HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-10-14; Housing Commission; ; VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL-ITEM NO. 1
STAFF PE1 ... ..,ON(S): EV AN BECKER ~.l?J
STAFF REPORT
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 authorize
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 A viara 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 staff's 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.
VILLAS AT EL CAMINv tffiAL
OCTOBER 14, 1993
PAGE2
III.
I
IV.
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 I SQ. FT. I NUMBER I % OF TOTAL I
1 BR 634 120 35%
2BR 953 120 35%
3 BR 1052 104 30%
344 100%
C. Other Features and Amenities
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 1-3 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 subsuµitial 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.
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 A viara Master Plan contained in the A viara Affordable
VILLAS AT EL CAMINv KEAL
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 Organization
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 Patrick/Picerne 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/Picerne 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 (AHP).
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 CAMIN\.-KEAL
OCTOBER 14, 1993
PAGE4
V.
VI.
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 Acceptability
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 1/3 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.
AFFORDABILITY
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 $21,050 $ 381/$ 463
Two Bdrm
(120) $21,950 $26,350 $ 449/$ 548
Three Bdrm
(104) $25,450 $30,550 $ 514/$ 626
* AMI -Area Median Income
VILLAS AT EL CAMIN~ KEAL
OCTOBER 14, 1993
PAGE 5
Consistent with other City programs, rents (including utility allowance) are based on
households paying 30% of income.
B. Targeted Population
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 study will be required to
support the market absorption for the project.
C. Term of Affordability
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 lnclusionary Housing
Ordinance, the project satisfies ALA's affordable 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 project to satisfy other developers' inclusionary requirements. This presents the
advantage not only of greater numbers of affordable units, but also the potential to satisfy
developer obligations that may otherwise be difficult 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.
VILLAS AT EL CAMIN'--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 $ 590,223.00
Site Work & Buildings 16,475,885.00
Subtotal
Fees & Permits
Soft Costs
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST
SOURCES
Bank Loan
Limited Partnership Equity {Tax Credit)
Affordable Housing Program Loan
Developer Equity {ALA)
City Loans:
CDBG $2,000,000.00
Set-Aside 500,000.00
Fee Exemptions/Deferrals (estimated):
PFF $ 358,484.00
Grading Deposit 104,046.00
Poinsettia Lane 756,000.00
CFO 666,981.00
Contingent Partner Equity
TOTAL SOURCES
B. Development Costs
1. Total
TOTAL PER UNIT
$ 2,060,000.00 $ 5,988.00
1,716.00
47,895.00
17,066,108.00 49,611.00
5,878,622.00 17,089.00
6,324,439.00 18,385.00
$31,329,169.00 $91,073.00
$ 8,730,000.00 $25,378.00
15,047,985.00 43,744.00
2,064,000.00 6,000.00
1,000,000.00 2,907.00
$ 2,500,000.00 $ 7,267.00
$ 1,885,511.00 $5,481.00
$ 101,673.00 $ 296.00
$31,329,169.00 $91,073.00
The total proforma development costs are $91,073 per unit. This is considerably
below the Carlsbad prototype construction cost of $133,783 for a two-bedroom
VILLAS AT EL CAMIN\., REAL
OCTOBER 14, 1993
PAGE 7
apartment. Recently, t4e 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 person benchmark. In this case, the Villas, at
• approximately $27,342 per person, is considerably below the benchmark of
$30,283. This reflects the significant proportion of three-bedroom units;
2. Land
While land 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/unit, 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 CAMIN'--REAL
OCTOBER 14, 1993
PAGE 8
C.
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.
Operating 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 CAMIN,.__ REAL
OCTOBER 14, 1993
PAGE 9
household median income increases) and expenses at 4%. Debt service assumes a 9%,
30-year loan amortization.
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 (AHP) 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.
VILLAS AT EL CAMIN'-REAL
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 I 08 units. It is proposed that the CFO Fee
related to the 236 additional affordable units resultine from the
proiect's proposed increase in density be deferred. This creates
savings to the project of approximately $666,981 for the CFO.
Because of the nature of ~oinsettia 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 CAMIN\.., 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 CAMIN1... REAL
OCTOBER 14, 1993
PAGE 12
SUBSIDY ANALYSIS
SOURCE AMOUNT (%) PER UNIT
Tax Credits $15,047,985.00
AHP 2,064,000.00
ALA Equity 1,000,000.00
Contingent Partner Equity 101,673.00
SUBTOTAL $18,213,658.00 81% $ 52,947.00
City Participation:
• Direct Financing $ 2,500,000.00
•Fee Exemptions/Deferrals 1,885,511.00
SUBTOTAL CITY $ 4,385,511.00 19% $12,749.00
TOTAL SUBSIDY $22,599,169.00 100% $65,696.00
VIII.
City participation of$12,749/unit 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.
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 CAMIN'--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 fulfill 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 A viara 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 CAMIN'--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 organizational 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. •
XD. 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 participation 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 affordability level and unit-mix serve the highest priorities
in the City's Housing Element. Project 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
staff's 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 "l 11-11611, dated October 14, 1993.
EXHIBIT 1
DEVELOPMENT TEAM BACKGROUND
DESCRIPTION:
COMMERCIAL:
MIXED-USE:
I
AVIARA
HILLMAN PROPERTIES
FACT SHEET
Hillman Properties is a deve]opment, investment and management
group involved with a wide range of real estate projects
throughout the United States. Ranked among the largest
deve]opment 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 private]y 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.
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
One of Hillman Properties' most prestigious developments now
under way is the 1,000 acre master-planned 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.
20ll PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD Sum_: 206 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009 (619) 931-1190 FAX:(619) 931-795(1
Hillman Properties
Fact Sheet
Page 2
RESIDENTIAL: The group's residential building arm, Republic Development
Company, is involved in the development of detached single-
family homes throughout Sou them. California. •
HEADQUARTERS: 450 Newport Center Drive
Suite 304
Newport Beach, California 92660
(714) 640-6900
REGIONAL: 2011 Palomar Airport Road
Suite 206
KEY
Carlsbad, California 92009
(619) 931-1190
MANAGEMENT: Michael R. Chase, President
hillman
2/'1/J/c».
Ted L. Hoover, Vice President -Finance
D. Larry Clemens, Vice President/General Manager -Carlsbad
John R. Hartung, Vice President/General· Manager -Republic
Development Company
'" ·}
.,
i I,
II
BRIDGE celebrates a decade
of service to the community ...
A MESSAGE FROM THE
CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT
This year BRIOCE 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 BRIOCE has labored for ten years to bring decent housing to lower
income families 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 will own and operate as mixed
income housing.
We are also developing two projects 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, but throughout
California and the nation. Moreover, the problem is compounded
by the continuing "credit crunch," and the prolonged recession
still gripping our State. Thus as BRII:x;E enters its second
decade, we must discern how to advance our work by full
ord!;!rs 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.
Alan L. Stein
Chairman
\ I ~ !RO
PLANS FOR GROWfH -BRIDGE Chairman, Alan Stein
(seated), joins Don Temer, President, as the two discuss
plans for BRIDGE's second decade. They appear in front of
a rendering of Marin City, US.A., a mini-new town, which
is the largest and most ambitious project ever undertaken at
BRIDGE.
1 .
..
Honorable Henry G. Cisneros
Secretary of HUD
"BRIDGE is respected
throughout the country for
the quality and affordability
ol its developments."
Honorable Dianne Feinstein
U.S. Senator, State of Ca1ifomia
"BRIDGE has enabled us
lO make significant
progress toward meeting our
affordable housing goals."
Honorable Pete Willlon
Governor of the State of California
"BRIDGE projects represent
the kind ol comprehensive
neighborhood-building approach
which can suetted in other cities
throughout the state and nation.•
2.
LEADERSHIP
BRINGING TOGETHER LEADERS FROM
BUSINESS, GOVERNMENT, AND PHILANTHROPY
The BRIDGE 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
high-quality affordable homes needed in the Bay Area. BRIDGE works closely with all sectors of the
community to achieve this goal-neighborhood leaders, elected officials, the academic community, and i
concerned individuals from all walks of life.
BRIDGE has recruited nationally recognized 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-
zations 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 San Jose.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS *
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 crisis 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 finance fields, and participate actively in BRIDGE
affairs. They meet bimonthly to review and consider BRIDGE policy and progress.
ALANLSTEIN
ChairmanoftheBRIOCEBoardofOirectors;Partner,Mont-
gomery Securities, San Francisco; former Secretary of Busi-
ness and Transportation for the State of California
RICHARD BENDER
Dean Emeritus, College of Environmental Design, UniVet"-
sity of California, Berkeley
EDWARD J. Bl.AKEL\'
Professor, and former Chairman, Department of City and
Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley
KENT L COLWELL
President, Transamerica Realty ServiCl!S, San Francisco
ANTHONY M. FRANK
Chairman, Aaogen, Inc., Oakland; former U.S. Postmaster
General; former Chairman and CEO of rtrSt Nationwide
Bank, San Francisco
RICHARD HOLLIDAY
President, McKenzie, Rose & Holliday, San Francisco
DENNIS O'BRIEN
President, O'Brien & Hicks, Inc., San Mateo
SUNNE WRIGHT Md'EAK
President of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors;
Past President, County Supervisors Association of California
PAULSACK
Principal, Paul Sack Properties, San Francisoo
ANGELO J. SIRACUSA
President, Bay Area Council, San Francisco
WILLIAM D. STIPEK
Group Senior Vice President, World Savings and
Loan Association, Oakland
CLARKE. WALLACE
Commissioner 9f Real Estate, State of California; Chairman,
Wallace and Anderson Realtors, Moraga, CA; Past
President of the National Association of Realtors, and the
California Association of Realtors
WARREN WIDENER
President, Urban Housing Institute, Oakland; former Mayor
of Berkeley; former Supervisor, Alameda County
SUSANNE WILSON
Principal, Solutions by Wilson, San Jose; former President of
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
BAY AREA CRISIS
Ba!f An-a lto""'s comp,,,r,,I to tltt fUltiUII
Homeowners Renters
HOUSING CRISIS -The Bay Area's median
home price was $243,740 compared to $104,200
nationally, thus locking out the vast majority of
the area's renters for a chance at home owner-
ship. Rents were more expensive too, with the
Bay Area's median advertised rent at$690com-
pared to $447 nationally.
THE AFFORDABILITY GAP
Ehly""• luom~ vs. Home Prico
1986 1987 1988 89-90 '1991 1992
Medilln ■ Priced Home Medin □ Hovsdro/4 Jnann,
WIDE GAP -Home prices soared in the past
decade by nearlyl50% while incomes advanced
by less than 70%. Slight improvements were
posted in 1991 and 1992, but the gains were
relatively small.
4.
BACKGROUNC-
THE NEED
hnding affordable housing is no longer just a problem of the very poor. It is a
problem that confronts teachers, police officers, firefighters, nurses, commercial and
industrial workers, entry-level professionals -most of the work force. Furthermore, it :
is a problem of both the young and the elderly.
Housing is even a problem for relatively affluent middle-aged homeowners,
who often must confront both the housing needs of their grown children as they form new
families, and of their elderly parents who are trapped on fixed incomes. "·
In the San Francisco Bay Area, these problems are among the most acute in the -~
nation. Rents have outpaced incomes, and over90% of the region's renters are trapped as ~
"lifers" (i.e. renters for life), with virtually no chance of realizing the American dream of ,,;
homeownership.
Businesses, as well as consumers, suffer from the scarcity of reasonably priced
homes. As households migrate away from the Bay Area to regions with more affordable
housing, the competition here for qualified employees increases, as does the pressure to
raise salaries to accommodate housing costs, and to compensate for long, costly, and often
fatiguing commutes. Employee turnover and dissatisfaction increase,and labor efficiency _
decreases. -• -~ • Gridlocked freeways are clogged with frustrated long-distance commuters who ·_ •
are wasting prodigious amounts of gasoline, polluting and degrading air quality, and I
demanding huge invesbnents of public and private funds in new highways, transit
systems, and parking facilities. Many of these same people mistakenly believe that only
an end to job growth and a moratorium on new housing can solve the problem.
Despite these pressures, it has been especially difficult to develop affordable
housing in the Bay Area. The bay, the ocean, and the mountains ~t make San Francisco
so desirable, limit available land for both residential and commercial 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.
BRIDGE HI~JM.f¥ i
J n 1981, The San Francisco Foundation received an anonymous giftof ~,()00
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 itseU to the production of large volumes. of high-quality homes for families earning
$12,000 to $25,000 annually.
BRIDGE received its 501 (c)(3) tax-exempt status in 1983 and immediately began
active development operations. Since that time, it has participated in the development of
nearly 5,000 units valued at over $500 million. Over $8 million in donations has been
added to the initial anonymous gift, and provides the working capital for BRIDGE
operations.
BRIDGE has since formed three additional non-profit, public-benefit subsidiar-
ies, BRIDGE Property Management Company, Bay Area Senior Services (BASS), and
BRIDGE Properties Inc., which are discussed further on page 12.
TENANT COUNSELING -BRII:X;E staff members Jimmy Yu (Jower left) and Vaneua Pigg (upper left) Mlilt potellli
applicants for the Steamboat Point Apartmen1$. The project, located on the San frandsa, waterfront at d
Embarcadero, rea!ived nearly 3,000 applications for the 1ml apertmeni
-I
KEHHITR A. PICERNI
ienneth Picern• is a graduate of Yale University. He is President and Chief Bxeoutive Offioer of Pioerne Aesociatee. Prior to
forming the oompany, he wa ■ the archlteot and chief proponent of
the expan•ion of a family real estate b~sine•• from a Northea•t
regional development company into an industry leader in th•
nation's major development markete. Durin9 hie tenure, over 8000
apartment•, hundreds of thou ■ands of ■quare feet of C!OIIUllera1al
epace, and hundreds of 11 For Sale" residential unit■ were built and
marketed.
After joinin9 Pieerne Properties in 1982 1 ienneth Pioerne moved to
Phoenix Arizona, where he rapidly establi■hed in~houae
capabilltiea to develop, build, and mana9a apartment unit• in tha Southwe ■t. The Phoenix ba••d eubsidiary now owns and manage■ over
3500 apartment unit• in Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona, and La■ Vegas,
Nevada. •
Upon the creation and auooess of tha Southwest regional office, Kenneth Picerne moved on to Orlando, Florida in 1984. Utilizing hia
Phoenix experience, he took advantage of ■trong central and 1outh Florida market ■ which enabled the Southea ■t office to break ground
on their firat development protect• within eight monthe. Pioerne
Development corporation of Flor da currently own■ and manav•• over
2500 apartment unit■ in Florida.
In 1987 1 ~•n Pioerne returned to the aorporate office in Rhode
I1land to re'luvenate the Northea ■t development aotivity through
several retall and residential project■ p to develop a highly
etr~ctured and oentralized Corporate Services Diviaion to provide financial ■ervioee, to enaure standard operational procedure■ for
•11 of th• Regional Offioe11 and with hie expertise in corporate
fine.nee and treasury, helped the Company expand its financing relationahipe.
Pursuant to the succe■■ful venture ■ in New Bngland, Arizona and
Florida, Kenneth Pioerne sought to open another regional office in
the comp•tJ.tive California market. In only a few ■ho.rt year1,
Pioa~ne As10oiate1 was formed, and has ■!nee become one of th• most r•apaoted development companies in ■outhern California,
J(en l'ioerne'e goal ie to develop and expand Pioerne As1ooiates
through a oarefully charted plan of developing quality re■idential
propertie ■.
·•· ..
PATRICK D~VELOPMENT
Patrick Kruer, the founder of Patrick Development. Ltd., Is wen known for quality
and innovation in the thousands of apartments, condominiums, and slngle-farnily homes
whleh he has developed. NJ a communltf leader, he is raccgnlzecl as a leading force
In bridging communieatlons betWeen the apartment/bua'tdlng lnduatry and govemmant.
In addition to staying active In real estate d8"91opment, Pat has aimed his
entrepreneurial abilltles at htgh-tachnofogy and h• invested in several emerging growth
companies indudlng some in San Diego. Pat sees the importance of emerging growth
ccmpanlea to the future economic health and wetl being of San Diego.
Pat has always found tfme to devote to community actMtlee, many of which retate
ta his hope that all people in Callfcmla regardless of Income, be able to live in decent
houatng.
Between 1978 and 1ses. Pet served on the Cauromta Houalng Finance Agency,
where he rose to the position of Vice Chairman and Chairman of the leading committee.
CHFA is a statewide agency which issues bonds to finance low and moderate Income
housing. From 1981 to 1988, he was a director of the federat home Loan Sank of San
Francisco, which regutates the savings and loan Industry. He was appointed flret under
President Jimmy Carter in 1981 and re-appointed l.ftter President Aonald Reagan.
Between 1984 and 1988, he also was on the Federat Savings and Loan Advisory
Council, which acts as a spectal counsetor to the Federal Home Loan Bank in
Washingten, 0.C.
Locatly, Pat was on the first Housing CommiSSlon for the Ctty of San Diego
between 1979 and 1982. The County of San Diego setectecl hfm to serve • First
Chairman of the Housing Bond Finance Review Committee batWeen 1984 and 1986. He
was the First Chairman of the Regional Growth and Planning Review Task Force for San
Otego County. Last year, he was re-appoint~ to a three year term on the Center Ctty
Development Corporation. wnfch is responsible for all devetopment actfvltfes in the
redevelopment area of downtown San Diego.
Education is another intarast of Pat's. Since 1981, he has been a member of the
Board at the University of Callfcmla Berkeley Center for Real Estate and Urban
Ecanornlcs.
THE~
MCKINLEY
ASSOCIATES, INC ..
ARCHITEC...1URE & PLANNING
619 • 238-1134
FAX: 238-6038
1818 FIRST AVENUE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
The McKinley Associates, Inc. is a full service architectural/
land planning_ firm specializing in residential architecture
as weil as focused experience in commerciai anrj i11stit11,-
tional projects. Located in San Diego since 1983~ it bas_.,
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 practlcies, 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.
THE AVENTINE
8910 UNIVERSITY CENTER LANE
SUITE 580
SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA 92122
6 I 9·558-8977
FAX 619·558·9188
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 communities, 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, Rancho
Bernardo, Rancho Bernardo Heights, Twin Oaks Valley Ranch, Sunbow, Redhawk and
Carmel Mountain Ranch.
BHA, INC.
THE FIRM
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.
Carlsbad 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
maximizing 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.
bl-tA, Inc. ____________ __,,,,.
EXHIBIT 2
DEVELOPING AND OPERATING
PROFORMAS
SEP 15 '93 15:19 P.12
................ r.:a ... n:=s:11 .................... ". ,11 I IRII 11 UNTM. DIVILOP"ENT COIT I MFORDQILITY AIALYBll1 PAIi I PR"ECT1 BRESfl SJTI
1001 TICR dtll (7011 SOI, 301 I 60111 Fttl'l crtdit, I 11011 t5(/un1t. N t 1f-S,o•f3
••••••••••• .. •••••••••••••• .. •••••••••••• .. ••••-•-••••••••••---.■-n••••·••••=·•~•-•---•-a-n-c•a-• .. • ...... •••=•=•••--•
+++ PROJECTED COITI +H
l11crlpU011 ludttt ,., l,F, ____ ._._ ------------L411d Purch&11 (1/opt'n petl) 2,060,000 6.87 Off•lltt l•INIYltlfttt 590,ffl 1.f7 t• l111rmuntl 3,408, 1 U,S7
11n'l'!:ll::,=,i~oflt 12.101 11:ffl:I ,:rs Dnl1n Cansultant, 144,SOO S,12 '"'I P1ra1t1 1,111,m 1,.,0 • L111 , nu,, a,,r11111 121 ooo o.,,
T1111, ln111r1nc, 194:710 0.65 ,,,.1111111t ,... 2.001 174,000 0.11
Conttr•n Ftt1/Ca1t1 11,1SOI m•m 1.27 Con1tnact~ lnt',t 001 1, , l,44 l:~~,:~J';::11""' 1 soo'ooo J:U =·i!:t Rn,m ·n,:m i:U
!JldlctUCIII Ca!tl • 'JI:* O.ff ~ l:l tl~::g s.ou ,,..;m 1:11 ·--· .... ----.--....------
m1.. Q1,ffl,&6t fl04,47 ffl,073
I I I I I I
I
I I ' I i •
I
I I ,
I I I I I I ,
I I
+++ OPERATINI £1,0US +++
!tn -----------llan19111nt ,,, 150,000 Adaini1tr1tl■ -2eo1,!f lal1rin 40 .,.,. "•lnt11111ct 1,0,000 UtiJtti11 180,000
ln11r1nr. 60,NO T11e1 ( .E. t111Jtl IOI Otfrlr R1pl, RntNt (included nlOI)
--t160,IOO
Ptr Unit E1p11111 12,502
!-.......................... -=-=-•---....... -..... .
I
t '
+++MIUIIPfl-♦++
PrDJtct cast, ............. Al,329,16'
I ........ •••••••••••~=•=•=•-=-=••••••• .... ••••••••c•=••~••=••••••••·•-•• L,nd Co1tr,,,,11 .....•. , •• t2,06!1000 Hard Co1t1,,., ,,t75,881 t:K.94 Y,LOII • 501 11dlan1 70.001 : !1~0lf • 60Z 11dilns 30,001 I MMKLOM ,w1UT • IOI 11dhn1 0,001 I l'orttatt Allunt1,,,,,,,,,, tl,7001000 lnttfttt R1t1r,,,,,,,,,,,, ,.ooz
Unit,,,. ---
1~ lllfi IIMKET/BOI
2•.IDml TJCI 501
s20 NA16',UI
J•IURDOII TICR IOI
'04 Mlffl,Ul
LAUNDRY -----......... .
IET IF IIEl'L) M ■IT IJZI
---299,896 172
I of 14 ftg, in 3-ldrn,
--u 0
73
'i
344 -144
Cl --:ff! t629
'449 1548 t74'
tl14 '626 t817 ..
Annul! lhtnul --•• 04I
•200!01, to
t16,'12 --Total• u,,n,040
I ' Ttrt (la Yw1)1 ••••••••• , IO
I j CONSTRUCTIII UMI . I LIii -.t,, ............. 122,,,,,000
1 tnttrnt Rat11....... ... .. .OOI
I I I I I I I
SUDIIUTI 1JNMCI• !I Land Lt■•••••••••••• l tty LOllt.,,., ratar!t~ f,.n,, ........ . Mf lllrt11p1,,,,,,,,,,,,,
! HfllTY SGURC(I
1 LP Contrlwtion, ..••..••.• 114,446,°"
1 IP'" Rtin,nttd1,...... to
l MET CGNIJTI• , Rate at llllt lncrt1111 ... ,
II v1,anct Ritt, .••••.••••••• Ritt ., llcrt.111 ii ,1 Dplr1tlnt IINIISNI,,,,,
Pra,.rt, T•• R•t•••••••••• I lncrllH in Loin lnlll'tlt 1',411 • iD llt~ , •• , •••••••••• ,. 4,00I ~········--.... --............ ,_. --·--................................. -----··-··,---·········..._.. ...... .....
....
/·
( .. .....
(
(
t
l
~CV BY:XEROX TELECOPIER ?010; 9-20-93 10:11AM;
SEP 20 '93 10:11
FILE NANE1 IRSITIJ
DATE1 20-S10·9!
SUMY Of FINANCIAL PROFORIIA
8UD8ET LINE ITEII PER UNIT • ________________________ ..,. ___________ .,... ____ _.,.
LAND t2,060,000 '5,981
COIISTRUCTION COSTS
OFF-SITES '590,223 Sl,716
SITE WRK I IUILDIN&S fl6,475,885 '47,895
SVBTOTAl '17,066,108 f49,611
FEES I PERfUTS '5,878,622 t17,089
SOFT COSTS 96,324,439 Sll,385
TOTAL tll,3291169 t91,07J
P.3
SEP 20 '93 10: 11
PROJECT1 BRESSI SlTE FILE1 BRSITl3 DATEa 20-Sta-,3
PA6E 3t EUUITY lNYESTIOT CALCULATION
CALCULATIOM OF EQUITY RAISE {F1d1r11· Credits Only):
Total basis, 1111 d1v1lo1111Rt f111 S26,060,413
Plas DtvtloDtr fna tl,500,000
lists Befort Hi9b Coit Ar11 Adjustaent1 t27,S60,413
Hi9h Co1t/Du1lifitd Census Tr1ct adju1t1ent1 te,268,124
811i1 for actual 1Uoutian1 t35,828,536
1st 111r Fed1r1I crtdit 1llac1tions
(11sund credit r1t11 8.401) Tan y11r total 1Jloc1tion1
Factor far d1t1r1lnin9 1q1ity r1iu1
Total equity raist (Fed'l anly)i
hckup und1rwritin91 r1i11 I to.SO
CALCUUTION OF COSTS IN IASIS1
Total d1v1lopa1nt costs, Ins devel, f111
lfinu11
Landi
Off-Sitt t1prove1ent11
PtrHntnt Lou FHI
Title/Recordin9 (Par■• loan):
ltlrhtin91
Optr1tin9 ReHrvt1
TCAC F1t1
Syndication Cost11
SUBTOTAL
Total Eli9iblt 811111
tl,009,597
S30,095,971
0.48
t14,446,066").
tlS,047,985 /
t29,829,169
('2,040,000)
(tffl,223)
(t174,000)
ltl0,000)
{$175,000)
CtS00,000)
('149,0341
($110,500)
(t3,768,7'7)
$26,060,413
P.4
SE
P
15
'9
3
15
:
2
0
EXHIBIT 3
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
CONTRACTOR FEES, DEVELOPER FEE,
COST SAVINGS AND CASH FLOW
FILE: BRSITX3 DATE: 14-Sep-93
CONPARISON OF GENERAL CONTRACTOR COSTS
STEAl1BOAT SAN VILLA FELL l El1ERY CITY CNTR CENTERTOWN BRESSI POINT PAULO NUEVA SOUGH BAY II APARTNENTS APARTNENTS SITE
LOCATION: S. Francisco Irvine San Jose S. Francisco E■eryville Richmond S. Rafael Carlsbad
TOTAL CONTRACT 10,136,480 23,662,000 9,568,937 7,991,845 17,048,187 4,897,519 4,748,004 17,066,108
TOTAL FEE 525,446 545,000 613,026 449,721 465,000 303,706 243,764 1,028,796
Overhead 258,297 170,621
Profit 354,729 133,085
GENERAL CONDITIONS 776,912 926,000 509,900 551,628 378,762 135,220 243,420 750,000
Supervision 375,000 197,150
Te1p. Facilities 158,000 62,100
Clean-up/Repairs 293,000 79,651 119,512 18,000
Insurance 71,119 107,129 12,650
Bond 57,484 46,770
General Conditions 618,062 100,000 509,900 294,511 117,220 230,770
Business Tu 30,247 23,567
TOTAL 6,C. COSTS 1,302,358 1,471,000 1,122,926 1,001,349 843,762 438,926 487,184 1,778,796
W/0 BOND 1,244,874 1,471,000 1,122,926 954,579 843,762 438,926 487,184 1,778,796
W/0 BOND l BUS. TAX 1,214,627 1,471,000 1,122,926 931,012 843,762 438,926 487,184 1,778,796
6.C. COSTS AS PERCENT OF CONTRACT 12.85% 6,22% 11.74% 12.53% 4.95% 8.96% 10.26% 10.42%
W/0 BOND 12,2B% 6.22% 11.74% 11,94% 4.95% 8.96% 10.26% 10.42%
N/0 BOND & BUS. TAX 11. 98% 6.22% 11.74% 11.65% 4.95% 8.96% 10.26% 10.42%
82 SECOND STREET, SUITE 200
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
TEL 415/989-1111
FAX 415/495-4898
Evan Becker
Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Evan:
BRIDGE
HOUSING CORPORATION
September 13, 1993
Ref. #4038F
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 property prior to the year end with CDBG funds through the Section 108 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
CHAIRMAN
AIANLSTEIN
Partner, Montgomery Securities,
San Francisco.
RICHARD BENDER
Dean Emeritus, College of
Environmental Design, University
of California, Berkeley, CA.
EDWARDJ. BLAKELY
Professor. Department of City and
Regional Planning, University of
California, Berkeley. CA.
KENT COLWELL
President, Transamerica Realty
Services, San Francisco.
ANTHONY M. FRANK
Chairman. Acrogen, Inc..
Oakland, CA
RICHARD M. HOLLIDAY
President, McKenzie, Rose &
Holliday Development, Inc.,
San Francisco
DENNIS O'BRIEN
President. O'Brien & Hicks, Inc.,
San Mateo, CA.
SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK
Supervisor, District Four,
Contra Costa County. CA.
PAULSACK
Princip-.!.l, Paul Sack Properties,
San Francisco.
ANGEW J. SIRACUSA
President, Bay Area Council.
WILLIAM D. STIPEK
Group Senior Vice President,
World Savings and Loan
Association, Oakland, CA.
CIAKK E. WALLACE
Commissioner of Real Estate,
State of California
WABREN WIDENER
President. Urhan Housing
Institute, Oakland. CA.
SUSANNEWllSON
Principal, Solutions by Wilson,
San }05e, CA.
A NITT-FOR-PROFIT, PUBLIC-BENEFIT CORPORATION
OFFICERS
I. DONALi> TERNER
President
CAROLJ. GALANTE
Vice President
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:
l. 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 Comission.
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 will sign a
guaranty in an amount equal to 75% of the first full year's project
income. Based on our current proforma, this amounts to a guaranty
of approximately $1.4 million.
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.
iii. 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
potential Development Fee. At the present time, however, these are the
expected liability caps.
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 l°' 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 only source of capital to offset these
very large liabilities. Without ad~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
1 iabil ities.
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 propose an
arrangement with the general contractor that provides for all
construction-related savings to be returned to the City asareduction of
its investment in the project. We have arrived at this recoR1Dendation (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 coR1Ditting 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 increaseaaue 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 pennanent 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 nonnalized 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 great majority
of the cash flow should be returned to the City as repayment of the City's
investment. We would propose that, following payment of the following
costs, 9ot of the cash flow be paid to the City:
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; filing tax returns). Again, City
approval would be required for any annual increase above CPI. However,
we would like to reserve the right to review the base figure, as actual costs may prove to be higher. This 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 Fee11 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 PRnJECT 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 50%, unless the results of
the market study lead us to conclude that there is not an adequate market
for the 6CB 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.
C/_:::J-;l , ef • >
Ken Picerne
EXHIBIT 4
PROGRAM SUMMARIES
LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT
AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM FACT SHEET
.~1ti~1$1$!!,'i!Slm;;;;;;;:i:SS!ili!C!ll~~M!:l!~t~\~:;:(@::::m~~'l:~'~~~~~™1'llillll!i1!!19!!1!1!111!1111111!1!11111!11!11~~@
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 Banlc 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 Banlc provides subsidized advances
(loans) or direct subsidies to shareholders engaged in lending for long-term, very low-, low-, and
moderate income housing projects. Both owner-occupied and rental projects may be eligible for
funding.
HOW MUCH MONEY IS AVAILABLE?
As provided in FIRREA, the Banlc 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 Banlc 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 year thereafter. AHP funds are generally leveraged with conventional and
other sources of financing.
WHO HAS ACCFSS 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
Banlc 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-occupied 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 Banlc'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.
HOW ARE SUBSIDIF.S 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 PROCF.SS?
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 fortli by the regulations
and is scored using a 100-point 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 bas 30 additional days to give final approval.
WHOM SHOULD I CONTACT FOR ADDmONAL 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) 616-2542.
Mailing Address: Community Investment
Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco
P.O. Box 7948
San Francisco, CA 94120
J
...
i
1
J
''°'""""'' I\ M,,~
1!."11111•1·lllnn.,
a.,i.i,"11 '"""'"' '"''
, .ltu11t.,· ~. flfltf\ •• i_'klfll
l'ltowc.lft:
W<llum \J;aNll;,lk
1:u., .. 011· \ ih· P.1°11tk•*
,l..t.-111 "'"'.,..
')ctltfl\~..c-'·"'"
n..,, l\·.1rln1,111
'"'""'' '"""" '"'""""'"-•'!!
n., .. , .. .,.
'"IC \i\hlWIIL" (. •lll"llj
-~-'"""'""" l'f•-~ \111111,, N ( ~U.
tHfJtll ,r. "-tHlll&UUH
1ot->1-..·11 1.. \it..1-:""·r
1 ,1un,11"11""'#111 r
t," ,,,J.,.lfl-M1o11111•
..... _.
CALIFORNIA
HOUSING
PARTNERSHIP
CORPORATION
Working With You to P!U(rve Affordable Housing
LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CAEDrr
As part of the Tax Reform Act of 1988, Congress created the Low
Income Housing Tax Credit, which provides a tax shelter for
limited partners In low Income housing projects. The tax credit
gi\fes prtvate corporations and individuals an Incentive to Invest
In low income housing, by providing a dollar-for-dollar •credit•
against their federal tax obllgatlona. Often tax credit investors
can recoup thefr entire investment In Just a few years, through
the tax credits and other tax losses. In order to obtain these
benefits, Investors will put substantial money into a tax credit
project -as much as one-third of the total development costs.
A nonprofit brings tax credit Investments lnro a project by
forming a limited partnership to own the project, and then salting
partnership Interests to private limited partners who want the
advantages of the tax credit. The nonprofit then becomes the
general partner in charge of all of the business and management
decisions for the partnership, and the limited partner investors
become •s11ent partners• who receive only tax benefits from the
project.
There Is a statewide ceiling on the available amount of federaJ
tax credits, and on the similar state tax credits which are also
available In California. For. thts reason, the credits are allocated
several times each year by a state Tax Credit Allocatlon
Committee fn a very competitive process. Nonprofits have a
competitive advantage in this allocation If they provide lower
rents than those required by Jaw, pledge to keep tne rents low for
at least 55 years, and have substantial private or govenment
Investment in the project .
.!11'; lll1h ,.1 ~mtt' ;\II. ".11,r.1111l·•ir,·, •• ,;:.,, ..
.;t ...... ,. -~--7.·i ·>tt,,-.;-.J-1,~ :·.1, ·.1 11~· --~ -
EXHIBIT 5
CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 17
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY vF CJ\RLSUAD
Pulky No. __ 1_7 ____ _
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued 7 /2/91
General Subject:
Specific Subject:
Copies to:
BACKGROUND
REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO
SATISFY THE PUBLIC FACILITIES
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
-------Effective Ualc 7 /2/91 -----Cancellatio11 IJate
Supersedes No Uf7:ssued . • -me tft?--~
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney,. Department am.I Division J leads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
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 CARLSBAD
Policy Nu. __ 1_7 _____ _
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued 7 /2/91
General Subject:
Specific Subject:
Copies tu:
REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO
SATISFY THE PUBLIC FACILITIES
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
--------·Effective Date 7/2/91
Cancellation Date Supersedes Nu. 1 .... 8-, 1 ..... , s-~-u-e~a---
-7128/87
City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division I-leads,
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 offic~, 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 ~
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Policy No .. __ 1_7___ ____ __ _
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date lssued __ 7'-/ 2...:./_9_1 ____ _
Effective Date 7/2/91
Cancellntiun Date General Subject: REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO
SATISFY THE PUBLIC FACILITIES
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
S d N llrfasue<l ___ -__ uperse es o. 111.6161
Specific Subject:
Copies 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.
POUCY:
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 to·Chapter
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
supp~rt 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 ~ontinued 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, traffic 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
constructign 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
'.-:,:
Page 4 of 7
CITY OF C/\RLSDAD
Policy No. __ 1_7 _____ _
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued 7 /2/91 ---------
Effective Date 7 / 2 /91
General Subject: REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO
SATISFY THE PUBLIC FACILITIES
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Cancellation Date 1...-s-rr-s-s_u_e--ra---~upersedes No. 7128187
Specific Subject:
\_
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division l kads,
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 CFO 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
pennit 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
pennit 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 applying 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 may deem ., .
fc1~,
Page 5 of 7
CITY uf CARLS.BAD
Policy No. _ _.;;;;1..;_7 _____ _
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued 7 /2/91 ·--------Effective Date 7 /2/91
General Subject: REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO
SATISFY THE PUBLIC FACILITIES
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
CanceJlation Date _____ _
Supersedes No 18 Issued • 1/28/81
Specific Subject:
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
necessary and appropriate. Designation 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.
S. The following exceptions from payment of the fee shall apply:
(a) 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
exceeds the amount of this exception, such excess shall be paid.
(b) Accessory building or structures in mobilehome parks, such as a club
house, swimming pool, or laundry facilities.
(c) Buildings or structures which are clearly accessory to an existing use
such as fences, pools, patios and automobile garages.
(d) 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.
(e) · The City Council may grant an exception for a low cost housing project
where the City Council finds such project consistent with the Housing
Element of the General t>lan 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
hnmediately become due and payable.
(0 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.
CITY OF CARLSDAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject:
Specific Subject:
REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO
SATISFY THE PUBLIC FACILITIES
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Page 6 of 7
Policy No. __ 1_7 ____ _
Date Issued 7 /2/91 --------Effective Date 7 /2/91
Cancellation Date Supersedes No. 1 .... 8-, 1.-8-~-ue_d ____ _
-7J~8i87
Copies to: City Council, City· Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division I lends,
Employee 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 Carlsbad, 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 pennit
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 CFO No. 1.
P~ge 7 of 7
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Policy No. __ 1_7 _____ _
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued 7 /2/91 • --------Effective Date 7 / 2 / 91
Ueneral Subject: REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO
SATISFY THE PUBLIC FACILITIES
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Cancellation Date 1--s-1..-s_s_u_e~a---S_upersedes No. 7128187
Specffic Subject:
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division I 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 after July
28, 1987 .
7
EXHIBIT 6
SECTION 108 LOAN PROGRAM SUMMARY
CITY 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 financing 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.
SECTION 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.
LEG.AL AID SOCIE"l"Y OF SAN DIEGO, INC.
Offic·f'I oE (he PuMic Atton,07 h
216 s. T ft'II\Ollt s,rtict
0C"C-.'\Mide, CA <)205◄ 1 Q
(bl9) 72-f~27◄0 -
((,Jq) 722-1936 •
OCtober 14, 1993
Edward Scarpelli, Chair
City of Carlsbad Sousing Commission
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Cl ARR MAUDSI-EY
p,..., J~nt, B......I .l [);...,, ••ro
0FW0RY E. KNOU.
BMtul •• Dired.,,,ci,;.r C' .... ~ •• ,
FAXED AN[• MAILED
720-2037
Res Parameters for Using Carlsbad Re4eveloP!!ent
Agency's tow, Moderate Income Bousiny Fund
to Assist The Villas at El Camino Rea
Dear Mr. Scarpelli:
I have reviewed the Staff Report dated October 14 1993,
regarding The Villas at El Camino Real, Aviara's answer to its lnclusionary housing obligation. This project·not onl) lmple-
a1Cnts the City'• Housing Element but marks an historic turning
point in the City's use of CDBG monies to benefit lowe1 income
residents by providing much-needed housing. For th lS, • the
developer and the City should be commended.
However, in order for the Agency to support this project with
Its Dousing Fund, more should and could be done. rirst, given
the limited resources which the Agency has designa\,ed for
housing and its co111mit11ent to target these Funds to benefit
households with income levels below that which the market can
serve, 1s it no_t possible to reserve at least some of the
units for households at or below 251 or 35\ of median income?
At present the project targets household affordability at the
top of the very-low income scale, 501 of area median, and to
sl:l.ghtly above that at 601 of area lbedian. While :his is
moving in the right direction, affordable· rents at these
income levels approach market rates. Contrary to the figures
that are cited at -the bottom of Page 4 of the Staff Report,
DUD has set the following maximu• affordable rentss
Unit Siae SOI AMit: 601 AMii Maximum Afford-(Number) a51e lent
One bdrm $17,550 $439 (2)* or $494 (3)*
$21,050 $526 (2)* or $593 Cl)*
Two Bdra $21,950 $549 (4)* or $~93 (5)*
$26,350 · $659 ,,,. or $711 (5)*
Edward Scarpell October 14, 1993
Pag_Ll
'three Bdr11 $25,450
i Area Median Income.
$30,550
$636 (6)* or $h80 (7)*
$763 (6)* or $1116 (7)*
• Figures in brackets indicate family size.
The maximum affordable rents cited are from Attachment A, BUD
Regional Median Income and Affordable Rent Schedule for the
County of San Diego, May 1993, a copy of which ls enc1,,sed.
With regard to the duration of affordability, Redev,·lopment
Law requires that when the Agency'• Rousing Fund is used to
develop new housing, that housing must remain availible at
affordable housing costs to the tarQeted inco~e levels for the
"longest feasible time•. Health I Safety Code S 333:;4.l(f).
~he Staff Report (Pages, IV(c)), references fifty-fl\e years
because that is the minimum duration of affordability 1equired
by virtue of the Federal Low Income Dousing Taz Credit
Program. Unless the Agency bas made a finding, based upon
substantial evidence, that •the longest feasible tlme• is less
than in perpetuity, then the covenants or deed rest1 lctlons
which •ust be record~d (section 33334.l(f)), must assure
ongoing affordability.
Since a fundamental purpose of Colllllunity Redevelopment Law is
to expand the connunity•s supply of affordable housing and
assure a mix of residential and colUletcial development within
the Project Area~ there is no need to make a fin,ling of
benefit when an Agency's Bou.sing Fund is used to sup,ort the
dcvelopaaent or rehabilitation of housing within the Project
Area. Staff acknowledges that in order to spend its Rousing
Fund outside the Project Area, both the Agency and the legis-
lative body must adopt a resolution based upon-Un41ngs that
the proposed project will benefit the Project Area. lroposed
Resolution 93-009 may satisfy the requirement of a retolutlon
by lhe legislative body, typically the City Council, but it
cannot substitute for the requisite resolution by the Agency.
Nor ls it supgorted by substantial evidence.
What statistics or studies for• the basis for the corclusion
that the Village Redevelopment Area offers employment to not
low or moderate income wage earners, which will not be served
by The Villas at El Camino Real, but rather those aaklrg at or below 501 and 60\ of area median income? And how will this
project be structured so that it serves employees who do work
but do not live in the Project Area or the City? The -1esolut-
ion also states that it is feasible for residents of The
Villas at El Camino Real to use public transit to access the
Village Redevelopment Area to work and $hop .. Yet thera is no
discussion of the length of time that public transport takes.
OCT-14-93 THU 1~~37
Edward Scarpell
octoGer 14, 1993
Page_j
nor the directness or circuitousness of its route. Without.
this, how can it be determined that it is feasible to utilize
public transport? Further, what is the factual basis for the
conclusory statement that those livin~ at Th• Villas wlll have
a •significant impact• on revltalia1ng the Village Project
Area by working an4 shopping there? The downtown irea is
primarily a tourist destination.
Clearly this P.roposed use of the Agency's Uousin~, Funds
promotes the City of Carlsbad's housing goals, as clai11.ed ln
Paragraph 3, Page 3, of Resolution No. 93-009~ Whether it
satisfies Community Redevelopment Law, the Agencr's Rec·.evelop-
mcnt Plan, and/or benefits the Project Area 1s sub Ject to doubt. Factual support is needed betore the Agency and City
can consider adopting the necessary resolutions.
. ' • I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this propcsed use
of the A~ency' s Dousing Fund, and would be happy ~o work
further with the Dousing coulssion or Staff to assure that
the Agency complies with Community Redevelopment L-1w. I
remain,
Sincerely,
LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SAN DI.EGO, INC.
~~~~
CATHERINB A. RODMAII
Attorney at Law
CAR/b Enc.
cc: Evan Becker, Housing I Redevelopment Director
Glenn Wasserman, at Kane, Ballmer,, Berkman
•
--···-·---· . . . .
. .
auo REGIONAL ~EDIP INCOO 2'ND UFoaDhBLE Rtn 8(BEOOL2
FOR ~HE QOO!ttY o• SNI blEGO * ¥.l\Y 1tt3
(fftJD ~cgional Me~1an Income -$43,900) ..
I Of Si.~• )(ad•ua Neuclau,-t<axl.aua XI ~-,pU.cable:
H('!c!i.qiG of .kasiua1 l&aa.~lr Afford • (Shu of
I.IL~~ r,.a,llll.lx .[•u::oc.L Ife!!!!•-_lj~t ~ VaJ..ll
__ .. ____ ,_, ___ .,. ____ .., _____ _,,.. ___ r,11 ... ~---.--.. ____ ,.,...~ ... ---.... ----.. •--·-.......... ·---~-
I $15,350 s1,a,, $384 (11t\lt110J
2 17,550 ,~,. 1,463 439 (1 l»·J
J 19.750 i,&46 494
4 21,,,0 1,az, 549 (2 lu-J s 2,,,00 1,171 s,3 • 21,450 2,121 63, (J b:·J , 21,200 1,267 680
I 28,9$0 2,413 ,a• (4 b;:J ____ .,.. ___ .. ""'""""'....,--.,_-~_ ... _...,"".,. .. __ ...,,_ __ ..... .._ ______ _., __ .. __ ""' ____ ... ....,.. _______ ..., .... _, ,-~-.-
1 $18,450 $1,SJI S4C1 C11t11,t1o)
2 21,050 1,714 526 Cl b.~)
3 23,700 J.,975 59,J
fO\ • 26,350 2.1,, 659 (2 I);~) s '28,4S0 2,111 711 • 30,~50 2,546 7Gt (3 11.:) ., .U,65O 1.121 816
8 34,7S0 2,896 869 C4 b. ·1 ~~------•~--~----~~•---~•~---~~------...---~~...,..---~w~~--~•-~----~----~~
1 $19,9$0 $1,613 $499 (&tu,U.o)
2 22,800 1.too 570 (1 b:)
3 25.700 2,u:a G42
§.U 4 28,$50 Z,319 714 (2 b :J
5 30,800 2,s,, ·no
6 :u,100 2,'151 827 (3 ~ -,
7 3S,400 . 2,tso 885 a 31,650 J,138 941 (4 b:) ----------~~---~~------~---~~------~-----~~~---------------------·----~ 1 $21,SOO ,1.,12 $5J7 (OtD U.oj
2 24,600 1,050 61S (l b~)
J 27,650 2,304 691
1.ll 4 l0,750 2,563 769 (2 bt) • :u,ioo 2,767 830
' 35,650 2,971 891 (3 b r:) ., 38,100 3,11S 953 • 40,550 3,3?9 1,014 . (4 be) --------~---~-•-----~------~---~~~~~---w~---•---------•--•---~~-•---~-1 $24,600 $2,050 $615 (otvdJ,o)
2 28,100 2,342 702 (1 be)·
3 31,600 2,633 790
JUt1 4 35,100 2,925 818 (2 bC')
5 3'7,950 l,163 949
I ◄o,,so l,196 1,019 Cl !Jt) ., 43,550 J,629 l,089 a 46,350 ),863 i, J.59 (4 h') -------------·------.... ___ ._ ______ ~~----------.. .. -------.. ,.. .... ____ ""---_., ______ ... __ ,. ____
1 $30,7$0 $21 563 $769 (&t\ldl.o)
2 lS,1OO 2.,2s 8'78 .Cl tr)
3 39,500 , 3,292 987
lS>ll 4 o,,oo 3,658 1.0,1 (2 t &')
5 4"1,400 3,950 1,1es
' SO,9OO 4,2,2 1,272 (3 t r I
7 S4.U0 4,538 1,361
8 17,150 4,829 1,449 (4 l r)
---·• ·----~ .. _______ ..,.,,.. __________ .., ______ ~.-----... --------.... --------.. --. ------
r • ~ -...J
Revenues;
Beginning Balance
Set-Aside (Increment)
Interest
121m
Expenses:
Administration
Housing Construction
Acquisition (MF)
Rehabilitation (SF)
Homebuyer Asst.
Rental Assistance
•12t11 I
Ending Balance
EXHIBIT A .
LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUND SPENDING PLAN
:@Jti:~mf91.::;;::::::::J:tM;,;~=;:rn:::::r:1::::::::::tJ~w::::::::1:t=::;;:;:::1??~t::;::::1m::::t~:,;:;:;:J;;tA!:tt~:::::::;:::::,;:,:;.:,
$1,898,000
$320,000
$0
$2,218,000
$105,000
$500,000
$200,000
$0
$0
$150,000
$955,000
$1,2ss,ooo I
$1,263,000
$330,000
$75,000
$1,868,000
$105,000
$850,000
$200,000
$250,000
$0
$150,000
$1,555,000
$113,000
$113,000
$340,000
$30,000
$483,000
$105,000
$200,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
$0
$455,000
$28,000
$28,000
$350,000·
$25,000
$403,000
$105,000
$130,000
$100,000
$50,000
$50,000
$0
$435,000
($32,000)
($32,000)
$360,000
$0
$328,000
$105,000
$123,000
$50,000
$0
$50,000
$0
$328,000
$0
NIA
$1,700,000
$130,000
fa,728,000
$525,000
$1,803,000
$650,000
$350,000
$100,000
$300,000
$3,728,000
$0
-··••11■1
24-Mar-93
l!i
I
SITE ♦
VLLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL ZC 93-02/SDP 93-06/
SUP-93-02/HDP 93-08
TYPE
1 BR
2BR
3 BR
UNIT
One Bdrm
(120)
Two Bdrm
(120)
Three Bdrm
(104)
VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
UNIT TYPE AND SIZE
SQ. FT. NUMBER
634 120
953 120
1052 104
344
INCOME LIMITS AND RENTS
50% AMI* 60% AMI*
$ 17,550 $ 21,050
$ 21,950 $ 26,350
$ 25,450 $ 30,550
• AMI -Area Median Income
% OF TOTAL
35%
35%
30%
100%
RENT
$ 381/$ 463
$ 449/$ 548
$ 514/$ 626
VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SOURCES AND USF.S OF FUNDS•
USF.S
TOTAL
Land $ 2,060,000.00
Cons_truction Costs
Off-Sites s 590,123.00
Site Work & Buildings 16,475,885.00
Subtotal 17,066,108.00
Fees & Permits 5,878,622.00
Soft Costs 6,324,439.00
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST $31,329,169.00
SOURCES
Bank Loan $ 8,730,000.00
Limited Partnership Equity (Tax
Credit) 15,047,985.00
Affordable Housing Program Loan 2,064,000.00
Developer Equity (ALA) 1,000,000.00
City Loans:
CDBG $2,000,000.00
Set-Aside 500,000.00
$ 2,500,000.00
Fee Exemptions/Deferrals
( estimated):
PFF S 358,484.00
Grading Deposit 104,046.00
Poinsettia Lane 756,000.00
CFD 666,981.00
$ 1,885,511.00
Contingent Partner Equity $ 101,673.00
TOTAL SOURCES $31,329,169.N
PER UNIT
$ 5,988.00
1,716.00
47,895.00
49,611.00
17,089.00
18,385.00
$91,073.00
$25,378.00
43,744.00
6,000.00
2,907.00
$ 7,267.00
$ 5,481.00
$ 296.00
S91,873.N
VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
SUBSIDY ANALYSIS
SOURCE AMOUNT (%)
Tax Credits $15,047,985.00
AHP 2,064,000.00
ALA Equity 1,000,000.00
Contingent Partner Equity 101,673.00
SUBTOTAL $18,213,658.00 81%
City Participation:
•Direct Financing $ 2,500,000.00
•Fee Exemptions/Deferrals 1,885,511.00
SUBTOTAL CITY $ 4,385,511.00 19%
TOTAL SUBSIDY $22,599,169.00 100%
PER UNIT
$ 52,947.00
$12,749.00
$65,696.00
BANK LOAN
28%
VILLAS AT EL CAMINO REAL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
TAX CREDITS
48% TAX CREDITS
67%
PARTNERS EQUITY
AHP LOA~%
7%
CITY ASSISTANCE
14% CITY ASSISTANCE
1goA,
ERS EQUITY
5%
9%
FUNDING SOURCES SUBSIDY ANALYSIS
LAND PURCHASE
INTERIM FINANCING
Authorization
of
CDBG Funds
for
Land
Purchase
HU Processing
(90 days)
CDBG $ Available
to "repay" Set-Aside Fund
Authorization
of
Set-Aside Funds
for
Land
Purchase
Immediate Land
Purchase with
Set-Aside Funds
Set-Aside$
Returned