significant proportion of three-bedroom units. $30,283.
2. Land
While !a& cost/value will be supported by more current appraisals, the significant
proposed increase in density has reduced per unit land cost to approximately
$6,000/u&, well below prototype unit land costs in the range of $20,000.
3. Construction
Construction costs are approximately $38/sq. ft., a reasonable estimate for the
quality of unit proposed. The City’s study “Economics of Developing Affordable
Housing”, utilized a local building industry panel that estimated construction costs
at $42/sq. ft. for a Carlsbad prototype two bedroom unit.
4. Contractor’s General Conditions, Overhead and Profit
The cost is approximately $1,778,796, or 10.42% of hard construction costs. Up
to twelve percent (12%) is a rough industry standard provided the contractor is
guaranteeing the construction price as is the’case with the Villas. Bridge was
asked for further support for this cost based on their experience. This is provided
in Exhibit 3: Supporting Information: Contractor Fees, Developer Fee, Cost
Savings, and Cash Flow.
5. Developer Fee
Developer fee is $1,500,000 or 6% of the tax credit cost basis (development costs
less land and certain other “soft costs”). The TCAC permits a developer fee of up to 15%, but will likely “cap” the fee for a larger project such as the Villas. This
fee level (at 6%) reflects a considerable discount for project size. In Exhibit 3,
Bridge also describes the distribution of developer fee and indicates what is done
,-
VILLAS AT EL CAh! 3 REAL
OCTOBER 14, 1993
PAGE 8
to earn the fee. In an affordable housing project structured like the Villas there
is no developer profit, but there are fees. Like profits, these fees are an incentive
to undertake the project, but they also relate to specific roles the developer must
perform (e.g. capitalizing a general partnership, and guaranteeing construction
completion, cost overruns, operating deficits and tax benefits for a limited partner).
6. Financing Soft Costs
Prudent estimates have been utilized for permanent loan fees (2%), construction
loan fees (1.50%) and construction period interest (8% for 18 months at a 60%
average outstanding balance). Bridge’s Tax Credit syndication fees are relatively
nominal in comparison to typical Tax Credit projects.
7. Operating Reserves
The $500,000 operating reserve is slightly more than 50% of initial annual
operating expenses and reserve contributions. This is a prudent level, as it must
also be looked to for initial operating deficits during lease-up. Bridge also
discusses this in Exhibit 3.
8. Design
Design fees for architectural and engineering services are $544,500, or
approximately 4% of hard construction costs.
9. Fees, Permits
At over $5.8 million, or $17,000 per unit, the estimated project fees are the largest
project cost factor next to construction. This is also addressed later in the
Financing Structure. Local fees are estimates, and some items may change as the
project proceeds. Some fees, particularly Poinsettia Lane construction, are subject
to exact determination based on further study. Major components of this cost
‘factor include the Mello Roos Community Facility District Fee ($966,640), School
Fees ($864,638), Poinsettia Lane Construction ($756,800) and Public Facility Fees
($358,484).
10. Hard and Soft Cost Contingency
Contingency is approximately 5% of hard costs and is a minimum acceptable level.
C. Oneratirw Proforma
The Operating Proforma is based on income generated by the schedule of affordable rents
and applies a number of assumptions: a vacancy rate is assumed at 3%, reflecting greater
demand at more affordable rents; rents are assumed to increase at 3% per year (based on
VILLAS AT EL CAM. :, REAL
OCTOBER 14, 1993
PAGE 9
household median income increases) and expenses at 4%. Debt service assumes a 9%,
30-year loan amortisation.
The development team has estimated operating expenses at $2,500 per unit/year based on
experience and project size. This factor is low in the typical range for apartments, but
reflects the economies of a larger project and the capability of experienced management.
The Operating Proforma provides for a contribution to an operating and replacement
reserve.
Cash flow is generated in the first full year and accumulates to $1.8 million in year ten.
Use of cash flow is addressed further in the Financing Structure.
D. Financing Structure
The Villas financing structure is dictated largely by the Tax Credit investment that brings
the most significant subsidy to the project (approximately $15 million). The supportable
bank loan will raise approximately 28% of project cost, while the. Tax Credit raises 48%.
The prospects of raising the Tax Credit investment are enhanced because of Bridge’s track
record and relationships in similar projects.
The Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program @HP) is an additional
“outside subsidy” from a program established by financial institution reform legislation.
Both Tax Credits and AHP are programs which require competition for funds or
fund allocations. Competition is very intense in these programs.
Exhibit 4: Program Summaries - Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and Affordable
Housing Program, provides summaries of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and AHP
programs.
Developer equity of $1 million from ALA reflects a contribution roughly equivalent to
the land value attached to the 160 unit affordable unit requirement being satisfied for
ALA by the project. This concept establishes a reasonable precedent in cases where the
developer is able to attract large additional subsidies such as Tax Credit equity.
1. City Participation
City participation is in two forms: direct financing and fee exemptions or
deferrals.
a. Fee Exemptions and Deferrals
. Based on City Council Policy 17, providing for exemptions of
affordable housing from Public Facilities Fees (PFF), it is proposed
that the project be exempted from PFF fees ($358,484). The
Policy language covering this exemption is contained in Exhibit 5:
City Council Policy No. 17.
VFLLAS AT EL CAM, J REAL . I OCTOBER 14, 1993
PAGE 10
. Based on a guarantee of the project Grading Deposit from
Redevelopment Low and Moderate Income Housing Set-Aside
Funds (Set-Aside), it is proposed that the deposit be waived.
. The allowable base density of the Villas site would permit a
development yield of 108 units. It is proposed that the CFD Fee
related to the 236 additional affordable units resultiw from the
proiect’s proDosed increase in densitv be deferred. This creates
savings to the project of approximately $666,981 for the CFD.
Because of the nature of Poinsettia Lane as a future improvement
and pending work to determine its cost, it is proposed that this
project obligation be deferred entirely. The concept of deferring
these costs is supported by the fact that the affordable units created
in this way provide a public benefit which equals or exceeds the
fees deferred. Payment of these deferred fees would be made from
proceeds from the sale of Affordable Unit Credits which are
available as a result of the “excess” affordable units created in the
Villas project.
b. City Direct Financing
It is proposed that $2,000,000 in CDBG funds and $500,000 in Set-Aside
be loaned to the project as construction and, subsequently, permanent
financing. CDBG funds ($880,000) would be drawn from the City’s
CDBG housing fund balance and from a CDBG 108 Loan ($1.2 million)
to be applied for. CDBG funds have been set aside for several years to
create a fund for support of affordable housing. This is an eligible use of
these funds and the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) has expressed concern over this fund not yet being committed to
a project(s). The Section 108 Loan program allows the City to borrow
CDBG funds, pledging a portion of future years’ grants for repayment.
The program is more fully described in Exhibit 6: Section 108 Loan
Program Summary. Because of regulatory restrictions, CDBG funds are
best used as land acquisition financing for affordable housing. For this
reason, CDBG funds will be utilized to acquire the Villas site, with the site
then leased or sold to the project.
The City’s Set-Aside funds have accumulated to a balance of approximately $2,319,000. These funds must be devoted to the provision
of affordable housing opportunities in the redevelopment project area, or
given certain benefit findings, outside the redevelopment project area. It
is proposed that $2 million of Set-Aside Funds be utilized as interim
financing to effect an immediate purchase of the project site until the
CDBG funds are available to replace the Set-Aside funds. HUD
processing will require approximately four (4) months before CDBG funds
VILLAS AT EL CAM 3 REAL
OCTOBER 14, 1993
PAGE 11
would be available. Ultimately $500,000 of the Set-Aside Funds are to
remain in the project covering other development costs. In addition to
authorizing the expenditure of Set-Aside Funds, Housing Commission
Resolution No. 93-009, contains the findings of benefit necessary in order
to expend these funds outside the redevelopment project area.
2. Terms of City Participation
All City financial participation will be structured through a Loan Agreement to
allow repayment of direct financing and deferred fees/costs from three sources:
. Development cost savings, to the extent they are achieved, will be
shared with the development team and will defray the costs of City
direct financing, as well as providing the developer incentive to
construct the project at or under budget.
. Marketing of “Affordable Unit Credits” as credits to other
developers will provide for recapture of City direct financing and
deferred fees/costs.
. Distribution of cash flow, to the extent it is available and when
appropriate reserve levels are achieved, will also be a source of
repayment of City loans.
In Exhibit 3, Bridge describes methods of allocating cost savings
and cash flow which will provide the basis for provisions. in the
City’s Loan Agreement with the project.
3. Assessing the Level of City Participation
Approximately 72% of the cost of the project is an “economic gap” filled with
subsidy financing. A breakdown of the subsidy levels demonstrates the substantial
leveraging of City participation:
. . VILLAS AT EL CAM. J REAL
OCTOBER 14, 1993
PAGE 12
SUBSIDY ANALYSIS
SOURCE
Tax Credits
ALA Equity
Contingent Partner Equity
SUBTOTAL
City Participation:
*Direct Financing
aFee Exemptions/Deferrals
SUBTOTAL CITY
TOTAL SUBSIDY
AMOUNT
$15,047,985.00
2,064,OOO.OO
1 ,ooo,ooo.oo
101.673.00
%18,213,658.00
$ 2,500,OOO.OO
1.885.511.00
% 4,385,511.00
$22,599,169.00
cw PER UNIT
81% $ 52,947.OO
19% %12,749.00
100% %65,696.00
City participation of $12,749/u& accounts for approximately 19% of the necessary project
subsidy. Each City dollar will leverage over $4.00 of additional subsidy.
City direct financing and deferred fees/costs will be recoverable through future sale of
affordable unit credits. This will allow City housing funds to “revolve” into future
projects. Although there is no established “price” for affordable unit credits at this time,
it can be calculated that roughly $22,000 per credit for the 184 available excess credits
would return all City direct financing and fee deferrals. This “price” compares to a
typical economic gap or subsidy cost of producing an affordable unit, in the $70,000
range.
Although cash flow and development cost savings represent possible additional
sources of return to the City, the City’s position is best evaluated by not assigning
value to those sources. Should they materialize, they become added “up-side”
benefits by first strengthening the project itself and then providing return to the
City.
VIII. LAND USE
The project has been found by staff to be consistent with the requirements of the General Plan,
the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, the Local Coastal Plan, and the Growth Management Ordinance.
The projects required land use approvals were recommended by staff and approved by the
Planning Commission on September 1, 1993.
Ix. MANAGEMENT
Bridge Housing Corporation will control the management of the project. It is their intention to
either utilize their own management company or contract for day-to-day on-site management that
.
VILLAS AT EL CAM 3 REAL
OCTOBER 14, 1993
PAGE 13
they would oversee. Bridge Housing Corporation is experienced in the management of affordable
rental housing. In its management role, Bridge will also fulfil1 its responsibility to the City,
project lenders and the Tax Credit investor to insure that the project remains in compliance with
its affordability requirements. To the greatest extent possible the management plan will
incorporate services and support that are important to family stability and upward mobility. This
includes access to daycare, transportation, job training/education, etc. Management will seek to
develop specific relationships with surrounding industries that employ the Villas residents.
Establishment of strong resident organization to empower residents and create a sense of
community responsibility will be a management plan requirement.
X. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY
The City’s major administrative tasks will be to insure that the project’s affordability restrictions,
particularly with respect to the Aviara affordable housing requirement, are recorded in an
Affordable Housing Agreement regulating the project. It will be an on-going City requirement
to monitor compliance with this agreement. Given the Tax Credit structure of the project and
the attendant regulatory requirements as to affordability and compliance monitoring, the City may
find it possible to waive its requirements for monitoring and reporting that are redundant.
XI. RISKS AND CONDITIONS
A. Risks
The City will be in a subordinate position with respect to its financial participation and
as typical of “layered” subsidy projects, the City is a “lender of last resort”; however, the
City participation will be structured to look primarily for repayment outside the project
through the Affordable Unit Credit sales. The City’s risk is loss of all or part of its,direct
financial investment ($2.5 million), failure to recover all or part of deferred fees/costs
($1,527,027), and/or the failure to achieve construction and/or lease-up the desired
affordable units. Major factors mitigate the City’s risk. First, is the capability and
motivation of the development team. Second, is the presence of lenders and a major Tax
Credit investor who will apply strict standards in underwriting the project. Guarantees
will be required for project completion and coverage of operating deficits. A market
study will be required to support the project’s ability to achieve timely lease-up. Should
none of the City’s investment in the project be recovered, the level of subsidy (and
leveraging of. other subsidies) would still leave the City in very strong cost-benefit
relationship.
B. Conditions
The following conditions will be met prior to commitment of City assistance:
VILLAS AT EL CAM 3 REAL
OCTOBER 14, 1993
PAGE 14
1. Final Development, Operating and Sources and Uses Proformas that are
acceptable to the City Manager, and which are consistent with the
financing proposal contained herein.
2. An agreement with ALA acceptable to the City Manager which effectively
provides for the execution of ALA’s option .for land purchase.
3. All partnership agreements and organisational documents regarding project
development, ownership and management in a form acceptable to the City
Manager.
4. A Loan Agreement detailing the terms of City financial participation in a
form acceptable to the City Manager.
5. An Affordable Housing Agreement in a form acceptable to the City
Manager.
6. A Market Feasibility Study deemed acceptable by the City Manager.
7. Two appraisals of the project site which support a value consistent with the
purchase option price of $2 million.
XII. SUMMARY ASSESSMENT
The Villas project is proposed by a development team with proven ability, particularly Bridge
Housing Corporation. The involvement of Bridge and the Tax Credit nature of the project add
credibility and safeguards insuring that the City gets a project that it can be proud of apart from
its affordability. The City’s financial narticination is extremely reasonable in comparison to the
overall subsidy requirement of the project. The project presents a unique opportunity for
recapturing the City’s investment. The affordabilitv level and unit-mix serve the highest priorities
in the City’s Housing Element. Proiect location is ideal with respect to jobs-housing linkage and
impact on adjacent uses.
Overall, this project can be a model for achieving the City’s affordable housing goals. It is
staffs recommendation that the Housing Commission recommend the use of $2 million in
Redevelopment Low and Moderate Income Housing Set-Aside Funds for the project -- $1.5
million to be used as interim financing for the property acquisition and $500,000 to remain in
the project to finance other development costs. Staff is also recommending that the Housing
Commission recommend approval of the indicated fee exemptions or deferrals for the project.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Housing Commission Resolution No. 93-009
2. Housing Commission Resolution No. 93-010
3. Exhibits ” 1”-“6”, dated October 14, 1993.
EXHIBIT 1
DEVELOPMENT TEAM BACKGROUND
. 1
AVIARA
HILLMAN PROPERTIES
FACT SHEET
DESCRIPTION: Hillman Properties is a development, investment and management
group involved with a wide range of real estate projects
throughout the United States. Ranked among the largest
development groups in the United States. Hillman Properties develops residential, office, industrial, research and development, mixed-use and retail projects.
Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, the group is the
development arm of The Hillman Company, a privately owned diversified investment firm based in Pittsburgh. In addition to its
corporate and regional offices in Southern California, Hillman
Properties also has regional offices in Pittsburgh, San Francisco,
Sacramento, Portland and Albuquerque.
Established in 1984, Hillman Properties is currently developing approximately 125 projects in 64 cities and 22 states, valued in excess of $3 billion. Included in the portfolio are 14.8 million square feet completed, 1.2 million square feet under construction,
and 16.5 million square feet to be built on land held in inventory.
COMMERCIAL: The portfolio is largely office and industrial. Representative projects include:
International Place -- Boston, Massachusetts Fifth Avenue Place -- Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Tower Bridge -- Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
One Thousand Broadway -- Portland, Oregon
Stadium Towers Plaza -- Anaheim, California
MIXED-USE: One of Hillman Properties’ most prestigious developments now
under way is the 1,000 acre master-pla.nned resort community of Aviara in Carlsbad, California. When complete, this resort
community is planned to include more than 2,000 homes, the 443
room Four Seasons Resort Aviara with additional villa suites, an 18 hole championship golf course, a 47,000 square foot sports center with 12 tennis courts, parks and a neighborhood school.
2011 PALVMAR AIRPORT ROAD SUITE 206 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009 (619)931-1190 F~x:(619)931-79.512
Hillman Properties Fact Sheet Page 2
.
RESIDENTIAL: The group’s residential bglding arm, Republic Development .. Company, is involved in the development of detached single- f@ily homes ‘throughbut !kWhern,~&l.if~rni~~ , L’ _
r
-: : ., y I .I _, I:?. -’
, .. ; - , . ’ ,, : A., I .:: ,’ -, Niivpoft 3each, California 92660 z : I---,. -~. ~, - _- ~.. ‘- , .,-I ! ,, ~7~4),.640-6900 -.: . . -.
MANAGEMENT: ’ &4&a&I i. Chas& P&d&t . G’ __ T&j &, $Iotwer, vice fii&$+ - @&cgi ;,. - :. .T’ :’ -I; ;,I _ ,. ” i
. _ I). Larry Clexgens, .3&e P&&nt/Ger@al ‘Manager ;,.Carls@d .. . ; \ ! . i .,
/ \ I_. .’ 3ohn. R. Hartun~CI& Pksid&/Genkxti M&nager -.‘R$ublic 1 __ . . . -. :-:.
., ” .: De3elop+nt~Comp~~.~ ._ ‘1 *: .-‘) .. _ .‘1 ; - I ‘. J -5 .. .. .__ .: , ;.,’ - ., ,- . , _ / : ’ : .<. _. - . . ...’ , 1. -._ ,,.- .,... ’ . -‘. .- -. <,._. .; . .’ ..,. .’ - _,:_-. ..: .__ ,-. _- _ :. -., _ - :. : _ -: :. _ -1 - .I..., -- :! -- \ - \ _ ,
. . : ‘~ ..‘-- :. \ : .- -
.‘. . \ d ~ _‘. ‘. . ._ . . \ _. : ._. _ .’ . / : : > / -~’ : : ,_ .i _- i - ‘._ ’ . . . , \ .,. .L ‘I > *,. ,- j __ .. - . L . _ G ~. ._. . . ._ ,* c 1 _ L .’ : i - _’ : ,z- -. _. : .,. ,.. .:: r \ -... . . ‘7 _. . , _, .’ . . r . . .,., ./ : ,,, 1 . . .r .-. . : ‘) .- ;. _-._ ._. ‘~’ ; : . ., 1 - .;. 1 ., !-. ,:- ~ ,. .- .c., _i.- _ .~ 4 : - . ., . ,, .’ ; s. _ : . .: -’ I :. , : ‘_ . I : .-,.i 1 .,: z. \ / :. , ._-. __ . ‘I.. _‘e. _’ _ _ .: -,‘. ..-. ,I ’ .1 :_Y_‘. . .I I , ., i : ’ 1 ., ,‘(‘, 4.’ : ><-: , ., f ,A., . \.:. ,, ‘_ , ‘\ _. i _ _ billman : _ a.. .:~ . . .‘-.- _. .,. .- -/ . . .T _<- - .
z/20/92 .- . -,: . . . : ._ ‘; .-.. t . . I._ :
’
BRIDGE celebrates a decade
of service to the community . . .
A MESSAGE FROM l-HE
CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT
This year BRIDGE celebrates its tenth anniversary of service to the community with a ranking as
one of the largest homebuilders in the United States. The decade between 1983 and 1993 has seen many
critical changes in the housing marketplace, including a complete restructuring of the tax treatment for
housing, a virtual collapse of the real estate lending market, wild swings in interest rates, and the emergence
and disappearance of numerous government programs. Throughout it all, however, the scope and depth of
the Bay Area’s housing crisis has remained relatively unchanged. Typical home prices hover at about 250%
of the nation’s average, and typical rents exceed the national median by over 60%.
This is the setting in which BRIDGE has labored for ten years to bring decent housing to lower
income famfiies around the Bay Area. To date we have over
4,600 units completed or in construction, and we expect 800
more to start this year. In addition we operate another 800 units
which were built by others, and we expect to acquire over 500
more units this year, which we wifl own and operate as mixed
income housing.
: We are also developing two projocts which have been
hailed as models for rebuilding the riot-tom neighborhoods of
Los Angeles. They consist of mixed-use developments in
Richmond and Marin City which combine housing, open space,
and community shopping centers, comprising over a quarter
million square feet of commercial space. Our operations have
also expanded to include a first effort of nearly 400 units outside
the Bay Area in Southern California, and a full-care retirement
community with nursing, meals, and housekeeping.
All of these efforts are dwarfed however, by the mag-
nitude of the unfilled need for large volumes of high quality
affordable housing, not only in the Bay Area, butthroughout
Californiaand thenation.Moreover,theproblemiscompounded
by the continuing “credit crunch,” and the prolonged recession
still gripping our State. Thus as BRIDGE enters its second
decade, we must discern how to advance our work by full
orders of magnitude, while maintaining both quality and
affordability. This is no small task. We invite you to review this
report and to offer your ideas, your critique, and your help, if
possible, as we rise to this challenge. Our goal is continued
growth and service until the dream of decent, safe, and afford-
able homes becomes a tangible reality for all citizens.
PLANS FOR GROWTH - BRlDGE Chairman, Alan Stein
(seated), joins Don Ten-m, Resident, as the hvo discuss
plans for BRIIXXs second decade. They appear in front of
a rendering of Marin City, U.S.A., a mini-new town, which
isthelagestandmostambitiouspFopaeverund~at
BRIDGE.
chQ, a m AlanLstein
Chairman
$?.d Temm$-- I.
President
f
LEADERSHIP
Honomble Hexuy G. Ciuuma
scoaaryof- “BRlDGEisrespecbtd
thmu&outthecountyfo?
thequaMydaffordability
ditadevdopnntr”
Honorabk Dianne Fdnateb
USSezwx,StatedC
-BRlDGEhaser&kdus
tomakealgrdscant
prqpsstowardmeetlngour
&o&bfe housing go&”
Hononblr Pete Wihn
Govemcw 0fthe!3tahdciwomia
-BRfDGEpmjectsmpresmt
theldnddcomprrhmsjw
neighbahood-building approach
whichca.ndinotherd~
throughout the state and nation.”
2.
BRINGlNG TOGETHER LEADERS FROM
BUSINESS, GOVERNMENT, AND PHILANTHROPY T he BIUDGE name symbolizes a link that combines the resources and expertise of business,
government, and philanthropy. This linkage offers a unique opportunity to produce the large volumes of
highquality affordable homes needed in the Bay Area. BRIDGE works closely with all sectors of the -1
community to achieve this goal- neighborhood leaders, elected officials, the academic community, and
concerned individuals from all walks of life. 4
BRfDGE has recruited nationally fecognized leaders from throughout the Bay Area to join in its
efforts. The top executives from 18 major corporations and institutions have come together to form the
Campaign Committee listed on the facing page.
In addition to the individuals who have supported BRIDGE, many prominent Bay Area organi-
za tions have given us their endorsements, including the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Contra
Costa County Mayors‘ Conference, the Northern California Association for Non-Profit Housing, and the
Chambers of Commerce of Oakland, San Francisco, and !3an Jose.
? ;
BOARD OF DIRECTORS T he BRIDGE Board of Directors is drawn primarily from a “blue-ribbon” Housing Task Force
formed in 1981 by The San Francisco Foundation to address the housing crisii in the Bay Area. The board
includes developers, lenders, and realtors, as well as business executives, elected and appointed officials,
community and civic leaders, and University of California faculty members. These. individuals, all locally
based, have national reputations in the housing and fmance fields, and participate actively in BRIDGE
affairs. They meet bimonthly to review and consider BRIDGE policy and progress.
ALAN L STEIN SUNNEWRlG?ITMcPEAK
Chaiin of the BRIXEBoard of Dimtors;Parhwr, Mont-
gomery Securities, San Francisco; former Secretary of Busi-
ness and Transportation for the State of California
President of the Contra Costa County Board of Supemison:
Past President. County Supervisors Assodation of Caljfomia
PAUL SACK RICHARD BENDER RindpaI, Paul sack Raparies, San Francisco
Dean Fmerihu, College of Environmental Design, Uniw-
sltydcalifornia, B&&y ANGELO J. SIRACUSA
president, Bay Area Council, San Francisco
EDWARD J. BLAKELY
Rdessor, and former Chahman, Department of City and
Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley
WlLLMh4 D.STIPEK
Group Senior Vice President, World Savings and
Loan Association, OakJand
KEN? L COLWELL
President. Transamerica Realty Services, San FrancLscu CLARK E. WALLACE
AhTHONYM.FRANK
Chairman, Acqen, Inc., Oakland; former U.S. Postmastes
General; former - and CEO of Fmt Nationwide
Bank,SanFtamisa
commissioner of Real Estate, state ofcalifomia; chairman. Wallace and Andm Realtors, Momga, CA; Past President of the National Association of Realtom, and the cdifomia ASscuiation d Rz?dtorE
WARREN WIDENER
RICHARD HOLLIDAY
President, McKenzie, Rose h HoUiday, San Francism
Resident, Urban Housing lnstih~te, CMdand; former Mayor
d Berkeley; former Superviru, Alameda County
SUSANNE WILSDN
DENNISO’BRIEN
President, O’Brien & Hicks, Inc., hn Mateo
Principal, Solutions by Wilson, San Jose; former President of
San~ClaraCountyBoarddSupewisus
BACKGROUP
BAY AREA CRISIS
HOXiW!OWIIC7S Rentas
HotJsINGcRlsIs-TheBaywslnedian
home~~was5213,710complredbsl~~
nationally.thuslodcingout thevast majcnityc4 the ama’s l,enters for a chance at home owner-
ship. Rents were more expensive too, with the BayArea’smedianadvertisedrentatS6Wcum- pared to $447 nationally.
THE AFFORDABILITY GAP &uA#Ul-V&HORURiLa
WIDEGAP-Homepricesdinthepast
decadebynearlyl5Ct% whiKncomesadvd by less than 708. slight improvemenk were p&?din1991and1!?92,butthegaimwere relatively small.
4.
THE NEED F inding affordable housing is no longer just a problem of the very poor. It is a
problem that confronts teachers, police officers, firefighters, nurses, commer&l and
industrial workers, entry-level professionals - most of the work force. Furthermore, it k
is a problem of both the young and the elderly. 3 5. Housing is even a problem for relatively affluent middle-aged homeowners, -a
who often must confront both the housing needs of their grown children as they form new 0 z
families, and of their elderly parents who are trapped on fived incomes. _ ._
In the San Francisco Bay Area, these problems are among the most a& in the
nation. Rents have outpaced incomes, and over 90% of the region’s renters are trapped as
‘lifers” (i.e. renters for life), with virtually no chance of realizing the Amerlc&&eam of 3
homeownership.
Businesses, as weIl as consumers, suffer from the scarcity of reasonably priced t
homes. As households migrate away from the Bay Area to regions with more affordable
E
s
housing, the competition here for qualified employees increases, as does the pressure to
raise salaries to arromrnodate housing costs, and to compensate for long, costIy,and often
fatiguing commutes. Employee turnover and dissatisfaction increase, and labor efficiency “I
decreases. J. Gridlocked freeways are clogged with frustrated long- commuters who .are wasting prodigious amounts of gasoline, poIIuting and degrading air qua&y, and
demanding huge investments of public and private funds in new highways, qt
systems, and parking faciIities. Many of these same people mistakenIy be&e that only
an end to job growth and a moratorium on new housing can solve the problan.
Despite these pressures, it has been especially difficult to develop affordable
housing in the Bay Area. The bay, the ocean, and the mountains th+ make San Fran&co
so desirable, limit available land for both residential and cxmuner&I development. In
addition, many communities in the area have imposed extremely restrictive growth and
land-use regulations. At the same time, government programs to ease the housing crisis
have been decimated, thus threatening the economy, prosperity,.and quality of life of the
whole region.
T 1 n 1981, The San Francisco Foundation received an anonymous git? of S660,W.l
to address the housing crisis in the Bay Area. The Foundation appointed a “blue-ribbon”
Task Force, chaired by Alan Stein, which worked closely with the Bay Area Council, a
group of 300 of the region’s largest corporations, and recommended the formation of
BRIDGE as an aggressive, non-profit, regional development corporation. BRIDGE dedI-
cated itself to the production of large volumes of highquality homes for families earning
$12,MKl to $W,ONl annually.
BRIDGE received its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status ln 1983 and immediately began
active development operations. Since that time, it has participatqd In the development of
nearly 5,000 units valued at over $500 m&on. Over $s million in donations has been
added to the initial anonymous gift, and provides the working capital for BRIDGE
operations.
BRIDGE has since formed three additional non-profit, pubIi&enefit subsidiar-
ies, BRIDGE Property Management Company, Bay Area Senior services (BASS), and
BRIDGE Pro~rties Inc., which are discussed further on page 12. ::.-. * .~
TENANTCOUNSEUNC-BRIDC;FstrffmemkrsIimmyYuaowerLeft)andV-Rgg(upprLelt)~~
ap@icank for the ~tPointAputmcng.‘Iheproject.loutcdanthcSln~cisoo~~td
Emhadero, received nearly 3,OW apphdiom for the 106 a*
-
KENNETH A. PICERNl
Kenneth Picerna ia a graduata of Yale University. He io Preeident and Chief Exoautive Offiaar of Picerno Aesociatea. Prior to forming the aompany, the expanrion of a he waz the architaot and chief proponent of family real eetate bueineur from a Northeast regional development aompany into an indurrtry leader in the nation'rPJ major development mark&e, qartmenta, hundreds of thourandar During his tenure, over 8000 af I uare feet of conmmraial epacel and hundreds af "For gals” residen Fc ial unitr were built and mark&ad.
Nevada.
Upon the areation and ~uoc~~~e~ of the Southwest regional office, Kenneth Picerne moved on to Orlando, Florida in 1984, Utilizfng hie Phoenix axperlence, he took advantage of atl;ong central and routh Florida market* whllch enabled the Southraot office to break round on their first development I P oerne
D8VmlOpment Corporation oz1 3 1 ro ects within eight month@. F or da aurl;sntly owne and manage@ over 2500 apartment unitm in Florida.
In 1987, Ken Piasrne returned to the aotporate office in Rhode Island to re uvenate esveral 1 r&n 1 the Northeart development ratfvity through and xesidential projectr; to develop a highly structured and aentralized Corporate Serviae8 Divilrion to provide financial rerviaeet to enrure etandard o erational procedursr for all of the Regional Offiaesl and with h 8 P finance and treasury, expertise in corpolcate
rslation@hipe. helped the Company expand lLte financing
Punavant to the lerucceesful venturer in New England, Arizona and Florida, Kenneth Piaerne sought to open another regional office in the competitive California market, In on1 Piaesne Aeeooiatse wae formed, and ham rince E a f8W ehort years, ecoma one of the most respected development companies in eouthern California.
Ken Pioerne’s goal 4.r~ to develop and expand Piaarne Assoufater through a carefully charted plan of developing quality reridential properties.
PATRICK DEVELOPMENT
f’atfkk h8f, the founder Of f’atfkk hdOf3NfIt, ud., IS ‘idi knOWr7 tw qudty
and innovatIon in the thousands of apartments, condomMums, and 8lngMamiiy homer
which ho has dsveluped. As a community leader, he ia reaqnired au a leadIng force
In brfdgfng communicatlorrj bawsscl the @pmerrt/buWlng w Md gcnmmmti
In addition to staying a&e In reaI estate development, Pat ha$ a&nod his
entreprenekuiai abNUe8 at high--nology and has invested in savd emerging growth
companies incfudIng some in San Mego. Pat s88a the importance of emerging growth
cmnpanies to the future economic heatth and wdl b&g of San Oiego.
Pat ha8 always found time to devote to comrnunfty actMt!eu, many of which relate
to hia hope that all people in Cdfrxnfa regardkm of income, be able to Ifva in decant
housing.
8otw88n 1978 and 188!3, Pst ~Iybd on the CaMMa Muelng Finance Agency,
where h8 rose to the potion 0fvlOe cbaWf?an and ChaimtzW of the leadlng cOmmfU8e.
CH~A is a statewide agency whict\ issues bonds to finance low and mOd8m8 ht201~18
housing. From 1981 to 1988, h8 ~8s a director Of the federal home Loan Bank of San
Francisco, which regulates the savings and loan Mustry. He was appdnted fIrat under
ffesidsnt Jimmy Carter in 1981 and re-appointud und8r President Ronald Reagan.
Between 1984 and 1988, he also was on the Federal Savings and Loan Advisory
Ccwncil, which Ms as a sp8clal counselor to th8 Federal Home Loan Bank in
Wa8hington. lx,
L0caliy, Pat was on the flnt Housing Commission for the City of San Ofeqo _
thu88n 1979 and 1982. The County of San Ok~o selectfxl him to serve a3 First
Chairman of th8 Housing Bond Finance Review Cornmitt b8tw88n 1984 2lnd 1986. H8
WaS th8 First chairman of me Regional Growth and Pbnnlng Review Task Force for San
DlwO CCMnty, Last yeat, he Wa8 r84flpOht~ t0 it thr88 y0N t8ftfl On th8 bnt8r city
bv8lopment &rporation, which Is responsible for all d8v8topmWt actfvitiw in th8
redsveIoprnent area of downtown -Dlsgo*
EducatfOn is another interest of Pafs. Since 1981, he has been a member of the
Board of the Unlvetsity of CalHorn& 68rkek3y Center for f?eai &at8 and Urban
-.
ASSOCIATES, INCA
ARCHITECTURE 6. PLANNING
The McKinley Associates, Inc. is a full service architectural/ land planning$rm specializing in residential architecture as weil as focused experience in commercial and instir tional projects. Located in San Mego since 1983; it has provided services throughout the western states including Utah. Washington, Colorado, Nevada and California.
The McKinley Associates’ portfolio of residential work includes over 10,000 units of multi-story high density, three and four story medium density, and one and two story low density development. Additionally, The McKinley Associates are presently involved in designing one of the largest multi-use homeless housing projects (400 beds) in the State of California.
The overall experience makes The McKinley Associates. Inc. a valued team member on a variety of residential developments. The McKinley Associates’ knowledge of current design trends, construction practicies, and value engineering extends their capabilities beyond that of many firms. The McKinley Associates’ broad base understanding of land planning, product design, and cost control amply qualifies them to provide a broad scope of services integral to success of a project.
619 . 238-I I34 FAX: 2384038
1818 FIRS-l-AVENUE
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101
THE A~ENTINE
8910 UNIVERSITY CENTER LANE
SUITE 580
SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA 92122
619.558-8977
fAX 619~5S8~9188
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
Dennis W. Gillespie Gillespie Design Group, .Inc. 8910 University Center Lane, Suite 580 San Diego, California 92122,
Dennis W. Gillespie, founding principle of Gillespie Design Group, Inc., established his landscape architectural and land planning office in San Diego in 1976. Prior to establishing his own practice, he provided master planning services for city, county, and federal governmental agencies. Mr. Gillespie received his Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Design from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona in 1970 and is a licensed Landscape Architect in California and Nevada. He is a member of the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) and the Building Industry Association and serves on the B.I.A.‘s Quality Task Force. -.
Mr. Gillespie has provided overall design coordination and management for a wide variety ,.
of land planning assignments during his -21 years in the landscape architectural field. His specific expertise has been in the development of planned cqmrmmities, major recreational facilities, country clubs, resorts, golf courses, bike paths, and parks for clients in both the public and private sectors. Other areas of expertise are feasibility studies, master planning, resource management, slope erosion control plans, and utility and transportation corridor improvements dealing with projects located in environmentally sensitive areas.
Mr. Gillespie has received numerous awards for design excellence in parks, master planned residential communities, and city and governmental urban designs. Awards have been received from H.U.D., California Coastal Commission, A.I.A., A.P.A., City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, City of La Mesa, and the.County of San Diego. Mr. Gillespie has received over 50 awards from the B.I.A., including SAM, Gold Nugget, MAME, and Laurel awards for excellence in residential neighborhood design.
Some master planned communities designed by Gillespie Design Group include, Ranch0 Bernardo, Ranch0 Bernard0 Heights, Twin Oaks Valley Ranch, Sunbow, Redhawk and Carmel MountainRanch.
BHA, INC.
TEEFIRM
BHA, Inc. is a land planning, civil engineering and surveying firm committed to providing
the highest level of personalized service for large and small clients in the public and
private sectors.
BHA’s ability to consistently find solutions through innovative and award winning work
has earned the firm the respect and loyalty of a growing list of satisfied clients throughout
Southern California.
Carl&ad based BHA has served -a diversified group of clients ranging from private
developers to public municipalities.
A trademark of the firm is the direct involvement by founding principals Rod Bradley and
Ron Holloway in every BHA project. Overseeing a staff of talented professionals, Bradley
and Holloway ensure every project is completed on time and within budget.
In addition, BHA offers a team of specialists who possess vast experience in dealing with
planning challenges from both the public and private side of the development table. This
knowledge is applied to every site plan, master plan, environmental impact report, land
survey and engineering study the firm undertakes.
BHA’s track record of providing creative and functional solutions has made the firm a
respected leader in its field. Though the firm’s steady growth, the level of service on
which BHA was founded has remained intact.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
BHA is recognized for its’sound planning of both small and large residential communities.
Working within precise and stringent guidelines, BHA’s residential specialists consistently
create quality residential environments which enhance their natural surroundings while
maximizmg land use through expert planning, grading and design.
BHA has planned and engineered over 3,000 multi-family residential units in San Diego
County. Most of these projects have fallen within the Hillside Development criteria.
Additionally, BHA is known locally for its involvement as engineers for the Carlsbad
Village Faire project.
EXHIBIT 2
DEVELOPING AND OPERATING
PROFORMAS
d SEP 15 '93 15:19 I .*a-
RElnll MVWHERt COUT & M 88*L*#~#8Ul@U8US~USU 1MZ TZCR drrl t7OZR 50X. 30Z 4 lOZlt Cad’1 crrditr 4 13OZr
+++ PROJECTEO Cam +*
krniptiw lhdg#t rtr hf. --- --. --mm 1 d hrchm (ahpt’n pc ohitr trpfowontr
l!M it. In$rwewnt8 1 Ban'1 %d ctiw Mr ‘rtml/Ptofit
P fqn cmsu1tmtc
L~l‘%i~ Apprrfrrl
pS#;[SgC#
12,141
fDWZ B: 88i
SDOOX
2,~fp44 ,phg 1:77o:nr l,l#!J t #::a8 1‘ : INIl Wd~ v ;4 ,031 fMi366 is 888
M 3i:Sl T D k II: 8 83 Oh t;g
4 . r:r 8: B s 13 D
l
B91,on i m~a-~Xl+rO-~- - : ~.:.~.~.~.~.~.~r~~~.~~.~.~=.~~~~.=.~,.~.~-.~
3% “%I i tooa I
v,LBB - 94z aedlral V ffi - 602 mdiaai - BM udiw
RImi p
16sea-w :.+r+r~-n-8-~-8.~.~-~-B-~-o I - -:.~~~-x-l4-I~-8~:-:-~-8-.
hr unit ..- 1 Itn Est. tort
I .--9..O.- --
‘r lbnrqewt fw
I M&sS”on ?a
: . flaintmmo 2 0,ooo P
I ; Utflitlrr t;8t co: 888
! hm!ED txwtl I 78
i
other . Rmpl, Rntfve llntludd belwl I
i
i
?oTM iiiig
I Prr Unit Pxpem 12,502
I ,~~U4-)~--W~~L-t~=~~~~n-b-~.
unit type
Gisiiii TX 2 Ei8a 120 TX fltwTi44z
2-=io :f9 9oz Kh l8i NM I
S-BEDRUOII fICfI 1
MR KM II a
lAml ---
a Er f 92
rq,rt, w of ts .k -- ifi 634 !I
983 4
iii 5
1052 i8# P 6 8% 48s’
44
Total I
&taut1 ~Rwoaur -
iiti:q
1452, 4236, II u
42w2 u I 4
‘R-4
416,112
r;;Gyiii
1
i ‘
i
I
I I I
i I
I I
I : I
MM LW fait A f ibo&thrDDrw ..DD1IDDDDDD IeM (1s bus)l*r...DDDDD
TiixznY . tntrmt R8tx::::::::::
DDD,DI,DD,,,,
Kw~c~tiune.DDD‘..D.D # ha RRinYestJ!,DDD,DD
IlMKfl CMD TfUWl Rite at L
IL7
t kn4wt,.,, acw Mr; tr e tnn ;;;,i;“““’
Opafrwlg fXpmn8I.DD.D rropnrty 18x Rlht..*,..,, InuHM fn Low 1dmt in lltb ~wt(lll*~#la~lD
03 $pg (I 4Arr
I
fl!l
PM I 110(
:t:h&
#4,446,06h 10
3%
3kMHE BRSITXS 20-Sea-13
SUHH6RY OF FINANCIM PRDfDRM
SuDm LIME rml TOW PER UNIT ---------~.-*--.-.----~--~~.-~----~~~-.--~--.-. .
IAD c2,060Aoo a9811
C8NSTRUCllON COSTS
#F-SITES wu23 $l,‘lb
SITE UDRK 4 SUILDIRSS $16,475,885 q7,m
IUITOTM 117,066,loa 449,611
FEES 4 PERHITS 15,878,622 917,089
SOFT cum 96,324,439 511,385
rtl1RL 931,329,16i $91,073
-
. .
. l
SEP 20 ‘93 116;11
-
wlw3r BEaE;;fisR’” f ILEa Rmt 20-sea-93 PA6E St EWITY 1RvEs1REMl cMuLnT1oR
CMCULATIOR OF EUUIlY RAISE Vederrl’ Credits Onlrlr
Total basis, lrss dtvalownt tot: 426,060,413
Plus kwiooer fear 914500,000
Raris Refon Hi9b Cart Anr kijustaentr 47,360,413
Hi9h CostlOurlified Cmrus Tract adjurtrmtt )8,2&8,124
Basis for actual iIIocrtim:
1st year Federal credit rIIy:~g~ lrrsurrd credit rator
l Too year total rllocrtimr
factor for htrrafniq qritv niur
Total quity raise (Fed’1 onIy)r
Ractug undenritingt r&o 1 90.50
wmAfoa ff cm II Ram
total drwlopoent costs, loss Cwl. fwr
lfinusl
tandr
Of f-me frprowren ts:
Peromt Loan Frrr
Title/Recording (Pm. Loan):
Hartetiltqr
Oparatinp Rewwr
TW Fee:
Syndicrtiml cortrr
SUBTOTaL
total EI39ibIe Pasisr
935,82R,SSb
Wo9,597
4so,o95,971
0.19
914,446,0bb\
915,047,985 /
429,829~169
(92,06o,ooo1
N90,223)
(W4,oooI
wMoo1
(417S,090)
/5m,ooo1
(9149,OW
(11~0,m)
1~3,74R,737)
-
EXHIBIT 3
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
CONTRACTOR FEES, DEVELOPER FEE,
COST SAVINGS AND CASH FLOW.
* ’
c
1
- FILE: FRSITX3 DATE: 14-Sep-93
COHPARISON OF GENERAL CONTRACTOR COSTS
LOCATION:
TOTAL CONTRACT
TOTAL FEE
Overhead
Profit
GENERAL CONDITIONS
Supervision
Terp. Facilities
Clean-up/Repairs
Insurance
Bond
6eneral Conditions
Business Tax
TOTAL 6.C. COSTS
W/O BOND
W/D BOND 4 BUS. TAX
6.C. COSTS AS PERCENT OF CONTRACT
W/O BOND
WI0 BOND & BUS. TAX
STW#AT SAN PAUL0
S. Francisco Irvine
10,136,480 23,b62,000 7,991$845 171048,187 4,897,519 4,748,904 17,OW98
525,446 545,000 449,721 465,000 303,706
776,912 926,000
375,000
158,000
293,000
9,588,937
613,026
258,297
354,729
509,900 551,628
79,651
107,129
46,770
294,511
23,567
1,001!349
954,579
931,012
378,762
197,150
62,100
119,512
135,220
243,764 1,028,796
170,621
133,085
243,420 750,000
18,000
71,119
57,484
618,062
30,247
1,302,358
1,244,874
1,214,627
12,650
100,000 509,900 117,220 230,770
1,471,OOO 1,122,926
1,471,ooo 1,122,926
1,471,OOO 1,122,926
843,7b2 438,926 487,184 1,778,79b
843,762 438,926 487,184 1,778,796
843,762 438,926 487,184 1,778,796
12.85X 6.222 11.74x 12.533 4.952 8.962 10.262 10.42X
12.281 6.222 11,74z 11.94x 4.95x 8.962 10.262 10.42X
11.98X 6.221 11,74x 11.65X 4.95x 8.96X 10.26X 10.42X
VILLA FELL 0 EHERY CITY CNTR CENTERTOWN BRESSI NUEVA 6OU6H BAY II APARTHENTS APARTIIENTS SITE
San Jose S. Francisco Emeryville Richrond S. Rafael Carlsbad
- 82 SECOND STREET, SUITE 200 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
TEL 415/989-1111 FAX 4151495-4898 hWW
September 13, 1993 Ref. #4038F
Evan Becker
Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite 6
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Evan:
We would like to express our strong appreciation for the work done by
you and the Planning Department staff to enable our proposed development on
the Little Bressi site to come before the Planning Commission on the first of this month. It was clear from both the process and the results of the
hearing that the Commissioners had been well briefed on the issues.
We recognize that the schedule upon which we settled at our meeting on Thursday September 2nd is quite aggressive towards meeting the two critical
goals ahead of us:
1. Purchasing the Bressi through the Section 10 11 roperty prior to the year end with CDBG funds loan, an opportunity we cannot afford to lose.
2. Gaining all public approvals and financing commitments in time to begin construction in the spring of next year, thereby allowing us to build
through the winter months and have units for rent in the spring of 1995.
To accomplish these goals, we must work towards a City Council meeting on October 12 at which the Council considers three types of approvals:
1. Land Use (Site Plan)
2. Purchase of the Property by the City
3. Commitments to make land and funds available to our partnership, based on a financing plan acceptable to the City and our partnership.
Based on our meeting, we have prepared the attached Action Plan,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
TiiZ%L
Panner. Montgomery Secunties. San Fnncisco.
RICHARDBEND~ Dean Fmelitus, cdkge of Environmental Design. Univemlty
of California. Berkeley. CA.
EDWARD J. BIAKELY pr&ssor. ~eoamnent of Ciry and
Regional Plalming, Univervty of
California, Berkeley, CA.
KENTCOLWELL.
President. Transanwtica Ileaky
Services. San Fnncisco.
ANTHONY M. FRANK
Chairman, Aciqe”. Inc..
Oakland. CA
rucHARD M. HOILLDAY
President, McKenzie, Rme & H&&y Development. Inc.. San Francisco.
DENNlSO’BRlEN Pres&.nt. O’Brien % Hicks, Inc..
San Mateo. CA.
5IlNNEWlUG~McpEAK Supervisor. District Fwr.
convr caaa county. CA.
PAUL SACK Prinoipal. Paul Sack Propertie% San Francisco.
ANGELO J. SlRACUSA
President. Bay Area Gw”cil.
WILLIAM D. STIPEK
Group Senior Vice President,
World Savmgs and Loa”
&.uxiation. Oakland. CA.
CIARK E. WALL4CE
Cwnmissioner of Real Estate,
state of caliiomla
WARRENWIDENER
President, Urban Housing
Itilute, Oakland. CA.
SUSNME-N
Principal. SoluIions by Wilson,
San Jose. CA.
OFFICERS
LDONALDTERNER
PresideN
CAROL J. GALANTE Vice President
A NOT-FOR-PROFIT, PUBLIC-BENEFIT CORPORATION
-
. ’
.
- . Evan Becker
September 13, 1993
Page 2
detailing the work to be done to meet the proposed schedule and the party responsible for each item. We ask you to review the plan, and to confirm
that we have correctly identified the items upon which we agreed.
To allow the City to move forward with an analysis of the economics of the project, we are providing in this letter the following:
1. An explanation of the uses of, and demands upon, the Development Fee.
2. A survey of the amounts paid to the general contractors on recent
BRIDGE projects (as a percentage of the total contract amounts), and a
breakdown of the component parts of the payment to be made to the general contractor for our project (assumed to be an affiliate of Patrick/Picerne).
3. A proposal concerning the use of any savings achieved in the CONSTRUCTION-RELATED line items in the agreed-upon project budget.
4. A proposal concerning the use of any savings achieved in the NON-CONSTRUCTION-RELATED line items in the agreed-upon project budget.
5. A proposal concerning the uses of the initial operating reserve
proposed to be funded as a development-period project cost.
6. A proposal concerning the use of project income available after payment
of debt service on private debt, operating expenses, replacement
reserves, a partnership management fee, and the operating reserve.
7. A revised project proforma, taking into account the items discussed at our meeting and the costs of the requirements imposed on the project as a condition of approval by the Planning Commission.
DEVELOPMENT FEE
Though the Development Fee serves as compensation to the developers of the
project, there are in turn three types of liabilities taken on by the
developers for which the Development Fee serves as an off-setting asset:
A. Staff and overhead costs
There is no separate line item in the budget to pay the actual staff and overhead costs of the developer incurred throughout a projected three- to four-year development period. These staff and overhead costs are significant, and can be paid only from the Development Fee.
* Evan Becker September 13, 1993 Page 3
B. Long term operating guaranties to lenders and investors
In addition to the repayment and completion guaranties required by,the construction lender, as General Partners responsible for the long-term
operation of the project we incur the following specific liabilities, the amounts of which can be quantified:
i. Operating Deficit Guaranty
To protect the Limited Partner against cost overruns in the lease-up and operation of the project, the GP's wjll sign a guaranty in an amount equal to 75% of the first full year's project income. Based on our current proforma, of approximately $1.4 million. this amounts to a guaranty
ii. Tax Credit Indemnification
To insure that the Limited Partner receives the tax benefits upon which their investment is based, the GPs will sign a guaranty to deliver a specific amount in tax credits and losses. This guaranty creates an exposure of up to $1,050,000.
. . . 111. Property Tax Guaranty
Because the project operations are underwritten assuming no property taxes will be paid, the GPs will provide a guaranty against loss of the property tax exemption, amounting to
approximately $300,000 per year.
It is our hope that these amounts can be negotiated downward, as the total potential liabilities are likely to far exceed the total
At the present time, however, these are the
c. Capitalization of General Partner
In order to assure the Limited Partner that the guaranties enumerated above are meaningful, and to meet an IRS standard, the General Partners must be able to show net worth of 10% of the total,equity invested in
the partnership (aggregate amount.of approximately $1.4 million). Particularly for BRIDGE, this is an onerous requirement for a
non-profit organization whose capital is needed to pursue a wide array
of projects.
The Development Fee constitutes the on1 d+ source of capital to offset these very large liabilities. Without ad ng some significant amount to the GP's corporate assets from the Development Fee, there would be a severe imbalance between the liabilities taken on by the GPs and the financial resources
available to cover those liabilities. We expect to work with the Tax Credit
Allocation Committee to gain approval for a larger fee, commensurate with
the size of the project's liabilities. Should this request not be approved,
. Evan Becker
September 13, 1993
. Page 4
we would also wish to pursue discussions with the City regarding the funding of more significant reserves from the project income to cover these
liabilities.
GENERAL CONTRACTOR FEES
Aside from the payment of lease-up costs incurred by BRIDGE Property Management Company, the payment of the general contractor's overhead, profit, and general conditions is the only compensation other than the Development Fee to be paid to any member of the development team. As such, the amount of these fees must conform to industry standards.
The attached schedule shows the payments made (or committed) to general contractors on recent BRIDGE projects, alongside the proposed fees to Patrick/Picerne.
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED SAVINGS
Following conversations among the team members, we wish to ropose an
arrangement with the general contractor that provides for a P 1 construction-related savings to be returned to the City as?reduction of its investment in the project. We have arrived at this recommendation (for
a "cost plus a fee" contract) for the following reasons:
A. Given BRIDGE's track record in controlling costs through up-front value
engineering, and the leverage the development team can exercise over
subcontractors in the current economic climate, BRIDGE is confident in its ability to deliver high-quality housing at the most reasonable cost possible. As a general partner, BRIDGE is in a position to closely
monitor these costs.
B. BRIDGE (and the City) also have an interest in balancing the lowest costs against very high quality of construction and specifications. This may mean committing savings to upgrading some aspects of the project, to address both aesthetic and long-term maintenance concerns. To do so under a guaranteed-maximum contract could put us at cross-purposes with the general contractor.
As we noted in our meeting last week, this arrangement, while ensuring all savings are returned to the City, also shifts responsibility for cost
overruns to the City as well. We believe we have included a healthy
contingency in the budget to off-set this potential liability.
.
Evan Becker
September 13, 1993 Page 5
NON-CONSTRUCTION-RELATED SAVINGS
The Development Fee will ultimately be capped, and will include all direct compensation to the developers. This amount cannot be increaseme to savings in other budget line items. Therefore all net savings (the total of
all soft cost line items below the projected totals) will be returned to the
City to reduce the financing gap.
INITIAL OPERATING RESERVE
The initial operating reserve, funded as a development-period cost, is intended to offset the risks of:
A. Not being able to lease-up the units as quickly as planned, and so incurring operating expenses with less income.
B. Construction interest that accrues between the completion of
construction and the closing of the permanent financing due to delays
caused by complications with multiple lenders. In this project, the difference between interest on the full construction loan (of
approximately $21 million) and the permanent mortgage (approximately $7.6 million) would amount to nearly $3,000 per day.
C. Operating expenses that are higher than initially projected. Keep in mind that our projections will be more than 2 years old at the time the project goes into operation.
In order to ensure that we are not forced to come back to the City for
additional funds during operation of the project, and because of the risks
listed above, we believe it is essential that we begin operations with a
signficant operating reserve in place. We would propose an arrangement concerning the release of a portion of this reserve as the project
operations are normalized and both lease-up costs and operating expenses
become better defined, with time periods for review of the status of the project operations to-be worked out with the City.
CASH FLOW
Upon satisfaction of certain project operating expenses, the of the cash flow should be returned to the City as repayment
investment. We would propose that, following payment of the costs, 90% of the cash flow be paid to the City:
great majority of the City's
following
Evan Becker
September 13, 1993 Page 6
A. Private mortgage debt service
B. Operating expenses
Because payments to the City will depend in part on-the operating costs, we would propose an initial operating budget for review by the
City. As long as the budget increases in any year by no more than CPI,
City review of the annual operating budgets would be proforma. Increases above CPI would have to be specifically justified.
C. Replacement Reserves
We would propose to establish an initial annual replacement reserve to be funded from project income, to be based on a reserve study carried
out by a third party. City approval would be required for any increase
in the annual replacement reserve funding above CPI.
D. Partnership Management Fee
This fee, established at a base of $15,000 per year, covers the asset management functions carried out by the Managing General Partner
(reporting to investors and lenders; filin approval would be required for any annual P tax returns). Again, City ncrease above CPI. However,
we would like to reserve the ri costs may prove to be higher. 4 ht to review the base figure, as actual his is due to both the size of the project and its greater distance from BRIDGE's office.
E. Operating Reserve
To continue funding prudent reserves we would establish a set-aside of 3% of the operating expense budget. Should the initial operating
reserve prove to be adequate, we would agree to forego the continued funding of operating reserves as long as the capital account did not drop below an agreed-upon base.
As noted in the “Development Fee" discussion above, should the Tax
Credit Allocation Committee unduly limit the fee allowed, we may need to fund a greater reserve from cash flow to ensure that adequate
resources are available to the project in the event the guaranties are
drawn upon.
REVISED PROJECT PROFORMA
We have made the changes to the project proforma on which we agreed at our meeting. We have discussed the mix of rents (the number affordable at 50% of median and at 60%). My understanding is that the final mix will include a maximum of 30% at 60%, with the remainder at 508, unless the results of the market study lead us to conclude that there is not an adequate market for the 60% rents, given the limitations on the incomes of the residents.
.
.
. Evan Becker
September 13, 1993
Page 7
Once you have had a chance to review the information in this letter, we
invite you to arrange either a meeting or a conference call to discuss any items which require further clarification.
We look forward to hearing from you.
f-y/k&
Ken Picerne
-
EXHIBIT 4
PROGRAM SUMMARIES
LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT
AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM
_. ’ ,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM FACT SHEET $y .., vw-w-Bw%wm*@
WHAT IS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM?
Created by the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), the
Affordable Housing Program (AHP) of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco is a subsidy fund designed to encourage and assist housing finance lenders in the development of affordable housing in their communities. To facilitate such activities, the Bank provides subsidized advances (loans) or direct subsidies to shareholders engaged in lending for long-term, very low-, low-, and
moderate income housing projects. Both owneroccupied and rental projects may be eligible for
fundiig.
HOW MUCH MONEY IS AVAILABLE?’
As provided in FIRREA, the Bank contributes a percentage of its preceding year’s net income to the
AHP each year. Beginning in 1990, this amount was 5 percent of the preceding year’s net income,
increasing to 6 percent in 1994, and to 10 percent annually thereafter. The final regulations also set forth minimum annual total amounts that must be contributed by the Bank System as a whole. From 1990 to 1993, at least $50 million must be contributed annually, increasing to $75 million in 1994, and to $100 million each ye& thereafter. AHP funds are generally leveraged with conventional and other sources of financing.
WHO HAS ACCESS TO AHP FUNDS?
Each of the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks sponsors an Affordable Housing Program and holds District-wide competitions each year for its shareholders; Shareholders of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco are headquartered in California, Arizona, and Nevada, but may apply for AHP subsidies for housing projects located in any community they serve in the U.S. Shareholders are encouraged to work with nonprofit organizations and public agencies in developing applications for
AHP funds.
HOW MAY AHP FUNDS BE USED?
AHP funds may be used to finance the purchase, construction, and/or rehabilitation of
owner+xcupied housing for families with incomes at or below 80 percent of the median income for the area; and/or to finance the purchase, construction, or rehabilitation of rental housing in which at least 20 percent of the units are occupied by and affordable to households with incomes at or below 50 percent of the median income for the area.
Shareholder applicants must be able to comply with the Bank’s credit policy guidelines. Loans made
by shareholders using AHP funds should meet prudent, flexible, and innovative underwriting stan-
dards that do not expose the institution to undue risk.
iiOW ARE !XJBSIDIES CALCULATED?
The amount of the AHP direct subsidy (cash grant) or interest rate subsidy (subsidized advance) will
depend on the amount of subsidized assistance required to make the project feasible. AHP regulations prohibit AHP assistance to shareholders in excess of that amount needed to reduce the monthly
housing cost for the targeted households below 20 percent of the household’s gross monthly income.
Additionally, a shareholder receiving a subsidized advance shall extend credit to qualified borrowers at an effective rate of interest discounted to at least the same extent as the subsidy granted to the
shareholder by the Bank.
WHAT IS THE APPLICATION APPROVAL PROCESS?
The 1993 deadlines to submit applications for the two rounds of competition are April 15 and
October 15. Applications for program funds are available from the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco’s Community Investment staff.
Each application is evaluated against a number of priorities and objectives set forth by the regulations
and is scored using a lOOpoint system. Those projects which score highest receive funding priority.
Applications are reviewed, evaluated, and ranked by Bank staff within 30 days following the applica- tion deadline. The Bank then submits those applications recommended for funding to its oversight agency, the Federal Housing Finance Board, which has 30 additional days to give final approval.
WHOM SHOULD I CONTACT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION?
The Community Investment staff of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco is available to provide technical assistance and information to the Bank’s shareholders, local governments, and com- munity organizations that are interested in participating in the Bank’s Affordable Housing Program.
For assistance, call the Community Investment staff at (415) 6162542.
Mailing Address: Community Investment Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco P.O. Box 7948
San Francisco, CA 94120
;
Working With You to Preserve Affordable Houstng
uin( I .an*lr
Ihu**( ~*lw~rh :- Jsm Inr
\Lil~ v.n-dut li.ww \k. fi*-lRJlw
‘,a.## \bArr
yl,m\ t. IAa . r*n Adnun
,(l*IL, d kr
bawd lhvy
lu* Rrmnf
VPaI K%L
\\;nz* ns~vrd
nwsw
u,* \wa4mi ( owl tl
rim hY
--Qbmmr(ur
RI*1 whL* I J.uc
4ttt&l& *unmw
Jr.lhTI ,. \Lznv
I ,*I* tlwmt- 1
< .I, S’( I .JRr..e
II,:.” \I Ihlwa
~l,IIfl L Xfk1-
f .I ,.: ., ,I, “f,‘.‘: -! I,,, :\41. liTI<, I,‘$ b ‘\ l JAT,‘.r
A _. _.- .;: ..-:. .L
LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDCT
As part of ttw Tax Reform Act of 1988, Congress mated the Low
Income Housing Tax Credit, which provides a tax shelter for
limited partners In low tncome housing projech. thetaxcmdlt
gives private corporations and indlvidutis an incentive to invest
In tow income housing, by providing a dokr-for-dollar ‘credlt”
ag&wt their federal tax oblfgatlons. Often tax credit investor can tecbup their endre investment in just a few years, thtoug)r
the ta.% cmdlts and otnef tax jOSSe% In order to obtain the80
bsnef?ts, hvestors will put 3Ub8tatItiti money Into a tm credit
CHojecz - a~ much as one-third of the total development costs.
A nonprofit brings tax credit investments into 8 project by
forming a limited partnefsblp to own the project, and then selling
partM&Ii~ interests to pfiV8te bIit8d PartMS who Want th8
WhUltSl~6S Of th8 tax ctedit. Th8 norrpfoflt then b8mn88 the
general partner in charge of all of the bustntwrs and managemmt
decisions for the partnership, and the limited paftner investoti
become ‘&3nt partnefs’ who receive onfy tax benefits fiLom th8
ptofect.
th8r8 i8 a Staterjvide c8iling Ofl ttr8 available MIOUrrt Of %dti
tax credits, and on the similar state tax credits which ate also
available in Callfomia. For. thI8 fea8on, the credits are alt~cated
88V8d th83 each year by a state t8X cmdlt ~IOCatiOn
Committee fn a V8fy COmp8titiv8 procass. Nonprom have a
competftlve advantage in thk alkatlon if they provide lower
mntS than those fecpired by law, @edge to k88p the rents low for
at j8aSt 55 yesus, and haV8 substantial private or govenment
irIv83tm8nt in the project.
r .A-*
Other Offarcs:
2115 :U!h -I j:~nc :,\I. •,t~r.un~m~ L .s .;%-~a
:,j .I!(\, -;-.;.I.: [.,I\ ..I’,. m-1 -
EXHIBIT 5
CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 17
EXIIIBIT "A"
.
, CIT. 3F CARLSUAD
COUNCIL POLICY S’i-A’l’EMEN’I
Gelleral Subject: REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO
SATISFY THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Spwilic Subject:
Policy No. t 7 -. Date lssuecl 712191
Effective Date i/2/91 ---
Callcellatiw~ Date ___
Supersede& No. 1~2~;~~'
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney,. Departrrlellt and Divisiw I k;tds,
Employee Bulletirr Boards, Press, File
BACKGROUND
In order to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of all the citizens of
Carlsbad and- to ensure a continued high quality of life within the City, the Public
Facilities Element of the Carlsbad General Plan requires than an applicant or
proponent of a development project present evidence satisfactory to the City Council
that all necessary public services and facilities will be available concurrent with
community needs before any, zoning, subdivision, development, or redevelopment
approval or permit may be given or issued.
It is the policy of the City to mitigate the public service and facilities impacts created by new development and ensure that all public services and facilities will be provided
in the manner which will ensure the continued high quality of life in Carlsbad. Prior to July 3, 1979, the City Council relied on a report of availability of public facilities
and services received from City staff. On July 3, 1979, the City Manager reported
that in the future, those services and facilities cannot be made available to new
development from the City’s resources. As a result of that report, the City Council
adopted City Council Policy No. 17 on August 29, 1979. Policy No. 17 has subsequently been amended at various times by the City Council. The most recent
amendment to City Council Policy No. 17 was effective on April 10, 1984. The City
Council has been provided with various reports and information by the City staff
since the adoption of City Council Policy No. 17 and the City Council finds that the
facts and circumstances which required the adoption of Policy No. 17 continue to
exist. On January 21,1986, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 9791
after a finding on January 14, 1986 that establishment of the development management system and public facilities and improvement phasing plan for the City
was required to eliminate public facility shortages and to protect the community character and quality of life in Carlsbad. This system and plan is required in addition
to the requirements established by City Council Policy No. 17. On March 25, 1986,
the City Manager reported to Council on the status of public facilities in Carlsbad and recommend an increase in the public facility fee. This report identified a list of facilities and services which would be funded by the public facilities fee. The list was
approved by the City Council. in addition to the fee established pursuant to City
Council Policy No, 17, the City requires developers to provide .public improvements by a variety of different means. By utilization of all available methods, the City
Council will be able to find that public facilities will be provided concurrent with
need as required by the Public Facilities Element of the Carlsbad General Plan.
Page 2 of 7
CITY OF CARLSUAD
Policy No. t 7 COUNCILPOLICYSTATEMENT Date lssued 7/2/91
Effective Date 712191 --..- ;elleral Subject: REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO Cawellatiwl Date
SATISFY THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ssue
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN Supersedes No. kjd
pecific Subject:
Iopies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division I-le;rds,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
On July 28, 1987, the City Council accepted a revised report on the availability of public facilities and adopted a revised public facilities fee of 3.5% which allows for
interest costs associated with debt financing library and civic buildings.
On June 25, 1991, the City Council introduced and on July 2, 1991, adopted the
necessary ordinances and resolutions to place into operation Community Facilities District No. 1, a Community Facilities District (CFD) established by the voters within
its boundaries in order to provide a guaranteed source of funds for several critical
public projects. This list of projects included the main Library facility and future
Library expansions, a City administrative office, and a portion of Macario Canyon
Park, all projects previously financed through the Public Facilities Fee program. With
the implementation of the CFD, the City now had the ability to levy taxes on property within the boundaries of the CFD to finance these three projects. This ability to levy a tax in advance of development takes the place of the need to collect a public facility
fee, or at least that portion of the fee applicable to these three projects.
On June 25, 1991, the City Council adopted this revised Council Policy allowing a
credit against the 3.5% public facility fee for properties within the boundaries of and subject to taxation by the CFD. The amount of this credit is based on, the proportion
of PFF projects now funded through the CFD. The credit amount is 1.68%, thereby
reducing the PFF for qualified properties to 1.82%.
Any property not within the CFD boundaries and subject to taxation by the CFD shall
continue to be subject to the additional License Tax on New Construction as
established by Chapter 5.09 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
PURPOSE:
1. To establish a policy regarding the requirements which must be met before the City Council will find that the Public Facilities Element has been satisfied.
.2. To establish a policy that will allow development to proceed in an orderly manner while insuring that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element will be satisfied by establishing a fee to- fund the cost of City-provided facilities, including but not limited to: parks, major streets, traffic signals, storm drains, bridges and public buildings such as fire stations, police facilities,
Page 3 of .' -
,-
CI’l’Y OF CARLSI3AD
I’olicy No. 17 _._ __ _ COUNClLPOLlCY S'I'ATEMEN'I Date lssued 7/2/91
Effective Date 7/2/91
ierleral Subject: REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO Caiicellntiori Da
SATISFY THE PUBLIC FACILITIES Supersedes No. ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
‘pecific Subject:
Iopies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division I leads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
maintenance yards, libraries and general offices, which will insure they will be
available concurrent with need.
POLKX
1. In determining whether or not service provided by another entity will be
available concurrent with needs in connection with a project, the Council, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, shall be guided by a letter of
availability from that entity, provided, however, developments which are required to dedicate land or pay fees for school facilities pursuant toChapter
21.55 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, shall be deemed to have satisfied the
Public Facilities Element in regard to schools for that development without the
necessity for an availability letter.
2. The City Council finds that the report entitled, “A Public Facilities Fee for the
City of Carlsbad”, dated July 3, 1979, accurately reflected the City’s need for
and lack of ability to provide public facilities, and services to new development
and was therefore approved by the original Policy No. 17 adopted on August
29, 1979. The City Council also finds, based on the reports submitted in
support of Ordinance No. 9791, and in support of an increase to the public
facilities fee as presented to the City Council on July 28,1987, that in addition
to a public facilities fee, other means of providing needed facilities and services must be established. These other means include the adoption of a
development management system and various impact fees.
The Council also finds that the continued development of the City,, with the
consequent increase in population and in the use of public facilities, will impose increased requirements for such facilities, including, but not limited to, parks, major streets, traffk signals, storm drains, bridges and public buildings, such as fire stations, police facilities, maintenance facilities, libraries and
general offices. The necessity for such facilities results directly from new
construction and the need cannot be met from ordinary City revenues. The
most practical and equitable method of paying for such facilities is to impose a fee upon a new development in the City. Payment of such a fee will enable the City to fund a construction program to provide public facilities. If a
project developer agrees to pay the public facilities fee established by this * -- i. ;s,...‘.
Page !, of i
c .
CITY OF CARLSl3AD
Policy No. 17 COUNCILPOLICYSTATEMENT Date Issued 712191
Effective Date’ 7/2/91
;erwral Subject: REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO
SATISFY THE PUBLIC FACILITIES
Cancellation ,Dat:
Supersedes No. ssue
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN $;& id
;pecific Subject:
hpies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Divisiotl l-lcacls,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
policy and other impact fees as may be adopted by City Council ordinance or
resolution, and complies with any applicable facilities plan, the City Council will be able to find that public facilities and services will be available
concurrent with need and that the requirements of the public facilities have
been met. In addition, the Council finds that the creation of Community
Facilities District No. 1 has provided an alternative source of funding for three projects previously funded entirely from the public facilities fee. These
projects are the construction of the new main Library and remodel of the
existing Library facility, construction of new City administration facilities, and the construction of a portion of the park improvements within the Macario
Canyon area. Those properties within the boundaries of and subject to
taxation by CFD No. 1 have therefore met a portion of their public facilities
.obligation and should receive a credit against-the public facilities fees due at
the time of development.
3. Before any zoning, subdivision, development or redevelopment approval or
permit may be given, the applicant shall pay or agree to pay (on the forms
attached hereto) a public facilities fee in the amount of 3.5% of the building
permit valuation of the buildings or structures, or a fee of $1,150 for each
mobilehome space to be constructed pursuant to such approval. If the
property appiying for the above actions is within the boundaries of the
Community Facilities District No. 1 and.is subject to taxation by the District,
the amount of the public facilities fee due shall be 1.82% of building permit
valuation as defined above or a fee of $598 for each mobile home space to be constructed pursuant to such approval shall be required. The fee shall be paid
prior to issuance of building or other permits, and shall be based on the
valuation at that time.
4. All proceeds from the fee collected pursuant to this policy shall be paid into a special capital outlay fund of the City entitled, “Public Facilities Fund.” The fund shall be used only for the purpose of acquiring, building, improving, expanding and equipping public property, and public improvements and
facilities including, but not limited to, the following types of capital projects: Public buildings (such as fire stations, police facilities, maintenance and yard facilities, libraries and general city offices) parks, major streets, traffic signals,
storm drains, bridges and other similar projects as the Council tiy deem : g?$J
.
--
CIT\ 3F C/U&BAD
COUNCILPOLICYSTATEMENT
General Subject: REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO
SATISN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Specific Subject:
Policy No, 17
Date Issued 712191
Effective Date 7/2/91
Cancellation Date ssue Supersedes No. $&.f^_7d
opies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
necessary and appropriate.. Design&on of expenditures of funds available
from the fund shall be made by the City Council in the context of approval of the City’s annual operating and capital improvements budget or at such other time’as the Council may direct.
5. The following exceptions from payment of the fee shall apply:
(a)
09
(4
Cd)
(e)
(0
The construction of a building or structure or mobilehome space which
is a replacement for a building or space being removed from the same
lot or parcel of land. The exception shall equal but not exceed the fee
which would be payable hereunder if the building being replaced were
being newly constructed. If the fee imposed on the new building
exceed& the. amount of this exception, such excess shall be paid.
Accessory building or structures in mobilehome parks, such as a club house, s wimming pool, or laundry facilities.
Buildings or structures which are clearly accessory to an existing use
such as fences, pools, patios and autombbile garages.
Additions to existing single-family or two-family residential structures,
provided the addition does not create a new dwelling unit or economy
dwelling unit as defined by the Uniform Building Code.
The City Council may grant an exception for a low cost housing pi-eject
where the City Council finds such project consistent with the Housing
Element of the General Plan and that such exception is necessary. In approving an exception for low cost housing, the City Council may
attach conditions, including limitations on rent or income levels of tenants. If the City Council finds a project is not being operated as a low cost housing project in accordance with all applicable conditions, the fee, which would otherwise be imposed by this chapter, shall immediately become due and payable.
The City may not waive or otherwise adjust the amount of the tax due or imposed by Community Facilities District No. 1 under this policy. .%‘. -. f _,. “_._ ; .*2 , : 1 ,‘,..- & ; ;I. x.
Page 6 of 7
CI’1’1 OF CARLSf3Al.I
COUNCILPOLKY STATEMENT
leneral Subject: REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE PUBLIC FA'CILITiES
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
pecific Subject:
Policy No. 17
Date Issued 712191
Effective Date 7/2/91 _
Cancellation Dat; ssue Supersedes No. GGid
Q7ies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department atrd Divisiorl f IGIC\S~
Enlployee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
6. There is excluded from the fee imposed by this policy:
(a) Any person when imposition of such fee upon that person would be in
violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State
of California.
(b) The construction of any building by a nonprofit corporation exclusively
for religious, educational, hospital or charitable purposes.
(c) The construction of any building by the City of Cardsbad, the United
States or any department or agency thereof or by the State of California or any department, agency.or political subdivision thereof. \
7. The City Manager shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of this policy. His decisions may be appealed to the City Council whose
decision shall be final.
8.
.
On August 29,1979, the City Council adopted Policy No. 17. In so doing, the
Council found that public facilities were adequate for existing structures but
not for any new development. Policy No. 17 shall apply to projects involving
the conversion of an existing building or mobilehome park to a condominium,
planned unit development, stock cooperative or other similar form of
ownership as follows:
If the building or park being converted was constructed before August 29,
1979, the fee to be paid shall. be limited to 3.5% of the building permit valuation of any new construction done as a part of the conversion. If the building or park being converted was constructed after August 29,1979, a fee of 3.5% of building permit valuation at the time of construction shall be paid
plus a fee of 3.5% of the building permit valuation of any new construction
done as a part of the conversion. These fees are subject to adjustment as described in Section 3 above for property within the boundaries and subject
to taxation by CFD No. 1.
. .i
L;
Page 7 of 7
,
CI’I’Y OF CARLSBAD
Policy No.- 17
-- COUNCILPOLICY STATEMENT Date Issued 712191
Gemxd Subject:
Specific Subject:
REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE PUBLIC FACILITIES
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Elfective Date- 712191
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division f leads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
9. Pursuant to City of Carlsbad Ordinance No. 6082, the public facility fee shall
apply to all project for which building permits were or will be issued asker July
28, 1987.
.
7
EXHIBIT 6
SECTION 108 LOAN PROGRAM SUMMARY
CJTY OF CARLSBAD
UNITED STATES SECTION 108 GUARANTEED LOANS
PROGRAM SUMMARY:
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development offers low interest, guaranteed
loans for entitlement communities for various types of development projects. These loans are
for front-end financing for large-scale community and economic development projects that
cannot be financed from annual grants. Projects eligible for this facing include the
acquisition of property, the rehabilitation of housing and related relocation, clearance and site
improvements.
Section 108 financing is ideal for communities with immediate needs. Most loan applications
are approved within six (6) weeks. Communities can create a repayment schedule that best
fits the cash flow requirements of the specific project. However, the repayment period shall
not exceed 20 years.
Any entitlement city may apply for a loan up to five (5) times the amount of its most recent
Community Development Block Grant. (No commitment to guarantee shall be made if the
total outstanding notes or obligations guaranteed on behalf of a public entity would exceed an
amount equal to five times the amount of the most recent grant.)
If an entitlement city’s application for a Section 108 loan is approved, the City must pledge
all grants made or for which the City may become eligible in future years. In some cases,
HUD may also require additional security (i.e., lien on property). HUD provides guarantees
for all Section 108 debt, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.
After HUD has approved Section 108 loan applications, the loans are bundled together by a
private underwriter into securities and resold as serial amortizing notes to private investors.
Proceeds from the sale of these notes are distributed to the borrowing communities, which
may receive the funds directly or designate a public agency to receive them.
Beside the principal amount of the loan, communities pay interest costs and an application
processing fee. The interest rate is determined by the market at the time the notes are sold.
The application fee is approximately $1700. The City must also pay any issuance,
underwriting servicing or other costs associated with the private sector financing of the
guaranteed loans. Such costs are payable out of the guaranteed loan funds and will be shared by all borrowers.
APPLICATION PROCESS:
An application for a Section 108 loan may be submitted at any time. The same presubmission
requirements required for CDBG funding applications must be adhered to in submitting an
application for the Section 108 loan. To save time and money, the City can submit the
-
Section 108 loan application with the CDBG application due by June 1 of each year.
The loan application must include a statement of the City’s community development
objectives, a breakdown of the projected uses of the Section 108 loan funds and a schedule
for repayment of the loan. The schedule must identify the sources of repayment. In addition,
the City should provide a certification of the City’s authority to pledge CDBG funds as
security and statements showing that the proposed project has undergone citizen review.
HUD may also require other certifications, such as statements showing that the City has
made good-faith efforts to obtain financing without the federal guarantee.
The City must hold at least two (2) public hearings on the Section 108 Loan Application to
obtain public comments.
HUD may disapprove an application or may approve loan guarantee assistance for an amount
less than requested if HUD determines that the guarantee constitutes an unacceptable financial
risk. HUD will notify the City in writing that the loan guarantee request has either been
approved, reduced or disapproved.
If the loan is approved, the City will be required to enter into a contract with HUD for
repayment of the loan.
SEC’lrION 108 LOANS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
1. Section 108 Loans are for front-end financing for large-scale community and economic
development projects that cannot be financed from annual grants.
2. Projects eligible for this financing include the acquisition of property, the rehabilitation
of housing and related relocation, clearance and site improvements.
3. City must prepare an application outlining the purpose of the funds. Also, the City must
follow applicable citizen participation requirements which includes a minimum of two (2)
public hearings.
4. Application for a Section 108 loan may be submitted at any time. It must include a
schedule for repayment of the loan which identifies the sources of repayment. Also, the
City must provide a certification providing assurance that the public entity has made
efforts to obtain financing for activities described in the application without the use of
the loan guarantee and the City cannot complete such financing consistent with the timely
execution of the program plans without such guarantee.
5. The amount any one entitlement public entity may receive may be limited to
$35,000,000. No commitment to guarantee shall be made if the total outstanding notes
or obligations guaranteed on behalf of the public entity would exceed an amount equal
to five times the amount of the most recent grant.
6. Security requirements: 1) contract with HUD for repayment; 2) pledge all grants made
or for which the City may become eligible; 3) at discretion of HUD, provide other
security (i.e., lien on property, etc.)
7. The repayment period shall not exceed 20 years.
8. City must pay any issuance, underwriting, servicing and other costs associated with the
private sector financing of the guaranteed obligations. Such costs are payable out of the
guaranteed loan funds.
-
I . - EXtyilBlT 4
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
I.
I7W2
STAFF PERSON(S): EVAN BECKER
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
STAFF REPORT
AUGUST 12, 1993
HOUSING COMMISSION
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY AND SECTION 108 LOAN WDBG)
APPLICATION: Request fw approval of a recommendation to the City Council
to purchase approximately tdenty (20) acres of real property located generally on
the west side of El Camino Real between Palomar Airport Business Park and
Sunfresh Rose Greenhouses (APN: 2 1 S-020-1 5 & 21 S-020-01) for the purpose of
causing the development of affo@ble housing; and authorization to submit an
application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
for the purposes of providing additional funding for purchase of the subject
property.
RECOMMENDATIOly
That the Housing Commission ADOPT Housing-Commission Resolution No. 002 recommending
to the, City Council the purchase of approximately twenty (20) acres of real property subject to
the terms and conditions outlined therein and .IDOPT Housing Commission Resolution No. 003
. recommending authorisation from the City Council for staff to submit an application for a Section
108 Loan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the purpose of
providing additional funding for the purchase of subject property.
II. BACKGROUND
The City of Carlsbad’s 1991-96 Housing Element seta forth the objective (3.12) of land banking.
Land banking is a process used for acquiring land suitable for the development of affordable
housing. Typically, the land banking ccncept seizes the opportunity to acquire and hold, or
“bank”, land in advance of approval of specific development plans for a project. In this way, the
City takes the initiative to capitalize on the availability of sites which are suitable for affordable
housing and available at a reasonable price.
For the past four (4) program years, the City h& set @de, or allocated, federal Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for t%e purpose of land acquisition foi affordable
housing. The City currently has a balance of $880,372.30 in the CDBG Affordable Housing
Acquisition Fund. Per recent discussions with the U.S Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), the City must take action soon to expend the noted balance of funds or risk
losing them due to inactivity. Staff has indicated to HUD that every attempt will be made to
PURCHASE OF BRESSI PROPERTY
AUGUST 12, 1993
PAGE 3
. Public land ownership is desirable regardless of the type of affordable housing project to
be developed due to the return on ‘investment opportunities; it is an accepted practice.
By eliminating “holding costs”, it helps, to reduce the costs associated with eventual
development of an affordable housing project by a for-profit or non-profit
developer/builder which benefits the community. Unused CDBG funds are not held or
invested by the City.
Ultimately, all or part of the investment in the subject property may be recaptured in a
development transaction, or the land value may be used to enhance project affordability.
In even the best situation, there is always some element of risk when purchasing property.
Although staff believes these risks are minimal, we have outlined them below for your
consideration as well:
. By using CDBG funds, the City is obligated to ensure that the use of the property benefits
low/moderate income persons. Therefore, if for some reason an affordable housing
project cannot be developed on the subject property, the City must develop another project
on the site which has direct benefit to low/moderate income persons. If the City is unable
to develop any type of project which benefits low/moderate income persons, it must seti
the property and return the funds to the federal government or reallocate them to an
eligible project.
. While staff believes it is unlikely, the termination of the CDBG program could result in
the loss of the City’s source of repayment for the Section 108 Loan. Staff will not propose to HUD any other sources of repayment or security beyond CDBG, the land or
the eventual affordable housing project developed on the land.
. The worst case.scenario would be for the City to own a piece of property which couldnot
be developed for the intended purpose(s). The risk of this happening is slight. However,
there is always some chance that something could happen to prevent the City for using
the property in an advantageous manner.
Staff believes that the advantages of purchasing the subject property far outweigh the
disadvantages or risk of the transaction. We believe that the site is highly suitable for the
development of affordable housing. By owning the subject property, staff also believes that
housing can be provided which is affordable to households with incomes at 50% or 60% of the
County Median, not only those at 80% of the median. This means that we can meet a critical
housing need of low income households residing, or expected to reside, in our community.
IV. TERMS AND CONDITION$
This property acquisition is recommended subject to the terms and conditions out.lmecJ within the
Resolution No. 002 and highlighted below. These terms and conditions are intended to insure
-LI
PURCHASE OF BRESSI 3PERTY . AUGUST 12, 1993 - >
PAGE 4
a purchase at reasonable value; the dedication of the site exclusively to affordable housing
purposes; and to respect the position of the current option holder, ALA.
1. The City Council shall authorize expenditure of up to $2.1 million for the purchase and
attendant costs of appraisals and closing.
2. Funds shall be drawn from the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Housing Fund and other CDBG funds which are approved for the transaction by the U.S.
Department of HUD (e.g., a loan from the Section 108 Program).
3. The purchase shall be subject to all applicable HUD terms and conditions governing the
federal CDBG program, including, but not limited to:
. Contract with HUD for repayment of any loans; . Pledge of grants made or for which the City may become eligible for any loans
provided to the City; . At discretion of HUD, provide other security which may be required for any loans
made to the City; . Repay loan(s) made to the City within a period which shall not exceed 20 years;
l Use the property for’a purpose which provides direct benefit to low/moderate
income person.
4. The value of the site in relation to the option purchase price shall be supported with at
least one MAI appraisal.
5. The purchase shall be subject to an agreement with ALA, holder of the option on the
subject property, whereby the land shall be held for a period of at least eighteen (18)
months exclusively for ,the development of affordable housing as proposed by ALA and
their partners and as approved by the City of Carlsbad. If the ALA project does not
commence within eighteen (18) months, ALA shall have, for a perioclof six (6) months,
the option *of purchasing the property from the City for its full purchase cost. In any
event, the property shall remain devoted exclusively to affordable housing development.
v. SUMMARY
As stated above, staff is requesting that the Housing Commission approve Housing Commission
Resolution Nos. 002 and 003 recommending that the City Council author& the purchase of the
property identified within this report and the submission of an application for a Section 108 Loan
through the CDBG program.
If the Housing Commission recommends and the City Council author&s the purchase of the
subject property, the acquisition will be completed in accordance with federal regulations for the
CDBG program. This process includes a requirement for two (2) appraisals of the property to ensure that the purchase price is fair and r-n&e.
.
. PURCHASE OF BRESSI PROPERTY
AUGUST 12, 1993
PAGE 5
The City will be required to complete a full application for the CDBG loan through the Section
108 program. If recommended for approval by the Housing Commission and authorized by the
City Council, staff will submit an application requesting approximately $1.2 million from the
Section 108 Loan Program and combine this loan with our existing allocation of $880, 372.30
to purchase the subject property. Staff will recommend that the Section 108 Loan be repaid with
a portion of the City’s future allocation of CDBG funds.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Housing Commission Resolution No. 002
Housing Commission Resolution No. 003.
Exhibit No. 3, Summary of Section 108 Loan Program.
Exhibit No. 4, Legal Description of property owned by Bank of America as Trustee
Under Declaration of Trust dated June 2, 1988 F/B/O Mary E. Bressi, known as the “little
Bressi” property.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
POUSlFvG COMMISSION NO. 002
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FOR SECTION 108 LOAN THROUGH THE FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $1.2 MILLION FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PURCHASING PROPERTY FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
CASE NAME: LI’TTLE BRESSI . 215-020-15 & 215-020-01
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has identified a need to purchase property for
the purposes of the development of affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, property located generally on the west side of El Camino Real
between Palomar Airport Business Park and Sunfresh Rose Greenhouses, APR 215-020-15 &
215-020-01, is available for purchase for the purpose of causing the development of affordable
housing; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Commission supports the purchase of property for the
purposes of providing affordable housing within the City of Carlsbad;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That the Housing Commission recommends .that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad APPROVE purchase of property identified by APN: 215-020-15 and 215-020-01 subject to the following terms and conditions:
. . . .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
5
1C
13
1:
1:
11
l!
If
1'
li
l!
2(
2:
2;
2;
2d
2;
2(
2’
21
Perms and Conditionq:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
The City Council shall author&e expenditure of up to $2.1 million for the purchase
and attendant costs of appraisals and closing.
Funds shall ‘be drawn from the City’s Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Housing Fund and other CDBG funds which are approved for the
transaction by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The purchase shall be subject to alI applicable HUD terms and conditions governing
the federal CDBG program, including but not limited to:
Z:
c.
d.
e.
contract with HUD for repayment of any loans for the purchases;
pledge of grants made or for which the City may become eligible to repay any
loans for the purchase;
at discretion of HUD, provide other security which may be required for any
loans made to the City for the purchase;
repay any loans made to the City by HUD within a period not to exceed
twenty (20) years; and,
use the property for a purpose which provides direct benefit to loWmoderate
income persons, such as affordable housing.
The value of the site in relation to the option purchase shall be supported with at
least one MAI appraisal.
The purchase shall be subject to an agreement with Aviara Land Associates Limited
Partnership (ALA), hoIder of the option on the subject property, whereby the land
shall be held for a period of at least eighteen (18) months exclusively for the
development of affordable housing as proposed by ALA and their partners and as
approved by the City of Carkbad. If the ALA project does not commence within
eighteen (18) months, ALA shall have, for a period of six (6) months, the option of
purchasing the subject property from the City for its full purchase cost. In any
event, the subject property shah remain devoted exclusively to affordable housing
development.
HC RESO NO. 002 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Housing
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 12th day of August, 1993 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
EDWARD SCARPELLI, Chairperson HOUSING COMMISSION
14 EVANBECKER 15 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.27 HC
28
RESO NO. 002
EJOUSmG COMMISSION NO. 003
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FOR SECTION 108 LOAN THROUGH THE FEDERAL
COMMUNTTY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $1.2 MILLION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING PROPERTY. FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
CASE NAME: LITTLE BRE$SI
WHEREAS; the City of Carlsbad has identifiql a need to purchase property for
the purposes of the development of affordable housing; and
WHJEREAS, property located generally on the west side of El Camino Real
between Palomar Airport Business Park,and Sunfresh Rose Greenhouses, APN: 215-020-15 &
215-020-01, is available for purchase for the purpose of causing the development of affordable
housing; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Commission supports the purchase of property for the
purposes of providing affordable housing within the City of Carlsbad;
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad currently has allocated $880,372.30 in federal
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Entitlement funds for the purpose of purchasiig
property for the development of affordable housing for low/moderate income persons; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has the need to raise an additional $1.2 million
to purchase subject property through the federal Section 108 Loan program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing
Commission as follows:
1
2
3
4
5
e
‘i
E
E
l(
13
1:
1:
11
11
l(
1’
11
l!
21
2:
21
2
2,
2
2
2
2
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That the Housing Commission recommends that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad APPROVE submission of an application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a Section 108 Loan in the maximum amount
of $1.2 million for the purposes of purchasing property for the development of affordable housing for low/moderate income persons subject to the following
terms and conditions:
Terms and Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
The purchase of property with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
shall be subject to all applicable HUD terms and conditions governing the federal
CDBG program, including but not limited to:
::
c.
d.
e.
contract with HUD for repayment of any loans for the purchase;
pledge of grants made or for which the City may become eligible for to repay
any loans for the purchase;
at discretion of DUD, provide other security which may be required for any
loans made to the City for the purchase;
repay any loans made to the City by HUD within a period not to exceed
twenty (20) years; and,
use the property for a purpose which provides diit benefit to low/moderate
income persons, such as affordable housing.
The value of the site in relation to the option purchase shall be support& with at
least one MA1 appraisal.
The City shall reimburse owner for all reasonable expenses he/she incurred for:
recording fees, transfer taxes, documentary stamps, evidence of title, boundary
survey and legal description of the real property; penalty costs and any other
prepayment charges; pro-rata portion of any prepaid real property taxes which m
allocable to the period after the City obtains title to the property. Whenever
feasible&se expenses shall be paid diitly by the City so that the property owner
does not need to seek reimbursement.
HC RESO NO. 003 2
. -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1c
11
12
l?
14
1:
1C
1:
1t
l<
2(
2:
21
2:
21
21
2(
2’
2d
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Housing
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the. 12th day of August, 1993 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
EDWARD SCARPELLI, Chairperson
HOUSING COMMISSION ATEST:
EVAN BECKER HOUSING AND REDEWXOPIUEIW DIRECTOR
HC RESO NO. 003
EXHIBIT 3
SECTION 10% LOANS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
1. Section 108 Loans are for front-end financing for large-scale community and economic
development projects that cannot be financed fro.m annual grants.
2. Projects eligible for this financing include the acquisition of property, the rehabilitation
of housing and related relocation, clearance and site improvements.
3. City must prepare an application outlining the purpose df the funds. Also, the City must follow applicable citizen participation requirements which includes a minimum of two (2) public hearings.
4. Application for a Section 108 loan may be submitted at any time. It must include a schedule for repayment of the loan which identifies the sources of repayment. Also, the
City must provide a certification providing assurance that the public entity has made
efforts to obtain financing for activities described in the application without the use of
the loan guarantee and the City cannot complete such financing consistent with the timely execution of ‘the program plans without such guarantee.
5. The amount any one entitlement public entity may receive may be limited to $35,000,000. ,No commitment. to guarantee shall be made if the total outstanding notes
or obligations guaranteed on behalf of the public entity would exceed an amount equal
to five times the amount of the most recent grant.
6. Security requirements: 1) contract with HUD for repayment; 2) pledge all grants made or for which the City may become eligible; 3) at discretion of HUD, provide other
security (i.e., lien on property, etc.)
7. The repayment period .shall not exceed 20 years.
8. City must pay any issuance, underwriting, servicing and other costs associated with the private sector financing of the guaranteed obligations. Such costs are payable out of the guaranteed loan funds.
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT A
THE VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 1188, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFOR.NTA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DECEMBER 20,1972. BEING A DIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT A OF RANCH0 AGUA HEDIONDA, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 823, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, ‘AND A PORTION OF SECTIONS 25 AND 26, AND FRACTIONAL SECTIONS 23 AND 24, IN TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, . SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF.
EXCEPTJNG THEREFROM, THAT PORTION OF COUNTY ROAD SURVEY NO. 1800-1, AS GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BY DEED RECORDED JULY 24, 1970.
9
VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
EXHIBIT 5
USES
TOTAL PERUNIT
Land $ 2,060,OOO.OO $ 5,988.OO
Construction Costs
Off-Sites $ 590,223.OO 1,716.OO
Site Work & Buildings 16,475,885.00 47,895.OO
Subtotal 17,066,108.00 49,611.OO
Fees & Permits/Public Improvement 19,593.oo
costs 6,739,998.00 18,385.OO
Soft costs 6,324,439.00
TOTALDEVELOPMENTCOST $32,190,545.00 $93,577.00
SOURCES
Bank Loan
Limited Partnership Equity (Tax
Credit)
Affordable Housing Program Loan
Developer Equity (ALA)
City Loans:
CDBG
Set-Aside
Subtotal
Fee Exemptions/Deferrals
(estimated):
PFF
Grading Deposit
Poinsettia Lane
CFD
Subtotal
Contingent Partner Equity
TOTAL SOURCES
$ 8,730,OOO.OO $25,378.00
15,047,985.00 43,744.oo
2,064,OOO.OO 6,OOO.OO
1,000,000.00 2,907.OO
$2,000,000.00
500,000.00
$ 2,500,OOO.OO $ 7,267.OO
$ 358,484.OO
104,046.OO
1,617,376.00
666,981.OO
$ 2,746,887.00 $ 7,985.OO
$ 101,673.OO % 296.00
$32,1!JO,545.00 $93$77.00
UPDATED AS OF October 19, 1993
VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SUBSIDY ANALYSIS
SOURCE
Tax Credits
AHP
ALA Equity
Contingent Partner Equity
SUBTOTAL
City Participation:
*Direct Financing
*Fee Exemptions/Deferrals
SUBTOTAL CITY
TOTAL SUBSIDY
AMOUNT
$15,047,985.00
2,064,OOO.OO
1 ,ooo,ooo.oo
101.673.00
$18,213,658.00
$ 2,500,OOO.OO
2,642,841 .OO
$ 5,142,841.00
%23,356,499.00
w PER UNIT
78% $ 52,947.OO
22% $14,950.00
100% $67,897.00
UPDATED AS OF October 19, 1993