Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 Attach EAH DUBLIN SENIOR HOUSING CONCEPTUAL ELEVATION DUBLIN SENIOR APARTMENTS EAH, INC. Dublin. Califorrlia PROPOSAL TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT EAH, Inc. RECEIVED May 24, 2002 EAH -. A NONPROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION May 24, 2002 Ms. Julia Abdala Housing Specialist City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Senior Housing in Dublin Dear Ms. Abdala: EAH, Inc. is pleased to present our proposal for the Dublin Senior Housing project. EAH staff has been working with the CitY of Dublin and the greater Tri-Valley area on increasing the amount of affordable housing being developed in the Tri-Valley. We are excited to present our proposal t° wOrk on one of the first affordable housing developments in Dublin in many years. EAH is one of the oldest and most experienced affordable housing developers in the Bay Area. Established almost 35 years ago, EAH has developed over 4,500 units of housing ranging in type from families to seniors to home ownership. EAH's management company manages over 5,500 units of housing in the Bay Area and Hawaii. This experience includes the development of 865 units in 15 senior communities, with a total of 1,103 senior housing units currently under management. Our experience and dedication make us one of the leading developers for affordable housing in the Bay Area. EAH has worked with all of the major financing mechanisms in affordable housing. We have strong relationships with investors, lenders, local governments and foundations. Our consistency and reliability ensure long lasting relationships with these important partners in affordable housing. EAH has tackled the toughest affordable housing ,challenges, inclUding Crescent Park, a 370-unit development in one of the toughest neighborhoods in the City of Richmond, and Ecology House, a development for environmentally sensitive persons. EAH focused on "green design" before it was a requirement by the affordable housing funders and built Ecology House with 100% Ms. Julia Abdala Page 2 We don't rely only on our 'oast experience, but constantly try to maintain and upgrade our Ms. Julia Abdala Page 2 We don't rely only on our past experience, but constantly try to maintain and upgrade our development and management capabilities. EAH has a staff of over 300 employees and each one is trained thoroughly in their department. EAH has a full time staff person devoted to providing training to all of our employees. All employees involved in development are trained in fair housing laws and attend 2 to 3 seminars per year on the latest financing strategies and development techniques. Each EAH developer understands the importance of partnering with cities in developing affordable housing in their jurisdiction. We work closely with local governments to understand the needs of the community and the funds that are available to create housing. EAH proposes to build an aesthetically exceptional senior housing complex that will interact well with the new SeniOr Center across the site. We intend to create not only a development but a home for Dublin seniors, where they can gather together, invite friends over and create community. The design will integrate the building within its surroundings and Will relate the housing to the new Senior Center. Our architecture partner, the KTGY Group has looked at a number of schemes, including the one proposed by Noll & Tam. The final design will have to balance many competing interests including parking requirements, the desire for as many units as possible, the need for a small on-site communal, gathering space and a manager and service worker's office. The ultimate design will have an easy circulation pattern, create areas for communities to flourish and will be a source of pride for the residents and the City. The type of construction will depend on the final design scheme. Designing cOvered parking under the units requires a concrete podium for safety reasons and lessens the potential for exterior open space. Reserving the ground floor for parking makes it challenging to design a welcoming entry. All of these deSign challenges will be wOrked through, when the architect begins to engage with the City on their priorities. EAH has proposed using the 9% tax credit program for the Dublin Senior HOusing. This offers the largest amount of equity to the project and the potential for the smallest .amount of City investment. In this scenario, the City's contribution would be a total of $1.98 million or $39,700/unit. In most projects in the Bay Area, because of high costs of construction and pre-development costs related to architecture, engineering and consultant fees, equity and conventional debt are not enough to pay for the project. EAH uses every available financing mechanism including foundation grants to try and lower the amount of funding required from the City. We understand that eaCh city wants to fund as many projects as possible and our being fiscally conservative and having thoughtful oversight can afford cities the ability to fund more projects in their area. We have also proposed alternatives to the 9% program, such as the Tax-ExemPt bond/4% tax credit program, using 501-c-3 bonds or the HUD 202 Ms. Julia Abdala Page 3 program. Each of these has trade offs in terms of timing and expense and we have reviewed these issues in our narrative. EAH has worked extensively with each of these financing mechanisms and is eager to review the cost/benefit analysis with the City, in deciding which program best fits the goals of the City. We are very excited about the potential for this new affordable housing development in Dublin and look forward to being a part of the development team. We are confident that EAH will be able to deliver an affordable housing development that works for the City, the senior residents, the users of the senior Center and the surrounding neighbors. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments and I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. president Dublin Senior Housing Proposal E~4H, Ina NARRATIVE OF ORGANIZATION'S APPROACH What steps would your firm take if selected? One of the first steps EAH would take would be to review the project as submitted in the RFP proposal in detail with City staff in order to ensure that we are all in agreement on the overall concept of the project. This review would include financing, site layout and income levels. EAH hopes to work in close partnership with the City in implementing this significant City project, the first new affordable housing in Dublin in a generation. Accordingly, it is important that everyone gains a clear understanding of the process and how the partners will work together. Having worked in communities across California and Hawaii, EAH has the experience to the with much local develop project as government involvement as the City of Dublin would like to offer. An of this initial review would be review the important part to project schedule and ensure that City staff are in agreement with the timeline. A timeline that has "buy in" -from all parties can serve as a guiding tool during the process of development. As illustrated in the project schedule, the timeline would start with communication with the Senior Center architect and development team, as well as review and discussions With the City and the due diligence and environmental investigation of the site. EAH would immediately begin coordinating the senior housing with the Senior Center, starting with a review of the site plan. These two projects can be designed and built fo work to complement each other, creating benefits to all of the user groups. Coordination and communication wilt be the guiding principals for EAH, in regards to working with the Senior Center architect and development group. EAH would also arrange for the development team, including the architect, to sit down with representatives of all the key agencies and departments including Community Development's planning and building divisions, Public Works' engineering division, the Fire Prevention Bureau, the Housing Specialist and the Parks and Community Services facilities development manager to review the schematic design and the site layout. It is critical to understand all of the site-related issues from the different departments early on, in order to design a project that addresses all of the existing issues and current City standards. Knowing all of the information about a site at the beginning allows the architect to design within the given parameters, avoids costly changes later on in the project development, and ensures all City concerns are addressed to the greatest extent feasible. (Please see the Conceptual Project Schedule section, which further describes EAH's schedule for developing the senior housing project.) How does your firm determine funding sources to apply for and coordinate these schedules? EAH determines funding sources based on the objectives and local market conditions for each development. Key factors include the population and income level to be served, the amount of City funding available, and the development timetable requested by the City. May 24, 2002 Narrative of Organization's Approach - 1 - Dublin Senior Housing Proposal EAH, Inc. Funding sources most commonly considered for new construction include 9% tax credits, Tax-Exempt bonds with 4% tax credits and 501 (c)(3)bonds. Different funding sources are focused on different income levels and also require different subsidy amounts from local governments. The determination of which sources to apply for also depends a balance between interest in the units on City's a bringing on line more quickly, and the amount and type of City funding available for the project. For example, the 9% tax credit program provides for lower income levels than the Tax- bond and 4% tax credit The 9% tax credit also Exempt program. program requires a smaller subsidy from local government. The 9% tax credit is highly competitive, which can create delays in implementation, even for highly qualified projects. A highly qualified project can potentially not be awarded 9% tax credits on the first round because of the intense competition. The City would have to decide if that level of risk and timing were amenable to its expectations for completion and occupancy of the housing. Another common financing structure, Tax-Exempt bonds in conjunction with 4% tax credits, has a less competitive process. This creates less of a chance that a housing development will be delayed, but it is a more expensive, complex process that requires greater involvement and greater subsidy from the local government. Many cities will issue Tax-Exempt bonds for affordable housing developments, while other cities are not interested in this financing tool. That information will help focus the direction for project financing. A third financing option is 501(c)(3) bonds. These bonds are not subtracted from the federal allocation of tax exempt financing provided to the State of California. Therefore these bonds are not part of the competitive state bond allocation process, and have the shortest timeline of all the options. The downside to 501(c)(3) bonds is that they cannot be combined with tax credit financing and require much higher resident incomes and rents. This financing mechanism often requires a larger local subsidy. EAH routinely tracks the timelines relating to all of the major available sources of funding. We will create a funding timeline integrated with the overall project timeline, evaluating the schedule based on critical funding sources and their respective deadlines. Since project pre-development can often take at least a year, typically there is adequate time available to apply for federal, state and local funding sources. EAH has been e×tremely successful in applying for and receiving federal, state and local funds. EAH has received all but one of the 9% tax credit applications that it has submitted for funding. We are also very familiar and have a strong track record with the Federal Home Loan Bank, Affordable Housing Program (AHP), 501(c)(3) bonds and the Tax-Exempt bond and 4% tax credit allocation programs. EAH has worked extensively with national and local banks on financing conventional mortgages and is very successful at negotiating favorable and competitive rates and loan fees. EAH has also worked successfully with over 30 cities in the Bay Area in creating local funding opportunities for affordable housing. EAH also researches available grant funds, to try to lower the local governments subsidy level. More information is provided in the Project Financing section of the proposal. Please see our references for conventional and public lenders. May 24, 2002 Narrative of Organization's Approach - 2 - Dublin Senior Housing Proposal EAH, Inc. What financial contingency does your firm have should any of the funding sources fail to provide anticipated financing ? Depending on the timing of the funding sources, there are a number of alternatives to provide gap financing. Persistence is the first option. For many of the funding sources, projects are encouraged to re-apply if they did not receive an award on the first application submittal. The competition differs in each round of funding and a project might score high enough in a second application to receive funding, even if that same score was not high enough to receive an award in a previous round. If the development timetable does not allow for repeated applications, or the first appliCation reveals that the project does not compete well for the financing source, another option is to revise the financing structure. In this case, it might mean shifting from 9% tax credits to less competitive 4% tax credits with Tax Exempt bonds. Typically this also increases the need for local or other subsidies, so additional time is needed to search for sources of financing to fill the gap. also when a financing source is only available at a lower Financing gaps may appear amount than projected. It's often possible to manipulate the timing of the pay-in of a source, using the time value of money to push back the contribution date and increase the amount of a source. Short-term financing can offset the later pay-in of a source of funds. EAH has successfully assembled financing for all of the properties we have developed, totaling over $500 at experience spans virtually every type million this time. Our of financing available for affordable housing. EAH is respected by. the major financial institutions and regulatory agencies for our capability and excellent track record. We have never been forced to discontinue a development to financing. due lack of Another option is for EAH to invest a percentage of their developer fee as equity in the project to cover some of the financing gap. EAH has already offered to do this, as a demonstration of our commitment to work closely with the City to explore all aspects of project sources and uses in order to create a successful financial structure capable of creating a solid, well-designed development of lasting value to the residents and community. How would your firm approach construction of senior housing with simultaneous construction on the Senior Center? EAH has previous experience with building on sites that have multiple construction projects being built at the same time. From our experience, the main tools that EAH would use in the event of simultaneous construction with the Senior Center are communication and coordination. These tools would be used from the outset of the project, starting with the_site plan. As discussed above, one of the first things EAH would do as developer of the Senior Housing would be to meet with the Senior Center architect and development team to coordinate the two projects. These meetings will allow the construction teams to coordinate the timing of each project and set up protocols May 24, 2002 Narrative of Organizatlon's Approach - 3 - Dublin Senior Housing Proposal EAH, Inc. for communicating the progress of each project, to ensure that the schedules are constantly updated. We would locate the critical activities and times for each project, to identify when there might be space or access conflicts and to look for potential synergies. Examples of critical events include dates when there will be large machinery on site or many trucks potentially entering and leaving the site in a short amount of time (for example, if there were any removal or addition of soil, or for pouring concrete). Examples of positive opportunities to try to take advantage of the potential cost and/or time savings might include removing dirt at the same time or having inspectors visit both sites on the same day. EAH has experience in working in very close quarters and on tight sites, where coordination is the key to avoiding issues with neighbors or City regulations and resulting delays of the project. In San Jose, EAH developed two projects on the same site, Vista Park I and II, with 83 units 'of affordable senior housing each. At 40% completion of Vista Park I, construction was begun on Vista Park II. EAH coordinated both projects during construction. The foundations for Vista Park II were being poured, while the wood frame construction for the units of Vista Park I were being constructed. The units at Vista Park II were being constructed, while the tile roof was being laid for Vista Park I. Both construction projects were done without any delays and were finished on time. Vista Park I was placed in service in May 2000 and Vista Park II in November 2000. One option that might alleviate construction difficulties and delays is using the same contractor for both projects. EAH has worked with the same contractor on building different phases of a project in two developments, Vista Park I and II and Verona Homes in Santa Clara. Another option would be to take that arrangement a step further: EAH could manage construction of the Senior Center on behalf of the City for a fee and thereby reduce the potential for construction conflicts. Would your firm consider using the same architect as the one the City of Dublin would have selected to construct the Senior Center? EAH would definitely consider using the same architect for the housing development as the one the City would have selected for the Senior Center. For the RFP, EAH is teaming up with KTGY Architects to design the senior housing. KTGY is a full servi ce architecture firm and has experience in designing affordable senior housing, as well as large and small senior centers. IfEAH were selected as the affordable housing developer and the City had selected a different architecture firm for the Senior Center and the housing, EAH would work closely with the selected architecture firm and the City to ensure that the selected firm had the capacity and capability to design affordable senior housing. Affordhble housing has many design issues that are particular to this type of housing. Senior housing also has many specific design issues and specialized areas of focus that are critical in the design of a high functioning and low maintenance building. It would be important that whatever architecture firm was chosen to design the senior affordable housing, they must have extensive experience with designing high qualit, y, attractive May 24, 2002 Narrative of Organization's Approach - 4 - Dublin Senior Housing Proposal EAH, Inc. senior housing. EVen if separate architects were eventually chosen for the two projects, EAH would ensure that the two architects and development teams would work closely together through the process. EAH has worked with many design firms over the years and is comfortable and experienced with coordinating multiple design professionals on development projects. May 24, 2002 Narrative of Organization's Approach - 5 - Dublin Senior Housing Proposal E~4H, Inc. The proposed development schedule below aims aggressively for a tax credit application in the firSt round of 2003. The first round deadline is usually in March, allowing construction to begin by September, 2003 and to be completed by June, 2004. Another option (if necessary, for example, to allow more time for the entitlement process) is to submit a tax credit appliCati°n in the secOnd roUnd of 2003, typically in June. This would allow construction to begin by the end of 2003 and be completed approximately September, 2004. (Please see the attached Gantt chart showing the full development timeline.) Action Item Timeline RFP PropOSals Due May 24, '02 City chooses two developers to negotiate Jul 08, '02 Final developer selection (estimate) late July '02 Review and align proposal with City objectives July '02 Coordinate Housing with Senior Center: Jul 23 - Aug '02 Coordinate with Senior Ctr program staff Site design review Negotiate Development Agreement, Ground Lease Jul 23 - Aug '02 Due diligence reports on land (phase 1 enviro., soils, Aug - Sept '02 surVey, title, others as required) Proceed with schematic design Aug - Sept '02 Initial application for conventional financing - permanent Aug - Sept '02 Initial apPlication for conventional financing - construction Aug - Sept '02 Design development Oct- Nov '02 Submit Site Development Review application Nov '02 Entitlement process Nov '02 - Feb '03 Public hearings and final project approval March '03 Design development, complete to 100% March '03 Begin negotiating City loan documents Jan '03 Jan - Mar '03, ongoing if Apply for additional grant funds, as appropriate necessary Initial negotiations with tax credit investor Jan - Mar '03 Apply for HOME funds Feb/Mar '03 Apply for 9% tax credits March '03 Apply for AHP funding Mar '03 Prepare construction documents Mar - June '03 Building permit application proCess June Aug '03 Receive allOcation of tax credits May '03 Receive award of AHP funds May '03 Receive award of HOME funds May '03 Apply for CDBG funds if needed to fill gap May/June '03 Final negotiations for tax credit investment June - Aug, '03 Negotiate final bank loan documents June - Aug, '03 Final negotiations for public financing loan documents June - Aug, '03 Close construction financing Aug '03 Receive building permits Aug '03 Construction Sep '03 - June '04 May 24, 2002 Conceptual Project Schedule - 6 - Dublin Senior Housing Proposal EAH, Inc. SPECIFIC SITE INFORMATION EAH and our selected architecture firm, KTGY Architects, have designed three alternatives for the DUblin Senior Housing development. The first alternative is the design included in the RFP. This design is approximately 35 feet tall with on-grade parking and two stories of housing above. The building has 50 units of housing, with 45 one-bedroom umts, 5 two-bedroom umts and 50 parking spaces. The second and third alternatives are two and three stories in height, 25'-35' respectively and have 49-50 units of housing, although they have less than the required 50 parking These second spaces. two alternatives were designed to look at other options. These schemes provide less parking but more amenities, including community spaces, a manager's office and private exterior areas. Many of these amenities are critical to good design of a senior development and should be incorporated into the design where feasible, although there are trade-offs. EAH will work with the City to design a building that benefits the senior residents, has aesthetically pleasing architecture and is environmentally sound. All three schemes take into account the City of Dublin's interest in green building. Our design team researChed the City development standards and Alameda County Waste Management Authority Green Building Guidelines. From these two sources, we have put together a preliminary design that takes into account environmentally conscious design COncepts, as well as allowing for more green design once the design development phase begins. For a project in Berkeley, EAH has identified leading green building consultants in the West, including David Gottfried, principal of World Build in Oakland and a founding member of the Green Building Council; Lynn Simon of Simon & Associates in San Francisco and Greenbuild.com, and David Johnson of Colorado. One of these experts could be brought onto the project as appropriate. Although the building is already sited on the property, there are still many design opportunities for beneficial solar orientation. In the third scheme, the south facing units have balconies to allow for natural breezes to cool the units and to extend the living area to the outside. All of the schemes try to have windows at the east and west end of the building to allow cross ventilation in the corridOr. This natural ventilation can cool the corridor without the use of a mechanical system; thereby lowering costs and noise. The pedestrian-friendly location of the site, directly adjacent to shopping, a bus stop and the senior center itself, is one of the key issues in green design. Allowing residents the opportunity to visit friends, run errands and attend evening events without requiring the use of a car can have a positive impact on the environment. This can also positively impact those residents who no longer drive. Having the freedom to travel to recreational activities and necessary appointments is important for anyone's mental and physical well- being. In striving to maximize the number of units, in order to serve as many seniors as possible, there are a number of trade-offs in the design. In scheme number three, removing three units near the entry creates a community room and manager's office directly opposite the main entry area. Although it would decrease the number of units ultimately by one unit, May 24, 2002 Specific Site Information - 7- Dublin Senior Housing Proposal E~-I, Inc. a main gathering space is essential in any community, especially in a senior community where people like to gather and spend time with one another. It particularly helps a senior who might otherwise spend a lot of time alone, to have a nearby gathering area that is convenient and accessible. EAH has found that at our senior properties, the community rooms are highlyutilized. Residents have organized evening activities, luncheons and daytime activities and outings to create a community within their development and to keep their lives aCtive and fulfilling. Resident managers also bring in social services and medical services to community rooms on a regular basis, to ensure residents are in good health, mentally and physically. Many developments hire a social services coordinator to bring in services for the whole community, as well as trying to serve individual client's needs. (Please see the Firm Experience section for more information about EAH's senior service exPertise.) Educational classes also take place in the community room, as well as recreational activities. The would have south windows allow in community room facing to large amounts of natural light. (Another green design concept is to ensure that the community room's window coverings are designed to deflect the strong southern summer sun.) The resident manager's office is located near the entry and next to the community room. Casual interaction on a daily basis enables the manager to hear the residents' concerns and also to identify residents they are not seeing, 'who may be isolated in their units for one reason or another, and be in need of some support. The best location for the manager's office is where the manager can have direct visual access to the entry, and prOximity to the community room. The development as a whole benefits when the tenants knoTM each Other, look oUt for each other and have a gOod relationship with the resident manager. The location of the mailboxes can positively affect the feel of the community, as milling around to pick up mail is usually a social activity. This is another way good design can help create a healthy and vibrant community. All of the units and amenities in the senior development are completely accessible or adaptable. Where possible, the design tries to follow "universal design" principles, to make the entire complex easy to use by people of all physical abilities. For example, each floor is served by an elevator and the community room and manager's offices are also accessible to those with physical disabilities. In addition, at least 5% of the units are fully handicapped-accessible and all of the units are adaptable. "Adaptable" means that the reqUired structural features and Spatial relationshiPs are built int° each unit from the outset, so the units can be cost-effectively adapted to be fully accessible later, if the need arises, with a minimum amount of renovation to the unit. An example includes installing inside the wall the backing needed for grab bars in the showers and bathrooms, even for units without those amenities currently installed. Another senior-focused design idea is the front door. The architect can specify door levers that when opened will also unlock the deadbolt above. This is important for seniors, who might get confused in an emergency and not remember to unlock the deadbolt to open the door. May 24, 2002 Specific Site Information - 8 - Dublin Senior Housing Proposal EAH, Inc. Small design items such as these can make a senior more comfortable in their new home. EAH and its architecture team strive to find these important design aspects that make our developments feel like home to their inhabitants. All of the units will have an operable window in the living room. that will allow sun and air to penetrate to the kitchen and a window in the bedroom. Natural sunlight and fresh air are crucial for healthy living and can lower the need for mechanical ventilation and expensive energy bills. EAH specifies Energy Star appliances for our developments. In scheme three, there are four different exterior decks for the use of the residents. Because the location of the building does not allow for an open area at the ground level, decks are a critical element of the design. Two of the decks are covered and two are open. These allow different uses in different weather conditions. It is often nice to sit outside in the shade on a warm day, with a breeze coming from the east or west sides of the building. Portions of the decks will be enclosed or otherwise protected from the stiff afternoon winds often experienced in Dublin. The roofing on the building can have an important impact on utility bills and the temperature in the upper units. Light colored roofing and radiant barriers can deflect the sun's heat and lower the costs of mechanical cooling. This also lowers the noise level, which can be an important benefit. White noise can sometimes make it harder for those who have difficulty hearing. The current funding sources encourage affordable housing developments to design buildings that exceed the state's Title 24 energy efficiency requirements. EAH hires energy efficiency consultants as a routine matter for all of its new developments. In addition to standard energy efficiency measures such as fluorescent lighting, the construction process itself has many opportunities for environmentally conscious actions. Recycling job site waste and not sending it to a landfill can save a large quantity of waste that could be re-used at other construction sites or donated to building groups. This can be done without any increase in costs. Since the garage is not below ground, the garage design can incorporate framed openings and natural ventilation, in order to not require mechanical ventilation. This saves initial development costs, but also saves on utility bills. It is also quieter and more pleasant in the garage without mechanical ventilation. EAH's goal is to have pieces of the design, from improved ductwork and mechanical technology to the latest green building ideas to the appropriate orientation of windows, decks and community, add up to well-integrated whole. EAH works closely with our architects and contractors not merely to exceed energy requirements, but to design buildings that utilize good design for the benefit of the environment, the residents and the surrounding community May 24, 2002 Specific Site Information - 9 - CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN EAH, INC. DUBLIN SENIORu n. a APARTMENTSo r n a O O 0 CONCEPTUAL ELEVATION DUBLIN SENIOR APARTMENTS EAHINC 0KT4~Y GROUP ..... ~ ' Dublin, California .......... 0 m~ .o. ~m . 0 samoo2 D EAH, INC. DUBLIN SENIORAPARTMENTS D u b lin, Cal t f o rn la Dublin Senior Housing Proposal EAH, Inc. EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRM EAH is one of the most experienced nonprofit housing development and management organiZatiOns in the WeStern united States. The organization was founded as Ecumenical Association for Housing in 1968 to address the housing needs of low income families and seniors in Marin County. Since its inception, the organization has expanded far beyond the borders of its original home, completing the development of over 4,500 units located throughout the State of California and in Hawaii. Today with a staff of more than 300, EAH is one of the largest and most productive nonprofit housing development corporations in California, with regional offices located in San Rafael, San Jose, Fresno and Honolulu. EAH's Experience in Financing Affordable Housing DeYelopments The Development Department carries out all phases of housing development, including site identification, analysis, and acquisition; coordination with community groups and co- sponsors; selection and coordination of the design/development team and other consultants; obtaining local government approvals, including environmental clearances; securing predevelopment, construction, equity, and mortgage financing; relocation when required, and land development. EAH has developed, constructed, acquired and rehabilitated, or financed over 4,500 affordable units in 63 projects. In its nearly 35-year history, EAH has developed many types of housing including homes for seniors, large and small families, housing for persons with special needs and disabilities, student housing and affordable home ownership. To date, EAH has developed properties with aggregate financing of over $500 million. Development staff are highly skilled in the use of multiple funding sources including CDBG and HOME funds, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, private activity tax-exempt bonds, 501(c)(3) Bonds, conventional debt, Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program funds, tax increment funds and investor equity. For example, EAH has completed fifteen 9% percent tax Credit projects for a total of 926 units and $54,900,000 in equity. EAH has also completed five projects using 4% tax credit in conjunction with tax-exempt bonds, for a total of 666 units, $9,400,000 in equity and $25,800,000 in bond allocation. Descriptions of up to FiVe Recent Affordable Housing Developments · Vista Park I and II Senior Apartments (separate projeCts, 83 units each, San Jose) · Morgan Hill Ranch Family Housing (80 units, Morgan Hill) Parkview Senior Homes (140 units, San Jose) · Parkview Family Homes (90 units, San Jose) · Bridgecourt Apartments (220 units, Emeryville) May 24, 2002 Experience of the Firm - 10- Dublin Senior Housing Proposal E.4H, Inc. Vista Park Senior Homes I, San Jose, Santa Clara County. This 83-unit rental project provides affordable homes to very-low income seniors. EAH developed the project in partnership with CORE Development, Inc. AEGON USA Realty Services, Inc. (formerly Transamerica) supplied both the permanent debt and equity, which was raised through the sale of 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The City of San Jose provided additional permanent financing. The Bank of America Community Development Bank was the construction lender. EAH is the managing general partner and the management agent for the development. Number of Units: 83 Types of Financing: 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits City of San Jose Redevelopment Agency Conventional Mortgage Total Project Cost: $10,542,061 Per Unit Cost: $ 127,013 San Jose Redevelopment Agency Application April 1997 San Jose Redevelopment Agency Award June 1998 Planned Development Permit April 1998 TCAC Application Date May 1998 Land Acquisition June 1998 Construction Start July 1999 Placed-in-Service: May 2000 May 24, 2002 Experience of the Firm - 11 - Dublin Senior Housing Proposal EAH, Inc. Vista Park Senior Homes II, San Jose, Santa Clam County. The second phase of Vista Park consists of an additional 83 rental units affordable to low and very-low income seniors. EAH maintained the same development structure and partnered with Core Development Inc. Both permanent debt and equity were supplied by AEGON USA Realty Services, Inc. (formerly Transamerica). The equity was raised through the sale of 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The City of San Jose provided additional permanent financing and The Bank of America Community Development Bank provided construction financing. EAH is the managing general partner and the management agent for the development. Number of Units: 83 Types of Financing: 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits City of San Jose Redevelopment Agency Conventional Mortgage Total Project Cost: $11,058,840 Per Unit Cost $ 133,239 Land AcquiSition June 1998 Planned Development Permit April 1998 San Jose Redev. Agency Loan Application August 1998 San Jose Redev. Agency Loan Award October 1998 TCAC Application Date July 1999 ConstruCtion Start December 1999 Placed-in-Service: November 2000 May 24, 2002 Experience of the Firm - 12- Dublin Senior Housing Proposal EAH, Inc. Morgan Hill Ranch Family Housing, Morgan Hill, Santa Clara County. Morgan Hill Ranch Family HoUsing is one of the first housing developments within a business park, in California. The development consists of 80 family apartments developed for low and very low income families. Edison Capital Housing Investments is the equity investor for the 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits and Bank o£America is the permanent lender. This development contains an on-site childcare center fc~r 32 children, to assist working families. EAH is the managing general partner and the management agent for the development. ~ Number of Units: 80 Types of Financing: 9% Low Income HoUsing Tax Credits Morgan Hill Redevelopment Agency HOME Funds Conventional Mortgage Total Project Cost: $11,557,397 Per Unit Cost $ 144,467 ~ ~ General Plan AmendmenffRe-Zoning July 1995 Santa Clara County Housing Fund Loan Application August 1995 ~. Santa Clam County Housing Fund Loan Award December 1995 ; Morgan Hill Redev. Agency Loan Application November 1995 ~ ~ Morgan Hill Redev. Agency Loan Award December 1995 r-' TCAC Application Date December 1995 ~ ~ Land Acquisition April 1996 t~ ~ Construction Start October 1997 Placed-in-Service: November 1998 ..-- May 24, 2002 Experience of the Firm - 13 - Dublin Senior Housing Proposal EAH, Inc. Parkview Senior Homes, San Jose, Santa Clara County. Directly adjacent to Parkview Family Apartments, also deVeloped by EAH, this development consists of 140 rental units for very low income seniors. EAH partnered with Barry Swenson Builder to develop the project. Union Bank is the permanent lender and the California Equity Fund has an equity investment through the purchase of Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The City of San Jose is an additional permanent lender. The project is owned by a limited parmership, whose managing general partner is an affiliate of EAH. EAH is also the management agent. Number of Units: 140 Types of Financing: 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits City of San Jose Redevelopment AgenCy Conventional Mortgage Total Project Cost: $14,882,941 Per Unit Cost $ 106,307 Land Acquisition December 1994 TCAC Application Date December 1995 San Jose Redevelopment Agency Application December 1995 San JoSe Redevelopment Agency Award April 1996 Planned Development Permit September 1996 Construction Start OctOber 1997 Placed-in-Service: December 1998 May 24, 2002 Experience of the Firm - 14- Dublin Senior Housing Proposal EAH, Inc. Parkview Family Apartments, San Jose, Santa Clara County. This development provides 90 rental units for low and very-low income families. EAH developed the project in partnership with Barry Swenson Builder. Union Bank of California is the permanent lender and the California Equity Fund is the equity investor through the purchase of Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The City of San Jose is an additional permanent lender. The development was completed in November of 1997 and quickly achieved full occupancy. The project is owned by a limited partnership, whose managing general partner is an affiliate of EAH. EAH is also the management agent. Number of Units: 90 Types of Financing: 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits City of San Jose Redev. Agency Conventional Mortgage Total Project Cost: $14,036,146 Per Unit Cost $ 155,957 San Jose Redevelopment Agency Application October 1994 San Jose Redevelopment Agency Award December 1994 Land Acquisition December 1994 TCAC Application Date March 1995 Add. San Jose Housing Department Loan Application March 1995 Add. San Jose Housing Department Loan Award May 1995 Planned Development Permit November 1995 Construction Start November 1996 Placed-in-Service: November 1997 May 24, 2002 Experience of the Firm - 15 - Dublin Senior Housing Proposal EAH, Inc. Bridgecourt Apartments, Emeryville, Alameda County. Located within a large shopping development, this 220-unit apartment complex provides housing for families of mixed incomes. The project is a joint venture between Catellus Residential Group and EAH. 89 apartments will remain permanently affordable to lower income households. The project is owned by a limited parmership, whose managing general partner is an affiliate of EAH and whose co-general partner is an affiliate of Catellus Residential Group. Financing is provided through tax exempt bonds and Low Income Housing Tax Credits. After 15 years, the 131 market-rate apartments may be sold as condominiums to the residents. Amenities at the development include private parking, a fitness room and an outdoor pool. Number of Units: 131 Market Rate Units, 89 Affordable Units Types of Financing: 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits City of Emeryville Redevelopment Agency Private Activity Bonds Total Project Cost: $22,940,000 Per Unit Cost $ 257,753 l Emeryville Redevelopment Agency Application November 1995 Emeryville Redevelopment Agency Award May 1996 Planned Development Permit May 1996 Land Acquisition August 1996 TCAC Application Date August 1996 Construction Start (Catellus paid construction costs) August 1996 Placed-in-Service: December 1997 (Building 1) March 1998 (Building 2) June 1998 (Building 3) July 1998 (Building 4) May 24, 2002 Experience of the Firm - 16- Dublin Senior Housing Proposal EAH, Inc. Describe EAH's Experience in Marketing and Managing Attached Housing Projects EAH currently manages over 5,500 units in over 60 properties located throughout the States of California and Hawaii. This affordable housing portfolio includes small and large family projects, senior projects, housing for persons with special needs and disabilities, student housing and affordable home ownership. EAH's property management division is responsible for all services related to property and asset management, including market surveys, marketing and rent up, physical maintenance, fiscal oversight, regulatory compliance, budgeting, cash management, social services coordination, and communication. In addition to stressing good design, EAH believes strongly in the importance of excellent property management, so that the housing we develop will remain an attractive asset to the community. EAH is a long-term neighbor in our communities and we are committed to maintaining a high standard of quality and excellence. Perhaps some of the most compelling comments regarding the quality of EAH's work come from people who live near EAH complexes. Neighbors and City officials regularly praise EAH managed properties and tell us how well received they have been in their area. Lenders, investors, government officials, neighbors and residents are all appreciative of EAH's responsive and thorough approach to management. EAH preserves the physical and fiscal strength of its projects by providing proactive building maintenance and careful fiscal oversight, such as regular site inspections, preventative maintenance schedules and reserve studies. This level of care is reflected in the attractive appearance of EAH-managed buildings over the long term, and the fact that none of EAH's properties has ever had a default or modification on any construction or permanent financing. Each development is carefully planned from the outset to ensure adequate funding in the project's reserves and superior maintenance over the lifetime of the complex. Mackey Terrace exemplifies EAH's commitment to the management of its buildings over time. EAH developed Mackey Terrace in 1992 as affordable senior housing using HUD Section 202 financing. Like all EAH properties, Mackey Terrace undergoes regular site inspections from EAH staff and rigorously follows its maintenance schedules; because of this commitment, Mackey Terrace has received consistently high scores from HUD's frequent regulatory physical inspections. In addition, EAH received a HUD Best Managed Properties award for its management performance at Mackey Terrace. EAH's'broad range of experience in managing complexes of varying sizes, locations, and construction types enables us to project operating costs with a high degree of accuracy. Procedures and rigorous staff training are emphasized to ensure careful screening of residents. All EAH central office and on-site staff are thoroughly familiar with fair housing laws and lender requirements for each project to ensure total compliance with the letter as well as the spirit of the law. EAH ensures regulatory compliance at all of its properties through oversight from its Compliance Department. Financial reporting is also key to the success of a development and EAH is highly regarded by lenders, investors May.24, 2002 Experience of the Firm - 17- Dublin Senior Housing Proposal EAI-I, Inc. and goVernment agencies for the high quality of its financial reporting and other regulatory compliance work, as evidenced by tax credit investors like AEGEON USA Reality Services, Inc. (formerly Transamerica) and Edison Capital Housing Investments' repeated investments in EAH tax credit projects. EAH has the expertise and resources on staff to ensure that the senior residents get the best possible services and care. EAH currently has on staff three licensed Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE) Administrators and one staff approved by th Department of Social Services to teach the issues related to aging for state approved continuing edUcation credits. EAH is also approved by the California Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division to provide continuing education courses to other RCFE administrators and certificate holder, to qualify them for renewal of their administrator certificate. EAH provides 40 hours of training that addresses the signs and symptoms .of ageing, medication and nutritional needs as well as the sensitive issues of elder abuse, socialization, dementia, death and spirituality. Through this work, EAH also is engaged in a community of providers of senior services, so we can make appropriate referrals for resident needs. May 24, 2002 Experience of the Firm - 18 - Dublin Senior Housing Proposal EAH, Inc. REFERENCES FROM PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LENDERS EAH References - Public Lenders - City of San Jose Housing Department Leslye Corsiglia, Director, (408) 277-3863 · City of Santa Clara Redevelopment Agency Kathleen Hickey, Deputy Director, (408) 277-4747 · Marin County Development Agency Roy Bateman, Community Development Coordinator, (415) 499-6268 · Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Jim Kennedy, Deputy Director, (925) 335-1255 · City of Morgan Hill Dennis Kennedy, Mayor, (408) 779-7259 EAH References - Private Lenders · Bank of America, Community Development Banking Group Michael Carrol, Vice President and Regional Manager, (916) 373-4471 · Wells Fargo Bank Margaret Schrand, Vice President, (415) 396-0730 · Citibank, F.S.B. Steven C. Hall, Director of Community Len~ling, (415) 658~4309 · Union Bank of California James Francis, Vice President, (925) 947-2407 EAH References - Tax Credit Investors · California Equity Fund Jeff Mudrick, Director of Acquisitions, (213) 250-9550 · AEGEON, USA (formerly Transamerica) David Kunhardt, Director of Community Investments, (415) 983-5418 F May 24, 2002 Experience of the Firm - 19 - ~ '~ RiverfieldHomes , , . Primero Grove U.C. Davis ~!~ '": ~ Stonebridge ~  Sonoma Cr~ekside ~ ~ AstonAv~hue Walnut Place '~ ~>Reyes COl ~CasaAdobe o~M~;r ~ F~¢-~sing Golden " .... ~% ~ Crescent P~k Silver O~ A~stad House ~ The O~s ~ Bridgeco~ ' ............ ' ~ Gale Ranch ......... ~ Los Robles ~ Elena Gardens Verona,Homes '~' gan Jose ~de Dios .... ~'~ Vista e~k ~ .... X Encina Court Homes ~ Margaret Duncan Green Apts. ~ ' Marion Park ~ Nova, to Mackey Terrace ' 8 ~ Lanham Village Hamilton Transitional '~Fairfax Family Homes ~ Housing ~ Piper Court ~ J Matin Lagoon Del ado ! \~\ ~ Buckelew Housing Creekwood , ~ I Anise Turina House ~' <"' ~ Pamow Friendship "~<."aV- De Anza Way '~ "%. "%i Pilgrim Park See BaY Area Map '~'~4':b ~ Ma~inelli House --.. ,c Lincoln Avenue ~ ,- a ...... I ,..ff-V ~ ~S~RafaelCommons ::. Ecology Edgewater Place ~ ~ L~ksp~ Isle Larkspur C~no ~to Court Mill Valley Tiburc Shelter Hi~ Ceciha M:m City Braun Cou~ ^ N o N P R o F I T PROPERTIES DEVELOPED BY EAH H O U S 1 N G CORPORATION The following properties were developed by or acquired and rehabilitated by EAH, Inc. F,a~t Ray: llridgecm~rt Apartment.q, Emeryville, Alameda County. Located within a large shopping development, this 220-unit apartment complex provides housing for families of mixed incomes. The project is a joint venture between Catellus Residential Group and EAH. 89 apartments will remain permanently affordable to lower income households. The project will be owned by a limited partnerShip, Whose managing general partner is an affiliate of EAH and whose co-general partner is an affiliate of Catellus Residential Group. Financing is provided through tax exempt bonds and Low Income Housing Tax Credits. After 15 years, the 132 market'rate apartments may be sold as cOndominiums to the residents. Amenities at the development include private parking, a fitness room and an outdoor pool. Cre.qcent Park Apartment.q, Richmond, Contra Costa County. EAH acquired the Crescent Park Apartments in Richmond under the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act. EAH assumed the existing loan and obtained tax-exempt mortgage revenue fmancing insured under HUD SeCtion 241(f). The project is insured under HUD Section 221(d)(3). Rehabilitation of the 378 below market rate rental apartments for families was completed in 1996. EAH has managed the complex since 1991. EAH has created one of the most successful computer learning centers at Crescent Park Apartments; With a full time staff available to the residents. Cmlden Oak Manor, Oakley, Contra Costa County. The project provides 50-units of affordable rental houSing to low and very low income seniors. Funding sources include equity investment by Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Co and permanent lending by Transamerica Life Insurance and Annuity Co, the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, the Community Development Block Grant Program, and the HOME Program. EAH is the managing agent for the development. · Creating community by developing, managing andpromoting quality affordable housing since 1968 2169 East Francisco Blvd. Suite B San Rafael, California 94901-5531 415/258-1800 · 415/453-4927 ~qilver Oak Apartment.q, Oakley, Contra Costa County. This facility consists of 24 units of housing specifically designed for very low income persons with physical disabilities. Funds for site acquisition and development were provided by HUD, through the 811 Program, Contra Costa County, the County Redevelopment Agency and Citibank through the Federal Homes Loan Bank's Affordable Housing Program. A small site adjacent to the housing site has been dedicated by EAH to the County for a public park. EAH is preparing the site for the County to be able to proceed with landscaping. ConStruction took less than one year for completion. EAH is the managing agent for the development. Ca.qa Adobe, San Pablo, Contra Costa County. This development provides 54 senior rental units. EAH was selected to develop and manage this low income senior project by the City of San Pablo, which also made an $850,000 low interest loan available to assist with land purchase and development costs. Tax credit financing and an EAH rent subsidy program ensure the affordability of the units. The site is well located for seniors; directly across the street from City Hall and a senior center. The Oakq, Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County. This 36-unit family apartment project was developed by EAH in conjunction with Paradigm Housing Corporation. Funding sources include equity investment by California Community Reinvestment Corporation and permanent lending was provided by Mission First Financial, the Walnut Creek Redevelopment Agency, the City of Walnut Creek. The development serves very low and low income families. EAH is the managing agent for the development. Aml.qtad I-lou.qe, Berkeley, Alameda County. This 60-unit very low income complex for the elderly was built in 1981 for the Berkeley Pilgrimage Foundation and sponsored by the First Congregational Church of Berkeley. Funding for the acquisition was from the HUD Section 202 program and Section 8 subsidies. l,o,q Rohle,q Apartment.q, Union City, Alameda County. EAH, in partnership with the Los Robles Resident Organization, purchased the Los Robles Apartments complex at 32300 Almaden Boulevard in Union City in 1996. Los Robles Apartments conSists of 140 very low, low and moderate-income garden-style apartments including two, three, four, and five bedroom units. The complex also includes a large community room, children's play areas, a basketball court, and laundry facilities. The purchase of Los Robles Apartments was accomplished under Title VI, the Low Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act (LIHPRHA). EAH is the managing agent for the development. Updated 05/24/02(EF) G:\Shared\Markefing Pkg\Properfies Developed by EAH by Region.doc ~nnth Ray: Vi~ta Park ,qeninr Hnrn~ I, San Jose, Santa Clara County. This 83-unit rental project provides affordable homes to very-low income seniors. EAH developed the project in partnership with CORE Development, Inc. AEGON USA Realty Services, Inc. supplied both the permanent debt and equity, which was raised through the sale of 9 % Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The City of San Jose provided additional permanent fmancing. The Bank of America Community Development Bank provided construction financing. EAH is the managing agent for the development. Vigta Park ~qenlor l-lome~ II, San Jose, Santa Clara County. The second phase of Vista'Park consists of an additional 83 rental units affordable to low and very-low income seniors. EAH maintained the same development structure and partnered with Core Development Inc. Both permanent debt and equity were supplied by AEGON USA Realty Services, Inc. The equity was raised through the sale of 9 % Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The City of San Jose provided additional permanent financing and The Bank of America Community Development Bank provided construction financing. EAH is the managing agent for the development. l~amily Apartmenta, San Jose, County. development provides Parkview Santa Clara This 9O rental units for low and very-low income families. EAH developed the project in partnership with Barry Swenson Builder. Union Bank of California is the permanent lender and the California Equity Fund is the equity inVestor through the purchase of Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The City of San Jose is an additional permanent lender. The development was completed in November of 1997 and quickly achieved full occupancy. EAH is the managing agent for the development. Parkview ,qeninr Hr}me,q, San Jose, Santa Clara County. Directly adjacent to Parkview Family Apartments, this deVelopment consists of 140 rental units for very low income seniors. EAH partnered with Barry Swenson Builder to develop the project. Union Bank is the permanent lender and the California Equity Fund has an equity investment through the purchase of Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The City of San Jose is an additional permanent lender. EAH is the managing agent for the development. Don De Dio.% San JOse, Santa Clara County. Acquisition and rehabilitation of this 70-unit family rental complex was financed by EAH, via a combination of 221(d) 4 insured tax exempt bonds and 4 % Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Edison Capital Housing Investments was the equity investor. TRI Capital Corp. was the FHA lender for the permanent debt. The City of San Jose added additional permanent financing. The original construction was financed under the HUD Section 236 program in 1970. Rehabilitation was completed in less than one year. All units will remain permanently affordable to low income families. EAH is the managing agent for the development. Villagt~ Avante, Morgan Hill, Santa Clara County. Acquisition and rehabilitation of this 112- unit family rental complex was financed by EAH, with a combination of 221(d) insured tax- exempt bonds and 4 % Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Edison Capital Housing Investments was the eqUity investor. TRI Capital Corp. was the FHA lender for the permanent debt. The original development was conStructed and f'manced under the HUD Section 236 program in 1972. All units will remain permanently affordable to low income families. EAH is the managing Updated 05/24/02(EF) G :\Shared\Marketing Pkg\Properties Developed by EAH by Region.doc agent for the development. Morgan Hill Ranch Family HOl~ning, Morgan Hill, Santa Clara County. Morgan Hill Ranch Family Housing is one of the first housing developments within a business park, in California. The development consists of 80 family apartments developed for low and very low income families. Edison Capital Housing Investments is the equity investor for the 9 % Low Income Housing Tax Credits and Bank of America is the permanent lender. This development contains an on-site childcare center for 32 children, to assist working families. EAH is the managing agent for the development. Palm Court, San Jose, Santa Clara County. This project provides 66 units affordable to very low income senior households. EAH developed this project in partnership with CORE Development, Inc. Equity raised through the sale of 9 % Low Income Housing Tax Credits to the California Equity Fund provided a significant portion of the project's funding. A conventional loan Bank of America Bank and loan the provided by Community Development a permanent by City of San Jose provided additional financing. EAH is the managing agent for the development. Verona I-Iome% Santa Clara, Santa Clara County. Verona Homes was developed by Verona Homes, Inc., a joint venture of EAH and Barry Swenson Builder of San Jose, in conjunction with Elliott Associates, Development Consultant. These 59 three-story townhomes, each with its own private garage, are clustered around courtyards in a unique design, which is reminiscent of Italian piazzas. The high density of 33 units to the acre was achieved through the use of tandem parking. 45 % of the units were purchased by first-time home buyers with the assistance of a second mortgage program offered through the City of Santa Clara. Overall, 61% of the units were purchased by first-time homebuyers. Elena ~ardens, San Jose, Santa Clara County. Elena Gardens Apartments is an acquisition and rehabilitation development located in northeast San Jose. The Apartments consist of 168-units of housing for very low, low, and moderate income families and seniors. The project was financed with a federally insured loan through the Low Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act. The purchase also generated sufficient funds for substantial rehabilitation of the buildings and property. EAH is the managing agent for the development. ,qonama Creek.qide Home~, Santa Rosa, Sonoma County. This development provides 43 new rental/homeownership units for very low and low income families. EAH and Sonoma County Faith-Based Community Organizing Project formed Sonoma County Affordable Homes, Inc., which is the developer of the project and general partner of the owner partnership. The California Equity Fund supplied equity through the purchase of 9 % Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The project also received funding from the Low Income Housing Fund, the City of Santa Rosa, Equitable Real Estate, California Community Mortgage Fund, First Nationwide Bank, through the Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program and the S. H. Cowell Foundation. Updated 05/24/02(EF) G:\Shared\Marketing Pkg\Properties Developed by EAH by Region.doc Riverfleld l-Iome.~, Healdsburg, Sonoma County. This project provides 18 new rental/ homeownership hOmes for Very l°w and low income families. EAH and Sonoma County Faith- Based Community Organizing Project formed Sonoma County Affordable Homes, Inc., which is the developer of the project. The California Equity Fund supplied equity through the purchase of 9% LoTM IncOme Housing Tax Credits. Funding sources also include First Nationwide Bank, the Low Income Housing Fund, Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program, Sonoma County HOME Program and the Healdsburg Redevelopment Agency. C,willa Place, Tiburon, Marin County. In an extremely expensive location, this project provides 16 apartments affordable to very low and low income senior households. Funding for the project is comprised of Community Development Block Grant Program funds (CDBG), the Federal Home Loan Bank's Affordable Housing Program, the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency and the Matin Community Foundation. Bank of America Community Development Bank is the permanent lender for the deVeloPment. Bank of America is the equity investor for the Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Margaret Dnnean C~reene APts., Novato, Marin County. Margaret Duncan Greene Apartments is co-sponsored by EAH and Buckelew Programs. This project provides 16 affordable one- bedroom apartments for chronically mentally ill adults who are capable of living independently in the community. Support services are provided by Buckelew. Funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 811 Program, the Marin Community Foundation, and HOME and CDBG Programs. ltrann C. onrt, Marin City, Marin County. A first-time homebuyer project for low and moderate income families, this 30-unit townhome project was co-developed with Marin City Community Development Corporation. Six Marin County agencies provided financial assistance to reduce the down payment, as well as ensuring a below market rate selling price on 22 of the homes. Completed in March, 1996, all 30 units were sold by January, 1997. !,ine~ln Avenue Apartments, San Rafael, Marin County. Lincoln Avenue serves twelve low- income developmentally disabled adults in 7 two-bedroom independent living apartments. Funding sources include the HUD Section 811 Program, Therapon Association, the Marin Community Foundation, the Community Development Block Grant Program, and the HOME Program. Services to the residents are provided by Opportunities for Independence. Edgewat~r Place, Larkspur, Marin County. Completed in April 1991, Edgewater Place provides 28-units of rental housing for low-income families. The two-acre site along Corte Madera Creek in Larkspur is owned by the City of Larkspur and leased to EAH-Larkspur Creekside Associates for 55 years. The sources of f'mancing for the project are Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits, the Marin Community Foundation, the Community Development Block Grant Program, and the Marin County HouSing Trust Fund. Updated 05/24/02(EF) G:\Shared\Marketing Pkg\Properties Developed by EAH by Region.doc F, alogy Hn,.qe, San Rafael, Marin County. Ecology House opened its doors in August, 1994. EcolOgy House is co-sPonsored by EAH and the Marin Homes for Independent Living. The San Rafael project provides 11 one-bedroom apartments for low income individuals with Environmental Illness\Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. The building is constructed without toxic or inflammatory building materials such as particle board, interior grade plywood, carpeting, scented products, wood treatments, adhesives, solvents, natural gas, fiberglass insulation, and fluorescent lighting. All units are handicapped accessible. Primary funding is from the Federal Housing and Urban Development HUD Section 811 Program. Other funding sources include the Community Development Block Grant Program, the Marin Community Foundation, the San Francisco Foundation, and the Marin County Housing Trust Fund. Ecology House has received local and natiOnal Press dUe to the populatiOn it serves and unique construction constraints. Riviera Apartment.q, San Rafael, Marin County. EAH acquired this 28-Unit apartment complex in late 1993 and completed rehabilitation work in March, 1994. Through Citibank, EAH received an award of below-market rate Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program financing for acquisition and rehabilitation. Other sources of funding include the Federal HOME Program, the Marin Community Foundation, Marin County Community Development Block Grant and Marin County Housing Trust Fund. The complex serves very low, low and moderate income families. Stnnehrldge Apartment.q, St. Helena, Napa County. EAH developed this 80-unit family complex in cooperation with Napa Valley Family Homes and Stonebridge Housing Corporation. Financing for the development was provided by the City of St. Helena, Northbay Savings Bank, RHCP, The Federal Home Loan Bank's Affordable Housing Program, the Low Income Housing Fund and the State Predevelopment Loan Program. allows for rents significantly below market rate for families with incomes at 35%, 50%, and 60% of median. C. en~ertown Apartrnentq, San Rafael, Marin County. Completed in 1992, EAH developed and owns Centertown, 60-units of family apartments affordable to very Iow and low income families, in parmership with BRIDGE Housing of San Francisco. The site in downtown San Rafael is leased from the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency for a term of 75 years. EAH was responsible for obtaining the Low Income Tax Credit allocation, and award of Rental Housing Construction Program (RHCP) funds, both of which required success in extremely competitive statewide selection processes. Grants and low intereSt loans have been awarded by the Marin Community Foundation, the Community Development Block Grant Program, the Marin County Housing Trust Fund and the Rental Housing Construction Program. Mackey Terrace, Novato, Marin County. EAH developed this 50-unit project for low and very- low income seniors and the disabled with funding from the HUD 202/8 Program. Predevelopment funding was provided by a Community Development Block Grant. EAH has also received grants from Marin Community Foundation and Marin County Housing Trust Fund. The complex, completed in 1992, includes a community kitchen with adjoining dining room/multipurpose room. The Ignacio Rotary has pledged ongoing support for the project. Updated 05/24/02(EF) G:\Shared\Marketing Pkg\Properties Developed by EAH by Region.doc Went Marin Family Hnn~ing, Pt. Reyes, Marin County. This an owner-builder development of 10 homes in Pt. Reyes adjacent to West Marin Senior Housing. Both projects were sponsored by the West Marin Association for Affordable Housing. Land was acquired through the Community Development BloCk Grant Program and the San Francisco FOundation. The homes were developed through a site development loan from West America Bank, and construction and mortgage loans from Farmers Home Administration. In addition, the State Department of Housing and Community Development awarded a Technical Assistance Grant to EAH. Marln l,agnnn, San Rafael, Marin County. EAH owns and manages 4 condominium units in this complex located near Marin County Civic Center in San Rafael. The units were obtained in 1989 through inclusionary zoning, and are all occupied by low and moderate income families. 1 ~ive Oak, Fairfax, Marin County. This is a 2-unit complex of a 3 bedroom single family house and an attached 1 bedroom apartment. This project, affordable to low income individuals was completed in 1988, resulted from an affordable housing design competition organized by EAH to take advantage of a number of surplus lots made available by the City of Fairfax for affordable housing. Anl,qe Tnrina Hnn.qe, San Rafael, Marin County. A 28'Unit existing apartment complex in San Rafael was purchased by EAH in 1986. Sources of funding were the Community Development Block Grant Program, the Low Income Housing Trust Fund and seller financing. In 1989, the project was refinanced with assistance frOm Marin Community Foundation, the Community Development Block Grant Program and Marin County Housing Trust Fund. In 1993 the project was refinanced again to provide rehabilitation funds. The County of Marin issued tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds and the Marin Community Foundation made a permanent loan. The complex serves very low, low and moderate income families. Fh~ekelew Hnn.qe~' "CreekWnod'', Fairfax, Marin County. Creekwood houses 12 mentally disabled persons and was built with EAH as technical consultant using HUD's Section 202/8 Program, the Community Development Block Grant Program and a HCD (Housing and community Development) predevelopment loan. The development, serving very low income individuals, was completed in 1986. ' ' Falrfax Family Home.q, Fairfax, Marin COunty. Directly sponsored bY EAH and Completed in 1986, Fairfax Family Homes provided 9 owner-built homes for families whose "sweat equity" was applied for down payments. Other assistance was provided through the Community Development Block Grant Program and Gannett Foundation. Piper Conrt Apartment.~, Fairfax, Marin County. This 27-unit apartment complex Was purchased in 1986 in partnership with the John Stewart Company and extensively rehabilitated with the intent to retain its low income residents. The Community Development Block Grant Program, San Francisco Foundation, HUD Rehabilitation funds, HUD Section 8 Program, and private £mancing were utilized. Updated 05/24/02(EF) G:\Shared\Marketing Pkg\Properties Developed by EAH by Region.doc Went Marlo ~qenlnr I-Innqing, Pt. Reyes, Marin County. Located in Pt. Reyes, this 25-unit complex affordable to very Iow income seniors, was sponsored by the West Matin Association for Affordable Housing in 1986. Funding sources included HUD Section 202/8, Community Development Block Grant program, San Francisco Foundation, Local Initiative Support CorporatiOn, and a predevelopment loan from the State Housing and Community Development Department. 2_g De Anna Way, San Rafael, Matin County. This is an intermediate care home for 10 severely developmentally disabled adults, sponsored by Marin Association for Retarded Citizens and owned by Marin Housing for Handicapped, Inc. EAH acted as technical consultant in the purchase, packaging financing, obtaining a use permit and rehabilitating the home in 1985. Bee ,qtreet I-Imtqing, Sausalito, Matin County. Completed in 1985, these 6 units for very low and low income elderly and handicapped people was constructed on a lot provided by the City of Sausalito. EAH and Interfaith Housing, Inc., have appointment power for members of the owner board, Bee Street Housing, Inc. Sources for construction funding included a HUD Section 202/8 loan, the Community Development Block Grant program and a grant from San Francisco Foundation. Lanham Village, Novato, Marin County. A home-ownership project completed at Hamilton Field in 1984, provides 154 units for families. EAH rehabilitated the existing deteriorated and vacant units for resale to low and moderate income families. Sources of funding included HUD Section 235/234, the San~ Francisco Foundation, and the Community Development Block Grant Program. In addition, the State Department of Housing and Community Development provided a predevelopment loan. Novato Ecumenical Housing advocated to the community in support of the project. Marion Park Apartment% Novato, Matin County. This complex provides 168 family rental units built by Davidson, Kavanagh and Brezzo. EAH and Novato Ecumenical Housing provided legal agreements and obtained the funding through which 34 of these units (20%) were set aside for low income families in 1984. County tax-exempt bonds were also used for the permanent financing. 26/I Camlno Alto Co,,rt, Mill Valley, Marin County. 260 camino Alto Court is a 24-unit rental complex for physically disabled. Completed in 1983, the project was sponsored by Catholic Charities of Marin. It is owned by Matin Homes for Independent Living. Funding sources included HuD's SectiOn 202/8 Program, the San Francisco Foundation, and the Community Development Block Grant Program. 626 1~! ~anado, San Rafael, Marin County. 626 Del Ganado is a 12-unit rental complex for the developmentally disabled, located on Christ Presbyterian Church property in Terra Linda. Construction was Completed in 1982. Its funding was possible through HUD's 202/8 Program, the San Francisco Foundation and the Community Development Block Grant Program. The sponsor is Marin Association for Retarded Citizens and it is owned by Marin Housing for the Updated 05/24/02(EY) G:\Shared\Marketing Pkg\Properties Developed by EAH by Region.doc Handicapped, Inc. This complex serves low income individuals. parnow Friend.qhip I-lo,.qe, San Rafael, Marin County. Located at 160 North San Pedro Road, this development provides 72 very low income rental units for seniors and handicapped persons. It was funded through HUD's Section 202/8 Program, the San Francisco Foundation, and the Community Development Block Grant Program. The development was completed in 1982. 17,ncina iT. ourt I-Iome,q, Novato, Marin County. Completed in 1981 and sponsored by Novato Ecumenical Housing and developed by EAH, this six-unit owner-builder development combined local financing and the families' "sweat equity" downpayment. Larkqp, r l,qle, Larkspur, Marin County. EAH owns 28 of 186 condominium units in the Larkspur Isle development near downtown Larkspur. The units are managed by EAH and are entirely occupied by low and moderate income families. The City of Larkspur required that these 28 units be preserved as rental housing when the Larkspur Isle complex underwent conversion to condominiums. The units were acquired in 1981. San Rafae! Commons, San Rafael, Marin County. This is an 83-unit development serving seniors located at Fourth and Union Streets in San Rafael. This high-density complex, finished in 1980, is a HUD Section 8 new construction project constructed under a joint venture agreement between the Pacific Union Development Company and EAH. The Marin County Housing Authority provided tax exempt bond financing. Tih,ron l-Iillq, Tiburon, Marin County. EAH owns and manages 16 condominium units in the Tiburon Hills condominium complex in Tiburon. The units were obtained in 1980 through inclusionary zoning, and all are occupied by low and moderate income families. l~arley Place, Belvedere, Marin County. This 11-unit complex is affordable to low income seniors. The project is a CHFA financed property and has been fee managed since completion in 1989. ,qhelter l-lill, Mill Valley, Marin County. Built in 1975, this 75-unit family development is located at the base of Shelter Ridge in Mill Valley. This HUD Section 236 project was sponsored by Interfaith Housing, Inc. The I-Iilarlta, Tiburon, Marin County. A 102-unit family rental prOject, develOped'by EAH on behalf of Tiburon Ecumenical Association was built in 1974 through HUD's Section 236 program. ]Mav~inelll I-Itmge, San Rafael, Marin County. This facility, completed in 1973, was sponsored by Catholic Social Services of Marin. This 66-unit senior citizens complex, located on Lincoln Avenue in San Rafael, was built through HUD's Section 236 program. Pilgrim Park, San Rafael, Marin County. Located on Merrydale Road and North San Pedro Road near Marin's Civic Center, Pilgrim Park was EAH's first development in Marin County. This 61-unit family complex was built in 1971 through HUD's Section 236 program. The Updated 05/24/02(EF) G:\Shared\Marketing Pkg\Properfies Developed by EAH by Region.doc sponsor of Pilgrim Park was the First Congregational Church of San Rafael. San lTranclqca: Bnehanan Park, San Francisco, San Francisco County. This 68-unit apartment complex was acquired in 1996 by a newly formed nonprofit corporation whose Board is appointed by EAH and the residents. Financing was provided through an assumption of the existing 221 (d) 3 insured mortgage and a HUD LIHPRHA grant. All apartments will remain permanently affordable to lower income families. Other Canntie,q: Fmmtaln We~t Apar~ment.q, Fresno, Fresno County. This 72-unit apartment complex was acquired in 1996 by a newly formed nonprofit corporation whose Board is appointed by EAH and the residents. Financing and rehabilitation was provided through an assumption of the existing Sec. 221 (d) 3 insured mortgage and a HUD LIHPRHA grant. All apartments will remain permanently affordable to lower income families. Flaral ~arden.q Apar~rnent~q, Selma, Fresno County. This 56-unit apartment complex was acquired in 1996 by a newly formed nonprofit corporation whose Board is appointed by EAH and the residents. Financing and rehabilitation was provided through an assumption of the existing Sec. 221 (d) 3 insured mortgage and a HUD LIHPRHA grant. All apartments will remain permanently affordable to lower income families. The Winery, Fresno, Fresno County. In March, 1995, with the property facing foreclosures, EAH acquired this 248-unit family project for very low and low income families. EAH then proceeded to work with HUD and local agencies to control and reduce criminal problems within the development. Rehabilitation of all apartments, common facilities and landscaping was accomplished through a loan from Bank' of America Community Development Bank. Amenities include sports courts, a computer learning center, a swimming pool, a playground, and a barbecue pavilion. Permanent fmancing has been provided through tax-exempt loans from the California Housing Finance Agency, 4 % Low Income Housing Tax Credits and a HUD residual receipts loan. primera {-'~rave~ University of California at Davis, Yolo County. This 181-unit student apartment property was developed in partnership with Catellus Residential Group. It is financed with Section 501-c-3 tax-exempt bonds. Built on land owned by the university and leased for a term of 40 years to an EAH affiliate ownership corporation, the improvements will revert to ownership by the university upon expiration of the lease. Hawaii: Kalani Gardenq, Mililani, Hawaii. This 119-unit apartment complex was acquired in 1996 by a Updated 05/24/02(EF) G:\Shared\Marketing Pkg\Properties Developed by EAH by Region.doc ~' newly formed nonprofit corporation whose Board is appointed by EAH. Financing was provided ,-., through an assumption of the existing Sec.236 insured mortgage and a HUD LIHPRHA grant. i All apartments will remain permanently affordable to lower income families. ,_, Kukui T~w~r~ ll~r~tania North, Honolulu, Hawaii. This 380-unit apartment tower was i acquired in 1996 by a newly formed nonprofit corporation whose Board is appointed by EAH ~' · and the residents. Financing was provided through an assumption of the existing Sec.236 insured ~ mortgage and a HUD LIHPRHA grant. All apartments will remain permanently affordable to ~ ' lower income families. Updated 05/24/02(EF) G:\SharedXMarketing Pkg\Properties Developed by EAH by Region.doc CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT EAH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY A California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation June 30, 2001 and 2000 CONTENTS Page INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT 3 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL POSITION 4 CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF ACTIVITIES 5 CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS 6 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 7 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT A UD1TING STANDARDS 17 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO. EACH MAJOR PROGRAM AND INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OMB CIRCULAR A-133 18 SCHEDULE OF EXPENDIT~ OF FEDERAL AWARDS 20 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS 21 BOWERS NARASKY & DALEY LLP Certified Public Accoun tan ts INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT To the Board of Directors EAH, Inc. We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of financial position of EAH, Inc., a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, and Subsidiary, as of June 30, 2001 and 2000 and the related consolidated statements of activities and cash flows for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Corporation's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of EAH, Inc. and Subsidiary as of June 30, 2001 and 2000, and the changes in net assets and cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated September 13, 2001 on our consideration of EAH, Inc. and Subsidiary's internal control over financial reporting and our tests of its compliance with certain laws, regulations, contracts and grants. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be read in conjunction with this report in considering the results of our audits. Our audits were performed for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic consolidated financial statements of EAH, Inc. and Subsidiary taken as a whole. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, and is not a required part of the basic consolidated financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic consolidated financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. Moraga, California September 13, 2001 7024 Coot~tr)/ C/ob Drive, Moraga, Cali£omia 94556 o Tel: 925-376-2795 · Fax: 925-376-2096 EAH, INC. AND suBSIDIARY CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL POSITION June 30, 2001 and 2000 ASSETS 2001 2000 CURRENT ASSETS Cash - undesignated $ 170,257 $ 17,602 Cash - designated 702,994 470,858 Management 'fees, grants and costs receivable 332,448 542,041 Partnership management fees receivable - current 163,513 44,841 Development fees receivable - current 736,318 1,210,927 Predevelopment costs advanced 360,348 311,924 Total current assets 2,465,878 2,598,193 OTHER ASSETS Partnership management fees receivable - long term 333,853 400,548 Development fees receivable - long term 672,921 732,427 Notes receivable, including interest (Note B) 1,071,083 1,058,979 Property and eqUipment (Notes A2 and A4) Land (Note L) 2,840,000 Land, buildings and improvements (Notes C and F) 8,882,362 8,861,485 Office furniture and equipment 440,584 406,734 Less accumulated depreciation (2,564,338) (2,292,345) Investments (Note D) 537,000 537,000 Other assets 160,606 153,437 Total Assets $14,839,949 $12,456,458 LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS CURRENT LIABILITIES Lines of credit payable (Note E) $ 889,824 $ 655,881 CUrrent principal payments of long term obligations (Note F) 281,783 173,830 Accounts payable and accrued expenses 295,256 183,327.. Total current liabilities 1,466,863 1,013,038 CONTINGENCIES (Note H) LONG-TERM OBLIGATIONS Accrued expenses and tenant security deposits 238,490 222,187 Notes payable, less current principal payments (Note F) 3,964,451 4,127,739 Total Liabilities 5,669,804 5,362,964 UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS 9,170,145 7,093,494 Total Liabilities and Net Assets $14,839,949 $12,456,458 See accompanying notes to this financial statement. 4 EAH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF ACTIVITIES Years ended June 30, 2001 and 2000 2001 2000 UNRESTRICTED SUPPORT AND REVENUE Support Grants - administrative $ 318,400 $ 318,400 Grants - project development 694,644 208,042 Donation of land (Note L) 2,840,000 Donations, membership dues, and fundraising events 46,829 43,589 Total Support 3,899,873 570,031 Revenue Property management and accounting fees 2,773,976 2,416,442 PartnerShiP management fees 307,665 221,781 Development fees 61,267 1,404, ! 11 Interest and miscellaneous income 51,792 130,213 Rental income (NOte G) 1,149,522 1,081,510 Total Revenue 4,344,222 5,254,057 Total Support and Revenue 8,244,095 5,824,088 EXPENSES Program Serv ces Project development and property management 3,740,279 3,222,124 Rental housing program (Note G) 1,043,234 1,053,111 Capital grant donations 760,030 439,313 Management and general 601,795 543,010 Fundraising 22,106 22,540 Total Expenses 6,167,444 5,280,098 INCREASE IN UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS 2,076,651 543,990 UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS AT BEGINNING OF YEAR 7,093,494 6,549,504 UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS AT END OF YEAR $9,170,145 $7,093,494 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statement. 5 EAH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLoWs Years Ended June 30, 2001 and 2000 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH 2001 2000 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Increase in net assets $ 2,076,651 $ 543,990 Adjustments to reconcile increase in net assets to cash provided by operating activities Depreciation 271,993 262,545 Donation of land (2,840,000) Changes in asset and liability accounts: Development fees receivable 534,115 106,594 Receivables (42,982) (139,892) Notes receivable (12,104) 210,934 Other assets (7,169) (10,361) Accounts payable and accrued expenses 128,232 22,976 Accrued interest (48,296) Net cash provided by 0Perat. ing.activities ' 108,736 948,490 CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Advances of project costs, net 152,174 (14,666) Advances for notes receivable - (209,515) Additions to property and equipment (54,727) (164,625) Net cash provided (used) by investing activities 97,447 (388,806) CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES Proceeds from lines of credit 1,399,206 929,408 Payments on lines of Credit (1,165,263) (1,472,803) PrinciPal payments on notes and mortgages payable (206,202) (223,907) Proceeds from notes payable 150,867 80,265 Net cash provided (used) by financing activities 178,608 (687,037) INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH 384,791 (127,353) CASH AT BEGINNING OF YEAR 488,460 615,813 CASH AT END OF YEAR $ 873,251 $ 488,460 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Cash paid for interest $ 336,702 $ 282,688 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statement. 6 EAH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30, 2001 and 2000 NOTE A - NATURE OF ACTIVITIES AND SUMMARY OF ACCOUNTING POLICIES EAH, Inc., is a nonprofit corporation whose purpose is the acquisition, development, rehabilitation and operation of housing for very Iow, low and moderate income households of the greater Bay Area and Fresno, California and Hawaii. A summary of the significant accounting policies applied in the preparation of the accompanying financial statements is as follows: 1. Basis of Presentation and Accounting The consolidated financial statements include the accounts and the activity of Larkspur Isle, LTD, a California Limited Partnership. Effective April 1, 1999, the limited panners and the co-general partner donated their respective interest in the partnership, (99.5%), to EAH, Inc. The remaining co-general partner, Larkspur Isle/EAH, Inc., is affiliated with EAH by common members, on the Board of Directors. Material interorganization transactions have been eliminated. The accompanying financial statements" have been prepared on the accrual basis. Support and revenues are recorded when earned, expenses are recorded when incurred. Support and revenue from grants and contracts are recorded upon occurrence of related expenses. 2. Property and Depreciation Property is stated at cost as of the date of acquisition, or fair market value as of the date of donation. Depreciation is provided in amounts sufficient to relate the cost or fair market value of depreciable assets to operations over their estimated service lives using the straight-line method. 3. Tax Exempt Status EAH has been granted tax-exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service, under Code Section 501 (C) (3), and the California Franchise Tax Board under the Revenue and Taxation Code Section 23701 (d). EAH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued) June 30, 2001 and 2000 NOTE A - NATURE OF ACTIVITIES AND SUMMARY OF ACCOUNTING POLICIES · (Continued) 4. Estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates. 5. Recognition of Donor Restricted Contributions Support that is restricted by the donor is reported as an increase in unrestricted net assets if the restriction is satisfied in the period in which the support is recognized. All other donor-restricted support is reported as an increase in temporarily or permanently restricted net assets depending on the nature of the restriction. At June 30, 2001, there are no temporarily or permanently restricted net assets. 6. Functional Expenses Allocation of The costs of providing the various programs and activities have been summarized on a functional basis in the statement of activities. Accordingly, certain costs have been allocated among the programs and supporting services benefited. NOTE B - NOTES RECEIVABLE Long-Term Note receivable from EAH Larkspur Creekside Associates, a California Limited Partnership (whose General Parmer is an affiliated California nonprofit corporation), non-interest bearing, due in full in December 2019. $ 340,000 Note receivable from Sonoma County Affordable Homes, an affiliated California nonprofit corporation, General Parmer for Sonoma Creekside Associates, non-interest bearing, due in full in the year 2015. 175,000 EAH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued) June 30, 2001 and 2000 NOTE B - NOTES RECEIVABLE (Continued) Unsecured note receivable from South Winery Associates, LP (whose General Partner is an affiliated California nonprofit corporation) in the amount of $161,024, with interest at 5.25%, due in full in December 2013. The outstanding balance includes $21,135 of accrued interest receivable. 182,159 Unsecured note receivable from South Winery Associates, LP (whose General Partner is an affiliated California nonprofit corporation) in the amount of $365,000 with interest at 1% due in full in December 2013. Payments are to be made only to the extent of distributable cash as defined on the Partnership Agreement. The outstanding balance includes $8,924 of accrued interest receivable. 373~ 924 Total notes receivable - long term $ 1,071,083 The note receivable from Larkspur Isle, LTD (the consolidated subsidiary) in the amount of $829,300 and accrued interest receivable of $1,051,:623 have been eliminated along with the corresponding note payable to EAH in these consolidated financial statements. NOTE C - BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS The buildings and improvements and accumulated depreciation at June 30, 2001 consist of the following: Tiburon Hills Estates at fair market value as determined by an independent appraiser at December 1984. $1,368,109 Tiburon Hills Estates Improvements, at cost 117,517 Anise Turina Apartments, at cost 2,372,930 Marin Lagoon Apartments, at cost 330,200 Land - Live Oaks Avenue, Fairfax, at fair market value as determined by an independent appraiser at .September 1984. 50,000 Live Oaks Avenue Apartments, at cost 153,192 9 EAH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued) June 30, 2001 and 2000 NOTE C - BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS (Continued) Riviera Apartments, at cost 1,971,768 Larkspur Isle at fair as by market value determined an independent appraiser at February 1999 2,518,646 Total buildings and improvements 8,882,362 $ Accumulated Net Book Property Amount Depreciation Value Tiburon Hills Estates $1,485,626 $ (901,792) $ 583,834 Anise Turina Apartments 2,372,930 (745,444) 1,627,486 Marin Lagoon Apartments 330,200 (101,025) 229,175 Live Oaks Avenue 203,192 (66,735) 136,457 Riveria Apartments 1,971,768 (307,981) 1,663,787 Larkspur Isle 2,518,646 (118,968) 2,399,678 Totals $ 8,882,362 $ (2,241,945) $ 6,640,417 NOTE D - INVESTMENT Investment consists of an interest in Piper Court, LTD, a California General Partnership made through EAH's wholly owned subsidiary Ecumenical Housing Corporation (EHC). The partnership was organized to purchase and rehabilitate an apartment complex consisting of 27 units in Fairfax, California predominately for families of low and moderate income. The investment is recorded at EHC's initial capital contribution to the partnership of $537,000. NOTE E - LINES OF CREDIT " Secured line of credit with Wells Fargo Bank in the amount of $1,250,000, secured by 7 units at Tiburon Hills Estates, interest at 7.5% at June 30, 2001, due on demand. $ 889,824 Unsecured line of credit with Wells Fargo Bank in the amount of $750,000, interest at 8.5% at June 30, 2001, due on demand. No amount is outstanding at June 30, 2001. Total outstanding on lines of credit $ 889,824 · EAH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued) June 30, 2001 and 2000 NOTE F LONG TERM OBLIGATIONS Note payable on Matin Lagoon Apartments Note payable to a bank, payable in monthly installments of $2,647 including interest at 9.875 %, secured by the property, due in full in the year 2005. $ 269,907 Notes payable on Anise Turina Apartments Note payable to a bank, payable in monthly installments of $7,455 including interest at 5.75 %, secured by property, due in full in the year 2017. 920,023 Note payable to Marin Community Foundation, payable in monthly installments of $154, including interest at 1%, secured by the property, due in full in March 2002. 68,175 Note payable to Marin Community Foundation, payable in monthly installments of $585, including interest at 3 % ,. secured by the property, due in full in March 2002. 46,403 Notes payable on Tiburon Hills Note payable (Glen Drive) to a bank, payable in monthly installments of $1,062, including interest at 7.875%, secured by the property, due in full in the year 2008. 64,779 Note payable (Anise Turina) to a bank, payable in monthly installments of $806, including interest at 7.75%, secured by the property, due in full in the year 2024. 103,146 Note payable on Live Oaks bank, payable in monthly installments of $910, Note payable tO a including interest at 8.375%, secured by the property, due in full in the year 2023. 107,561 EAH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS June 30, 2001 Agency or Federal pass - Federal Grantor/pass-through CFDA Through Federal Grantor/Program Title Number Number Expenditures Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-throUgh the Marin County Housing Authority CDBG 14.218 N/A $ 44,000 HOME (Note B) 14.239 N/A 340,000 Total Federal Expenditures $ 384,000 NOTES TO SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS NOTE A - BASIS OF PRESENTATION The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards includes the federal grant activity of EAH, Inc. and Subsidiary and is presented on the accrual basis of accounting. This information in this schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of OMB A-133, ,,Audits of State, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations." Therefore, some amounts presented in this schedule may differ from amounts presented in, or used in the preparation of, the basic consolidated financial statements. NOTE B - PRIOR YEAR GRANT WITH CONTINUING COMPLIANCE This is the amount of a federal grant that was received and disbursed during a prior year, which has continuing compliance provisions. 'i 20 EAH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS June 30, 2001 SECTION I - SUMMARY OF AUDITORS' RESULTS Financial Statements Type of auditors' report issued Unqualified Internal control over financial reporting: Material weakness identified No Reportable condition identified that are not considered to be material weakness None reported Noncompliance material to financial statements No Federal Awards Internal control over major programs: Material weakness identified No Reportable condition identified that are not considered to be material weakness None reported Type of auditors' report issued on compliance for major programs Unqualified Audit f'mdings disclosed that are required to be reported in accordance with section 510(a) of Circular A-133 No Identification of major program CFDA//14.239 - HOME Investment Parmership Program Dollar threshold used to distinguish between type A and $300,000 type B programs Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee Yes SECTION II - FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINDINGS No findings reported. SECTION III - FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS No findings reported. 21 Dublin Senior Housing Proposal EAH, Inc. EXPERIENCE OF DEVELOPMENT TEAM Development Team's Experience Developing High-Density Housing on Difficult-to-Develop In fill Sites EAH, one of the oldest nonprofit affordable housing developers in California, has developed over 4,500 units of affordable housing across a wide range of financing programs, target populations, building types and sites. In the nearly 35 years since incorporation in 1968, we have garnered extensive experience with the development of high-density projects on difficult-to-develop infill sites, as the following examples from San Jose, Santa Clara and Oakley illustrate. Our success with these projects demonstrates our ability to deliver higher density housing that fits in with the existing neighborhood and creates minimal disruption to adjacent sites and neighbors. (76 units/acre) Family (39 units/acre) are an Parkview Senior and Parkview located in older, underutilized industrial area in central San Jose on the 12 acre site of a former Sears Department Store. The projects were developed according to the city's Midtown Specific Plan, which envisioned a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly communitv. The entire Sears site was master planned for commercial and residential. The surrounding community is composed mainly of commercial uses including a supermarket, bank and pharmacy. Palm Court (50 units/acre) is a 66-unit senior affordable housing development located on a 1.3 acre parcel south of downtown San Jose in an area with a shortage of senior housing. The neighborhood is an older, established community, primarily residential with some commercial and light industrial uses nearby, including a light rail station. Palm Court achieves this high-density with a design that complements the adjacent single- family neighborhood. Vista Park I and Vista Park II (50 units/acre) are adjoining senior affordable housing developments, with 83 units each, located adjacent to a new shopping center in south San Jose's Capital Expressway corridor. The surrounding neighborhood consists of mixed residential and commercial uses. EAH participated in a complicated joint master planning and entitlement process for the entire planning area, followed by coordinated overlapping construction between the two senior projects. Reciprocal easements have been established between the two projects for purposes of ingress, egress and off-peak parking. Golden Oak Manor (26 units/acre). Located in Oakley, this property provides a relatively high density compared to the rest of the locality, but achieves this density in a residential style that is consistent with the adjacent single-family homes. Through significant collaboration with the neighborhood, EAH was able to alleviate fears about density and affordability. EAH now counts these former opponents as some of its strongest supporters. Verona Homes (32 units/acre) is an ownership townhouse project located in Santa Clara. EAH achieved 32 units per acre density on a highly constrained site and through May 24, 2002 Experience of the Development Team - 20 - Dublin Senior Housing Proposal E~4I-I, Inc. the use of air rights accommodated a parking garage for a neighboring development. The creative design and financing solution enabled the first-time homebuyers to have attached parking for their units will still achieving a high density, and successfully realized the City's goals on the site, which had been vacant for the previous 20 years. Describe Development Team's Experience with Cities like Dublin in Regards to the Local Zoning and Permitting Process With over 60 affordable developments completed, EAH brings a thorough understanding of the zoning and permitting process. EAH has worked successfully with over 30 Bay Area jurisdictions, including such diverse communities as San Jose, Morgan Hill and Oakley. In San Jose, for example, EAH has received approvals on seven projects totaling 700 units. Most of these projects required approval through San Jose's Planned Development zoning and permitting process. In particular, EAH's Parkview projects required a complicated process that involved a Master PD Zoning approval for the overall mixed- commercial then a subdivision of the residential project use site, including a component, and separate PD permits for each of the family, senior and townhouse projects. In the City of Morgan Hill, EAH has received approvals on three projects totaling 208 units. Morgan Hill Ranch Family Apartments, for example, was developed within Sutter Business Park. In order for EAH to obtain planning approvals, a General Plan Amendment was required to establish the appropriate zoning within the business park. In the City of Oakley in Contra Costa County, EAH has received approvals on two projects totaling 74 units. In order to develop Golden Oak Manor, the site required a rezoning from Single-Family Residential High-Density to a Planned Unit District. The development density is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designation and furthers the goals and objectives of the Oakley Redevelopment Area. Working closely with City staff and the neighborhood, EAH was able to alleviate fears about density and affordability and develop a project that fits in with the surrounding single-family residential neighborhood. Describe the Development Team's Track Record in the Design and Construction of Rental Multi-Unit Housing Projects within Budget and on Schedule EAH and its development team are proud of their records of completing projects on time and within budget. EAH has never had a significant delivery delay that resulted in subsidy losses, guarantee payments or home-sal'es difficulty. EAH is committed to delivering projects within the established budget and not requiting additional local subsidy contributions in order to a~chieve completion. In order to achieve these objectives, an initial timeline is created and shared with the entire development team. Deadlines are created for architectural submittals that allow May 24, 2002 Experience of the Development Team - 21 - Dublin SeniOr Housing Proposal EAH, Inc. time fOr EAH's internal design review. A construction schedule is established and reviewed at every construction meeting. The earkview Family and Senior projects in San Jose demonstrate EAH's commitment to being on time and within budget. The project encountered numerous challenges such as skyrocketing labor and material prices, the discovery of a huge, undisclosed subterranean basement and extraordinary rainfall and flooding that caused over two months delay in an already tight construction schedule. Yet, not only did the development team deliver the projects on time and under budget, it paid the City approximately a quarter of a million dollars in refunds for cost savings at the closing of the projects' permanent financing. EAH's Emeryville family affordable housing development, Bridgecourt Apartments, provides another example of EAH's commitment to being on time and within budget. EAH developed Bridgecourt in 1998 in partnership with Catellus Residential Group. The development itself is four city blocks, with parking throughout and commercial space at both ends, The project contains 220 units, a number of which are market-rate units that are anticipated to be sold as condominiums at the end of the tax credit period. The number of unique features and levels of complication associated with Bridgecourt have budget and timing implications. However, with the effective management of information, time and money, Bridgecourt was completed on time and within budget. The general contractor is also critical to completing a project on time and within budget. Segue Construction, Inc. has completed over three thousand multifamily apartments. While Segue has constructed a diversity of building produCts in a range of different communities across the BaY Area, they emphasize multifamily dwellings for nonprofit housing developers. Segue has built two thousand affordable senior, family and SRO units. Segue's team approach and company values mirror those of EAH. Working closely with the entire develOpment team, SegUe has the experience and versatility to help craft creatiVe solutions to the practical problems that inevitably arise in the construction process. Segue's commitment to the team structure is reflected in their practice of negotiating guaranteed maximum price contracts. Such contracts ensure that Segue is fully committed to.meeting a development's timeline and budgetary requirements. The architecture firm on the development team, KTGY Group, Inc., has a staff of 85 professional planners and architects working on residential communities and related specialty products in the western United States. Their experience includes over 35 senior and other affordable housing projects comprising thousands of units, so they have a detailed understanding of the time and budget constraints demanded. Emphasizing a team philosophy, KTGY translates client needs into simple, attractive, workable designs. This approach has earned KTGY literally dozens of Gold NUgget, MAME, BeSt in American Living and other design awards in just the last five years. Please see the additional attached materials on Segue and KTGY. May 24, 2002 Experience of the Development Team - 22 - Dublin Senior Housing Proposal EAH, Inc. Cost Per Unit to Construct and Financial Plan Including Loan Repayment Based upon the development team's experience with similar affordable housing developments, we estimate the Dublin Senior Housing construction costs to be $179,970 per unit. As is typical with affordable housing deals, nearly half of this amount comprises "soft costs," including not just design, planning, fees and so forth, but also the additional legal and syndication work necessary to assemble the complex project financing. This figure also includes prudent contingencies, to ensure timely project completion within the agreed budget. The proposed financial structure includes a City loan of $39,715 per unit, for a total of $1,985,727 at 3% simple interest, to be repaid from surplus cash, with any unpaid balance deferred for the 55-year term of the loan. EAH proposes that repayment be based on 60% of the residual cash after operating expenses, debt service, reserves and fees. We will work cooperatively with the City to maximize financial benefits to the City and to help recoup its investment. It should be understood, however, that the primary benefit will be the attractive, high-quality development with rents affordable to Dublin seniors. Because the income levels served are so low, there will be relatively low cash flow from the project. Details of the financing structure are in "Project Financing" section of this proposal. May 24, 2002 Experience of the Development Team - 23 - Architecture Planning Ir¥ine. California 92614 949/851-213B FAX 949/851-5156 Fort Lauderdale, FI. Dublin Senior Apartment Community City of Dublin, CA The KTGY Group is pleased to be part of the EAIt team to plan and design an affordable Senior Apartment community in the City of Dublin. KTGY has a long work history with the City on very successful residential communities and looks to continue this with the Amador Valley site. The site being in the heart of Dublin is obviously appealing for the future residents in terms of convenience for shopping and parks, which leads the design team in a certain direction in terms of imagery for the community. KTGY is proud to be part of many successful, award-winning teams over the past eleven years, focusing on residential communities throughout the bay area and in Dublin. Our firm of Over 90 professionals is dedicated to designing community with a sense of place. Our experience with senior housing over the years has only proven that it is an ever- evolving design challenge. Our Principals are on the leading edge of this market place, ranging from active adult to assisted living facilities. Our experience in the Bay area has been highlighted by our long-standing relationship with Segue ConstrUction. The Segue/KTGY team has worked together to carefully incorporate many environmentally sensitive building materials and practices. Through a collaborative design effort with KTGY, EAH, Segue and the City, we are able to create a very desirable living environment for the future residents, an aesthetically pleasing addition to the Dublin neighborhood, and an environmentally responsible design for the entire community's benefit. ., ~~ KTGY GROUP, Architecture Planning 17992 Mitchell South Irvine, California 92614 949/851-2133 FAX 949/851~5156 Fort Client References - Northern California Mr. Chuck Schoenberger Mr. Ed Galliger The O'Brien Group Western Pacific Housing 20001 Winward Way, Suite 200 6658 Owens Drive San Mateo, Cali£omia 94404 Pleasanton, CA 94588 (415) 377-0300 (925) 737-1080 Mr. Kevin Pohlson Isaac Henderson Brookfield Homes BRIDGE Housing Corporation 5960 Inglewood Dr., Suite 200 One Hawthorne Street, Suite 400 Pleasanton, California 94588 San Francisco, CA 94105 (925) 463-2600 (415) 989-1111 KTGY Group, Inc. was founded in 1991 by professionals who shared a common belief in creating a new deSign finn that wOuld Teams se~e the £ollou4ng regions: perpetuate its success by investing in superior, productive people · Northet~ CMtTornia with positive attitudes and encoUraging a team philosophy. This · Los A~geles/Ventura philOsophy fosters an environment of support, training, listening · Southern CahTomia and artistry, which has attracted the best and brightest young · IMand Empire people, as well as some of the industry's top seasoned professionals. Headquartered in Irvine, California, KTGY is 85 · Nevada professionals Strong With sixteen shareholders. · AriZona Providing planning and architectural design services for Product desig~ includes: residential communities and related specialty proiects throughout Single Family Detached the western United States, KTGY translates the client's needs and desires into an aesthetic, workable product that leads to · AttachedFor-Sale · Apartments financially successful, award-winning designs. Our goal is simple, good design that is well accepted in the marketplace, appropriate · ML~ed- Use for the end user, and attains the client's profitability goal. · Urban InFdl Each team is led by a Principal/Shareholder who is involved · Tax Credt'tApattments from the initial conceptual phase, through the ConstrUction · SerdorHousing phase. The team Planners, Designers and Architects are · Campus Housing dedicated to a seamless process. EaCh client is parmered with a · Master Planning particular team based upon product type and/or region. This * Desig~ Gnfdelines dlows KTGY to better serve each client's needs by providing a focused team who really knows the local market/product and is current in new technologies. We are foCused on helping clients have financially successful projects. The team philosophy has created an exceptional organization built around the success of Builder/Clients. Architecture Planning 17992 Mitchell South lrvine, California 92614www.kt.qy.com (949) 851-2133 Affordable Housing Communities Affordable Bridge Irvine, CA 126 24 gross 3 story over I level semi- Design/ Apartments Housing subterranean parking garage Entitlement combined with 3 story on- The BRIDGE Napa, CA 104 24 3 - 4 story affordable Models Open Apartments at Housing Corp. apartments Silverado Creek Westminster Lennar Westminster, 76 64 4 stories over 1 level of on- Construction Senior Affordable CA grade parking :Apartments Communities Danville Senior BRIDGE Danville, CA 75 25 2 story affordable senior Construction Apartments Housing Corp. apartments Documents Livermore Eden Livermore, CA 120 20 Affordable Apartments Schematic Affordable Housing, Inc. Design Orangewood Simpson ~lnahdm, CA 3-story affordable family Design Apartments Housing apartments Solutions Daisy Avenue Simpson .4nahdm, CA :3-story affordable family Design Apartments Housing apartments Solutions San Pablo Simpson San Pablo, CA :3 over / senior affordable Constucfion Housing aparunents Solutions Solano Vista SimPs~)n Il'all, o, CA 3-story affordable senior CD's Housing apartments II Solutions Coachella Simpson Coachella, CA 81 15 2 story garden apaxtnaents Open Family Housing Apartments Solutions Needles Simpson Needles, CA 81 15 2 story garden apartments Open 8/01 Family Housing Apartments Solutions Sun G~:ove Simpson Garden Grove, 82 51 4 stories with parking on Construction Senior Housing CA g~ade Apartments Solutions Architecture ]Planning 17992 Mitchell South lrvine, California 92614 (949) 851-2133 Affordable Housing Communities 194 36 3 stories with parking on- Plan check grade 32 2-story garden apartments Construction with parking on-grade 27 3-story Senior apaxtments Open 2-story apartments Design 2-story apartments Entitlement 31 2-story apartments Entitlement 8.4 2-story garden Design apartments with parking on-grade 11 DU/AC 2-story apartments Construction 2-story garden family Construction apartments 3-story affordable senior Design apartments 3-story affordable family Design apartments 2-story affordable family Design apartments · - 19.3 3-story garden apartments Affordable Family 2 story Construction garden apartments Affordable Family 2 story Construction garden apartments 2 and 3-story walk up family Design apartments Design Design Design Design Architecture Planning 17992 Mitchell South Irvine, California 92614 (949) 851-2133 Affordable Housing Communities Villa Monterey King Koenig Design ~kpaxtments Assodates Buena Vista Payne Orange, CA Affordable 3 and 4 story Design Apartments Development senior al~artments Fontana II Related Eontana, CA Affordable 3-story senior Design Companies apartments Avenal Community Avenal, CA Affordable 2-sto~y family Design Apartments Housing apartments Partners Dorado Community Buena Park, Affordable 3 and 4 story Design Apartments Housing CA senior apartments Partners Revised 5-6-2002 ~%~ KTGY GROUP, 1NC. ArchYcecture Planning 17992 Mitchell South Irvine, California 92614 www.ktgy.com Rental and At~ached For-Sale Housing Communities 3 to 4 stories over structured parking The Irvine Sunnyvale, CA 300 32 net 4 story over 1 level parking. Completed Summer Orchard Company 27 gross Multi-use site with adjacent retail. 2001 ii Apa, u~ents Apartment Communities Affordable Bridge &vine, CA 126 24 gross 3 story over 1 level semi- Design/ Apartments Housing subterranean parking garage Entitlement combined with 3 story on-grade buildings Pinnacle at BILE Fullerton, CA 192 80 3 & 4 stories over retail and 2 Construction to Fullerton Properties levels of parking within begin March 2002 redevelopment area of downtown San Pablo Simpson San Pablo, CA 82 77 3 stories over 1 semi-sub parking Construction Senior Housing Documents Apartments Solutions Westminster Lennar Westminster, 76 64 4 stories over 1 level of on-grade Construction Senior Affordable CA parking Documents Apartments Communities Station Park Essex Pleasant Hill, 106 37.5 3 story flats over one level parking Completed 2000 Portfolio L.P. CA structure Chelsea Court Gentium San Frandsco, 32 107 Four stories plus loft. 1, 2 and 3 Under (Van Ness) Homes CA BR flats and town-homes over 2 Construction, Open levels of parking and commercial. Summer 2002 Redevelopment. Avalon at Playa Playa Capital Plqya Vista, 64 60 Four stories of 1, 2 and 3 BR flats Under Vista (Product Company, Los Angeles, and townhomes over 2 levels of Construction, Open 200) LLC / CA parking 2002 Warmington Homes The "Lofts" Playa Capital Playa Vista, 73 55 63 units of flats over retail (open Construction" ' . and "City Company, Los Angeles, style plans) and 10 detached 3 story Drawings Complete LLC / CA homes. Homes" at Warming'ton Playa Vista Homes (Product 300/1250) Ambassador Western Pasadena, 75 35 3 levels over subterranean garage Design/ College Pacific Ca~I~rnia $570 - 605,000 Entitlement Housing Mammoth Intrawest Mammoth, CA 42 35 Flats and townhomes over Completed Green structured parking Summer 2001 Saddlerack Kaufman & San Jose, CA 230 41.9 Townhomes and flats with on- Const_mction Condos Broad DH/AC grade parking Documents Southbay Completed Revised 10-18-2001 AWARDS · Inverness at Shadow Lakes Plan 2 (BrookfieM Homes) 2002 Northern Cal MAME Award Finalist Best Architectural Design Detached 3, 001-4, 000 s.f * Ocean Walk Plan 1 (The Olson Company) 2002 Nationals Sales & Marketing Awards Winning both a Silver and Gold Regional Award · Ocean Walk Plan 1 (The Olson Company) 2001 Southern Cal MAME Award Best Product Design Detached under 1800 s.f. · La Costa Glen (Continuing Care Communities) 2001 NAHB Best in Seniors Housing Merit Best On-the-Boards community · Ocean Walk Plan I (The Olson Company) 2001 Best in American Living Best Architectural Design under 1,800 sq. fi. · Ocean Walk Plan 1 (The Olson Company) 2001 Elan Awards Finalist Best Architectural Design under 1,800 sq. fi. , Ryland Heights at South Hills Estates (Ryland Homes) 2001 Elan Awards Finalist Best Architectural Design over 2,500 sq. fi. · Ocean Walk Plan 1 (The Olson Company) 2001 BuiMers Choice Grand Award Single Family Home less than 2,000 s.f Detached · Ocean Walk plan 1 (The Olson Company) 2001 Gold Nugget Award of Merit Best Single Family Detached Home under 1800 s.f · Ocean Walk Plan 2 (The Olson Company) 2001 Gold Nugget Award of Merit Best Single Family Detached Home under 1800 s.f · Ocean Walk (The Olson Company) 2001 Gold Nugget Award of Merit Residential Detached Project 9 DU/AC · Ocean Walk (The Olson Company) 2001 Gold Nugget Award of Merit Best Redevelopment, Rehab or lnfill Site Plan · Marbella (Nigro Associates) 2001 Gold Nugget Award of Merit Best Affordable Project ~ Detached · Olson Cherry OrchardApartments (1AC) 2001 GoldNuggetAwardofMerit Best Residential Product Site Plan · Prairie Rose Plan 2 (Amstar Homes) 2001 Gold Nugget Award of Merit Best Single Family Detached Home under 2,200 s.f · Tuscany Hills (Communications Hill) (KB Home) 2001 Gold Nugget Award of Merit Best on the Boards Site Plan · Parc Place (SummerHill Homes) 2001 Northern Cal MAME Award Single Family Detached Home · Ryland Ridge (Ryland Homes) 2001 Arizona MAME Award Single Family Detached Home · Parc Place (SummerHill Homes) 2001 Best In American Living Best Single Family Detached Home 1501-1800 s.f · The Timbers Emerald Lake (Intrawest Mammoth Corp) 2000 Best in American Living Best Attached Home up to and including 8 DU/AC · Hometown (Griffin Industries) 2000 Elan Awards Community of the Year · Hometown Plan 1 (Griffin Industries) 2000 Elan Awards Best Architectural Design · Prairie Rose Plan 2 (Amstar Homes) 2000 Homer Award Winner Best Single Family Detached Home Built for Sale · Desert Bloom Plan 2 (Nigro Associates) 2000 Homer Award Winner Best Single Family Detached Home Built for Sale · Tempo Plan 1 (Stanpark Homes) 2000 Homer Award Finalist Best Single Family Detached Home Built for Sale KTGY Group Awards Cont'd ...... ~ ! · Granite Creek Plan 14 (Centex / Real Homes) 2000 Homer Award Finalist · Best Single Family Detached Home Built for Sale · Genevieve Court Plan 2 (Centex / Real Homes) 2000 Homer Award Finalist ~: Best Attached Home Built for Sale [ · NewpOrt Bluffs Apartments 2000 Gold Nugget Award of Merit (IAC) Best Apartment Project 1-3 stories ~ · Chigasaki Condominiums (Kowa Bussan) 2000 Gold Nugget Award of Merit i Best Residential prOduct Site Plan under 25 acres · Brittany Apartments (Irvine Apartment Communities) 2000 Gold Nugget Award of Merit ~ Best Residential Product Site Plan under 25 acres [ ;:i · South Gate at Hamilton Field Plan 2 (O'Brien Group) 2000 Gold Nugget Award of Merit BeSt Detached Home on a Conventional Lot 2,200 to 2,600 s.f. · Pelagos Plan I (Western Pacific Housing) 2000 Gold Nugget Award of Merit  Best Condo or Attached Home under 1,200 s.f · The Timbers Emerald Lake (Intrawest Mammoth Corp) 2000 Gold Nugget Award of Merit Best Condo or Attached Home over 1,800 s.f ~ · Four Seasons at Silverado Creek - The Spring 1999 Best In American Living ~ (WPH) Best Detached Home Under 1,500 s.f. Platinum Award · Provence at Anthem - Ashland (Coventry Homes) 1999 Residential Architect Design r..~ Best Single Family Detached Home Built for Sale Award ~_! · Pelagos - Residence 1 (Western Pacific Housing) 1999 MAME Finalist Best Product Design · Brittany at Oak Creek (lrvine Apartment Communities) 1999 Gold Nugget Award of Merit r'~ Best Multi-Family Project (for rent) 1 to 3 stories ~i · Concordia UniverSity Student Union 1999 Gold Nugget Award of Merit Best Public/Private Special Use Facility f-,, · Four Seasons at Silverado Creek - The Spring 1999 Gold Nugget Award of Merit (O'Brien Group) Best (compact lot)Detached Home under 1,500 s.f. · South Gate- Plan 1 (O'Brien Group) 1999 National Sales & Marketing Best Detached Home Average Price $200,000 to $350,000 Award - Silver Award ~ ! · Washington Park - The Jasmine (O'Brien Group) 1999 National Sales & Marketing [ ~ Best Detached Home Average Price $200,000 to $350,000 Award - Silver Award · Provence atAnthem - Ashland (Coventry Homes) 1999 HomerAward  Best Single Family Detached Home Built for Sale · Ponderosa Country. The Santa Fe (Ponderosa Homes) 1999 Northern California MAME Best Design for a Detached Home Under $250,000 Award Finalist · Ponderosa Country - The Shreveport (Ponderosa Homes) 1999 Northern California MAME Best ~ Design for a Detached Home Under $250,000 Award Finalist i ii · Four Seasons at Silverado Creek- The summer(O'Brien Group) 1999 Northern California MAME Best Design for a Detached Home $250,000 to $350,000 Award Finalist ~ · Four Seasons at Silverado Creek - The Winter(O'Brien Group) 1999 Northern California MAME ~ ~ BeSt Design for a Detached Home $250,000 to $350,000 Award Finalist · South Gate at Hamilton - Plan 2 (O'Brien Group) 1999 Northern California MAME ~ Best Design for a Detached Home $350,000 to $475,000 Award Finalist ~,i · South Gate at Hamilton - Plan 3 (O'Brien Group) 1999 Northern California MAME Best Design for a Detached Home $350,000 to $475,000 Award Finalist · Ponderosa Country- (Ponderosa Homes) 1999 Northern California MAME ~ Detached Community of the Year Under $250,000 Award Finalist ~ ~i · Four Seasons at Silverado Creek (O'Brien Group) 1999 Northern California MAME Detached Community of the Year $250,000 - $350,000 Award Finalist ? Page 2 KTGY Group Awards Cont'd ...... · South Gate at Hamilton (O'Brien Group) 1999 Northern California MAME Detached Community of the Year $350,000 - $475,000 Award Finalist · Santa Rosa H (Irvine Apartment Communities) 1998 Gold Nugget Grand Award Best Residential Project Site Plan - Under 25 Acres · Washington Park - Plan 3 The Jasmine 1998 Gold Nugget Grand Award (O'Brien Group) Best Detached Home Under 2,000 sq. fi · Washington Park - (O'Brien Group) Best 1998 Gold Nugget Grand Award Residential Project of the year - Detached · Hillside - Plan 3 Summit 1998 Homer Award (Champion Homes) Best Detached Home Built for Sale · Tropical Breeze - Plan 2 Kingston 1998 Homer Award (Real Homes) Best Detached Home Built for Sale · Santa Rosa H (Irvine Apartment Communities) 1998 Gold Nugget Award of Merit Best Apartment Project - 1 to 3 Stories · Washington Park - Plan 6 The Primrose 1998 Gold Nugget Award of Merit (O'Brien Group) Best Detached Home Under 2,000 sq. fl. · Viewpoint at the Ridge - Plan 3 The Monterey 1998 Gold Nugget Award of Merit (Brookfield Homes) Best Attached Home 1,201 to 1,800 sq. fi. · Viewpoint at the Ridge - Plan 4 The Cambria 1998 Gold Nugget Award of Merit (Brookfield Homes) Best Attached Home 1,201 to 1,800 sq. fi. · Desert Willow Recreation Center 1998 Gold Nugget A ward of Merit (Del Webb) Best pUblic/Private Special Use Facility · Viewpoint at the Ridge (Brookfield Homes) 1998 Best in American Living Best Attached Home, 9 and over units per acre Award Finalist · Washington Park (O'Brien Group) Best Community 1998 Northern Cai MAME Winner of the Year Under $300,000 · Viewpoint at the Ridge (Brookfield Homes) 1998 Northern Cal MAME Winner Community of the year Attached · Washington Park (O'Brien Group) The Jasmine Plan 3 1998 Northern Cal MAME Finalist Best Single Family under 1,500 s.f · Viewpoint at the Ridge (Brookfield Homes)the Cambria 1998 Northern Cai MAME Finalist Best Attached Home · Washington Park (O'Brien Group) The Jasmine Plan 3 1997 Best in American Living Best Single Family Detached Home Under 1,500 sf Platinum Award · Presidio @ Williams Centre (The Doucette Company) 1997 Best in American Living portal Plan 5 Best Single Family Home 1801 - 2400 sf Award Finalist · Kensington (Trophy Homes) Barrington Plan 2 1997 Homer Award Best Attached Home Built for Sale 1201-1600 sf · Human Options ShelterforBattered Women (Human Options) ULIAward1997 · Presidio @ Williams Centre (The Doucette Company) 1997 Builder's Choice Design & Planning Grand Award · Presidio @ Williams Centre (The Doucette Company) 1997 Builder's Choice Merit Award · Human Options Shelter for Battered Women (Human Options) 1997 Builder's Community Spirit Award (PCBC) · Presidio @ Williams Centre- (The Doucette Company) 1997 Gold Nugget Grand Award Best Cluster HoUsing (Pacific Coast Builders 'Conference) · Presidio @ Williams Centre - Plan l(Doucette Company) 1997 Award of Merit (Pacific Best(Small Lot) Detached Home Under 1,400 s.f. Coast Builders' Conference) · Presidio @ Williams Centre i Plan 5(Doucette Company) 1997 Award of Merit (Pacific Best (Small LoO Detached Home 1,801 to 2,100 s.f. Coast Builders' Conference) Page 3 KTGY Group Awards Cont'd ...... · Presidio @ Williams Centre - (The Doucette Company) 1997 Award of Merit (Pacific Detached Community of the Year Coast Builders 'Conference) · Promontory - Harborside (Greystone Homes) Marne XIX (1996) Merit Award Best Design - Detached Under 1,800 s.f Winner (Northern California) · Americana - Ponderosa (The O'Brien Group) Mame XIX (1996) Merit Award Best Architectural Design - Detached Under 1,800 s.f Winner (Northern California) · Napa Yacht Club - Chantarelle & Silverado Marne XIX (1996) Merit Award (The O'Brien Group) Best Design - Detached 1,801 - 2,300 s.f Winner (Northern California) · EastHampton (The O'Brien Group) Marne XIX (1996) Award Winner New Home Community of the Year (Northern California) * Villa Coronado Apartments 1996 Gold Nugget Award (Irvine Apartment Communities) Best Apartment Community Winner (PCBC) · EastHampton - Plan 3 (O'Brien Group) 1996 Best in American Living Best Affordable Single Family Housing Award (NAHB) · Human Options Residential Care Facility 1996 Best in American Living (Human Options) Special Category Award (NAHB) · Las Entradas at Green Springs (Great Habitat) 1996 St. George Area, (Utah) Best Floor Plan, Best Quality and Craftsmanship, Parade of Homes Winner Best MaSter Suite/Master Bath · Castlegate (Trophy Homes) 1996 Las Vegas, Nevada Best Design Homer Award Winner · Napa Yacht Club - Plan 5 - Piatti (O'Brien Group) 1995 Award of Merit (Pacific Best Architectural Design Detached 2,201 to 3,000 s.f Coast Builders' Conference) · Napa Yacht Club - Plan 5 - Piatti (O'Brien Group) Mame XVII1 (1995) Merit Award Best Detached 2,001 to 2,500 s.f Wi nner (Northern California) · Victorian Harbor- Plan 2 - Plymouth Mame XVIII (1995) Merit Award (O'Brien Group) Best Design Detached - Under 1,500 s.f Winner (Northern California) · Americana at Petaluma - Plan 1 (O'Brien Group) Mame XVIll (1995) Merit Award Best Architectural Design Detached - Under 1,500 s.f. Winner (Northern California) · Woodpark City Plan (Kowa Bussan) City of Yokohama, Japan Best City Plan Best City Plan Award (1995) Updated 2-25-2002 Page 4 Casa de Maestro Santa Clara, California CLIENT: Thompson Residential Partners, LLC PRODUCT TYPE: Santa Clara Unified School District Teacher Housing Apartment Homes STATUS: Open FEATURES: DENSITY - 18.5 DU/AC Gross 40 UNITS ON 2.16 ACRES 70% of the units have direct access to their garage Seasons Senior Apartments I : Juan Capistrano, Location San California Product Type : Affordable Senior Housing ::i Features : Designed in Mission style architecture reminiscent of the rich history of the area, the seven buildings of this senior housing project step - with the hillside, creating unique open space for gardens, putting · _ green, p6ol and spa area. Included is a I900 sq. ft. recreation building for the 460 sq. f~. one-bedroom and 686 sq. ft. two-bedroom units.  *This project was completed by Manny Gonzalez, AIA while employed at another firm. Harmony Park Location : Buena Park, Califorma Harmony Park Lo¢~tion : Buen~ Park, Cal{forni~ Product Type : Affordable Senior Housing Features : This 59 unit in-fill piece with a 1750 sq. ft. community room is designed to be reminiscent of the bungalow architecture of the surrounding community,. The two (2) bedroom, 800 sq. ft. unit features Separate living and dining space and is highly desirable, as is the 600 sq. ft. (1) bedroom, both larger than the typical affordable units. *This project was completed by Manny Gonzafez, AIA while employed at another firm. KTGY GROUP I ARCHITECTURE: t~ PLANNING ~ 949 85 ! 2133 Seasons II at Lakewood Location : Lakewood, California Product Type : Affordable Senior Housing Features : An 85 unit two-story garden walk-up design is the result of the City of Lakewood's RFP for an in-fill redevelopment site. One-bedroom units range from 460-496 sq. ft. and two-bedroom un/ts are 658 sq. ft. The complex has a 1700 sq. fk community room. i KTGY GRouP 1 ARCHITECTURE I PLANNING I 949 85 1 2 133 Harmony Creek : Product Type : Affordable Senior Housing Features : 1999 Gold Nugget Merit Award winner and 2000 INCOSH Gold Achievement winner for Affordable Housing. This four (4) story building is located on a triangular site and offers interior panoramic mountmn or courtyard views for the 83 units. One-bedroom units are 550 sq. ft. and two-bedroom units are 750 sq. ft. The two elevators in the buitchng offer easy access for residents to the community room and parking. *This project was completed by Manny ~onzafez, AIA while employed a~ another firm. KTGY GRouP ~1 ARCHITECTURE: ~ PLANNING ~ 949 8~ 1 2133 SILVEP. ADO CREEK APARTMENTS Client : Brid ge Housing ~_.!ocation : Napa, California ¢~roduct Type : Affordable Family Apartments Features : 21.7 DU/AC; 102 units on ~ 4.7 acres ~. 674 - 1,277 sq. ft. units  ~l 949 851-2133 KTGY GROUP ARCHITECTURE PLANNING LA COSTA GLEN Location : Carlsbad, CA Client : Continuing Life Communities, LLC Product Type : Continuing Care Retirement Community Features : 263 Independent Living Units, 171 Villas, 70 Assisted Living Units, 18 Alzheimer's Assisted Living Units, 70 Skilled Nursing Beds Gated community with strong recreational amenities 55 acres buildable HEALTH CENTER VILLAS S1TE~ PLAN -- VILLAS Independent Living Units Commons Building Health Center KTGY GROUP II ARCHITECTURE B PLANNING ~1949-851o2 133 LADERA RANCH SENIOR APARTMENTS Client : South County Apartment Dev. Co Location ' Ladera Ranch, California Product Type : Senior Apartments Features : 30.8 DU/AC 663 to 1,003 sq. ft. KTGY GROUP ~ ARCHITECTURE ~ PLANNING ~ 949 85 ~-2133 NEWPORT BLUFFS APARTMENTS - VILLAGE II Client : The Irvine Company Apartment Communities Location : Newport Beach, California Product Type : 351 Luxury Apartments - 2&3 story, Flats, Townhomes and Carriage Units with Lofts Features : Landscaped paseo network Garage parking - Some with direct access Density - 22.4 DU/AC Acres- 15.7 · : : KTGY GROUP IARCHITECTURE IPLANNING ~949-851 -2 ! 33 Achievement: · Landscape buffer and townhome buildings at edge mitigate traffic issue. Bisected by a large greens and enhanced by motor courts, two segments gain additional definition from separate entries. · Mixture of "C" and "U' shaped buildings is economical and suited to ' mid-density; Italianate architecture offers the sense of established elegance, and is a preferred aesthetic of this locale. · Tower element adds asymmetrical interest; alternated throughout site, it optimizes streetscape, helps direct visitors to guest parking, and generates premium units with larger decks and unique character. · Flats and townhomes offer diverse choices. · Attached direct access garages enhance 26 percent of the units, supplemented by the remainder having a garage space and dedicated open parking spaces. Townhome Building 0 40 g0 160 SITE PLAN ~ (~) LEASING & BUSINESS CENTER (~) TYPICAL MOTOR COURT ~N (~) COMMUNITY FITNESS & RECREATION (~ LANDSCAPE PASEO (~) MAIN COMMUNITY ENTRY (~) SECONDARY COMMUNITY ENTRANCE (~) VILLAGE ENTRY (~ TYPICAL TOWNHOME BUILDING (~) ' TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (~) POOL VILLA CORONADO APARTMENTS Developer : Irvine Apartment Communities Location : Irvine, California Product Type : Apartment Homes 24 DU/AC From 700 to 1,110 sq. ft. Features : Internal "identity" street. Motor court concept with separate resident and guest entries. Gated community with upscale unit plans. Pacific Coast Builc ars Conference Gold Nugget Grand Award Best Aoartment Project 1996 (1-3 story category) ~: ,I"~ KTGY GROUP= ARCHITECTURE =PLANNING =,7 I 4.851'2 133 Ros^ II Ae^P, rMH rrs Client : Irvine Apartment Communities Location : Irvine, California Product Type : Family Apartments 207 units @ 17.25 DU/AC, Parking @ 2.25 spaces per unit. Features : Planning concept provides enclosed "greens" for play, swimming and recreational use. All units with grade levee entries. 45% of units have direct access garage. Maiority of units have direct access to "greens" and play areas. SimPle architectural features add to a much desired sense of character ~' 56% of units are townhomes. 65% 2 BR units 35% 3 BR units. Gold Nugget Award of Merit Best Apartment Project 1-3 stories Gold Nugget Grand Award Best Residential Project Site Plan under 25 acres Units have direct access to "greens" and play areas. IKTG¥ GROUPI ARCHITECTURE · PLANNING · 949.851 -2133 Varied two-and three bedroom unit plans offer spaces and amenities comparable to detached designs; 9-foot ceilings, powder rooms, fireplaces, quality master suites and private patios/balconies. All have private garages, many with direct access, and full size laundries, some with inside location. Narrow, deep buildings maximize frontage to interior greens that serve as play yards, SECOND PLOOR PLAN accessible only from dwelling units or gates, these expansive private courts provide secure outdoor space for children, buffered from street and parking, and a pleasant commons for adult gatherings. Stacked flats tailored to households without children orient to entry greens that introduce the larger courts. Planning offers clear hierarchy from entry to identity Iccp and secondary streets, walls, landscaping and parking provide acoustical ~RST PLOOR protection. Community center features such family friendly amenities as an indoor theater and arts and crafts room. Exterior architec- ture of all buildings meets criteria for smooth integration with the first phase of this community, completed four years earlier. CHERRY ORCHARD APARTMENTS Client : The Irvine Company Apartment Communities Location : Sunnyvale, California Product Type : Luxury Apartments 300 units @ 32 DU/AC. Net Single level semi-subterranean parking. Features : This multi-use site consists of 300 units, retail, and restauant uses. The community provides four stories with stacked flats and some town-homes over a single level semi-subterranean parking structure with elevator service to all units. This allows for the buildings to surround a "Grand Commons" and "Paseos" with all unitS having open space views and maximum privacy. 1KTGY GROUPIARCHiTECTURE I PLANNING i 949.851 .Z 133 Achievement: · A collaborative effort with a retail architect to integrate a 4.8 acre retail/commercial design to create a positive edge between uses. · Planning concepts also maximize inward orientation, giving about 80 percent of the units prime views to interior paseos, the "Grand Commons" or both. · Transverse views across the axis of the dohnmons into the respective interior spaces of leasing and club buildings dramatizes both structures. · Providing a compelling focal point, this core also strengthens upscale identity of the entire community. · Subordinate pockets with enriched landscaping and ornamental paving bring established character and texture to the pedestrian experience. · Power line easement allows for on grade parking that in turn makes a one level semi-subterranean parking podium feasible for targeted unit count. ~i,.~ (mst PLAN OF BUILDING TYPE III SITE SUMMARY SITE AREA: 11.2 Ac 4.3 Ac TOTAL UNITS: 300 DENSITY UN1T: 27 Du/Ac UNIT SUMMARY I BEDROOM-FLAT: 92 2 BEDROOM-FLAT: I ?$ 3 BEDROOM-TOWNHOME: 30 TOTAL: 300 *80% PRIME¥IEW UNITS PARKING SUMMARY COVERED SPACES: 325 OPEN SPACES: 275 KEYNOTES · ~ LEASINGAND BUSINESS cENTER ~ CLUB ROOM / FITNESS ' 1 POOL RESTROOM ~2: LANDSCAPE PASEO ~ PARK ~' EXISTING HISTORIC ROADSIDE - FRU IT STAND & WATER TOWER ~ SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ~: SECURITY GATES ®N 0 50 I00 200 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN BRITTANY APARTMENTS AT OAK CREEK Client : irvine Apartment Communities Location : Irvine, California Product Type : Apartments - 2&3 story, Fiats, Townhomes and Carriage Units with Lofts Features : Resident business center, club room, and Fitness center Two pools and two spas Pedestrian paseo network Garage parking - Some with direct access Density - 25.15 DU/AC F parking spaces per 2 unit F Gold Nugget Award of Merit :~' Pacific Coast Builders Conference Best Apartment Project 1999 (1-3 Story Catagory) F KTGY GROUP BARCHiTECTURE IIIPLANNING --949-85! -2133 · Objectives: · Quality enclave with diverse unit plan selection (10 types), at high density. · Considerations: · Freeway edge and two-story height limitation along arterial street were challenging. · Summary of Achievement: · Well-organized plan offers strong arrival with gated entry and spine road. ·Connecting to one of two pools and a recreation area, this focal passage ties to distinctive cross-axis of the paseo. ·Linear townhome building type addresses freeway conditions, offering a unique "wall" that creates acoustical protection. · Two-story edge along a major arterial is achieved without reducing density yield; lower profile softens perception of high density. · French architectural theme incorporates steep roof pitches that are reserved for high visibility buildings to strengthen identity with economy. · Repeated icons assist sense of progression. ·Vertical color blocks reduce apparent mass and promote a village look. ARTIST VILLAGE LIVE/~VORK LOFTS Client : The Olson Company Location · Santa Ana, California Product Type : Loft Apartments Features : 43 DU/AC 1,700 to 2,500 sq. ft. .~'.. . Unit t (Second Level) ........ ~-_.---[--.-T.--~-~J.~-~- "="~ -' I ~"~ ~-~"[~ ~-"~' Unit I IFirst Level) KTGY GROUP · ~RCHITECTURE · PLANNING · 949 851o2133 SEGUE CONSTRUCTION, INC. 124 WASHINGTON AVE., SUITE C POINT RICHMOND, CA 94801 May 21, 2002~ EAH, Inc. 2169 East Francisco Blvd., Suite B San Rafael, CA. 94901 Attention: Ruthy Talansky Subject: General Contractor Qualifications Dublin Senior Housing RFP Dear Ms.Talansky: Thank you for your interest in Segue Construction, Inc., as a team member for your Dublin Senior Housing propOsal. We are most pleased to be joining a team with such strong credentials, and believe we can complement your proposal, as well as the design and construction process, with our experience. Segue Construction has been continuously focused on the construction of affordable housing throughout its 10 years existence. Segue's track record, which includes thousands of apartment Units throughout the Bay Area, has garnered a reputation among non-profit housing developers for exceptional pre-construction services, rigorous budget consistency, and on time delivery. Relevant experience to this particular proposal include award winning senior apartments projects such as Rotary Valley Senior Housing in San Rafael, Pinole Grove Senior Housing in Pinole, and Bracher Senior Housing in Santa Clara. Each of these projects were fully affordable, and each has complemented the surrounding neighborhood. We have also completed over four hundred apartment units with your proposed architect, KTGY, and are currently constructing a seventy-four unit affordable senior project With them in Danville. Our experience with KTGY has been cooperative and synergetic, producing beautiful communities within budget parameters, and incorporating innovative materials and techniques, including "green'' technOlOgies such as enhanced insulation, radiant barriers, and innovative solar heating. TEL. (510) 234-1800 FAX (510) 234-1802 CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR LICENSE B-638854 Thank you again for your interest in Segue Construction. Our resume, together with relevant project informati°n, is attached. We look forward to being a part of the team that will be working on the first affordable housing development in Dublin in many years. Very truly yours, Segue Construction, Inc Kirk Wallis, Vice-President Encl. KW:mh SEGUE CONSTRUCTION, INC. SEGUE CONSTRUCTION, INC., is a service oriented general contractor with a distinct emphasis on the turn-key construction of affordable multi- family apartment dwellings for Bay Area non-profit housing developers. SEGUE's portfolio of completed projects geographically blankets the greater Bay Area, from South San Jose and Los Gatos to Napa and Calistoga, and currently is expanding into the Greater Sacramento Valley to the Northeast, and Gilroy/Watsonville to the South. It includes over two thousand affordable apartments, including family, senior and SRO units. Examples of this diversity of product include: Rotary Valley Senior Housing, an 80 unit independent living complex in a bucolic setting in North San Rafael, integrated into an established community of single-family homes adjacent to sensitive open space. Monta Vista, a 306 unit mixed income family complex in Milpitas that rivals the best of market rate in quality of design and construction. Moonridge, a 160 unit farmworker's housing complex in Half Moon Bay exemplifying the best in integration of quality low income housing with on-site daycare, educational, and recreational community facilities. Carroll Street Apartments, a 122 unit SRO in Sunnyvale, the first ..... suburban" SRO constructed on the lower San Francisco peninsula. SEGUE's objective is to maximize the value of the construction dollar on every project, while providing extraordinary service throughout the negotiated contract process. When an Owner chooses to proceed with the design of a major project, a primary goal is that of maintaining project quality while removing the risk of construction budget overruns and related costly delays for redesign. This can often be best accomplished by integrating an experienced general contractor into the development and design team. When SEGUE is selected for this role, two ideals govern our involvement~ The first is a recognition of the importance of estimating accuracy. We know that estimates either too high or too low can very well result in a job never being built. Second is the quest for maximum value in the construction of the product. Quality in construction, at a competitive price, provides lasting benefits to every Owner, and can 'include materials and techniques which may add incremental cost now, but reflect sustainable resource use and lower life cycle environmental or long term maintenance costs. To meet SEGUE's objective of extraordinary service on every project, operations are structured to provide a maximum interface between SEGUE's principals and the design team, with continued principal involvement in the jobsite construction activities. SEGUE's principals have an established track record of providing and/or complementing the leadership necessary to create a "team" atmosphere among the Owner, his design consultants, 'and the subcontractors who will build the project. We believe that this team approach creates the opportunity to explore all constraints and identify a full range of potential alternatives. With the collective experience of this Owner/design/consultant/ contractor team, we believe that we can establish the versatility required to deal with unknown and changing circumstances, to create contingency plans, and to provide imaginative solutions to practical problems. This approach insures that the contractor, and many of the subcontractors he will be working with, are thoroughly familiar with both the scope of work and the level of quality intended by the Owner, before construction commences. This knowledge, in turn, allows SEGUE to schedule the project more aggressively, bringing the project in ahead of schedule and thereby reducing both the contractor's general conditions and the Owner's financing costs. This is a role that the principals of SEGUE CONSTRUCTION, INC., are very familiar with, as effectively all of their projects in the last ten years have been completed under negotiated guaranteed maximum price (GMP) contracts. We benefit from a record of achievement that includes the construction of over three thousand apartment units. Having taken this participatory role in the development process, we have also been involved in the property management, maintenance, and, of course, warranty, for our projects. Our resumes, together with a list of completed projects, are attached for your review. SEGUE's commitment to honesty and professionalism in our services, and value and quality in our product, provide an often refreshing alternative to traditional owner- contractor relationships. In our effort to aid the developer in providing attractive, safe and comfortable housing while maximizing value and durability, SEGUE offers the following services, tailored to each developer's needs: · Conceptual Cost Estimating · Aggressive Planning and Scheduling · Value Engineering Design-build Services for Electrical and Mechanical Trades · Coordination withthe Project Architect and his Consultants · Review and Comment on Consultant Recommendations · "Green" building components and practices, analysis and implementation · Competitive Bidding of all Trades · Coordination of Utilities and Permits · Full Construction Services · Warranty Services A reduction in costs through extraordinary preconstmction service and analysis is the product of a unique level of valUe engineering and aggressive planning, based on years of owner-oriented participation in the development, design, construction and long term maintenance of thousands of apartment units throughout the Bay Area. SEGUE' s ability to combine the best in pre-development construction management services with competitive field construction will assure a successful, timely and economical product that will enhance any community in which it is built. SEGUE CONSTRUCTION, INC. COMPLETED MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS PROJECT CONSTRUCTION TYPE DEVELOPER OWNER'S REP.* STATUS ARCHITECT* CONTACT* Open Doors Family Housing 2 & 3 story wood frame Mid-Peninsula Matt Schwartz Complete Hooper, OImsted, Hrovat Dick Olmsted 64 Units over slab on grade Housing Coalition Brannan Street Housing 2 & 3 story ~vood frame Bridge Housing Lydia Tan Complete Hooper, Olmsted, Hrovat Dick Olmsted 48 Units over slab on grade Napa Valley Family Homes Bill Moffett Grania Llndberg **Pinole Grove Senior Housing 1, 2 & 3 story wood Bridge Housing Lydia Tan Complete Barnhart Associates Paul Barnhart 70 Units frame over slab on grade Bill Moffett & pier & grade beam **Sunnyvale SRO 3 story wood frame Mid-Peninsula Kimberly McKay Complete HKIT Rich Caldwell 122 Units over slab on grade Housing Coalition **Bracher Senior Housing 1 & 2 story wood frame Housing Authority of Bill Ghidossi Complete Barnhart Associates Pau Barnhart 72 Units over slab on grade County of Santa Clara Gloria Way Community Housing 2 & 3 story wood frame Mid-Peninsula Matt Schwartz Complete The Steinberg Group Jim Yee '38 Units over slab on grade Housing Coalition Church Lane Housing 4 story wood frame/tuck Rubicon Programs, Inc. Rick Aubry Complete David Baker Associates Peter MacKenzie 22 Units under parking **Rumrill Place Apartments 2 & 3 story wood flame Oakland Comm. Housing Tom lamesi Complete Mock/Wallace Architects Ron Wallace 32 Units over slab on grade Lao Family Housing Rotary Valley Senior Housing I story wood frame over Bridge Housing Lisa Grady Complete Backen Arrigoni & Ross Paula Krugmeier 80 Units slab on grade Alma Place Apartments 2 story wood frame over Palo Alto Housing Corp. David Easton Complete Rob Wellington Quigley, David Solnick· SRO-107 Units 2 story underground FAIA parking **Capitol Avenue Apartments 3 story wood frame over JSM Enterprises Dan Mountsier Complete James Guthrie & Serena Trachta 92 Units slab on grade Associates Milpitas Family Apartments 2 & 3 story wood frame Bridge Housing Ann Silverberg Complete Barnhart Associates Paul Barnhart 306 Units over tuck under parking Coastside Affordable Housing 1 & 2 story wood frame Mid-Peninsula Housing Mike Wiley Complete David Baker Associates Peter MacKenzie 80 Units over slab on grade Coalition *SEE PRECEDING LIST OF REFERENCES FOR PHONE NUMBERS **PREVAILING WAGE/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROJECT SEGUE CONSTRUCTION, INC. COMPLETED PROJECTS (Con't) PROJECT CONSTRUCTION TYPE DEVELOPER OWNER'S REP.* STATUS ARCHITECT*· CONTACT* The Carlyle Apartments 2 & 3 story wood frame Interland Corp. Claude Pellarin Complete Loving & Campos Arch. David Bogstad 276 Luxury Apartments over podium & slab on grade March, 2000 Coggins Square Apartments 3 story wood frame Coggins Square Associates Kevin Griffith Complete David Baker Associates Peter MacKenzie 87 Family Apartments over podium parking, Bridge Housing Corp. August, 2000' Apartments at Silverado Creek 3 story wood frame over Silverado Creek Partners Ann Silverberg Complete KTGY Group Chris Texter 102 Family Apartments post-tensioned slab on grade Bridge Housing Corp. July, 2000 **Heizer Court Apartments 3 story town house style Housing Authority of the Matt Steinle Complete Barnhart Associates Paul Bamhart 155 Family Apartments apartments County of Santa Clara Sept,, 2000 Olson Cherry Orchard 4 story wood frame Irvine Apartment John Morgan Complete KTGY Group Fred Walters 300 Market Rate Apartments over podiums Communities August, 2001 Moonridge II 2 story wood frame Mid-Peninsula Mike Wiley Complete David Baker Associates Peter MacKenzie 80 Family Apartments over slab on grade Housing Corp, August, 2001 CURRENT MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS March, 2002 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION TYPE DEVELOPER OWNER'S REP.* STATUS ARCHITECT* CONTACT* Grayson Creek 3 story wood frame over Bridge Housing Kevin Griffith In Progress Barnhart Associates Paul Bamhart 72 Family Apartments podium parking North Park Apartments Phase II 4 story wood frame Irvine Apartment John Morgan In Progress UcLarand Vasquez & Partners Kurtiss Kusumoto 477 Market Rate Apts. over podiums Communities Fisher Friedman Assoc, Michael Schaefer North Park Apartments Phase II 4 story wood frame Irvine Apartment John Morgan In Progress UcLarand Vasquez & Partners Kurtiss Kusumoto 261 Market Rate Apts. over podiums Communities Nodh Park Apartments Phase I 4 story wood frame Irvine Apartment John Morgan In Progress McLarand Vasquez & Partners Kurtiss Kusumoto 602 Market Rate Apts. over podiums COmmunities Fisher Friedman Assoc. Michael Schaefer Backen Arrigoni & Ross Tim Holtz Danvlle Senior Housing 2 Story wood frame 74 Affordable Units over slab on grade Bridge Housing Isaac Henderson In Progress' KTGY Group Chris Texter Sereno Village Apartments 3 Story wood frams Citizens Housing Scott Falcone In Progress TWM Architects Allen Christofani 125 Family Apartments over slab on grade "SEE PRECEDING LIST OF REFERENCES FOR PHONE NUMBERS **PREVAILING WAGE/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROJECT SEGUE CONSTRUCTION, INC. REFERENCES OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVES: Scott Falcone, Citizen's Housing Corp. (415) 421-8605 Grania Lindberg, Napa Valley Family Homes (707) '253-6140 Bill Moffett, Construction Consultant (415) 386-6396 John Morgan, Irvine apartment Communities (949) 720-2636 Claude Pellarin, Interland Corp. (650) 574-9200 Ann Silverberg, Bridge Housing Corp. (415) 989-1111 Mat~ Steinle, Housing Authority of Santa Clara (408) 993-3065 Lydia Tan, Bridge Housing, Inc. (415) 989-1111 Fran Wagstaff, Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition (650) 482-5510 ARCHITECTS: Paul Bamhart, Barnhart Associates, Architects (415) 495-4890 Rich Caldwell, Hardison Komatsu Ivelich & Tucker (415) 541-0811 Allen Cristofani, TWM Architects (415) 472-5770 Paula Krugmeier, Backen Arrigoni & Ross (415) 536-2233 Kurtiss Kusumoto, McLarland Vasquez & Partners (714) 349-2207 Peter MacKenzie, David Baker Associates (415) 896-6700 Lee Mason, L.S. Mason Associates (925) 283-8805 Dick Olmsted, Hooper Olmsted & Hrovat (415) 775-5855 Rob Quigley, Quigley Architects (650) 321-9709 Michael Schaefer, Fisher Friedman (415) 961-6076 Chris Texter, KTGY ArchiteCts (949) 851-2133 ' Fred Walters, KTGY Architects (949) 851-2133 ACCOUNTANT: Jacquie Nelson, Bumett Company (916) 638-1188 INSURANCE & SURETY AGENT: Cam Dickenson, Woodruff-Sawyer & Co. (415) 391-2141 BANKER: Catherine Durfee, Mechanics Bank (510) 262-7241 POSITIONS: 2001-Present' Segue Construction, Inc. President 1992-2000 Segue Construction, Inc. Vice President-Operations 1986-1991 Calprom, Inc. Senior Project Manager 1984-1986 Williams & Burrows, Inc. Project Manager 1977-1983 Caterpillar Tractor Company Design Engineer, Owner's Construction Representative Degrees: MS Civil Engineering/Construction Management, 1984, Stanford BS Civil Engineering, 1977, Purdue University License: Illinois Professional Engineer KIRK A. WALLIS, VICE PRESIDENT, BUSINESS DEVELOPEMENT Mr. Wallis has substantial design, estimating, project management, and construction executive experience, with nearly 20 years concentrated in the multi-family affordable and market-rate housing sector. He has demonstrated expertise in both general engineering and general building construction, and operates comfortably in competitive bid, negotiated contract, and fast-track design-build environments. Kirk is a co-founder of Segue Construction, and served as its President for over 9 years. He has recently stepped down to focus his significant technical expertise and project management skills on providing Segue's clients with the highest quality in preconstruction services. Previous experience as a Civil and Structural Design Consultant allows Kirk to aggressively attack difficult geotechnical, site development, and building system problems, and facilitate timely and economical solutions prior to field construction. Examples of projects that have taken advantage of this expertise include: Pinole Grove, a 70 unit hillside senior complex utilizing multiple foundation types. Helzer courts, a 155 unit affordable townhouse project that involved massive grading and millions of dollars of public improvements, both on and off site. Rotary Valley, an 80 unit senior project that required hazardous material abatement and demolition of an abandoned hospital and County buildings together with geotechnical and environmental challenges. Grayson Creek, a 70 unit podium project on an abandoned creekside quarry site, with every geotechnical challenge imaginable. Practice as both a consultant and construction administrator has led to outstanding communication and organization skills, and diversity of background has proved to be a major asset in project planning and value engineering. Kirk's ability, to formulate economic solutions to difficult problems while fostering a positive team environment remains a key factor in repeat business with key clients. POSITIONS: 2001-Present Segue Construction, Inc. Vice.President, Bus. Development 1992-2000 Segue Construction, Inc. President 1988-1991 Calprom, Inc. Vice President 1986-1988 UDC Homes, L.P. Director of Construction 1983-1986 J.H. Fitzmaurice, Inc. Vice President, Construction 1978-1983 W.B. Clausen, S.E. Staff Engineer 1976-1978 Contra Costa County Assistant Engineer - Road Design, Public Works Department Construction, Land Development Education: BS Civil Engineering, 1976, University of California, Berkeley Registration: California Professional Civil Engineer, C30975 !. STEVE W. GRIDER, VICE PRESIDENT, PROJECT MANAGEMENT Steve Grider has been with Segue in key project management roles since 1997. During this time, he successfully managed over 1200 multi-family units from pre- construction through completion of construction. In January 2001, he was elevated to Vice President, Project Management overseeing over 1400 multifamily units, and became a principal. In this role, Steve takes the lead in project management functions throughout the company, including reporting responsibilities for multiple field project managers. as a Project Manager/Superintendent for the construction of Steve has worked affordable and market rate apartments, single-family homes and townhomes for over eighteen years. His experience includes construction supervision of apartments over post in-ground parking structures as well as commercial tenant tension concrete decks with improvements. Throughout Mr. Grider's career, he has been involved in projects beginning with the preliminary budget and pre-construction stages through construction and turnover to the owner. His abilities encompass preparation and refinement of preliminary budgets, value engineering, review of all aspects of plans and specifications and bid evaluation/negotiation of subcontracts. POSITIONS: 199 7- Present Segue Construction, Inc. Project Manager/Senior Project Manager/Vice President-Project Mgmt. 1984 - 1997 L&D Construction Co. Project Manager/ Asst. Project Manager/ Superintendent 1983 - 1984 Bechtel Power Corporation Electrical Field Engineer Education' BS in Construction Engineering and Management - Purdue University- DAVID M. DUNLOP, VICE PRESIDENT, FIELD OPERATIONS David Dunlop has had extensive construction project supervision and management experience in both commercial and residential projects, and has worked in the construction industry for over 25 years. David's skills encompass project development, estimating, budgeting, negotiating contracts and scheduling all phases of construction. David joined Segue in 1996 as a field superintendent, and quickly became Segue's "go to" field Operations Manager, as he was charged with the responsibility for supervision on Segue's largest projects, including: Monte Vista, a 306 unit garden style complex in Milpitas. The Carlyle, a 276 unit podium/garderfftownhouse luxury apartment complex in Santa Clara. Cherry Apartments, a 300 unit luxury podium complex in Orchard Sunnyvale. North Park, a 1346 unit luxury podium complex under construction in San Jose. reputation delivering high quality product on time David has a well deserved for and under budget, and currently directs a team of six full superintendents. In January 2001, David was elevated to Vice President, Field Operations, and became a principal in Segue Construction, Inc. POSITIONS: 1996 - Present Segue Construction, Inc. Project Manager/Superintendent/ Vice President - Field Operations 1994 - 1996 U.D.C. Homes, Inc. Project Manager/Superintendent 1992 - 1994 Trison Company Construction Manager 1990 - 1992 The Sprincin Co., Inc. Project Manager/Superintendent 1988 - 1990 JL Construction Co. Project Manager 1986 - 1988 Summerhill Development Project Manager/Superintendent 1984 - 1986 Lincoln Property Co. Project Manager/Superintendent 1972 - 1983 Self-employed, California and Idaho General Contractor/Carpenter Education: BS, Construction Management, Boise State University Dublin Senior Housing Proposal EAH, Inc. PROJECT FINANCING AND TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS EAH is pleased to present a financing plan that we believe will minimize the subsidy contribution required of the City and maximize equitY investment. We have assumed a 50-unit development, with 50 parking spaces, using 9% tax credits as the main financing mechanism. The current estimated subsidy is only $39,715 per unit, for a total of $1.98 million of City funding. By using City funds to leverage significant other sources of funds, we will generate the capital necessary to deliver high quality, attractive and appropriately designed housing. EAH has based our financial analysis on established cost parameters derived from similar projects and our extensive combined experiences with current construction and financing trends. Specific adjustments were made for both costs and funds available in Dublin. There also several alternatives that could be are eXplored at the City's direction, as discussed below. For detailed cost and financing estimates, please refer to the attached pro forma (at the end of this section). City Loan Assumptions the direct contribution will be in the form of We have assumed that City's subsidy a residual receipts loan in the amount of $1,985,727. We propose that repayment be based on 60% of the residual cash after operating expenses, debt service, reserves and fees. The proposed loan terms are 3% Simple interest for a term of 55 years, ~vith any unpaid interest and principal deferred to a balloon payment at the end of the term. The City loan is the minimum needed for project feasibility, consistent with prudent financial projections. EAH will also commit to continue to pursue other funding options that may become available, and we propose that any excess capital not needed for project development will be returned to the City. EAH has in fact "beat the pro forma" on previous developments and returned large checks to the local funders, and would be delighted to do so again. In San Jose, we returned over a quarter of a million dollars to the City at the end of one project. On a small project in Tibur°n, the amount returned was appr°ximately $80,000. City Land Donation The analysis assumes the City will make the land a~'ailable for the project On a 99-year ground lease at a nominal COst of $1 per year. Donated land greatly reduCes the local cash contribution and promotes project feasibility. It also enhances the project's competitiveness for both tax credit and AHP financing. The ground lease structure allows the City to retain control of its real asset. The City would have the option to retain control over the improvements after 99 years, as well. Immediately after the developer is Selected, EAH and the City wOuld negotiate and execute a Development Agreement, with the form of the ground lease attached as an exhibit. The Development Agreement can be executed in advance of the City's receipt of ' title to the library site, and would give EAH sufficient site control necessary to pursue May 24, 2002 Project Financing and Total Development Costs - 24- Dublin Senior Housing Proposal E/IH, Inc. and secure project financing. Thus the housing development can move ahead in a timely manner. Affordability Under the proposed financing structure, the project would be affordable to reSidents earning between 30% and 60% of median income, for 55 years, with the exact mix determined on the basis of maximum competitiveness for 9% tax credits. In addition, EAH proposes that the project remain affordable to a mix of low- and very-low-income residents for the entire 99-year term of the ground lease. Using 2002 income data, a senior living alone, with income between approximately $15,000 and $31,000 would qualify for a unit. Pro Forma and Development Cost Assumptions All construction, financing and operating cost assumptions are based on information from recent projects and the most current trends in the field. A construction cost estimate was derived from experience with Other senior housing developments and reviewed with Segue constrUCtion from our development team. The estimate takes into account the need for a podium structure in order to accommodate the necessary parking. In scheme one, Parking will be provided on a 1:1 ratio. Parking is an area that should be thoroughly reviewed, as it signifiCantly affects the design and layout of the units above. Financing assumptions include a 1.10 debt service coverage ratio. The terms of the loan are based on recent quotations from major constructi°n and permanent lenders. The estimated proceeds from the sale of tax credits to an equity inVestor is based on a number Of recent ]~f~_I-'I projects, including investor offers less than one month old. property management department has estimated an operating cost of $4,300 per unit per annum, based on its experience with the approximately 5,550 units, including 1,103 senior housing units, under current management. The pro forma also assumes full payment of all City fees. One option for the City to consider is to waive some of the impact fees for the project. On a policy level, given the needs of senior residents and the deyelopment's location adjacent to the main public facility for their use, there may be justification for reconsidering some of these non-cost- recovery fees. On a practical level, waiVing fees charged to the project directly reduces the amount of City subsidy required by the project. May 24, 2002 Project Financing and Total Development Costs - 25 - Dublin Senior Housing PropOsal E.4H, Inc. Sources and Uses of Funds EAH proposes to finance the project as follows: Sources of Funds Uses of Funds Tax Credit Equity ~ $4,873,303 Hard Costs $4,681,622 Conventional Debt $1,454,617 Indirect Costs $2,085,402 Interest on Const. Loan $114,848 Financing $442,671 AHP Funds 245,000 Contingency/Reserves $583,453 HOME / CDBG Funds $200,000 Developer Fee/Guarantees $1,115,696 Devel°Per EquitY $100,000 Syndication Costs $89,651 Foundations $25,000 Ci_ty of Dublin Funds $1-,985,727 Total Development Cost $8,998,495 $8,998,495 Proceeds. EAH has designed the financial aspects of the development to Tax Credit COmPete well for 9% tax credits. While the California Tax Credit Allocati® Committee changes the regulations governing competition each year, EAH has a strong track record bOth of making ProjeCt changes necessary to reflect regUlatOry changes and of effectivelY advocating the regulatory change process, to the benefit of our projects. Conventional Debt. In evaluating the financial feasibility of this project, EAH first studied the rental market in the Dublin area to determine the rent levels for the affordable units. Rents necessary to compete for 9% tax credits (i.e., affordable to households at 30% to 60% of area median income, or about $420 to $840 per month for one bedroom units in Alameda CountY) are well below even lower-end market rents ($1,000 to $1,400 for 1 to 3 bedrooms). These rents are reasonably affordable for the income levels of Dublin seniors. Also, the City's housing needs consUltant recently found that there is a need for independent-living senior housing. This significant differential between market and restricted rents plus the demonstrated need for the housing add up to a strong demand for the PropoSed housing. Strong demand will in mm, together with EAH's long track record with the leaders in major multifamily housing lending, giv. e lenders a margin of comfort that will help EAH obtain favorable financing terms. AHP Funds. It is EAH's experience that Projects compete well when they have services available, are part of a coordinated redevelopment effort, and request an award under $5,000 per unit. The $245,000 total projected AHP award reflects a request of $4,900 per unit. HOME / CDBG Funds. The estimated HOME alloCation of $200,000 is based on discussions with Alameda County Housing and Community Development Department staff. County HOME staff expect 2003 to be similar to 2002, when two projects, out of four apPlicants, were aWarded a total of approximatelY $600,000 in funds. Staff confirmed that the HOME funding cycle is compatible with the projected first-round tax May 24, 2002 Project Financing and Total Development Costs - 26 - Dublin Senior Housing Pr~ec~ D~c~'intinn Location: 7606 Amador Valley Blvd. 50 units Senior Housing 5/24/02 10:52 AN Development Team: EAH 9% T,C, Page 1 Development Summary Prepared by F. AH - Preliminary Estimate Only [[~ Amount per Unitper GSF SOURCES & USES DURING CONSTRUCTION & PERMANENT PERIOr}.~ J UNIT MIX AND RENTS Land Acquisition & Related $0 $0 '$0.00 Sources Cor~truction Per~3~ Inledm Per;od Permanent Period Unit I % of Annual Lavela of % Construction: Building ~4,494,222$89.884 $144.63 3onstruc6on Loan $4,922,048 $4.922,o48 $( Description I Median Income # of UnitsRents Affordability Const~ction: Site $162.400 $3,248 $5.23 =emlanent Loan $1.454.61~ Construc8on: Off-Site Costs $26.000 S500 $0.80 .;Ity of Dublin Con~ibution $39,715 $1,985,727 $1,985.727 $4,985,72~ 1 Bedroom 30% 4 ?-],~ $16,790 30% 10% Furnishings & Equipment $25,000 $500 $0.80 4OME I CDBG Funds $200,000 $200.000 $200,00C t Bedroom 40% 4 ~ O $23,491 35% 0% Municipal & Utility Fees $1,384,965$27,699 $44,57 nterest Earned on ConstmcSon Loan Proceeds $114.848 $114.848 $114.848 I Bedroom 45% 204 $0 ~ 40% 10% Arc~hltectureJEnglneedng 6.00% $446.529 $8.911 $14,34 ~,HP $4,900 $245.000 $245,000 $245.00( I Bedroom 50% ~.,~ ~cj $181,152~ 45% Marke6ng & Rent-up $50,000 $1,000 $1.61 =oundatieds. other 'soft" fueds $500 $25.000 S25.000 $25.~0( I Bedroom 60% 13 '~ $119,902I 50% 50% Hard Cost Contingency 10.00% $422,715 $8,454 $13.60 3eveloper Equity $2.000 $100.000 $100.000 SIO0.OOC I'ota)s 415 j 60% 30% Legal $75.000 $1,500 $2.41 nvestor Equity $100.000 $1,405,872 $4,873,30.. ~ Bedroom 30% ~;i' !~ $5,146 J Taxes & Insurance $32.408 S648 $1.04 Fora{ Sources $7.692,623 $8.998,495 $8.998,49.~ ~ Bedroom 40% I ~'_~.~. $7.157 [ 100% 'r(tle $45,000 $900 $1.45 .~ Bedroom 50% I ~'//~'~' $9.168 AppralsallAudlt/Market Stqdy $27,500 $550 $0.88 ~ _~ Sedroom 60% 2 ~'~ $22,358 Operating & Repf. Rose.es $110.176 $2.204 $3.55 Acq & Land Related S0 $0 $C .~ Bedroom Constr Loan Fees $442.671 $8.853 $14,25 Construct[on $4.681,622 $4.681.622 $4,681,622 Totals 5 Costs of Issuance $0 $0 $0.00 Indirect Costs $2.005.402 $2.085.402 $2,085,402 3 Bedroom 30% 0 $0 Soft Cost Contingency $50.561 $1,011 $1.63 Financing $442.671 $442.671 $442.671 3 Bedroom 40% 0 $0 Syndication Costs $45,000 $900 $1.45 Contingency & Reserve $473,276 $583.453 $583,453 3 Bedroom 45% 0 $0 TCAC Fees $44,651 $893 $1.44 DevstoDer Fee, Admin & Guarantees $0 $1.115,696 $1,115.696 3 Bedroom 50% 0 Developer Fee/Admln Costs $1.115,696$22.314 $35.90 Syndication Costs $89.651 $89,651 $89,651 3 Bedroom 60% 0 $0 Total Uses $7.692.623 $8.998.495 $8.998,495 Totals 0 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $8.998,495$179,970 $289.57 Totals 59 $385,164 Surplusl{Gap) S0 $0 $0 SOORCES 16 YEAR CASH FLOW 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 % of TDC Constract~on Loan Amount $4,922.04855% Affordabla Rents $385,164 $394.793 $404.663 5414.780 $425,149 $435.778 $446.672 $457.839 ,$469.285 $481.017 Interesi 6.50% Less Vacancy ($19.258,($19,740} ($20.233)($20,739)($21.257.~$21.789)($22,334)($22,892) ($23,464) ($24,051) Term (months} 14 Laundry $4.800 $4.848 $4.896 $4,945 $4.995 $5,045 $5,095 $5.146 $5,198 $5.250 Effective Gross Income $370.706 $379,901 $389.326 $398.985 $408.886 $419.034 $429,434 $440,093 $451,018 $462.216 Inlerest Earned on Construction Loan Proceed Amount $114.848 1% Interesl 2% Residential Operating Expenses ($215,000) ($222.525) {$230,313) ($238,374) ($246,717j ($255,353) ($264,290} ($273,540) ($283,114} ($293.023) Term (months)14 Operating Reserve (% of oper. Cost) 3.00% ($6,450) ($6,676) 156.909~ ($7,151) ($7,402) ($7.661) ($7.929) ($8,206) ($8,493) ($8,791) Replacement Reserves $300 ($15,000)($15.525) ($16,068)($16,631)($17,213)($17,815)($18,439)($19,084) I$19.7521 ($20,443) ;ity of Dublin Contribution $39.715 Amounl $1.985.72722% Net Operating tscome $134,256 $135.176 $136.035 $136.830 $137.555 $138.205 $138,776 $139.263 $139.659 $139,959 Interest 3.00% Term 55 Debt Service Payment ($122,051) ($122,051) ($122,051) ($122,051) 1'$122.051) ($122,001) ($122,051.~ ($122,051) ($122.051} ($122,051) DCR 1.10 1.11 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.13 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.15 ~errnanent Debt Amounl $1.454.61716% Ground Lease Payment ($1) ($1) ($1) ($1) ($1) ($1) [$1) ($1) ($1) ($1) Modgsge Const 0.084 Rate T.50% Asset Management Fee ($5,000) ($5,175) ($5.356) ($5.544) ($5,738~ ($5,938) ($6,1463 ($6.361) ($6,584) ($6,814) Term 30 Parlnership Management Fee ($7.204) ($7.949) ($8,627) ($9,234) ($9,765t($10,215)($10.578)($10.850) ($11,023~ ($11.093): Effective Min. DCR 1.10 Residual Receipts Payment to City $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sumlus Cash Flow $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 --quity Investor (Tax Credit proceeds) Amounl $4.873.30354% Cents I dollar $0.88 ~OtvlE / CDBG $4,000 Amouct $200.000 2% ~ASSUMPTIONS I OPERATING ~=XPENSES Rate NA [/ ~ TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENSES Term NA :Site Ass [~]~o~[oJlS Market AssumDl~Ons Replacement Reserves $300 $15.900 Site Area (Acres) 1 approximately (PUPY) Term NA GrOSSDensityBUilding(units per AreaAcre) '31,07550 3.50% Residential Operating Expenses $4,300 $215,000 Other Soft Loans/Foundation gran $500 Amount $25.000 G.3% IAPN # $236,450 Rate kJA Census Tract Summary 9% FINAL for RFP