Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda: Study Session: Senior Housing at 16 Campus DriveBACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
STAFF REPORT
Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
DATE: March 2, 2010
TO: Chairman and Members of the Agency Board
FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director
By: Jerry Schwartz, Economic Development Manager L IWS
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: PROPOSED AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT AT 16 CAMPUS DRIVE
Recommendation: Provide Direction
During the Study Session at the February 2 meeting, staff presented a proposal to
develop the Campus Commons, a 43 -unit affordable senior housing project at 16
Campus Drive. The project is proposed by the development team of Davila Properties
and Ashwood Construction. The proposed site is a 23,000 sq. ft. lot that currently has
seven apartments and is located just east of the baseball field at Arcadia High School.
The Agency Board requested that -staff contact the Arcadia School District to find out
their thoughts about the proposed project and to further evaluate the financial issues.
Staff has made that contact and it is summarized below, along with a brief review of
other issues related to this project.
The concern expressed by the School District was that the residents at the Campus
Commons, even if they are aware of the location adjacent to the high school, might
eventually have issues with school - related activities, including nighttime athletic events,
daily band practice, or the din of students on Campus Drive in the mornings and
afternoons. There was also concern about traffic on Campus Drive and the intersection
of Campus Drive and Santa Anita Avenue at peak times. The District recognized that
any development at this site would likely present some conflicts with the high school,
and that a senior housing project is a low traffic generator compared to a commercial
project.
The development team has attempted to address some of the Arcadia School District's
concerns in the package that is attached to this staff report. The marketing team used
by the developers has experience working with senior housing projects that are located
next to schools, and has had success with intergenerational activities that utilizes the
seniors to interact with the students. Additionally, the developers note that there are not
many affordable housing options for seniors, and the residents who live there will be
glad for the safe and high quality living environment. They also believe it is possible to
mitigate some of the noise from the school with the proper construction materials and
reduce the impact of lights from the baseball field through the use of mature
landscaping as a border.
REVIEW OF MAJOR PROJECT ELEMENTS
The proposed 43 -unit Campus Commons project is three stories over one parking level
for a total of four stories and a height of 46 feet. The density of 81 units per acre is
greater than the 63 units per acre allowed for senior housing on a commercially zoned
property. As discussed at the February 2 study session, these issues could be dealt
with through a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and other potential entitlements.
The development team prepared a project pro forma for a 33 -unit project that would
meet the allowed density at the project site. The result, as shown on the first page of
the attached materials, is that the construction costs would not decrease proportionally,
and the Agency's potential subsidy, on a per unit basis, would actually increase.
Additionally, the developers have received feedback from a lender and a tax credit
buyer, both of which have significantly less interest in being involved in a project that is
under 40 units. The attachment from the development team also includes a summary of
elements that are part of an optimal senior housing site, and how 16 Campus Drive
meets most of the criteria.
The development team is proposing to fund the project with 4% .tax credits and tax
exempt bonds. It is requesting $6.9 . million from the Agency to fund the - gap :between
the other funding sources and the total project costs. Staff has provided a table that
shows the Agency's financial status for both the general redevelopment account and the
low /mod housing fund. It is important to remember that the Agency owes $4,045,715 to
the housing fund, and a portion of the repayment could be invested in the Campus
Commons project. As was discussed at the February 2 Study Session, Kathe Head, the
Agency's housing consultant, indicated that the Agency could provide the funds
requested by the development team, but that it would need to be invested over time to
comply with State Law rather than as one lump sum payment.
CONCLUSION
The Agency Board should determine:
a) Is this site appropriate for a senior housing development?
b) Are the height, density, and other development standards appropriate for the
site?
c) Is the proposed Agency financial participation appropriate, given that it would be
the Agency's last senior housing project?
Staff Report
March 2, 2010
Page2of3
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction.
Approved by: ..SZ -P+--)
Donald Penman, City Manager /Executive Director
Attachments: Staff Report from February 2, 2010 Study Session
Arcadia Campus Commons Senior Apartments package
Table of Agency's Affordable Housing revenues
Staff Report
March 2, 2010
Page 3 of 3
Staff Report from February 2, 2010
STAFF REPORT
Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
DATE: February 2, 2010
TO: Chairman and Members of the Agency Board
FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director SL
By: Jerry Schwartz, Economic Development Manager .c
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: PROPOSED AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT AT 16 CAMPUS DRIVE
Recommendation: Provide Direction
BACKGROUND
The Arcadia Redevelopment Agency has received a proposal to develop an affordable
senior housing project at 16 Campus Drive, adjacent to the Arcadia High School
baseball field. There are currently seven apartments on the project site. The project is
being proposed by Davila Properties, which put together the Heritage Park senior
housing project on Live Oak, and Ashwood Construction, a builder of multiple family
housing projects. The proposal is to develop and manage a 43 unit project for low and
very low income senior citizens. The four story project will include amenities for the
- residents, - and the location is clo to the Community Center, Library, and Arcadia.
County Park. The proposed financing plan would include a contribution of the Agency's
low /mod housing fund designed as a long term loan, similar to Heritage Park. The
major elements and issues of this proposed development are discussed below.
ARA AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS
As was discussed during the adoption of the Five Year Implementation Plan last
December, one of the Agency's main responsibilities is to improve and increase the
supply of affordable housing. The Agency assisted in the construction of Heritage Park,
a 54 -unit senior project that opened in 2004, and the Alta Street Classics, a six -unit
townhome project for first time homebuyers. The Agency invested $1.8 million in the
Heritage Park project and $2.2 million in the Alta Street Classics. In July 2009 the
Agency closed escrow on the property at 15 Lucille Street at a cost of $538,000, and it
should be developed for up to four units of affordable housing. At the beginning of the
2009 -2010 fiscal year, the Agency had $5.1 million in its affordable housing fund. Up to
34% of the Agency's current and future affordable housing funds can be spent for
additional senior citizen housing. We have worked with our consultant, Keyser Marston,
to develop an accounting of the total amount of senior housing dollars available (current
and future) to be expended and this information will be available at the study session.
One of the key decisions to discuss is how this money should be expended.
ENTITLEMENT AND ZONING ISSUES
The proposed project would be a four story, 43 -unit senior citizen apartment project on
a 23,000 square foot site. Drawings that show the proposed project design is included
as part of the attachments to this staff report. The project is proposed as three levels of
residential units over a parking level for a total height of 46 feet. The units range from
625 to 777 square feet in size and the project would include a community room and a
great deal of private open space on the east side. Because the site is zoned for
commercial use, the commercial zoning standards would apply. A full design review and
site plan review would occur as part of the entitlement package but several major
project issues are described below. The project would require a Conditional Use Permit,
Design Review, and potentially several additional entitlements. Public hearings would
be required with both the Planning Commission and the Agency.
Site Planning Issues
Despite the commercial zoning of the site, this property is developed with 7 residential
units. The lot is in an excellent location for senior housing. The site is close to a number
of amenities and services and meets all relevant criteria for financing. Through careful
design of windows and sound attenuation, the proximity of an active open space area at
the High School can be viewed as an asset rather than a liability for residents of the
units. Additional open space is planned as a buffer between the units and the
commercial property to the east. Parking is under the units, opening up the site to allow
this important open space end to allow the increase in density sought.
Density
The Arcadia General Plan has a specific density allowance for senior affordable housing
of 63 units per acre on commercially zoned property. When this standard was set by
Resolution in 2002, a base density of 50 units per acre was applied to market rate
senior housing and a density bonus of 25% was added for affordable senior housing to
reach the number of 63 units per acre.
The proposed project is 81 units per acre. The applicant has stated that at least 40 units
are needed for this project to be attractive for financing and for a senior affordable
project in this location to pencil out. As part of the entitlement package, a General Plan
Amendment would be necessary to allow this increase in density.
Height
The allowable height in this zone is 40 feet and 3 stories. The proposal would be 4
stories and 46 feet in height. Affordable housing law allows "concessions" to be made
through the approval process to facilitate the construction of such housing by relaxing
development standards. For example, concessions were granted to the Alta Street
Classics affordable housing project (guest parking and a setback) to enable that project
Staff Report
February 2, 2010
Page 2 of 4
to proceed. The height requested by the applicant could be addressed through a similar
concession.
Parking
Parking is proposed for the project at a rate of .9 spaces per unit. There is no question
that senior housing projects require less parking than standard housing and affordable
housing projects limited to those 62 years of age and over also require Tess parking.
The Arcadia Municipal Code does not specify a parking requirement for senior housing;
the parking rate is determined on a case by case basis through the CUP process. In this
case, the rate of .9 spaces per unit has proven to be ample for similar projects and the
applicant is confident in this number. Much of the service to this development would be
pick -up and drop -off service in front of the building. Because of the school, there is no
on- street parking to consider.
FINANCIAL PROPOSAL
The development team is proposing to fund the project in the lowest cost method
possible so that the low and very low income rents can cover the operating and
financing costs. The financing proposal includes applying for 4% tax credits and issuing
tax exempt bonds. This is the method that was used for the Heritage Park project. Like
Heritage Park, this process leaves a funding gap that would be bridged through a
deferred loan from the Agency's low and moderate income housing fund.
According to the project pro forma provided by the development team, the total
estimated project cost is $12,359,466, and it would include a $6.9 million deferred loan
from the Agency's low /mod housing fund. As discussed above, the Agency began the
current fiscal with about $5.1 million in affordable housing fund. It is important to
note that the Agency owes $4,045,715 to the housing fund, and that these funds could
be repaid as soon as later this calendar year if it proceeds with a tax allocation bond
issue. This $6.9 million proposed as a participation amount would effectively make this
the last affordable senior housing project that the Agency could develop. The details of
how the Agency would invest its housing funds would be worked out with the
developers if there is direction to proceed with this project.
ISSUES TO CONSIDER
In its deliberations, the Agency Board should consider these questions:
a) Is this the appropriate location for a senior unit development?
b) Are the height and density and other development standards appropriate for the
site?
c) The proposed Agency participation would make this the last affordable senior
housing project the Agency would develop. Is this a desired use of the Agency's
funding and at what amount?
Staff Report
February 2, 2010
Page 3 of 4
As you know, significant development sites are difficult to find in Arcadia. High land
costs in Arcadia increase the Agency's level of financial participation for affordable
housing. Receiving a proposal to develop affordable housing certainly facilitates the
opportunity to expend our low /mod funds and eliminate any future concerns about
excess surplus. If the Agency Board chooses to proceed, it would be partnering with an
experienced development team that has successfully developed multiple family housing
in Arcadia. Additional information from the developers about the project, financing plan,
their experience, and proposed design are attached to this staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction.
Approved by: 3>or,a.-c.Q
Donald Penman, City Manager /Executive Director
Exhibit A: "Campus Commons" Project Description and Information Package
Staff Report
February 2, 2010
Page 4of4
Arcadia Campus Commons
Senior Apartments
Package from Developers
ARCADIA CAMPUS COMMONS SENIOR APARTMENTS
February 9, 2010
1
As follow up to the comments and questions posed by the City Council regarding the proposed
Campus Commons Affordable Senior Apartments, we are providing additional information and
input regarding the following topics;
1. Site Compatibility with Arcadia High School; the placement of senior communities
adjacent to facilities with high level of activities is typically considered a positive for
locations. Examples and input from a highly regarded market analyst in senior housing is
attached to provide you a glimpse into how the facilities are received with evaluations
directly from the day to day managers. There is substantial information from the senior
housing industry to support the position and we can provide the additional material as
needed.
Ultimately the primary goal is to provide quality, safe, and affordable housing for our
senior population who have limited housing options. Out residents are frequently coming
from housing that may be unsafe or isolating to seniors because of makeup of the
residents around them, substandard properties, or they may no longer be able to afford to
remain in Arcadia or the surrounding communities. It may also be the only opportunity
for residents to move closer to family members who can support them emotionally and
enhance their wellbeing.
a. Site Development; the property has been marketed for commercial development
and will be again if we are not successful in acquiring the site. The land has been
in escrow previously subject to financing which could not be.obtained.at this time.
However a more intense commercial use will occur on the site in the future if not
developed as senior affordable housing. The point being that the senior housing
project will be a less intrusive neighbor to the school and surrounding uses than
will businesses that will be impacted by traffic flow and pedestrian traffic. The
ownership will not sell the property based on the existing use.
2. Development/Financing Timeline: attached is a financing and entitlement timeline for
the project. The timeline indicates the critical tasks and the time we need to be in a
position to apply for the needed project financing and to meet our bench marks in the
escrow. In order to file for the Tax - Exempt Bonds at the required deadline of July 22n
we must have met our threshold requirements of approval of all discretionary hearings
for entitlements and a financing commitment from the Agency. Considering the process
we must complete in order to meet both of the thresholds we are becoming limited in our
flexibility in the schedule to perform all of the tasks on time. The project is becoming
very time sensitive and we want to be sure all are informed on the schedule.
3. Financial Analysis of 43 Units vs. 33 Units; the financial analysis of a 33 unit project
reflects a per unit subsidy requirement of $201,000 per unit or assistance of
approximately $6,550,000. The efficiency of the development of the 33 units decreases
significantly since so many of the costs are fixed or are minimum expenditures such as
ARCADIA CAMPUS COMMONS SENIOR APARTMENTS
land, relocation, legal, architecture and engineering, construction general requirements,
legal (bonds), parking structure, elevator, community room, pool, just to name a few. The
lender and investor pool begin rejecting projects even the size of the 43 units. The
investors and lenders have more projects to select from than they have funds to lend or
invest and have less time to devote to underwriting a project. If they can do a 74 unit for
the same effort rather than two 37 unit projects, they will. We have input from both
California Bank and Trust and Alliant Capital, our affordable housing lender and
investor, that they will have significant resistance below the 40 unit mark.
Another consideration is that as the amount of cash flow goes down to service the cash
residual loan and deferred developer fee, we reach a point where these obligations cannot
be retired in the required time period. Meeting these thresholds is required by the tax
credit investor (due to IRS requirements) and it does not appear likely we can achieve the
needed results based on the cash flow from 33 units servicing the higher cash residual
debt per unit.
Financial Summary
Project Costs
Gross Tax Credits
Tax Credit Proceeds
Permanent Debt
33 Units 43 Units
$10,730,875 $12,359,466
$ 3,628,680 $ 4,409,090
$ 2,550,076 $ 3,086,363
$ 1,540,799 $ 2,200,360
4. Density/Design; We believe our proposed density on the project is within the "practical
range" for the site as an affordable housing project. The strict limitation on the number
of units would create some undesirable results and would do little to change the
architectural impact of the project notwithstanding the financial impact. We are
providing the following comments as additional input for consideration in the "density"
discussion.
• The General Plan as adopted is in conflict with the current Density Bonus
Ordinance. An appropriate solution would be to leave Council some flexibility
in evaluating a particular project rather than an absolute number.
• In order to achieve the minimum standard of 33 units we will still need to
have three stories of residential units with 14 units per floor. The third floor
will only be comprised of five units. The general mass of the building will not
change and will not have a positive impact the building's design.
• The four -story structure with parking on the ground level is the most cost
efficient design and significantly benefits the City as it relates to the required
financial contribution. We believe we can reduce our building height
2
ARCADIA CAMPUS COMMONS SENIOR APARTMENTS
3
somewhat without adversely impacting the appearance of the building.
Mentioned in the Study Session was a comparable building height project, the
24 Hour Fitness facilities on Live Oak. But it should be noted that it is a flat
wall with little to break up the mass of the building surface as opposed to
windows and balconies on the elevations of the residential building.
Apt Market Research
February 9, 2010
Mr. Roger Davila
DAVILA PROPERTIES LLC
296 White Cap Lane
Newport Coast, CA 92657
Mr. Steve Froberg
ASHWOOD CONSTRUCTION
5755 E. Kings Canyon Road
Fresno, CA 93727
RE: SITE FACTORS —16 CAMPUS, ARCADIA
Gentlemen:
The data presented in this memorandum reflects research on age- restricted ( "senior ") apartment projects
we've conducted dating back to the mid- 1980s. Nearly half of the 50 to 60 market studies we conduct each
year involve this specialized segment of the rental market, and our custom database contains nearly 800
senior apartment projects identified and surveyed in the course of 400+ studies performed in California and 21
other states.
This memorandum addresses Iocational factors as they relate to affordable senior apartment development
proposed at 16 Campus Drive in Arcadia. This 0.53 -acre site is west of the southwest corner of Campus Drive
and Santa Anita Avenue, adjoining the playing fields of Arcadia. High. School.
"16 CAMPUS" PROPOSED SENIOR APARTMENT SITE
The specific focus of this analysis is the potential effects of the adjoining high school on marketability and
livability of senior apartments.
151 Kalmus Drive, Suite ) -5A Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(714) 668 -9600 phone (714) 668 -9603 FAX www.aptmarketresearch.com
Mr. Roger Davila
Mr. Steve Froberg
DAVILA PROPERTIES LLC & ASHWOOD CONSTRUCTION
February 9, 2010
Page 2
SITING CONSIDERATIONS — SENIOR APARTMENTS
The critical factors underlying senior apartment site selection relate to 1) political /financing realities
[particularly the need for high "point scoring" for tax credit submittals] and 2) marketability and livability,
[including visibility and access as well as proximity to shopping and services]. On both measures, in -fill sites
are superior to those that remote or isolated, no matter how otherwise desirable against typical real estate
standards.
Due to the concerted focus on securing in -fill locations and the need to successfully integrate senior
apartments into a variety of neighborhoods /land uses, thoughtful site layout (e.g., driveway configurations and
building orientations) as well as sound attenuation has become the industry standard for affordable senior
apartment development.
"The Perfect Site"
Based on evaluating hundreds of senior apartment sites and tracking project performance, we've developed
the following checklist of ideal site characteristics for affordable senior apartments:
Conversely, problematic ( "bad ") senior apartment sites are those dominated by the following characteristics:
The proposed "16 Campus" site has none of the problematic site factors, and scores well on many of the
optimal factors, most notably very good proximity to services (including bus transportation, senior center and
hospital) [Exhibit 1] and very good visibility /access. Rated on our standard, 1 -10 (10 high) rating scale, we
would score the "16 Campus" site at or above "9."
OPTIMAL SITE PREREQUISITES FOR SENIOR APARTMENTS
•
in -fill site next to or near new /newer grocery- anchored shopping center(s)
•
linear frontage on signalized major arterial with a secondary egress point
•
traffic counts of 20,000+ vehicles per day on primary frontage
•
backing to good quality residential
•
on bus line
•
in well- regarded, established community with relatively limited other new apartment
development
•
limited terrain differentials
•
hospital within 3 miles; other shopping /services within 0 to 1 mile
•
3 -story product permissible by local zoning /politics
Mr. Roger Davila
Mr. Steve Froberg
DAVILA PROPERTIES LLC & ASHWOOD CONSTRUCTION
February 9, 2010
Page 2
SITING CONSIDERATIONS — SENIOR APARTMENTS
The critical factors underlying senior apartment site selection relate to 1) political /financing realities
[particularly the need for high "point scoring" for tax credit submittals] and 2) marketability and livability,
[including visibility and access as well as proximity to shopping and services]. On both measures, in -fill sites
are superior to those that remote or isolated, no matter how otherwise desirable against typical real estate
standards.
Due to the concerted focus on securing in -fill locations and the need to successfully integrate senior
apartments into a variety of neighborhoods /land uses, thoughtful site layout (e.g., driveway configurations and
building orientations) as well as sound attenuation has become the industry standard for affordable senior
apartment development.
"The Perfect Site"
Based on evaluating hundreds of senior apartment sites and tracking project performance, we've developed
the following checklist of ideal site characteristics for affordable senior apartments:
Conversely, problematic ( "bad ") senior apartment sites are those dominated by the following characteristics:
The proposed "16 Campus" site has none of the problematic site factors, and scores well on many of the
optimal factors, most notably very good proximity to services (including bus transportation, senior center and
hospital) [Exhibit 1] and very good visibility /access. Rated on our standard, 1 -10 (10 high) rating scale, we
would score the "16 Campus" site at or above "9."
POOR SITES FOR MARKET RATE SENIOR APARTMENTS
•
perceived dangerous or threatening neighborhood (graffiti, security bars, poor local
reputation)
•
"buried" (no visibility)
•
remote or isolated: no major services within a mile
•
low quality surrounding land uses (e.g., industrial, class C retail such as auto repair,
bars)
•
2 -story height limitation
•
extremely hilly terrain
Mr. Roger Davila
Mr. Steve Froberg
DAVILA PROPERTIES LLC & ASHWOOD CONSTRUCTION
February 9, 2010
Page 2
SITING CONSIDERATIONS — SENIOR APARTMENTS
The critical factors underlying senior apartment site selection relate to 1) political /financing realities
[particularly the need for high "point scoring" for tax credit submittals] and 2) marketability and livability,
[including visibility and access as well as proximity to shopping and services]. On both measures, in -fill sites
are superior to those that remote or isolated, no matter how otherwise desirable against typical real estate
standards.
Due to the concerted focus on securing in -fill locations and the need to successfully integrate senior
apartments into a variety of neighborhoods /land uses, thoughtful site layout (e.g., driveway configurations and
building orientations) as well as sound attenuation has become the industry standard for affordable senior
apartment development.
"The Perfect Site"
Based on evaluating hundreds of senior apartment sites and tracking project performance, we've developed
the following checklist of ideal site characteristics for affordable senior apartments:
Conversely, problematic ( "bad ") senior apartment sites are those dominated by the following characteristics:
The proposed "16 Campus" site has none of the problematic site factors, and scores well on many of the
optimal factors, most notably very good proximity to services (including bus transportation, senior center and
hospital) [Exhibit 1] and very good visibility /access. Rated on our standard, 1 -10 (10 high) rating scale, we
would score the "16 Campus" site at or above "9."
Mr. Roger Davila
Mr. Steve Froberg
DAVILA PROPERTIES LLC & ASHWOOD CONSTRUCTION
February 9, 2010
Page 3
Effects of Adjacent High School
Our database contains 611 existing /under construction senior apartment projects (affordable and /or market
rate) in California. Many are located adjacent to or across from schools or other facilities that generate traffic
and /or noise (e.g., hospitals, sports parks, transit stations, shopping centers).
We contacted on -site managers for a sampling of senior apartment projects built near high schools to compile
1) data on occupancy levels [as a statistical measure of market acceptance] and 2) managers' comments on
pro /con effects of school adjacency.
We also contacted the manager of the one existing senior tax credit apartment project in Arcadia, Heritage
Park at Arcadia, to explore characteristics that may shed Tight on the likely resident profile for the proposed 43-
unit affordable tax credit senior project at 16 Campus. (We prepared the market study used to obtain financing
for Heritage Park at Arcadia and visited the site several times.)
IMPLICATIONS OF HERITAGE PARK AT ARCADIA FOR "16 CAMPUS"
Heritage Park at Arcadia is a 53 -unit, six - year -old tax credit senior apartment project [Exhibit 2] on 150 W. Las
Tunas Drive, 1.5 miles south of the subject site [Exhibit 3]. It was 100% pre - leased before it opened in
September 2004. Heritage Park at Arcadia is currently 100% occupied, with a waiting list of 100 senior
households. With turnover averaging just 6% per year (3 units), this translates to a multi -year wait.
None (0 %) of the residents of Heritage Park at Arcadia are employed. This suggests that "16 Campus" is likely
to have few or no employed seniors among its residents. Consequently, impacts from the morning arrival time
at Arcadia High School [prior to the 8:00 a.m. start of Period 1] will be minor, since few or no residents of the
adjoining "16 Campus" senior apartment project will be departing for work. Afternoon traffic activity at the high
school is likely to be staggered, since some students are likely to remain after the 2:51 p.m. bell for Period 6 to
attend sports practices, tutoring, club meetings and other extra - curricular activities.
CASE STUDIES: EFFECTS OF HIGH SCHOOL PROXIMITY ON SENIOR APARTMENTS
Data compiled on five senior apartment projects built in California reveals that proximity to high schools
represents a positive site factor.
• Managers praise the structured as well as informal interactions between senior apartment residents and
high school students that often transpire.. -- _
• High occupancy levels and extensive interest lists document that high school proximity does not serve as
a deterrent to seniors.
FountainGlen Temecula I & II, Temecula
FountainGlen Temecula is a 346 -unit, market rate senior apartment project built in two phases: Phase I of 244
units in 2001 and Phase II of 102 units in 2005. [Exhibit 4.] The project adjoins Chaparral High School, one of
three high schools in the Temecula Valley Unified School District, with approximately 2,250 students.
Mr. Roger Davila
Mr. Steve Froberg
DAVILA PROPERTIES LLC & ASHWOOD CONSTRUCTION
February 9, 2010
Page 4
The project's former assistant manager (2006 to 2008) reports that FountainGlen Temecula benefits from its
proximity to the high school, which has enabled interaction between senior residents and teenagers.
"Seniors attend the games and the high school's drama performances. Some of our
residents have grandchildren attending Chaparral High School and they come by after
school to visit. The residents also sit outside just to watch the students coming and
going.
The Honor Society holds a dance each year in our Community Room for our seniors.
The residents love the dance and the students are so kind to those in attendance.
Our property management has a great relationship with the school administrators and
students. [The developer] built Phase II because the location of Phase I was so
successful. I would recommend building a senior community in close proximity to a
high school for the proven advantages."
The Inn at Woodbridge, Irvine
The Inn at Woodbridge in Irvine [Exhibit 5], built in 1996, is situated amid a concentration of development that
includes a special education school that serves all of Orange County; lighted ball fields; a fire /paramedic
station; Boys & Girls Club; and Kaiser Permanente medical office building. [Exhibit 6.] The project is 100%
occupied, with a 140 -name waiting list (2- to 4 -year wait).
The resident manager reports no negative impacts from the intense array of nearby land uses:
"My seniors love being 'in the middle of the action,' and never complain about noise or
traffic. Many especially enjoy proximity to the fire trucks and wave or salute to the
firemen went they depart for an emergency. We have 140 senior households on the
waiting list for our income - restricted apartments."
Mr. Roger Davila
Mr. Steve Froberg
DAVILA PROPERTIES LLC & ASHWOOD CONSTRUCTION
February 9, 2010
Page 5
Casa Grande, Petaluma
The benefits of inter - generational interaction were voiced by the manager of a new affordable senior project in
Petaluma, "Casa Grande," [Exhibit 7] which is directly across the street from that city's high school in Sonoma
County. [Exhibit 8.] This 57 -unit project was built in 2008. It is 100% occupied, with a waiting list.
"We have formed a relationship with the Intergenerational Class at Casa Grande High
School and the students do their volunteer hours here helping the residents. The
students teach line dancing and have gatherings where students and seniors can
share experiences, which bring a greater understanding to both groups. Residents sit
on their patios and watch soccer games across the street. It is an opportunity for
learning, understanding and a greater appreciation for each group. I can't tell you how
beneficial it is for the seniors to have contact with these young adults and to see the
world through their eyes."
Jasmine Square at Founders Village, Fountain Valley
Vicki Clark, president of Western Seniors Housing, which provides fee - management services for 20 senior
apartment communities in California, actively advocates for co- locating senior apartment communities with
schools.
"As a property manager, I would strongly support the development of a senior
community next to a school. In 2004 we opened a 156 unit senior LIHTC project directly
across the street from Fountain Valley High School and have found the relationship
between the students and our residents to be a benefit to both. When students have
special projects dealing with aging or history, they come over to work with our seniors.
The Glee Club choir often sings for our seniors at holidays. Recently, the school
agreed to allow our senior Walking Club.to use their track.
We have found that our seniors actually like the daily activity of seeing the students
come and go — it allows them to feel as though they are still in touch with our youth."
The referenced project is located across the street from Fountain Valley High School (student body of 3,245).
VIII
nslato
uunr v
CONCLUSION
Case study analysis supports our contention that proximity to Arcadia
future residents of the planned senior apartment community, and
interactions with students.
Please call or email with any questions.
Sincerely,
APT MARKET RESEARCH
Annie Gerard, CRE, CAASH
Principal
Mr. Roger Davila
Mr. Steve Froberg
DAVILA PROPERTIES LLC & ASHWOOD CONSTRUCTION
February 9, 2010
Page 6
J o. y ct a #m,v,,,c
Joyce Hummel
Principal
High School will not negatively affect
may well enhance it by facilitating
Ara d .,.
16 pa . [Jr,, Arta '"
Park & Facilities,
Senior Recreation
uE e alt 235kla"
EXHIBIT 1
Interior Features
Project Amenities
LEI Air Conditioning
❑ Garages
Li Pull Cords
1 Clubhouse
0 Open Spaces Only
LI Crafts/Hobbv Room
0 Patio
❑ Security Patrol
n Sliders
n Full Kitchen
m Elevator
O Balcony
❑ Carports
m Walk -in Closets
IU Media Room/TV/VCR
• Shuffleboard
❑ Patio/Balcony Storage
•
I Sprinklered
• Lounge
• Courtyard
• Putting Green
Refrigerator
❑ Drapes
❑ Pool
• Fitness Center
❑ Gardening Area
❑ Microwave
60%
Ei Blinds/Verticals
■Sauna
• Spa
• Wading Pool
n Dishwasher
❑ Multiple Phone Lines
• Tennis
n Sport Court
0 Scheduled Activities
1 Garbage Disposal
M Tub Shower
❑ Tot Lot
❑ Barbecues
❑ On -site Child Care
,.
❑ Greenhouse Window . `
-'-
❑ .
- � Shower Stall
Cl Leasing Office
n Secured Mail
• Beauty Shop
• Front Screen Door
0 Grab Bars
• Business Center
❑ Car Wash
• Common Storage
• Ceiling Fan
❑ Washer/Drver Hook -ups
• Computer Center
0 Trash Chutes
• Fireplace
• Washer/Dryer Appliances
n Laundry Room
❑ Vaulted Ceiling
O Internet Access
Other Features:
Gas stove
Parking
Security
Comments:
Total 54 units, 1 mgt. 100% Preleased. By CO 9/1/2004;
100% occupied 12/1/2004. 48 pkg spaces = 0.91 space/
unit. Age range 62 -95. None work.
Date Occ HCV 2phh Imported T'over Wtg list
9/05 100% 1 29= 55% 10% 6% 250
1/10 100% 18 20 =38/0 10% 6/0 100
❑ Garages
0 Gated Community
• Gated Parking
0 Open Spaces Only
ri Some open spaces • Subterranean
''J Full Perimeter Fencing
❑ Security Patrol
• Street Only
17 Tuckunder Structure
• Partial Fencing
n Locked Buildings
❑ Carports
Parking Extra Charge:
0 Deadbolts
• In -Unit Alarm
100%
•
• Electricity
I n Gas
Policies
Owner Paid Utilities Tenant Paid Utilities
Comments:
Total 54 units, 1 mgt. 100% Preleased. By CO 9/1/2004;
100% occupied 12/1/2004. 48 pkg spaces = 0.91 space/
unit. Age range 62 -95. None work.
Date Occ HCV 2phh Imported T'over Wtg list
9/05 100% 1 29= 55% 10% 6% 250
1/10 100% 18 20 =38/0 10% 6/0 100
Minimum Lease: 6 Mos
Security Deposit: $188
Pets Allowed: Yes
Pet Deposit: $87.60
be]
Water
Trash
Gas
LJ Hot Water
❑ Cable
❑ Water
U Hot Water
i Cable
I
• Heating
• Trash
0 Heating
1 / 1
291 0
100%
•
• Electricity
I n Gas
m Electricity
$1.21
Flat
2 / 1
Heritage Park at Arcadia SR TC
150 W Las Tunas Dr
Arcadia CA 91007
(626) 821 - 9048 Date: 1/22/2010
Units: 63 Product Type: Tax Credit
Year Built: 2004 Age Restricted: 62
Contact :
Elevation: 3 Olga
Owner: AIG Sun America
Mgmt. Co.: USA Multifamily Mgt
Comments:
Total 54 units, 1 mgt. 100% Preleased. By CO 9/1/2004;
100% occupied 12/1/2004. 48 pkg spaces = 0.91 space/
unit. Age range 62 -95. None work.
Date Occ HCV 2phh Imported T'over Wtg list
9/05 100% 1 29= 55% 10% 6% 250
1/10 100% 18 20 =38/0 10% 6/0 100
Floor Plan Description Unit Mix / Vacant % Occupied Monthly Rent %MAI Square Feet Value.Ratio($ /SF)I
Flat
1 I 1
161 0
100%
$579
50%
582
$0.99
Flat
1 / 1
291 0
100%
$703
60%
682
$1.21
Flat
2 / 1
8 / 0
100%
$786
60%
861
$0.91
EXHIBIT 2
Project Total:
53/0
100.0%
PROPERTY PROFILE
Copyright © 2004 Apt Market Research
Friday, January 22, 2010
3498
^ V
0
a.
W
2
Q
cL
0
w
z
V /
0
0
-J
M
CO
2
W
E� f ILO ii_J IL]
+ o9 l I any. euelaaal ,J ( �
I ,
" want' .uaaa 6a>edr
�► �`Vlayf oie Ave
c
is
En 7a-- " , �,
. t
1 i_ -� w :'n-
{ =6th A e , tr '
- - 7�j-S:-5th= Ave
1.�_ .h l v 'L
I _
� rd - - Sit �le�t�
Q I
.._- l� `R-7.1611,-
,I 1 ,
° » ? Gree n field= A IC �- Ave
j t l � I` V
f-
'� �p 1 �S 1 � =1 A�ie ' � � � C ` ,
_I' 3
C
� L� � -,. _ 1 - [, t CO 0
. L I nta +t A v, no 5 , '6
I
a:
/A. I .p er
�,
h. d{ i° = Au: IAA d N
c' 5. 1 J +
I � � r
3 , 1c
46 i
NN, ` IE 3 a � I �t I f (
ff ( t J
- ° tea �.
.a el " ,w _ .. A.
�r HbJI A �_ § ~ - I I� = c co
�Veltana
VyF "�Vw
m Serc►p }
i1 -
It [rah �, i s �I i1
co
Interior Features
Project Amenities
U Air Conditioning
U
Pull Cords
U Clubhouse
Water
Trash
Gas
U Crafts /Hobby Room
n Patio
n
Sliders
0 Full Kitchen
0 Elevator
0 Balcony
M
Walk -in Closets
U Media Room/TV/VCR
❑ Shuffleboard
0 Patio /Balcony Storage
0
Sprinklered
M Lounge
• Courtyard
0 Putting Green
66 Refrigerator
•
Drapes
7 Pool
O Fitness Center
❑ Gardening Area
h Microwave
I[ Blinds/Verticals
❑ Sauna
Cl Sna
• Wadinx Pool
LJ Dishwasher
❑ Multiple Phone Lines
• Tennis
• Snort Court
0 Scheduled Activities
'J Garbage Disposal
0
Tub Shower
• Tot Lot
• Barbecues
•
On -site Child Care
• Greenhouse Window
Project 11
•
Shower Stall '
r Leasing Office
R Secured Mail
•
Beauty Shop
• Front Screen Door
71
Grab Bars
M Business Center
• Car Wash
• Common Storage
• Ceiling Fan
•
Washer/Dryer Hook -ups
❑ Computer Center
MI Trash. Chutes
• Fireplace
•
Washer /Dryer Appliances
J Laundry Room
• Vaulted Ceiling
Ri Internet Access
Other Protect Amenities:
Other Features:
Gas Stove
Library, computer ctr
Parking
Owner Paid Utilities
Security
Flat
❑ Open Spaces Only
❑ Garages
Water
Trash
Gas
71 Gated Community
•
Gated Parking
R Some open spaces
• Subterranean
k Hot Water
MI Full Perimeter Fencing
•
Security Patrol
■ I 1
0 Heating
• Partial Fencin ,
• I . ° l :. II'
M Carports
Parking Extra Charge:
$30
0 Deadbolts
• In -Unit Alarm
$916 - $966
730.
$1.25 - $1.32
Flat
Policies
Owner Paid Utilities
Tenant Paid Utilities
Flat
Minimum Lease: Mo /Mo
Security Deposit: $300
Pets Allowed: Yes
Pet Deposit: $500
I i
Water
Trash
Gas
LJ
Hot Water
Heating
Electricity
LJ Cable
LJ
Water
Trash
Gas
k Hot Water
I i Cable
MI
•
•
0 Heating
633
$1.30 - $1.37
Flat
•
•
0
71 Electricity
$916 - $966
730.
$1.25 - $1.32
FountainGlen Temecula SR I
27250 Nicolas Rd
Temecula CA 92591
(951) 506 -1679 Date: 3/18/2009
Units: 244 Product Type: Market Rate
Year Built: 2001 Age Restricted: 65
Renovation: Contact :
Elevation: 2 &3 Jackie Ramizez, Tammy
Owner: Clarett / Prudential
Mgmt. Co.: Clarett
Comments:
15 HCV. Rents = 6 or 12 mo lease; MTM + $50 /mo.
Premium = 1st fir or pool- corner -view
Date 1/1 2/1 2/2 Occ Carport T'over
12/01 $680 -755 $780 -855 $880 - 955 $20
12/02 $700 -800 $830 -880 $880 -955 0 $20
5/03 $725 -800 $830 -925 $880 - 930 96.7% $20
5/05 $770 - 845 $870 - 945 $915 - 965 95.9% $25
6/06 $770 -870 $870 -965 $915 -990 95.9% $30
7/07 $790 -865 $910 -980 $930 -985 99.6% $30
5/08 $795 -870 $915 -985 $935 -990 95.1% $30 34%
3/09 $795 -870 $915 -985 $935 -990 97.5% $30 34%
Floor Plan Description Unit Mix / Vacant % Occupied Monthly Rent %MAI Square Feet Value Ratio($ /SF)
Flat
1/ 1
1271 0
100%
$795 - $845
580
$1.37 - $1.46
Flat
1 / 1
18 / 0
100%
$820 - $870
633
$1.30 - $1.37
Flat
2 / 1
461 4
91%
$916 - $966
730.
$1.25 - $1.32
Flat
2 / 1
12 / 1
92%
$935 - $985
735
$1.27 - $1.34
Flat
2 / 2
41 / 1
98%
$940 - $990
813
$1.16 - $1.22
Project 11
till: 244 / 6 97.5%
EXHIBIT 4
PROPERTY PROFILE
Copyright © 2004 Apt Market Research
Monday, February 08, 2010
1568
Interior Features Project Amenities
L1 Air Conditioning
Li Pull Cords
Lv1 Clubhouse L1 Crafts/Hobby Room
tu Patio
0 Sliders
0 Full Kitchen
5 Elevator
C Balcony
0 Walk -in Closets
J Media Room/TV/VCR
❑ Shuffleboard
❑ PatioBalcony Storage
i Sprinklered
• Lounge ❑ .Courtyard
• Putting Green
ni Refrigerator
❑ Drapes
5 Pool 0 Fitness Center
• Gardening Area
Microwave
51 Blinds/Verticals
• Sauna ,Spa
• Wading Pool
n Dishwasher
• -= Multiple Phone Lines
❑ Tennis ' • Sport Court
0 Scheduled Activities
n Garbage Disposal
n Tub Shower
• Tot Lot 22 Barbecues
❑ On-site Child Care
• Greenhouse Window
0 Shower Stall
n Leasing Office rg Secured Mail
❑. Beauty Shop
❑ Front Screen Door
• Grab Bars
tu Business Center • Car Wash
• Common Storage
• Ceiling Fan
MI Washer/Drver Hook -ups
• Computer Center
0 Trash Chutes
• Fireplace
• Washer/Drver Appliances
5 Laundry Room
$1.41
• Vaulted Ceiling
I Internet Access
Other Project Amenities:
181 1
Other Features:
Gas Stove
fire pit
Parking
Comments:
Minimum Lease: Mo /Mo
Security Deposit: $3004400
Pets Allowed: Yes
Pet Deposit: $600
Security
L Hot Water
• Open Spaces Only
• Garages '
L l Hot Water
1 Heating
2 Gated Community
• Gated Parking
n Some open spaces
❑ Subterranean
Renovation: Contact :
MI Full Perimeter Fencing
❑ Securityyatrol
• Street Only
fI Tuckunder Structure
I Gas
• Partial Fencing
Ill Locked Buntlines
tn Carports
Parking Extra Charge:
$30
MI Deadbolts
• In -Unit Alarm
Policies Owner Paid Utilities Tenant Paid Utilities
Comments:
Minimum Lease: Mo /Mo
Security Deposit: $3004400
Pets Allowed: Yes
Pet Deposit: $600
■Water
L Hot Water
L Cable
Li Water
L l Hot Water
1 Heating
U Cable
I Trash
• Heating
• Trash
Renovation: Contact :
6/06 $875 $930 $965 $1030 $1090 $1050 85% $30
Elevation: 2 & 3 Jackie Ramirez. Tammy
• Gas
• Electricity
I Gas
m Electricity
3/09 $900 $955 $990 $1075 $1135 $1135 89% $30
Floor Plan Description Unit Mix / Vacant % Occupied Monthly Rent %MAI Square Feet Value Ratio(S/SF)I
Flat
FountainGlen Temecula SR 1I
27250 Nicolas Rd
Comments:
MTM+ $50. CO 5/15/05. Stabilized 9/15/06 = 6.5 u /mo
Temecula CA 92591
absorption. 2/2, $25 view premium. Use Ph I pool,
(951) 506 -1579 Date: 3/18/2009
clubhouse. 2 spas. 5 use HCV. 36% turnover. Need stall
Units: 102 Product Type: Market Rate
showers, bigger BR sizing.
Year Built: 2005 Age Restricted: 55
Date 1/1 1/1 1/1 2/1 2/1 2/2 Occ Carport
3/06 $875 $930 $930 $1030 $1090 $1050 $30
Renovation: Contact :
6/06 $875 $930 $965 $1030 $1090 $1050 85% $30
Elevation: 2 & 3 Jackie Ramirez. Tammy
7/07 $895 $950 $980 $1070 $1130 $1130 96% $30
Owner: Clarett/ Prudential
5/08 $900 $955 $990 $1075 $1135 $1135 91% $30
Mgmt. Co.: Clarett
3/09 $900 $955 $990 $1075 $1135 $1135 89% $30
Floor Plan Description Unit Mix / Vacant % Occupied Monthly Rent %MAI Square Feet Value Ratio(S/SF)I
Flat
1 / 1
48 1 5
90%
$900
613
$1.47
Flat
1 / 1
6 / 3
50%
$955
673
$1.42
Flat
1 / 1
8 / 0
100%
$990
700
$1.41
Flat
2 / 1
181 1
94%
$1076
783
$1.37
Flat
2 / 1
6 / 0
100%
$1135
854
$1.33
Flat
2 / 1.75
16 / 2
88%
$1135 - $1160
853
$1.33 = $1.36
Pro jest TT
tul: 102 / 11 89.2%
EXHIBIT 4
PROPERTY PROFILE
Copyright © 2004 Apt Market Research
Monday, February 08, 2010
4117
EXHIBIT 4
FountainGlen at Temecula I & H (Senior Market Rate Apartments)
Temecula, CA
2010 Gooq(i+....
Imnrfr x!;'101
1 74' tJ 117 f'%40 Y 4' V'l .elev ■ 092 .ft
Linda Daniel, Assistant manager & leasing agent 2/2006 - 6/2008
(714) 390 -0929
"Seniors attend the games and the high school's drama performances. Some of our
residents have grandchildren attending Chaparral High School and they come by
after school to visit. The residents also sit outside just to watch the students coming
and going.
The Honor Society holds a dance each year in our Community Room for our
seniors. The residents love the dance and the students are so kind to those in
attendance.
Our property management has a great relationship with the school administrators
and students. FountainGlen built Phase II because the location of Phase I was so
successful. I would recommend building a senior community in close proximity to a
high school for the proven advantages."
Parking
Interior Features Project Amenities
LJ
Air Conditioning
{ i Pull Cords
Ll Clubhouse
L I Crafts/Hobbv Room
•
Patio
• Sliders
0 Full Kitchen
• Elevator
❑ Street Only
Balcon
I Walk -in Closets
LJ Media Room/TV/VCR
!• Shuffleboard
• Putting Green
•
Patio /Balcony Storage
0 Sprinklered
• Lounge ❑ Courtyard
• Gas
Refrigerator
❑ "Drupes
• Pool •
Fitness Center
■ Gardening Area
•
Microwave
5 BlindsNerticals
• Sauna •
Spa
• Wading Pool
•
Dishwasher
• Multiple Phone Ines
• ' , , •
, , I
t , ' I , . 1 ''
0 Garba' a Disposal
0 Tub Shower
Flat
• Tot Lot • : r ,
•
Greenhouse Window
❑ Shower Stall
$661
Leasing Office • Secured Mali
❑ Beauty Shop
n
Front Screen Door
n Grab Bars
•
Business Center • Car Wash
0 Common Storage
•
Ceiling Fan
❑ Washer/Drver Hook -ups
❑ Computer Center
• Trash Chutes
•
Fireplace
• Washer/Dryer Appliances
© Laundry Room
❑ Vaulted Ceiling
© Internet Access
Other Project Amenities:
480
V
Other Features:
Electric Stoves
2/ 1
Parking
Security
l i Water
t2 Open Spaces Only
• Garages
5 Gated Community
• Gated Parking
Ti Some open spaces
• Subterranean
W Full Perimeter Fencing
❑ Security Patrol
❑ Street Only
❑ Tuckunder Structure
• Partial Fencing
P Locked Buildines
❑ Carports
Parking Extra Charge:
MI Deadbolts
• In -Unit Alarm
Policies Owner Paid Utilities Tenant Paid Utilities
Minimum Lease: 12 Mos
Security Deposit: $200
Pets Allowed: Yes
Pet Deposit: $200
l i Water
5 Hot Water
Ll Cable
• Water
LJ Hot Water
i l Cable
(949) 651 - 8600 Date: 2/8/2010
n Trash
• Heating
• Trash
0 Heating
Year Built: 1996 Age Restricted: 62
complaints. Lighted ball fields, Boys & Girls Club and
adjacent Special Ed school - Seniors enjoy the
Renovation: Contact :
5 Gas
• Electricity
• Gas
0 Electricity
Date Occ HCV T'over Wtg List
Owner: Jamboree /Edison Capital /Eenhoorn
3/07 100% 12 5%
Inn at Woodbridge SR TC
Osborn /E Yale Loop
Comments:
2 yr+ waiting list for 60% units; 4 yr wait for 35 - 50% MAI
Irvine CA
units. Many tenants installed front screen doors. 15
(949) 651 - 8600 Date: 2/8/2010
couples. Oldest tenant is 98. "Residents enjoy
Units: 116 Product Type: Tax Credit
abutting fire station; sirens are never a source of
Year Built: 1996 Age Restricted: 62
complaints. Lighted ball fields, Boys & Girls Club and
adjacent Special Ed school - Seniors enjoy the
Renovation: Contact :
activity, like being near youth."
Elevation: 2 Cathy Bajic
Date Occ HCV T'over Wtg List
Owner: Jamboree /Edison Capital /Eenhoorn
3/07 100% 12 5%
Mgmt. Co.: Eenhoorn Management, Inc ('05)
2/10 100% 23 14% 140 names
Floor Plan Description Unit Mix / Vacant % Occupied Monthly Rent %MAI Square Feet
Value Ratio(S/SF)I
Flat
1 l 1
10 / 0
100%
$574
36%
480
$1.20
Flat
1 / 1
10 / 0
100%
$661
40%
480
$1.38
Flat
1/1
28l 0
100%
$855
60%
480
$1.78
Flat
1 / 1
48 / 0
100%
$938 - $1010
60%
480
V
$1.95 - $2.10
Fiat
2/ 1
10 / 0
100%
$1001
60%
672
$1.49
Flat
2 / 1
101 0
100%
$1210
60%
672
$1.80
Project Total:
116 / 0
100.0%
EXHIBIT 5
PROPERTY PROFILE
Copyright © 2004 Apt Market Research
Monday, February 08, 2010
734
EXHIBIT 6
Inn at Woodbridge (Senior LIHTC Apartments)
Irvine, CA
"Inn at Woodbridge Senior Apartments is surrounded by Marden School for Special
Needs children, Windrow Park with lighted ball fields, the Boys and Girls Club of
Irvine and a Fire / Paramedic Station. Alton Square Shopping Center, anchored by
Ralphs and CVS, within 0.2 mile, is heavily traveled. My seniors love being `in the
middle of the action,' and never complain about noise or traffic. Many especially
enjoy proximity to the fire trucks and wave or salute to the firemen went they depart
for an emergency. We have 140 senior households on the waiting list for our
income - restricted apartments."
Cathy Bajic, Resident Manager, 2010
(949) 651 -8600
Casa Grande SR TC
400 Casa Grande Rd
Comments:
.. Pull Cords
58 total; 1 mgt, 44 HUD, 13 4% TC units. 100% Smoke -
Petaluma CA 94854
free. 11/10/08 Preleasing started. 1/12/09 CO. 44 HUD &
(707) 778 - 0240 Date: 1/20/2010
7 TC units preleased. 2 /2/09 Last 6 TC units occupied.
Units: 57 Product Type: Tax Credit
HUD units pay $150 -608, average $300. Rooftop solar
Year Built: 2008 Age Restricted: 62
powers common lights, elevator, laundry, clubhouse.
Date Rent Occ Wtg List T'over 2phh HCV
Renovation: Contact :
3/09 $660 100% Yes 2% 5 =9% 5
Elevation: 2 Diane Dorey
1/10 $660 100% Yes 5% 5 =9% 8
Owner: PEP
® Blinds/Verticals
Mgmt. Co.: PEP
❑ :Dishwasher
Floor Plan Description Unit Mix / Vacant, °% Occupied Monthly Rent %MAI Square Feet
Value Ratio($ /SF)
Fiat
• Tub Shower
11 .75
4410
100%
® Shower Stall
50%
627
0 Front Screen Door
Flat
In Business Center
1 1 . .76,
_ 1 ! -0
100%
$660
50%
627 :.-
$1.05
interior Features Project Amenities
• Air Conditioning
.. Pull Cords
LJ Clubhouse U Crafts/Hobby Room
5 Patio
® Sliders
0 Full Kitchen 5 Elevator
0 Balcony
❑ Walk-in :Closets,
Ll Media Room/TV/VCR ❑ Shuffleboard
• Patio /Balcony Storage
® Sprinklered
❑ Lounge 2 Courtyard • Putting Green
5 Refrigerator
❑ Drapes
❑ Pool ❑ Fitness Center 0 Gardening Area
• Microwave
® Blinds/Verticals
• Sauna • Spa • Wading Pool
❑ :Dishwasher
❑ titultinle Phone Lines
❑ Tennis 5 Sport Court 5 ScheduledActivities
5 Garbage Disposal
• Tub Shower
• Tot Lot
• Barbecues • On- site•C'hild Care
❑ Greenhouse Window. "`
® Shower Stall
:Leasing Office
Secured Mail ❑ Beauty Shop
0 Front Screen Door
5 Grab Pars
In Business Center
• Car Wash • Common Storage
5 Ceiling Fan
❑ Washer/Dryer Hook -ups
❑ Computer Center ❑. Trash Chutes
• Fireplace
• Washer/Dryer Appliances
0 Laundry Room
Vaulted Ceiling
14 Internet Access
Other Project Amenities:
Other Features:
Electric stove
bocce ball, outdoor fitness station
Parking
"Security
.
2 -Open Spaces Only
• Garages'
El Gated Comntunity'
• Gated Parking
PI Some open
• Subterranean
• Full Perimeter Fencing
• Security Patrol
,maces
❑ Street (Into . `
'Fl T uckunder. Structure
0 Partial F'encin
1 1:Locked Buildings
❑ Carports
Parking Extra Charge:
J Deadbolts
• In -Unit Alarm
Policies
Owner Paid Utilities
Tenant Paid Utilities
Minimum Lease: 12 Mos
LI
Water
•
Hot Water
•
Cable
U
Water
U Hot Water
U Cable
Security Deposit: 1 Mo. Rent
Trash
Heating
Trash
5
•
•
• Heating
Pets Allowed: Yes
Gas
Electricity
Gas
•
•
n
0 Electricity
Pet Deposit: $250
EXHIBIT 7
Project Total:
5710
100.0%
PROPERTY PROFILE
Copyright © 2004 Apt Market Research
Monday, February 08, 2010 5262
EXHIBIT 8
Casa Grande (Senior LIHTC Apartments)
Petaluma, CA
2 f) 10 C<ogla.
a ^;#
n,x
36'141'32 13" N 122,35'45`55" W
"We have formed a relationship with the Intergenerational Class at Casa Grande
High School and the students do their volunteer hours here helping the residents.
The students teach line dancing and have gatherings where students and seniors
can share experiences, which bring a greater understanding to both groups.
Residents sit on their patios and watch soccer games across the street. It is an
opportunity for learning, understanding and a greater appreciation for each group. I
can't tell you how beneficial it is for the seniors to have contact with these young
adults and to see the world through their eyes."
Diane Dorey, Resident Manager
(707) 778 -0240
We cover:
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Apt Market Research
OVERVIEW
Apt Market Research of Costa Mesa (Orange County), California, provides top quality market
studies and consulting for all types of apartment projects. Partners Annie Gerard and Joyce
Hummel analyze new construction and acquisition /rehab opportunities for market rate & affordable
senior apartments, conventional rental properties, "family" tax credit, in -fill, and Title 2 preservation
deals in markets across the country. Senior (55 +) apartments have been a specialty since the mid
1980s, now accounting for approximately half of our workload.
WHAT WE DO
Apt Market Research provides market studies and consulting services to developers, lenders and
agencies on all types of apartment projects:
• senior- partment _—
• affordable housing (tax credit, Bond)
• midline and luxury apartments
• in -fill projects
• preservation
• historic
• acquisition /rehab as-well as new construction
• market rate as well as affordable:
• general occupancyf'family" as well as senior /55+ (age- restricted)
We can supply market research /consulting at any point in the development process:
• prior to site acquisition /control (a "green light analysis before commitment)
• when applying for approvals (to assure cities that a project is viable)
• before starting detailed design work (so your architect can design a project with hard data on
unit mix, sizing and a thousand other product considerations)
• in conjunction with seeking financing (to satisfy lenders' requirements on market depth and
market feasibility)
Apt Market Research
151 Kalmus Drive, Suite J -5A
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714/668 -9600
www.aptmarketresearch.com
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Apt Market Research
Specific services provided by Apt Market Research include:
• full lender market studies
• "go /no go" recommendations & due diligence research
• detailed product & pricing recommendations for use in the project pro forma and design stages
• Low Income Housing Tax Credit [LIHTC] market studies for state agencies, syndicators and •
investors
• repositioning & turnaround analyses of troubled properties
• regional market assessments & identification of geographic opportunities
WHAT WE'RE KNOWN FOR
We're nationally recognized for the pioneering research we've done on senior (age- restricted)
apartments. The studies we do today draw on extensive post- occupancy analysis, project tracking
and consumer research dating back to the mid 1980s. Our custom database covers detailed
information on more than 500 senior apartment projects — including unit mix, sizing,
features /amenities, parking ratios and costs, tenant profiles, rent trending, absorption history,
concessions, premiums, policies and nearly 100 other data fields.
We're proud of our reputation for superior. and analysis. We don't just analyze
whether a project will work or not. We provide clear, detailed, - actionable product and positioning
recommendations to make projects work even better. That includes exhaustively researching
pending /proposed competitive supply, to evaluate what the effects of other new apartment
communities may be.
WHAT WE CAN HELP PREVENT
Good market research early in the process can save a lot of expense and time at a fraction of the
cost of the deal. (Many studies we do cost far less than $50 per door.) Don't let any of these
pitfalls we've seen caused by no or shoddy market research happen to you:
• Learning only after you've already invested $100,000 in a deal that achievable rents are
hundreds of dollars lower than pro forma rents.
• Building too -small or improperly amenitized units in a submarket that demands bigger, better
product — and then paying the price in slow lease -up and higher carrying costs.
Apt Market Research
151 Kaimus Drive, Suite J -5A
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714/668 -9600
www. aptmarketresearch. com
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Apt Market Research
• Having your out -of -town, prospective lender literally drive past "key comps" that weren't
addressed in the market study on the way to the site, raising questions about the validity of the
study (and even the project itself).
• Learning only after you're under construction that four other new projects have also broken
ground — all in better locations and with better product than you're offering.
GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF FOCUS
We handle assignments in urban, suburban and rural markets throughout the southwestern United
States, and consider the entire state of California as "being in our backyard."
Visiting 40 -60 different submarkets each year provides valuable perspective well beyond the "local
market" level, including:
• the best (and worst) new product & marketing techniques
• data on markets that are over -built or pent -up
• how resident profiles and other demographic factors are changing tenants' product desires
• which property management companies stand out or fall short
OUR DATABASE
Apt Market Research's custom database currently contains nearly 4,000 apartment communities
totaling 500,000+ units. We add new projects with each new assignment and update projects already
in the . database, preserving "same store ". rent trending.
Approximately 500 of the 4,000 properties are senior apartment communities. Many of them are
projects we did the market feasibility for, including the following brands: Seasons, Vintage, Carefree,
Horizons, FountainGlen, Victoria Woods.
OUR REPUTATION
✓ We're the market research company lenders make referrals to.
✓ We're the market research company hired to tear apart and re -do faulty market studies.
✓ We're the market research company developers and lenders come to when projects are
challenging, pioneering, potentially high risk, or high profile.
Apt Market Research
151 Kalmus Drive, Suite J -5A
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714/668 -9600
www.aptmarketresearch.com
OUR CLIENTS
Ongoing and /or recent clients include:
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Apt Market Research
• The Related Companies of California
• BRIDGE Housing
• USA Properties Fund
• Chelsea Investments
• Foundation for Social Resources
• Irvine Apartment Communities [IAC]
• Meta Housing
• MacFarlane Costa Housing Partners (formerly Simpson Housing Solutions)
• National CORE
• Triumph Management
• Urban Housing Communities, LLC
• C.J. Segerstrom & Sons
• Eagle Real Estate Group
• R.C. Hobbs Company
• Western Community Housing
• Lucas Communities
• Diocese of San Bernardino
• Regal Development Group
RESEARCH BASIS
Every study is prepared by an analyst with 25+ years experience: Were intentionally structured
along team lines, to take full advantage of analysts' varying backgrounds (development, planning,
finance and economics) and to pool over 50 years of experience analyzing real estate developments.
Concentrating on apartments and only apartments lets us stay in front of the newest trends. We
produced more than 450 studies between 1998 and 2004, in 108 different California submarkets and
25 other states. The total valuation of projects we worked on during that timeframe that are now
either completed or under construction exceeds $2.5 billion dollars.
Data is always compiled from the ground up. Rather than relying on Internet searches or someone
else's canned database, we identify and physically audit projects that are truly comparable. We've
found there's no good substitute for physically spending time in a given submarket, getting a grasp of
local issues and characteristics (not just project data) — and learning insider information from on -site
leasing and management people that they would never divulge in a telephone inquiry.
Apt Market Research
151 Kalmus Drive, Suite J -5A
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714/668 -9600
www.aptmarketresearch.com
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Apt Market Research
WHAT WE DON'T DO
• We're strictly a third -party research house. We don't engage in brokerage or development.
We never trade research in exchange for a "piece of the deal," and never accept finder's fees.
• We don't do appraisals.
• We don't take on assignments outside our particular expertise (e.g., Assisted Living or for -sale
senior housing).
HISTORY OF THE FIRM
After nearly seven years at Eliant (formerly National Survey Systems), Annie Gerard and Joyce Hummel
started Apt Market Research in December 2004. Eliant allowed us to take with us the custom
database we'd built; originals and electronic files for all studies and consulting assignments we'd
done while at Eliant; and all other records and back -up material relating to Eliant's Apartment
Research Division, formed in 1998.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Annie Gerard: 714/668 -9600 x 222 ; agerard @aptmarketresearch.com
Joyce Hummel: 714/668 -9600 x 111; jhummel @aptmarketresearch.com
Apt Market Research
151 Kalmus Drive, Suite J -5A
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714/668 -9600
www.aptmarketresearch.com
7
❑I—
N
0
V,
E = 2 2
V) CI)
� � o
U U Y ... Y a.
0. U U- 0 1
• 3
0,
CL a
0
E
0,
a
Research By Paul Ernrath, Ph.D
Live Longer, Drive Less:
How Aye Affects Vehicle Use
H ousehold vehicle use is some-
thing developers and local
policymakers both are likely
to consider when planning a
new community. Parking and roads need
to be adequate to accommodate cars and
traffic, but not so plentiful that they lead
to reduced space for landscaping or greater
and costs for each housing unit.
A number of standard measures suggest
that the impact of vehicles per housing
unit should be lower if residents are older.
After about age 45, the number of persons
per household generally declines with
advancing age, implying that a 50+ housing
._unit wilt generally place lower demands on
local infrastructure. Data the Census
Bureau's most recent (2006) American
Community Survey show that a household
age 35 -54 in a single - family detached
home will own, on average, 2.3 vehicles
— compared to only 1.4 for a household
age 75 +. According to the latest (2003)
Trip Generation report from the Institute
of Transportation Engineers, an average
single - family home generates 9.6 vehicle
trips per weekday — compared to 3.7 for
the category Trip Generation identifies as
"seniors' single - family."
If road capacity is the main issue, the
most relevant variable probably is the
number of trips generated during peak
hours of road use. Because older Ameri-
cans are more likely to be retired, they
can time their travel to avoid work - related
congestion, so 50+ housing tends to score
rather well. Trip Generation shows that
an average single - family home generates
48 150+ HOUSING MAGAZINE • Fall 2006
1.01 vehicle trips during the evening rush
hour (the hour of peak traffic on adjacent
streets between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m.) —
compared to only 0.26 for a seniors' single -
family residence.
Recently, local policymakers concerned
about climate change have shifted their
focus more toward the total miles vehicles
are traveling. This has led NAHB's Housing
Policy Department to develop a statistical
model that estimates total vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) per year fora particular
residential subdivision. The model is based
on data from the most recent (2001) National
Household Travel Survey (NHTS),' which
collects detailed information on all vehicle
travel undertaken by a nationally representa-
tive sample of households, and is conducted
by the Federal Highway Administration.
The NAHB model controls for all the
household and housing unit characteris-
tics in the NHTS -based travel forecasting
models of the Department of Transporta-
tion, the Environmental Protection Agency,
and the Department of Energy. The NAHB
model also seeks to use all the location
information available in the data.
The NHTS data don't identify individual
states, but do indicate the four principal
Census regions. The data also indicate
whether a household is in a Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA) — an urban area —
and provide some information about the
metro area's population and whether or not
it has a rail transportation system. But the
NHTS data don't identify individual metro-
politan areas specifically, nor provide any
more precise information about how close
the transportation system comes to
a particular home.
Based on the results of the model, we
are able to predict that, holding all else
constant, a residential subdivision will
generate more VMT if it is in
• a rural area
• outside of a metropolitan area
• in a metropolitan area that lacks
rail transport
• the South (and less, if in the Northeast).
Results from the model also indicate that
a residential subdivision will generate more
VMT if the households occupying the homes
• are homeowners
• are larger (with more persons
per household)
• contain more workers.
• have higher incomes
• are less educated
• have a male householder
• are white
• are Hispanic
• are younger.
The model further predicts that more
VMT will be generated from single - family
homes than from multifamily, and from
subdivisions that have fewer housing
units per acre.
From the perspective of 50+ housing,
the relationship between age of the house-
holds and VMT is of particular interest.
Figure 1 shows the estimated annual VMT
generated by a household in hypothetical
subdivision in an urban location within
a Southern metropolitan area with a
'For details of the methodology employed, see "Vehicle CO Emissions and the Compactness of Residential Development" by Helen Fei Liu in Housing
Economics, December 2007: http:// www. nahb .org /generic.aspx ?sectionlD= 734 &genericContentlD = 86266 &channelID =311
www.50plushousingmagazine.com
Research
under 35
35t054
55 to 64
65 to 74
75 and older
O
population of between one and three
million and a rail transport system. The
figure also shows how the estimates change
if age of the household head changes,
holding all other household characteristics
constant at national averages.
We see that the estimated number of
vehicle miles traveled declines as the subdi-
vision's occupants grow older, A household
in the subdivision generates a bit more
than 26,000 VMT per year if the head of the
household is younger than 35, a little less
than 23,000 if 75 or older.
Figure 1 captures a pure age effect. But
older households tend to be smaller, and
are more likely to be retired, so Figure 1
doesn't show all the differences in vehicle
use that are likely to emerge among house-
holds of different ages.
Figure 2 shows-what happens if we
assume that household size and number
of workers per household are set to the
averages for a specific category shown in
the figure. For example, VMT for a single
family home owner age 55 to 64 in Figure
Figure 1, Annual VMT per Household by Age
Persons & Workers per Household Held ::crns13n1
i
/21420111L,
idily
yell
26,436
23,494
25,333
22,391
24,589
tJ 21,472
23,976
20,859
22,873
19,756
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Single - Family Owner Nil Multifamily Renter
For an urban subdivision with 1.6 -4.7 housing units per acre, in a metro-
politan area in the South with a population of 1 -3 million and a rail transport
system; household characteristics set to national averages.
Source: Estimates from NAHB model based on data from the 2001 National
Household Travel Survey, Federal Highway Administration.
50 1 50+ HOUSING MAGAZINE • Fall 2008
es
.h • ,
2 is estimated assuming that the number of
persons and workers in the households are
average for home owners age 55 to 64.
Unsurprisingly, allowing household
size and number of workers to vary with
age produces substantially larger differ-
ences in estimated VMT. Under these
assumptions, a single - family home owner
in the hypothetical subdivision gener-
ates nearly 29,0900 VMT per year if the
head is younger than 35, but only about
12,000 if the head is 75 or older. Figure 2
also captures the differences in household
size and workers per household that tend
to exist between multifamily renters and
single - family homeowners. Allowing for
these differences, the model estimates
that a 75 -plus multifamily renter would
_generate fewer than 8,000 VMT per year.
In summary, Figure 1 shows differences
in VMT if age is the only characteristic that
varies. Figure 2 shows the differences if
household size and workers in the house-
hold are allowed to vary with age. Other
characteristics also may vary with age, of
under 35
35 tO 54
55 to 64
65 to 74
75 and older
Figure 2. Annual VMT per Household by Age,
Allowing for Differences in Persons /Workers per Household
;k
course, but the differences in household
size and employment are particularly well
known and understood.
Using the same data, NAHB has created
similar models for other travel - related
variables — vehicle efficiency, efficiency of
the speed vehicles are driven (the differ-
ence from a theoretically - optimal 45
mph), and gallons of gasoline consumed.
The results show that, controlling for the
other variables, older households tend to
own slightly less efficient vehicles, and
to drive at slightly less efficient speeds.
Although statistically significant, these
age- efficiency effects are relatively small.
On balance, older households use less
gasoline per year, and the patterns of
gasoline consumption by age look similar
to the patterns of VMT by age shown in
figures 1 -and 2.
More'cbmplete results are available
from the NAHB Housing Policy Department.
Interested readers may contact Helen Fei
Liu (800- 368 -5242 x8488, fliu @nahb.com)
for more information. so+
14,845
15,383
?..k'l') 10,220
12,012
7,679
21,687
i 19,200
21,254
28,767
27,757
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Kt Single - Family Owner n Multifamily Renter
For an urban subdivision with 1.6 -4.7 housing units per acre, in a metropolitan area
in the South with a population of 1 -3 million and a rail transport system; persons &
workers set to national average by age bracker; other household characteristics set to
overall national averages.
Source: Estimates from NAHB model based on data from the 2001 National Household
Travel Survey, Federal Highway Administration.
www.50plushousingmagazine.com
Table of Agency Low/Mod
Housing Funds
Agency Low /Mod Housing Funds - Projections and Available for Senior Housing
Loan Repayment - Loan Repayment -
2010 - 2011 2014 - 2016
Period 1
2001 -2002 $ 522,100 $ 522,100
2002 -2003 $ 648,727 $ 648,727
2003 -2004 $ 812,894 $ 812,894
2004 -2005 $ 833,331 $ 833,331
2005 -2006 $ 758,525 $ 758,525
2006 -2007 $ 779,031 $ 779,031
2007 -2008 $ 821,753 $ 821,753
2008 -2009 $ 870,356 $ 870,356
2009 -2010 $ 888,000 $ 888,000
2010 -2011 $ 906,000 $ 4,951,715
2011 -2012 $ 924,000 $ 924,000
2012 -2013 $ 942,000 $ 942,000
2013 -2014 $ 961,000 $ 961,000
2014 -2015 $ 1,980,000 $ 980,000
Total $ 12,647,717 $ 15,693,432
34% Percentage Available 34%
for Age Restricted
$ 4,300,224 $ 5,335,767
(Less) Assistance for
$ 1,800,000 Heritage Park Project $ 1,800,000
$ 2,500,224 Net Available Funds $ 3,535,767
Period 2 For Age Restriced Projects
2015 -2016 $ 4,045,315 $ 999,600
2016 -2017 $ 1,019,592 $ 1,019,592.
201.7 -2018 $ ..- - 1,039,984 $ 1,039,984
2018 -2019 $ 1,060,784 $ 1,060,784.
2019 -2020 $ 1,081,999 $ 1,081,999
2020 -2021 $ 1,103,639 $ 1,103,639
2021 -2022 $ 1,125,712 $ 1,125,712
2022 -2023 $ 1,148,226 $ 1,148,226
2023 -2024 $ 1,171,191 $ 1,171,191
2024 -2025 $ 1,194,615 $ 1,194,615
Total $ 13,991,057 $ 10,945,342
34% 34%
$ 4,756,959 Available for Age $ 3,721,416
Restricted Projects
Period 3
2025 -2026 $ 1,218,507 $ 1,218,507
2026 -2027 $ 1,242,877 $ 1,242,877
Total $ 2,461,384 $ 2,461,384
34% 34%
$ 836,871 Available for Age $ 836,871
Restricted Projects
Grand Total $ 8,094,054 $ 8,094,054
Assumption - 2% Annual Increase
Information Provided by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.