HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 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