BOFA CALPOLY 2008

P C H : P o l y C o l l a b o r a t i v e H o u s i n gV I V O : T o w e r s

11

C A L P O L Y : s a n l u i s o b i s p o

P C H : P o l y C o l l a b o r a t i v e H o u s i n g V I V O : T o w e r s

2


33



22


33

Table of ContentsAcknowledgements

Introduction

Chapter 1 - Site Description and Analysis 9 - San Diego History and Planning Information 10 - 26 - Existing Site Analysis 26 - 34

Chapter 2 - Design 35 - Unit Plans 40 - 45 - Composite Floorplans 51 - 61 - Elevations and Sections 62 - 64

Chapter 3 - Sustainability 65 - Green Building Rating Systems 66 - 68 - Sustainable Features of Kettner and Ash 68 - 76

Chapter 4 - Construction and Phasing 77

Chapter 5 - Community Participation and Support 81

Chapter 6 - Finance 84 - Affordable Housing Financing Structure 88 - 93 - School Financing Structure 94 - 95 - Financial Analysis 96 - 112

Appendix A - Letters of Support - 114Appendix B - Centre City Planed District Ordinance Excerpts - 126Appendix C - Team Biographies - 132Appendix D - LEED Checklist - 137Appendix E - Financial Supplements - 138References - 150Contact Information - Back Page



4

AcknowledgementsThe Kettner and Ash affordable housing project has thoroughly employed the hearts and minds of the Poly Collaborative Housing team over the last few months. We brought together some exceptional talent in this competition, fostering a new appreciation for the collaborative spirit. It has been an honor to represent and work with organizations that continually provide people in the community with affordable housing options. Organizations in the process with us opened their doors, shared knowledge, and provided much needed encouragement to take on a project they knew would challenge us to the very end.

We would like to acknowledge with great appreciation, the following people for their selfless donation of time and effort to this competition:

Nancy Conk, Bank of AmericaStephen Harriman, AIA, Stephen E. Harriman & AssociatesCindy Heavens, Satellite Housing Inc.Thomas Iamesi, First Community HousingMark Kaiser, Fairfield Department of Planning and DevelopmentMarguerite Lonergan, SB ArchitectsMichael Galasso, President, Barone Galasso & AssociatesDaniel Hanks, Commercial Sales Associate, Coldwell Banker Bain & AssociatesTom Scott, Executive Director, San Diego Housing FederationCharlie Adler, GIS, CCDC Fred Agbulos, GIS, CCDC Bryce Schlosser, Project Manager, Swinerton San DiegoBen Airth, Program Manager, California Center for Sustainable EnergyPhilip J. Bona, AIA / APA, Assistant Vice President, Architecture and Planning, Centre City Development CorporationPablo Collin, Project Manager, Austin Veum Robbins PartnersTom Anglewics, Director of Urban Design, Austin Veum Robbins PartnersJames Watts, Director of Architecture and Planning, San Diego Unified School DistrictThe entire CCDC educational task forceDan Panetta, Coach, Poly Collaborative Housing

We are grateful for the continual support, encouragement, and understanding of our friends and family during the course of this incredible learning experience. Lastly, we would like to thank Bank of America for their everlasting support in affordable housing education.


5

IntroductionPoly Collaborative HousingCal Poly’s team, Poly Collaborative Housing, is a multidisciplinary group of undergraduate and graduate students from the City and Regional Planning, Architecture, Construction Management, Environmental Studies, and Business fields. Through close interaction between team members, it has been our intention that every member of the team learn just as much from this project as they give to it. This continual give and take between peers is the basis for our method of design, both financially and architecturally. While the majority of the team has little or no work experience, this model of integration ensures that all team members learn from each others’ past experience, and come away from the project as better planners, designers, and business people.

Barone Galasso & AssociatesThis year Poly Collaborative Housing (PCH) has had the exciting opportunity to work with a developer partner in San Diego. Through mutual contacts the team was put in connection with Michael Galasso of Barone Galasso & Associates, Inc. (BGA). Mr. Galasso is also a member of the Centre City Development Corporation’s Educational Task Force and has offered tremendous support throughout this process, from identifying a promising site to rallying support in the local community and government.

In 1986, Michael Galasso and his partner, James Barone, started Barone Galasso & Associates. Their purpose was to develop and manage affordable housing throughout California. During the last decade, BGA has partnered with both public agencies and private investors to support the development of over 400 units specifically for low and moderate income families and individuals. BGA’s work has won them numerous design awards as well as established them as a leader in the development of affordable housing.

The Need for Vivo Towers at Kettner & Ash

Need for Affordable Housing

Downtown San Diego faces three major challenges today:

1) New development has yielded a majority of one bedroom and studio condominiums in the Downtown residential market. This type of “professional loft” development completely ignores the need for family housing in the urban core. Affordable family housing is in great demand as low income workers who support the service industry move back to Downtown.

2) The gentrification of the downtown core has forced many of San Diego’s low income families to search for more economical living conditions in the surrounding communities. Unlike San Francisco and Los Angles, San Diego lacks an effective and reliable regional public transportation system for these families to reach the downtown core. The only alternative for many is a long commute on California’s

Introduction



6

overcrowded and congested freeway system, adding to the pollution problems that plague many of California’s urban centers.

3) An increase in the number of families located in or near Downtown has in turn led to more children in the urban core. This has placed considerable strain on Downtown San Diego’s education system. The San Diego School District is struggling to support the increasing volume of students in their existing urban facilities.

Need for Downtown Schools

Our developer partner has found that currently, the Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC) is “extremely motivated to see new, innovative educational facilities developed in conjunction with other uses.” We believe that this is a great site to accomplish this. There are educational needs in downtown San Diego that are directly tied with the lack of affordable family housing. Along with the Harborside School’s closing last year, the Children’s Museum School recently lost its space. CCDC has formed an Educational Task Force (of which our developer partner is a member) to help solve this problem and to plan for the future. Within five miles of the site, 11.7% of the population is between the ages of 0 and 4 and 30% of the population is under the age of 15.13 The 2006 downtown community plan also acknowledges that the number of children in San Diego is “expected to increase.” Because of zoning constraints, we are only able to provide affordable housing to the extent that we maintain the existing uses on the site. By providing two schools on-site, we are supplying an asset to the rest of the community while allowing the students of the former Harborside School and Children’s Museum School to return to their preferred curriculum in downtown. The goal is to bring more families into downtown, while providing the greater community with the benefit of two schools. Thus, we have been working with our developer partner to develop an award-winning mixed-use project utilizing the latest green building technology and benefiting the entire community. Our developer partner believes that this proposal will help solve a “very difficult problem” for downtown San Diego and, done right, will be a “very exciting project that the community and CCDC would embrace.” Because the site is within a designated redevelopment area, we will work with CCDC on site assemblage once the preliminary plan is complete.

A History of The Harborside and Museum Schools

The Harborside School was founded in 1995 mainly for Luke Walton, the grandson of Walmart founder Sam Walton, by Sam’s daughter-in-law. When Luke graduated in 2004, he and his mother’s money left


77

for Jackson Hole, Wyoming. This left the school scrambling for money which eventually ran out at the end of 2004. By that time the Harborside School held roughly 150 children grades K-6, whose teachers and school disappeared almost over night. Currently most of the students are attending Washington Elementary, a nearby public school, but issues have arisen due to the former Harborside School pupils’ alternative curriculum. Parents and students alike are unhappy with the situation, and a new space for the Harborside School needs to be found as quickly as possible.

Another downtown elementary school, the Museum School, has found itself in a similar situation. Difficulties with the school have forced it out of its prior home to a temporary facility. Although the school is still in session, it needs to find a permanent home for its 75 students.

Our project seeks to provide that permanent home for both of these schools. Located on the former Harborside School site, and centrally located just south of Little Italy, this project is the obvious answer for a sustainable location for these two charter schools. By sharing community spaces such as the library, playground, and multipurpose cafeteria, these two schools can join forces to each realize the efficiencies of a larger school, while maintaining the control and curriculums of smaller schools. This principle of the economies of scale of shared spaces is what makes this a viable site for these two urban schools.

Introduction to Vivo TowersPoly Collaborative Housing (PCH) has decided to take on an exciting and ambitious project for this year’s Bank of America Low-Income Housing Challenge. In addition to alleviating California’s shortage of affordable housing, PCH wanted to develop a project that would make a significant impact on the community in a multitude of dimensions. In conjunction with Barone Galasso & Associates, PCH has selected a site in downtown San Diego that will increase the supply of affordable rental housing for the area’s low income families, while simultaneously improving the educational opportunities for Downtown San Diego’s children through the creation of two new elementary school facilities.

Our development solves all three of these major problems in one creative solution. Our site is located on the north edge of the downtown core district, just south of Little Italy on India Street - a main commercial thoroughfare. Current zoning restrictions mandate that a minimum of fifty percent of gross floor area be allocated for employment uses. In cooperation with the San Diego Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC), PCH plans to obtain a zoning variance to allow for the affordable housing development by creating educational facilities for two existing charter schools. These two schools will serve the adjoining affordable housing families, as well as nearby urban families with children currently attending the nearby, but overcrowded, Washington Elementary School. By providing affordable housing for families as well as two much needed charter school facilities, PCH’s ambitious project will provide a model for sustainable community oriented development in San Diego’s urban setting.

Introduction



88


99Chapter 1 - Site Description & Analysis



1010

Site Description & AnalysisArea Description:San Diego is located on the coast in the southwestern corner of California, just north of the Mexico border. It is the second largest city in California, and eighth largest in the United States, with 1.3 million people. Two of the largest industries in the area are the military with Naval, Coast Guard, and Marine bases, and biotechnology with many facilities throughout the area. Geographically, it is split into eight communities, including the Central region which encompasses the “downtown” area as well as our project site.

San Diego

HistoryThe earliest Native American inhabitants of the San Diego region date from about 7,500 B.C. The first Europeans claimed the region for Spain in 1542 when Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo set foot on San Diego soil. Although he named the area San Miguel “after the saint whose feast day was closest to the landing according to Spanish tradition,” the city was later renamed in 1602 when Sebastian Vizcaino arrived with three ships from Acapulco.21 He declared the area ‘San Diego’ after his flagship and in honor of Saint Didacus of Alcala, whose feast day was closest to Vizcaino’s landing and the name has stuck ever since.

In 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain and San Diego came under Mexican rule. Then in 1848, the United States gained Alta California from Mexico and the first attempts of settlement and development began. Early development struggled for several years until Alonzo Horton purchased 960 acres in 1867 and began to promote growth. Horton’s vision for San Diego started with one of his first planning acts: the division of land into 200 by 300 foot plats, each with twelve 50 by 100 foot lots in order to maximize and emphasize the valuable corner lots. Introduction of rail lines in the 1880’s continued to fuel the development boom and by 1885, San Diego had its first street car system. Development continued through the turn of the century with key additions to the city such as the San Diego Union Building, Hotel San Diego, improvements to the street car systems and the Bank of America Building.

The early 1900’s saw a formalization of planning efforts in downtown San Diego. John Nolan was responsible for introducing plans to improve the bayfront area, enhance links between the waterfront and historic Balboa Park, improve gateways such as railroad stations and port areas and the design of a Civic Center with a plaza. These planning efforts outlined principles of street hierarchy and promoted open spaces and parkways, and continue to guide development today. In 1915, San Diego was ready to showcase itself to the rest of the nation as the Panama-California Exposition World’s Fair was held in Balboa Park. The Exposition was an incredible success as San Diego saw an influx of business into the downtown area over the next several years. Following World War I, San Diego was made home to the United States Navy’s Pacific fleet and has remained a vital sea port for both military and civilian use. As buses began to replace street cars, San Diego’s downtown began to expand and sprawl outwards.

The early 1950’s were a dynamic time for housing and transportation as most U.S. cities saw a significant


1111

decline to their downtown core areas as people moved away with the development of suburbs. San Diego was no exception and the placement of Interstate 5 at the eastern edge of downtown created a further divide between the downtown core area and the outlying suburb areas. The downtown area continued to see decline until hitting a perceived bottom in the early 1970’s with escalated vacancies and decreased property values resulting in physical and social blight to the area. In 1975, San Diego created the Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC) to address these issues and lead an effort to revitalize the downtown area. Horton Plaza was opened in the early 1980’s as a cultural center for shopping and entertainment marking the beginning of a successful gentrification movement that continues today. Other successful projects that have lead to a vibrant downtown San Diego area include a renovated U.S. Grant Hotel, historic restoration to the Gaslamp Quarter, a successful convention center and the introduction of a trolley system. Moving into the 21st century, downtown San Diego has promoted a new boom in residential development with strong connections to the waterfront areas along with opportunities for urban living. With the convention center doubling and a new baseball stadium for the San Diego Padres, downtown San Diego is seeing a continued growth in businesses and amenities to coincide with the growing residential development.

Some notable features of San Diego - Balboa Park, overlooking both downtown San Diego and the Pacific Ocean - The Gaslamp Quarter Historic District - Old Town San Diego - San Diego’s five missions - San Diego de Alcala, San Luis Rey, Pala, Santa Ysabel, Las Flores - The San Diego Aircraft Carrier Museum - The world famous San Diego Zoo

Future OutlookThe future of San Diego is difficult to determine, even for the planning department, but a few things seem plausible. The city as a tourist destination will continue to increase, and many wealthy retirees will continue to relocate to the region, causing displacement of lower-middle income residents to communities outside the core area. Transportation issues will increase as population grows, causing Los Angeles-scale traffic issues. Although the universities will expand, education and jobs for local residents will struggle to sustain.

The Columbia District

HistoryThe most defining characteristic of the Columbia Neighborhood, where our site is located, is its close proximity and connection to San Diego’s waterfront. It was this characteristic that provided motivation for early development beginning in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s with prominent projects such as a Victorian style train depot and the Broadway Pier on the waterfront. Municipal warehouses comprised most of the land and building uses in the early 1900’s, leaving an area that was very much devoid of intrigue and interest. It was the introduction of the railway to this neighborhood in 1913 that provided the vitality needed to complete development along the waterfront area. Recreational uses followed, closely marked by the building of Lane Field in the 1930’s, which was the original home of the San Diego Padres. From this time to current day, the Columbia Neighborhood has been a diverse area with a multitude of uses including office buildings, hotels, retail, museums and residential development.

Chapter 1 - Site Description & Analysis



1212

Future OutlookThe City of San Diego envisions the Columbia Neighborhood as a rich mixed use district with strong recreational and functional connections to the waterfront. The Port Authority controls development along the city’s waterfront and has produced the North Embarcadero Visionary Plan to ensure development along the water will be consistent with the city’s goals and vision. The Columbia Neighborhood contains many of San Diego’s tallest buildings including Emerald Plaza, First National Bank Center and One America Plaza and continues to promote strong office use development to attract new businesses to the area. With the distinguishing characteristic of the waterfront, there is a planned connection through development to have a step down effect as building near the water. This step down effect offers more opportunities for mixed use developments with a strong emphasis on housing. The CCDC has encouraged the Columbia Neighborhood to embrace its history by showcasing the Santa Fe Depot located in the heart of the neighborhood and by placing other attractions such as the Museum of Contemporary Art nearby to promote the area.

Demographics, Statistics, & OpinionTravel + Leisure Magazine’s annual survey for America’s Favorite Cities in 2007 found San Diego to have “America’s best weather, with sunshine, ocean breezes,” and an average daily temperature of 78 degrees. The survey results showed that visitors and residents each voted “weather” as the city’s best feature. There was no surprise that visitors and residents each ranked “affordability” as the worst feature of San Diego. Out of the top 25 cities in America, San Diego ranked 21st, only considered more “affordable” when compared to Honolulu, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York (the worst). The United States Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) defines “affordable” as “housing that costs no more than 30% of a household’s monthly income…mean[ing] rent and utilities in an apartment [with a] monthly mortgage payment and housing expense…should be less than 30% of a household’s monthly income to be considered affordable.”8 In San Diego County, 39.5% of households lived in unaffordable housing at the turn of the century. By 2005 that number had jumped to 48%, or 488,795 households.3 However, according to Murtaza H. Baxamusa, who contributes to research at the Center on Policy Initiatives even the conventional 30% affordability level is “biased against lower-income households and large families, who cannot realistically afford the 30% level without compromising other basic needs.” This means housing in San Diego County is even more unaffordable than it appears when initially analyzing the data.

In an article published in late 2002, Nico Calavita, a professor in the School of Public Administration & Urban Studies at San Diego State University for the past twenty-three years noted that, “the rental vacancy rate has hovered around 1.5% for the last two years while rents have jumped an average of 10% a year over five years. Evictions have multiplied…The city council on August 6 also declared a housing state of emergency, launched a program to speed permits for affordable housing, agreed to issue up to $55 million in bonds to be repaid with redevelopment set-aside funds, and charged the city manager to establish a task force to develop other proposals for affordable housing, including new financial sources for the Housing Trust Fund.”4 Once established, a council-appointed task force on affordable housing presented several “recommendations for creating new revenues to subsidize housing for low-income households, but the council chose not to back any of them,” and the task force was later dismantled.35 What was supposed to be a “multipronged strategy for addressing San Diego’s severe shortage of housing for low- and middle-income workers” has had “limited success” even after sorting through “hundreds of city-owned properties, with high hopes of finding some suitable acreage


1313

for building housing affordable to low- and middle-income households…San Diego officials have pretty much come up empty-handed” despite an inventory of 3,400 parcels of land.35 Most properties were too small to “deliver units” and others would be cause for significant community opposition. Therefore, the private sector has the ability to play a huge role in providing affordable housing, something our proposal wholeheartedly embraces.

The projects that do surface have “interest lists [that] swell,”33 such as one local affordable housing project that had 800 families on the waiting list.23 “The demand for low-cost housing is huge, especially for families and seniors. The waiting list for federally subsidized Section 8 housing in San Diego is 40,000-names long, according to the housing commission. For one of the agency’s affordable projects under construction downtown, 400 people are on the waiting list for 275 units.”28 Many have noticed, “buildings in downtown that have not even started construction are [already] fully sold out.”16 Ken Sauder, president of Wakeland Housing and Development Corp. says, “it’s extraordinarily difficult for renters…With rents increasing, which they are, people will have to pay a larger portion of their income for rent. Many often pay 50% and probably now some are spending 70%).”33

The author of an article in The San Diego Union – Tribune admits, “there’s a staggering demand for affordable housing in high-rent San Diego County, where some thirteen percent of workers earn less than $20,000 per year.”23 Living in downtown San Diego is far from being inexpensive. A regular studio apartment costs approximately $1,400 a month, while “a two-bedroom rental goes for $1,920, according to averages from the San Diego County Apartment Association.”28 The “fair market rent” for a two-bedroom is $1,205, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, but in order to afford this level of rent, a household must earn an annual income of at least $48,200, which translates into a housing wage of $23.17 – far more than the state minimum hourly wage of $7.50, which has only been increased to $8 since the beginning of 2008.2 At last year’s minimum wage of $7.50, a worker in San Diego County would have had to have worked 124 hours per week, 52 weeks per year, in order to afford a two-bedroom home.2

According to the Center for Housing Policy, “the number of working-family renters paying more than half their income for housing has soared from 1 million to 2.1 million since 1997. Overall, advocacy groups say there are 9 million low-income renter households and only 6.2 million units they can reasonably afford.”10 The Affordable Housing Policy Considerations document on the CCDC website states that, “the vast majority of downtown’s affordable housing units (2,600 of the 3,200 units) are in East Village, Marina, and other downtown neighborhoods located south of Broadway;” the document brings up the issue of whether the public believes CCDC should actively “promote the production of affordable housing in all of downtown’s neighborhoods and districts.” Please refer to the attached map on the following page to view existing affordable housing projects, almost all are clustered far from the waterfront and San Diego Bay. Obviously, affordable housing should be encouraged in all areas of downtown, including the Columbia District and north of Broadway, where our site lies. According to an article in The San Diego Union – Tribune, downtown officials are, in fact, “trying to spread the projects north of Broadway…There’s also a push to provide larger units, with two and three bedrooms, to serve families.”28




1414

One might believe that with all of the foreclosures, the mortgage crisis, and steep fall in housing prices would only help the working class afford a place to live in San Diego, yet it is quite the contrary. In 2007, San Diego County “foreclosures rose 353% over 2006 to 7,349, while default notices – the start of the foreclosure process – increased 128% to 20,138…the highest since DataQuick Information Systems began keeping track of county foreclosures in 1988 and defaults in 1992…all segments of the San Diego region have been affected by foreclosures.”24 Lori Weisberg of The San Diego Union – Tribune also cites the “soaring number of foreclosures,” but writes that, “aspiring home buyers may be cheering the steep drop in housing prices, but the reality is that most workers in San Diego County still do not

Villa Harvey Mandel85 studios, 5 one bedroom ($395) 40-50% AMI, Services for disabled

Southern Hotel40-45% AMI50 SRO Studios Rent ($486-547)

10th and B Apartments68 studios ($416-720), 57 1-bdrm. ($379-778), 32 2-bdrm($454-923),73 3-bdrm ($434-1066) 30-60% AMI

Kettner & Ash

Studio 1560% AMI274 Studios ($491-737)

Lillian Place74 Units: 1-bdrm($329-1155) 2-bdrm ($393-1,383) 3-bdrm ($450-$1595) 30-110%AMI

Island Village280 Studios ($613-737)60% AMI

500 West (Old YMCA)52 Furnished SRO’s 50-70% AMI ($604-725)


1515

earn enough to buy the median-priced home of $440,000,” according to the annual “Paycheck to Paycheck: Wages and the Cost of Housing in America” study by the Center for Housing Policy based in Washington, D.C.33

Barbara Lipman, director of the research center, holds that San Diego has faced “affordability problems” even when in a recession.33 In other words, it is almost as if San Diego is in its own “housing bubble,” if you will, seemingly untouched and not influenced by the greater trends in California and around the country. Marney Cox, chief economist for the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), believes “we’re not going to get back to where the median-income household can afford the median-priced home, so housing will still be unaffordable in San Diego…borrowing has gotten tougher, so that doesn’t mean there are a lot more households that are qualified to buy.”33 The Housing Resources Directory for 2007-2008, put out by the County of San Diego Department of Housing and Community Development, states that, “housing costs in the San Diego region continue to rise at an unprecedented rate. Unfortunately, escalating rents and home prices make it very difficult for lower-income households to find decent and safe housing that they can afford.” Sheila Crowley, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, says, “they don’t do things that we all would like to do –save money to buy a house, or for college or retirement. It’s a very day-to-day existence.”10 Please refer to the table at right for Area Median Income data for San Diego County (Housing Resources Directory 2007-2008).

Within one mile of our project site at Ash & Kettner, 16.1% of households earn less than $10,000 in annual income, 24.4% of households earn less than $15,000, 33.4% of households earn less than $20,000, and 40.6% of households earn less than $25,000.13 Within the site’s ZIP Code 92101, the average home value is a whopping $736,132, when compared to the national average of $275,659, while the median household income is only $28,994, with 68.1% of households earning less than $50,000.13 Clearly, the people residing in downtown San Diego are in dire need of any assistance they can get. According to Peter Hall, former president of CCDC, there were “fewer than 10,000 people living in downtown San Diego 10 years ago. Now there are about 22,000, and he expects that number to rise to 85,000 by 2030.”16 One major policy that the city wishes to employ is the active encouragement in attracting more families. Within one mile of the site, the average household size is 1.46; only 3,099 (20%) of the area’s 15,319 households are family households.13 The home mortgage crisis has “received far more notice, but experts say the ranks of renters with dire housing problems are growing faster than the ranks of defaulting homeowners.”10 Part of the Downtown Affordable Housing Strategy, adopted in March 2007, seeks to “expand supply of rental housing for low-income families with emphasis on two- and three-bedroom apartments.” The majority of affordable units in downtown, 87%, are studio units, which “CCDC has been criticized for by community members who argue that downtown should provide a larger supply of units suitable for families with children.”5 The statistics speak for themselves: within five miles of the site, the median household income is only $42,214 while the median family income is only slightly more at $44,836.13 Within five miles of the site, 13.7% of families earn less than $15,000 in annual income, 33.5% of families earn less than $30,000, and 50.2% of families earn less than $45,000. It is quite apparent that low-income families are in need of special attention.




1616

According to Doug Austin, a renowned developer and award-winning design recipient in San Diego for more than 30 years, the city’s “affordability goal is to provide housing that households comprising the general workforce can afford to purchase.”1 The study from the Center for Housing Policy also found that, “registered nurses, identified as the fastest-growing occupation in the United States, cannot afford to purchase a home in more than half the metropolitan areas studied, including San Diego, where the median pay for a nurse is $62,410. Food preparation workers, another high-growth occupation, have no hope of purchasing a home, and with an average wage of $10.22 an hour, they are hard-pressed to afford a one-bedroom apartment in San Diego, which requires an hourly wage of $19.10.”33 Tania Jones, a registered nurse, and her husband, a sound engineer, recently were “able to purchase a home in Rancho San Diego for $417,000, but only after Tania spent five months working at her hospital job 12 hours a day, five days a week…Now with a mortgage payment of $3,300 and other monthly bills totaling $2,500, they have to live frugally, watching what they spend and rarely going out to eat.”33 Weisberg notes that, “for renters, especially those in lower-paying jobs, tough choices must often be made as they try to juggle housing, food and utility expenses in a rental market that has grown increasingly expensive.”33 Utility bills can often be “the crushing blow for some people living on the edge financially,” yet only 2% of affordable-housing developers integrate renewable energy features into their projects, according to the Energy Commission.23 Our proposal will make renewable energy a top priority, along with the most sophisticated green building technology available in order to prevent the building’s design, something out of renter’s control, from making them struggle more financially. Christy Figueroa, a single mother of four said that “even though prices have been going down to buy a home, the rent prices are still up” and that her “family has periodically gone without electricity or water service because she could not always afford to pay her bills and monthly rent.”33

Fortunately, the following goals explicitly put forth in the San Diego Downtown Community Plan, adopted in April 2006, now act as a support structure for the development of affordable housing:

3.4-G-1 Continue to promote the production of affordable housing in all of downtown’s neighborhoods and districts3.4-G-3 Increase the supply of rental housing affordable to low-income persons3.4-G-4 Preserve and expand the supply of single room occupancy (SRO) and living units (small studio apartments) affordable to very low-income persons.3.4-P-1 Utilize land-use, regulatory and financial tools to facilitate the development of housing affordable to all income levels, including: -Development intensity bonuses for builders creating affordable units. -Acquisition and site assembly of sites for future development -Agreements to secure long-term affordability restrictions3.4-P-3 Assist in securing sites and financing the construction of rental housing, with emphasis on creating one- and two-bedroom units affordable to households earning up to 80% of area median income. Leverage Agency resources with other public and private funds for low-income housing. 3.4-P-4 Encourage preservation and construction of SRO and living units with the following actions: -Provide funds to renovate older buildings and secure rent restrictions -Allow reduced parking for projects with rent-restricted units


1717

According to a document entitled Affordable Housing Policy Considerations, the Downtown Community Plan “has established that downtown will have 53,100 residential units by 2025. If 15% of those units are affordable, as required by California Redevelopment Law, then downtown must have about 8,000 affordable units by 2025. By June 2007, downtown will have approximately 3,200 affordable units completed or under construction, which means the goal over the next 15-20 years is to create 4,800 affordable units.”5

Community AmenitiesThe San Diego Downtown Community Plan shows the site within the Central District (Core) and identifies it as being part of a neighborhood center. The Plan has already identified the site as an “opportunity site” within the Columbia District neighborhood, with increased building intensity and a view corridor on the northern portion of the site looking west down Ash Street towards the San Diego Bay. The Plan also shows Ash Street (adjacent to the northern half of the site) as a “Green Street,” which serves to “link parks and other downtown amenities, connect neighborhoods to the waterfront and Balboa Park, and provide outdoor destinations. Enhanced landscaping—including double rows of trees—and expanded sidewalk widths are important components.” In addition, Ash Street to the north, Kettner Street to the west, and A Street to the south – all are designated as having bike paths and lanes. See attached street typology on page 18. This is an ideal situation, given that our intent is to promote alternative modes of transportation and more active lifestyles.

Arts & Cultural LocationsThe site is located only a few blocks south of Little Italy and northwest of the historic Gaslamp Quarter (district) and is within a zone of pedestrian priority. Residents of housing on-site will be within walking distance of the Star of India ship, a historical tourist attraction, and the Ferry to Coronado & NASNI. With plenty of transit options, residents are also not far from the San Diego Aircraft Carrier Museum, Seaport Village, Embarcadero Marina Park, the Children’s Museum, PETCO Park, and the world-famous San Diego Zoo. San Diego International Airport is only a 7-minute drive away, according to Google Maps. Arts and cultural locations, as seen in the Arts & Cultural Locations Map featured on page 19 from the San Diego Downtown Community Plan, are also quite plentiful near the site. Ash & Kettner is only a few blocks away from additional museums, theaters, and other cultural locations, including the new main library.

Parks and Open SpaceDespite being in an urban setting, our site is close to a great deal of open space. Just two to three blocks northwest are the CAC Waterfront Parks overlooking the San Diego Bay. There is also a park proposed for a site only two blocks south of the project site. Moreover, the sizeable and well-known Balboa Park is less than one mile northeast of Ash & Kettner. Please refer to Parks and Open Spaces Map on page 20 from the San Diego Downtown Community Plan.




1818


1919

Site




2020

Site


2121

Public TransitA sizeable proportion of the population within the area walk to work (31%), but the majority (40%) drive alone to work, something we intend to change drastically.9 See the chart representing the Means of Transportation to Work on page 22. In terms of proximity to transit, the site is two blocks north of the trolley and train stations, making the project eligible for a number of state loan programs, and allowing for easy access around the rest of the city and region. There is even a proposed downtown shuttle route that goes south on Kettner Street and east on A Street. See Transit Network Map on page 24 and the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) map on page 25.

The CoasterThe Coaster, run by the North County Transit District, is a good alternative to driving when traveling the San Diego coastline. The 22 train fleet runs weekdays and Saturday. The Coaster offers 8 stops convenient for both work and recreational activities. 19

The TrolleyThe San Diego Trolley is known for its reliability, safety, and convenience. Often called San Diego’s “moving landmark”, the Trolley is a convenient way to get around, whether commuting to work, traveling to the International Border, or heading to downtown’s shopping, restaurants, harbor and historic attractions.27

BusesThe Metropolitan Transit System runs the bus system as well as the trolley making getting around the city easy and fast. With over 100 lines serving the greater San Diego area mobility around the city is accessible to everyone. Schedules are posted online or by phone.29

BikesBiking can be a good alternative when traveling shorter distances. There are several designated bike paths in the downtown core. Bikers in San Diego also have the luxury of flat terrain in the downtown core.22 See Bikeways of the Southwestern San Diego Region Legend and Bike Map on pages 22 and 33 respectively.




2222



Site



2424





2626

Existing Affordable Housing in San DiegoWithin the downtown area there are numerous affordable housing development sites (See map on p14). The newly proposed 10th and B Apartments most closely matches our housing program and aesthetic. At 30 to 60% of AMI 10th and B offers rents from $379-778 for single bedroom, $454-923 for double bedroom, and $434-1066 for triple bedroom units. These rates are comparable to other neighboring affordable housing projects.

The notable architect-developer Ted Smith of San Diego offers both substantive and philosophical advice on building inexpensively. Through modest and affordable units, Smith’s buildings promote urban living that reconnects inhabitants with the city, each other, and themselves.

“Our attitude is, you don’t need a better house than your parents. You need to be downtown, you need to get out of your car, you need to have a little unit, you need to not be upset that your kitchen is not a giant kitchen with 3,000 miles of counter space. I don’t want to get too far with this, but we’re in the war in Iraq because our houses are too big. Think about that, it’s a long hop for most people, but it’s true.” - San Diego City Beat 2007

His project, Essex, takes its aesthetic cue from a WWII aircraft carrier. To symbolize the smoke stacks of the ship and work around the rules of height restriction Smith utilizes a series of loft spaces officially noted as an uninhabited crest or pinnacle of the building. The building utilizes exterior corridors recessed six feet below the floor plate so as to allow for floor to ceiling windows without privacy issues when others walk in front of respective units. Steps come immediately after opening the door to a unit and a entwined series of unit volumes makes for the fina l product: An affordable apartment complex that is iconic, livable, and inter-connected.

Existing Site AnalysisDescriptionThe site is a full 200’ by 300’ city block, approximately 60,810 square feet (or 1.4 acres) in size between Ash and A Street, and between Kettner and India Street in Downtown San Diego. Just South of Little Italy, and on the North edge of the Downtown Core District, the surrounding area has enjoyed fantastic urban growth in the last few years, with two adjacent residential towers currently under construction immediately to the West. Our mixed use site will connect two large existing residential developments, both built in the last seven years – Allegro Tower (designed by Austin Veum Robbins Partners) to the North, bottom left, and Treo (designed by Carrier Johnson) to the South, bottom right. This connection will also serve to better tie Little Italy to the Downtown Core, and the integrated corner park will fulfill planning visions for the area by encouraging green open space.


2727

Current Uses

Existing Office Building: A vacant three story office building currently occupies 10,000 sf at the northeast corner of the site. The design calls for this building to be reused and converted into school facilities for the Harborside School. The building has been vacant for over three months, demonstrating the lack of demand for office space on this site. While substantial retrofits will be undertaken, reusing this building should provide a new space for the Harborside School as quickly as possible, as well as diverting tons of material from landfills, adding to the sustainability of the project.

Harborside School: The abandoned Harborside School occupies the entire West side of the site. This substandard structure will be demolished (while carefully recycling or reusing appropriate materials) to make way for our design’s Museum School and affordable housing podium.

Parking Lot: A seldom-used surface parking lot occupies the southeast corner of the site. This inefficient use of space on such valuable Downtown land is one of the last remnants of the underutilization which plagued this area up until only a few years ago.

Automotive Repair Facilities: Two automotive repair shops occupy the East side of the site. While these are still in operation, they are a completely inappropriate use of the site, which is now surrounded by residential and ground floor commercial uses. Our design proposes similar residential and ground floor commercial and retail uses, which will help transform this area into a vibrant pedestrian cooridor.

The individual parcels that accomodate these uses are currently owned by five distict individual owners. The office building is currently for sale by broker, while the other uses’ unsuitability will make them easy to acquire.

Site Opportunities

View CorridorsPer the Centre City PDO, view corridors will be maintained down Ash and A Streets to the West of the site. This will ensure fantastic views to the San Diego Harbor from both the Harborside School on Ash Street and the affordable housing on A Street for years to come. See view corridor diagram at right.

Offsite Amenities & Community ProgramsDowntown San Diego has an existing “concentration of the region’s human service facilities that provide shelter, meals, counseling, job training, youth programs, and other services to help seniors, the working poor, the sick and disabled, abuse victims, students, and single parents with children,” but the community plan mentions that “prevention of homelessness should be prioritized, including maintenance of affordable housing options and partnerships with human service providers to address needs” (Community Plan 12-1). Existing human services in the downtown area, provided by a variety of state, county, city, and private agencies, include family/individual counseling, recovery services, childcare and after school programs, prevention activities, senior services, emergency/outreach services, community centers and youth activity centers, employment services, and domestic




2828

violence services (Community Plan 12-2).Several of these different types of community services offered by non profit or municipal agencies are located within a short distance from the Kettner and Ash project. Approximately 5 miles away but easily accessible by public transportation there is a Community Service Center run by the City of San Diego. This municipal agency offers a very wide array of different services including but not limited to city job listings and applications, community event information, crime prevention information, and social service referrals. There are three YMCA’s located within a three mile radius of the project with the closest one being a little less than two miles away. The Deaf Community Services of San Diego is located approximately one and a half miles away from Vivo Towers. The San Diego Youth and Community Services organization operates throughout the entire downtown area specializing in youth outreach, drug awareness and youth activities. There are several other community services that continue to operate in the downtown area and this trend will certainly grow with the influx of family housing into this area of high need.

The goal of the downtown community plan is “integrating human service facilities into neighborhoods, allowing service accessibility where people live and work. Smaller facilities that blend in with neighborhood development patterns and potentially generate fewer off-site impacts are preferable to larger facilities. Smaller facilities also enable tighter on-site management” (Community Plan 12-2). The policies set forth in the downtown community plan explicitly allow human service facilities in the Core area, and promote child care, youth activities, and after-school/summer programs (Community Plan 12-4).

It should also be noted that the CCDC Board has “recently asked project applicants to include quality-of-life features in their projects such as eco-roofs, car-sharing programs, public art, open space, and energy conservation for LEED certification.”5

Climate AnalysisSan Diego has an incredibly mild climate with very little wind. Average temperatures top out at about 80 degrees Fahrenheit with a minimum of 50. Shading devices and natural ventilation will help minimize cooling loads in the summer months, while efficient glazing and insulation will help keep interiors comfortable even on winter nights. Thankfully this mild climate will allow the building to use much less energy for HVAC than most comparable buildings in other locations and exterior open spaces will be comfortable any time of the year. The chart at right contains outdoor temperatures for every 2 hour mark of an average day for every month in the year. The temperatures are derived from a sin function of the average maximum and minimum temperatures recorded for each month over the 30 years between 1961 and 1990. All temperatures are in degrees Fahrenheit.


2929

The sun path diagram below illustrates the path of the sun over the site at all times of the year. The black concentric lines indicate the altidude of the sun (the angle above the horizon), and the black radial lines indicate the azimuth (directional angle in relation to South). The red lines indicate the month and time of day. Colors are overlayed on the diagram to indicate times of overheating or cooling. See the key below for descriptions of the colors. Two different shading maps have been overlayed on the diagram to indicate times that can be protected by continuous horizontal shading devices at 30 or 60 degrees above the horizon. See http://squ1.org/wiki/Sun-Path_Diagram for a more detailed description of sun path diagrams.




3030

Site Constraints

Legal Constraints: Centre City Planned District Ordinance Zoning


3131

Core District (C): This district serves as a high-intensity office and employment center. The district operates as a center of regional importance and as a primary hub for business, communications, office, and hotels, with fewer restrictions on building bulk and tower separation than in other districts. Mixed-use projects shall be accommodated as important components of the area’s vitality. Retail, cultural, educational, entertainment, residential, civic, and governmental uses are all permitted. Within the Core District a minimum of 40 percent of the ground floor street frontage shall contain active commercial uses. (15-6-3-16)

Employment Required Overlay (-ER): In order to ensure that there are adequate opportunities for employment based commercial uses, at least 50 percent of the GFA within each project in this overlay district shall contain floor area dedicated to employment uses such as professional office, education, cultural uses, retail, hotel, and other similar commercial uses. Residential uses in this district cannot exceed more than 50 percent of GFA, counted against the Base Floor Area Ratio within any project. (15-6-3-20). PCH will request a variance to this overlay due to the appropriateness of the development in regards to adjacent developments, the location of the site on the edge of the overlay, and most importantly the provision of the two urban schools.




3232

Commercial Street Overlay (-CS): On designated Commercial Streets a minimum of 60 percent of the ground floor street frontage shall contain active commercial uses. (15-6-3-19)

Limited Vehicle Access Overlay: No curb cuts are permitted on the streets designated as limited vehicle access unless driveway access is not feasible on adjacent streets due to lot size and/or configuration, or other significant factors.

FAR Requirements: The development must have a Floor Area Ratio between 5 and 8 per the Centre City PDO. This FAR is found by dividing the gross floor area of the project by the total site area (60,000sf). The FAR may be increased to a maximum of 14 if necessary by providing affordable housing and other bonus amenities. See FAR graphic at right.

Architectural Requirements: The Centre City PDO calls for various architectural requirements that helped to shape the tower form, street wall, and many other components of the project. Refer to Appendix B for the complete list of relevant architectural requirements.

Physical Constraints

One Way Streets: The development site is bound on all sides by one way streets which flow counter-clockwise around the site. This complicates on-street drop off zones for the schools, and calls for unique access to and from the subterranean parking garage. See image of one way streets at right.

Noise: The affordable housing avoids excessive urban noise by rising above it, as well as partially facing in on its own quiet courtyard open space. The Northwest corner park provides an excellent buffer for most of the schools’ uses. Both schools act as a physical barrier to isolate school activities from the residential uses.


3333

Urban Shadows: As with any urban site our development must take into account both the shadows cast on it, and the shadows it casts itself, when considering open outdoor space. While these shadows will remain comfortable in the summer and fall, they may be uncomfortable in the winter, and can block solar access to photovoltaic panels or hybrid solar lighting collectors.




3434

Proximity of Uses: The close proximity of residential and educational uses in this project calls for mitigation of many issues including noise, access and security, and occupancy separations (fire code, etc…), all of which are satisfied by this design.

Cost Efficiency: Being primarily an affordable housing project, construction must be as cost efficient as possible. Extreme care has been taken to ensure that the design satisfies a high level of utility and beauty, while avoiding any unnecessary cost. The mid-rise portion of the affordable housing is extremely cost efficient, with minimal corners and openings. The articulation and balconies are created with prefabricated units which are attached externally to the existing flat stucco shell. The tower uses cost efficient glazing systems and exposed finishes achieving a high end loft feeling without high cost.


3535Chapter 2 - Design



3636

DesignApproach and ProcessThis design is the product of a multitude of different opinions and ideas convergent in a single form. Our team started with four separate architectural designs, all based on the prescribed elements of the rehabilitation of the office building, the tower in the Southeast corner (to maximize solar access), and the podium building type. While some ideas were naturally sacrificed, others evolved into the finished design, which focuses on providing functional, comfortable, and beautiful spaces to occupants while maintaining building efficiency. Over the past four months input from industry professionals including our developer partner, local San Diego architects, and academics have helped to shape the design into what it is today.

General Design Criteria

Design Goals - Maximize sustainability - Build an aesthetically pleasing development - Engage downtown residents - Focus on efficient and useful programming and layout - Keep design appropriate to site and neighborhood

Framing our potential design were a significant number of constraints and guidelines created by the Centre City Planned District Ordinance, the International Building Code, Americans with Disabilities Act, and other relevant codes, as well as LEED. This comprehensive list of constraints and guidelines helped to stimulate the design process due to the context and structure they created.


3737

Uses Diagram

Chapter 2 - Design



3838

Program





4040

Residential

Our goal is to accommodate families with a variety of incomes in mostly 2 and 3 bedroom units, which parallels the Downtown Affordable Housing Strategy document put forth by CCDC. 3 bedroom units make up 35% of the unit count, with another 30% to be 2-bedroom units. The remaining balance is made up of one bedroom platform loft units. Retail, which is encouraged by the Commercial Overlay of the CCDC PDO, will be included on the ground floor at the base of the residential building on India Street, an active street frontage required by the San Diego Downtown Community Plan (Figure 3-7). These uses will be a welcome addition to serve the new residents as well as those affiliated with the school and, of course, the greater Downtown community.

Building Uses

TowerThe crux of the project, the tower, is where the majority of the residential space is to be located. Sited on the southeast corner, the tower is constrained to 22 stories in order to maximize construction efficiencies. In designing the tower, we focused mainly on solar orientation to allow sun into the open spaces below, efficient circulation, and maximizing the residential square footage. To minimize solar heat gains during the summer months, balconies are integrated that provide shade to the units below, and vertical elements protect the West face from the midday afternoon sun. Operable doors and windows in all tower units allow natural breezes within the units. The plan of the tower was designed to minimize the space lost to circulation and reduce the use of interior double loaded corridors. This allows us to dedicate more square footage to the housing units while creating pleasant exterior walkways that encourage residents to interact with their neighbors.

Two and three bedroom flats: Two and three bedroom flats, which are clustered around the elevator core, comprise the bulk of the units in the tower, as can be seen in the Unit Mix Table. These flats were designed with the intention of attracting families to the project. All these units have terrific views of Downtown San Diego or the harbor. See associated two and three bedroom floorplans.





4242

Platform Lofts: The north wing of the tower is comprised of one bedroom platform lofts. This unit type is a marriage of a one bedroom unit and an open loft studio. An elevated bedroom with ½ wall provides privacy for the bed, while making the living space and kitchen more open. This unit type also allows for incredibly efficient and slender unit plans. See Platform Loft floorplan above right.

Midrise Residential

Town Homes: Two story residential units occupy the space on the southwest corner above the ground floor. These 2 and 3 bedroom town homes surround the large courtyard and have ample day lighting and views either into the courtyard or out over the urban streets. The two story town home configuration allows for a maximum number of bedrooms within relatively narrow units. Three bedroom units are typically 25’ wide, and two bedroom units are generally 19’ wide. These widths allow for comfortable bedrooms on the second floor, with living spaces on the first. The town homes also make common circulation space unnecessary on the 3rd and 5th levels, reclaiming an impressive total of 4,500 square feet for rentable uses. See associated two and three bedroom townhome floorplans.





4444





4646

Ground Floor Live/Work: The street frontage of the southwest corner is occupied by five live/work units. These spaces are designed for self employed professionals who want to live and work in an area that caters to the daily crowds of downtown San Diego. The front of the unit offers space for an office with fantastic street front visibility, while the back provides space for a two story open loft. The demand for commercial and retail uses in this area is very unpredictable due to the incredible volume of new development this area is seeing. If demand for street front retail does increase dramatically, these live/work units will be easily converted into commercial space.

Ground Floor Commercial: Traditional commercial and retail space, as well as the management office, residential lobby, and community flex space is provided on the Southeast corner of the development, and as required along India Street. This commercial space adds to the existing pedestrian quality of the existing street front across India, and will serve to better connect Little Italy to the Core District and the rest of Downtown.

Grand Staircase: The grand staircase located on A Street, on the South side of the residential courtyard, provides a welcoming entry into the courtyard and the development. Although it is gated for security, anyone is welcome to sit on the sunny lower steps and enjoy the pedestrian atmosphere. It also breaks up the street wall of the project creating a more intimate and welcoming scale and providing architectural diversity. This staircase also creates an implied connection with the Treo project to the south. Treo has a smaller entry stair located directly across the street from our grand staircase.

Podium and Parking

The Podium Building Type: The entire residential portion of the site (the Southern half) is a wrapped podium building. A parking garage with access off of both India Street and Kettner Boulevard is wrapped by commercial spaces on the ground floor, and extends three levels underground. The roof of this concrete “podium”, (the second floor) is the foundation for the residential tower, midrise, and courtyard uses.

Parking: This project provides 170 new residential units, over half of which are 2 and 3 bedroom units. That makes for a lot of cars. Despite the site’s proximity to many public transport lines and hubs, the project must provide for a large number of cars so as not to overwhelm the existing parking capacity of the area. Currently the three level subterranean parking garage accommodates for .9 spaces per unit with an additional 17 spaces for school and commercial use. While this ratio is acceptable, the parking could easily be increased to a four level garage if there is a substantial need for more school or commercial use parking.

Community Indoor Space

Communal gathering spaces are an important aspect of this family project. Currently, a 1,000 square foot flexible space with full kitchen and adjoining 1,000 square foot deck on the 4th floor of the tower are dedicated for community use, as well as another 1,000 square foot deck attached to the Southwest residential mid-rise (See South Elevation on p 63). There is also a small community flex space connected to the manager’s office and lobby on the ground floor.

An internet café may be integrated into the ground floor commercial space to provide computer access to both residents and the surrounding community. A double height exercise and fitness facility


4747

is provided directly off of the South edge of the courtyard, under the community deck mentioned above. This makes acoustical concerns for the deck a non-issue. The courtyard space adjoining the fitness room provides ample space for outdoor Tai Chi or Yoga classes.

Open Space

The temperate San Diego climate allows for much of the community space to be comfortably located outdoors. This is the driving force behind our large 7,800 square foot courtyard, which provides private and shared open spaces, barbeque area, fountain, seating, landscaping, and a small lawn. If there is the need, the 2nd floor residential town house adjacent to the lawn could be easily converted into a day care facility. In addition, smaller roof decks are located on the 4th and 17th floors which provide fantastic views of Downtown San Diego and the Harbor.

The Urban Academy and Museum Schools

Located along the northern portion of the block are two charter schools - the Urban Academy and the Museum School. These two charter schools have separate classrooms and administration, but enjoy the efficiencies of a larger school by sharing common facilities such as the library, multi-purpose room, kitchen and outdoor space. The Museum School’s curriculum focuses on the arts and languages, while the Urban Academy focuses on successful urban lifestyles. Currently there is a circa 1950’s, three story office building that will be converted into the Urban Academy.

Chapter 2 - Design



4848

ClassroomsUrban Academy Classrooms benefit from the high ceilings and large windows of the current office building. The new Museum Building matches the existing levels of the office building and also provides extensive Northwest facing glass for excellent day lighting without solar gain. Classrooms on the ground floor will serve younger children (K-2), while upper classrooms will support the older children, as well as auxiliary spaces such as art rooms and computer labs. All larger classroom spaces will be initially designed as an open floor plan, to be later subdivided by modular partitions as is necessary for each year’s different class sizes. One example of an acceptable modular partition is National Partition’s acoustically sound DecoWall.

AdministrationThe Urban Academy administration is located on the Northeast corner of the building, mainly due to the existing architecture. When designing for the rehabilitation, we saw the need to respect the existing architecture and locate the entry and administration where it is clearly defined by the exterior articulation of the building. The Museum School entry and administration is located on the opposite side of the school site, on the West side. This separation of administrations should encourage the differentiation of the two schools and their curriculums, while easily sharing communal spaces for day to day activity.

Multi-Purpose SpaceThe Southwest corner of the existing building will be cut out and replaced with a steel moment frame structure, to accommodate for a 3rd floor roof play area, and help with earthquake retrofit stability issues. This double height steel structure will also house the multipurpose room / cafeteria for the two schools. This 2,000 sf room is adjacent to a full kitchen, and includes a service area and storage for tables and chairs.


4949

Open Space Outdoor play areas are located both on the roof of the new multipurpose/cafeteria space and on the northwest corner of the site. In total there are 16,255 square feet of outdoor space. This should support up to 230 children, which will easily accommodate the existing sizes of the two schools. Should the schools grow, recess and lunch times may be alternated to accommodate for more children sharing the outdoor spaces. The corner park will be closed to the public until 4:00 pm on school days, at which time the gates will be opened providing the surrounding community with a much needed public park on weekends and weekday afternoons.

Security A very important concern was the security for the elementary schools’ outdoor play space located at the corner of two busy streets. By recessing the play areas several feet below street level, we created a subtle but significant differentiation between the spaces that is further aided by the use of a vegetated buffer planted with native bushes and trees. A decorative iron fence will inconspicuously run along the middle of the buffer, and include lockable gates at the two entry locations so as to provide a solid layer of protection.

Building Services

Low income housing located in downtown San Diego will look toward Vivo Towers as a model for other housing projects to emulate. Acting as an example, it is important for this development to set a high standard not only with the end use product but with end use services as well. Poly Collaborative Housing has taken a long term investment approach and is proposing that community services be one of the key focus points of the entire Kettner and Ash development.

While there are several community groups and services within a reasonable distance of the project that offer opportunities to residents, it is important for us to make a clear effort in connecting these groups and services to the residents. As part of the proposal to offer building services, it is perhaps the most important service to provide this connection through an in-house community services coordinator that will be part of the building management team. It will be this staff person’s responsibility to act as a liaison between residents who have specific needs and the community building services that are available. Some examples of community services that can be connected to residents in need through this services coordinator would be vocational training, transportation information, sustainable living workshops, job search services, or any of the existing services discussed in the Site Opportunities section. The services coordinator’s continued involvement with available community services will provide aid to residents as the needs of the residents continue to evolve. This team member will also control the use and daily operations of the on site community spaces.

Vivo Towers offers certain services that would make it more appealing to families in need of affordable living conditions than the existing comparable projects. Two particular services that Poly Collaborative Housing is proposing make this project unique from the others. The first is an ongoing ESL service and the other is an after school care program. Our intention is to develop and ESL program using qualified residents in exchange for reduced monthly rent. This program would offer benefits for all that are involved. The qualified resident teaching ESL would have the opportunity to contribute to their direct

Chapter 2 - Design



5050

community and would benefit by having a reduced monthly rent. In exchange, the residents who are taking the ESL classes would benefit by becoming more prepared to work in the local economy.

The second unique community service is an after school care program that utilizes the open space and facilities of the Urban Academy and Museum School. Due to the legal structure of charter schools, there is no foreseeable way to offer seats in either school to residents over other public families who are on the waiting list, however they do have just as good a chance of admittance as does any other family in the neighborhood.

The Urban Academy and Museum School will serve some families from Vivo Towers through admittance to the schools, but they will serve all of the families, as well as the surrounding community, by providing facilities and space for after school and various community programs. This could take on several different forms such as qualified residents acting as supervisors of the program that would include children that are both tenants or attending one of the schools. Whatever the outcome may be of this agreement, there are opportunities in offering this community service that should be investigated further and taken advantage of.

Other service oriented amenities included in the project include:

• Furniture & clothing exchange (physical space for storage, bulletin board, and online posting)• Bicycle space (parking & storage)• Courtyard garden (urban agriculture)• Community kitchen (take turns cooking for each other, as occurs in some co-housing)• Assembly space for gatherings• Self-management program (engage people in caring about where they live and enabling

them to make decisions about what is needed and wanted in terms of additional amenities and maintenance)

• Public art• Car-sharing• Children’s play areas• Sustainability/“green living”/healthy lifestyle educational program (e.g. nutrition, diet, carbon

footprint, zero waste, energy efficiency)• Computer skills class • Childcare• ESL classes• Workforce training and employment placement program• Childcare Facilities• Live/Work Units





5252





5454





5656





5858





6060





6262





6464


6565Chapter 3 - Sustanability



6666

SustainabilitySustainability is Affordability “Only 2 percent of affordable-housing developers integrate renewable energy features into their projects, according to the Energy Commission. Yet utility bills can be the crushing blow for some people living on the edge financially.”23

Sustainability is not what comes to mind immediately when thinking about affordable housing. Yet the residents in affordable housing are often unable to afford enormous energy and utility bills. The cost of energy has risen exponentially in recent years making it a much larger burden on homeowners. These forces are what make sustainability such an attractive solution financially for affordable housing developments. Focusing on sustainability also helps prevent climate change and protect our environment. We believe however that a focus on sustainability should be broadened to a focus on the triple bottom line. The triple bottom line is profits, people, and planet. For our project we looked at the ability for sustainability to serve all three parts of the bottom line. It can serve to save money, improve people’s lives, and preserve our planet.

Kettner & Ash will incorporate a variety of features in an attempt to be sustainable. Some of these are conventional wisdom while some are more creative and innovative. Throughout the design of the project we have consulted the guidelines of the US Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) guidelines.

Green Building Rating Systems, and LEEDMost green building standards currently exist only at a regional level. However, LEED is the only standard that is prominent on a national level as well as an international level. Currently, the most viable alternative to LEED is California’s Build it Green. Although we considered using both Build it Green and LEED as rating systems for our project, we felt that LEED better complemented our project and goals than Build it Green, which is generally geared towards smaller residential projects.

LEED is by far the most marketable and well-known system for judging the degree to which large buildings are sustainable. The popularity alone makes it the obvious grading system of choice. The fact that LEED is so well-known and so pervasive in the public awareness makes it the most relevant. Standards are only effective if they are widely used and are measures with which to compare. LEED has also been shown to reduce operating costs. Many articles detail that LEED is a system which has a proven track record. One article from the most recent issue of The Global Envirotimes, an online newsletter, stated “Not only are these LEED certified buildings a financial incentive to builders and property owners, due to their increased value, they are also cheaper to operate with an average payback time of 12 to 24 months to recoup the additional costs involved.”


6767

According to the United States Green Building Coalition (USGBC) green buildings:

• Reduce energy use by 30 to 50%• Reduce carbon emissions 35%• Have a 40% reduction in water usage• Account for 70% less solid waste

An article by Ashley Katz also detailed that these benefits have been verified by a third party other than the USGBC.17 The USGBC is the creator and manager of the LEED standard. The article also went into the proven cost savings associated with LEED, “Two recently released studies, one by the New Buildings Institute (NBI) and one by CoStar Group, have validated what USGBC members have been saying all along: third-party-certified buildings outperform their conventional counterparts across a wide variety of metrics, including energy savings, occupancy rates, sale price, and rental rates. In the NBI study, the results indicate that new buildings certified under LEED are, on average, performing 25-30% better than non-LEED certified buildings in terms of energy use.”

“The CoStar Group study found that LEED buildings command rent premiums of $11.24 per square foot and have 3.8 percent higher occupancy rates than conventional buildings. The studies also demonstrate that there is a correlation between increasing levels of LEED certification and increased energy savings. Gold and Platinum LEED certified buildings have average energy savings approaching 50%.”17

These articles further extol the proven cost savings in operations that LEED can provide. While other standards exist, the sheer popularity and number of results LEED has make it the clear choice for our project.

Criticisms of LEEDAlthough LEED is considered the market leader, this does not mean it is the best. There are still many concerns about LEED. Some relevant ones are raised by Schendler and Udall in their article “Top Green building system is in desperate need of repair.” The issues that they are raising are some of the same problems that many people see with LEED. They are: mediocre “green” buildings where certification, not environmental responsibility, is the primary goal; a few super-high-level eco-structures built by ultra-motivated (and wealthy) owners that stand like the Taj Mahal as beacons of impossibility; an explosion of LEED-accredited architects and engineers chasing lots of money but designing few buildings; and a discouraged cadre of professionals who want to build green, but can’t afford to certify their buildings.26

While LEED certification does cost money, we feel it is necessary to be certified to increase awareness and marketability of our project and to have a benchmark to strive for. In addition, San Diego provides expedited discretionary processes for buildings that achieve LEED silver. This incentive may actually make LEED certification pay for itself on such a large project, due to significantly reduced delays in the

Chapter 3 - Sustanability



6868

approval of key documents and plans. The payback periods on the sustainable measures described in the following are manageable, and will significantly reduce building operating costs in the future through durability of materials and decreased resource usage.

Sustainable Features of Kettner & AshVivo Towers encourages and enable residents to live a more sustainable lifestyle. Many features of our project passively save energy and resources. On the other hand, many of our sustainable features’ benefits (such as recycling programs) can only be achieved through active use by residents. Our program centers on creating awareness of these features and encouraging their use. The following is a list of sustainable strategies that we plan to integrate into our project. They are organized under the main categories in the LEED rating system, however some do not directly relate to LEED Credits. Those that do directly relate to LEED Credits are noted.

Sustainable Sites

Site SelectionAs discussed earlier, our site is located in San Diego’s city core. It is an urban infill site. Urban infill focuses on the reuse of obsolete or underutilized buildings and sites usually in the urban core. This type of development is considered smart growth and is crucial to reviving depressed neighborhoods and connecting them with more prosperous communities. In addition, urban infill minimizes the use of undeveloped land and maximizes our access to amenities. See Chart for the locations of the amenities. The location is also within blocks of the main transit hub of San Diego. (SS Credit 1, SS Credit 2, and SS Credit 4.1)

Alternative TransportationBike StorageOur project will have bike storage to reduce reliance on fossil fuel transportation. The storage will make the use of bikes as easy as grabbing a taxi. The ability to bike will provide residents with an affordable alternative to the expensive form of transportation known as the personal car. (SS Credit 4.2)

Carshare There will be designated spots in the residential parking structure for car-share programs like Zipcar, which enables residents to


6969

have access to a car without owning one. This will enable occupants to have the ability to move more freely that comes with having a personal car without the tremendous costs of owning one.

EcopassEcopass is a system that provides a discount for riding mass transit. This is achieved through buying transit passes in bulk. The program requires that there is one contact person who manages the program. There is a 25 person minimum at all times and the start up period is for three months. After the three month period, the terms extend to a yearly basis. All passes must be pre-paid for the entire contract duration period.

The base cost for a pass is $64 per person per month. In order to receive any type of bulk discount, the minimum purchase is a quantity of 300, which yields a 10% discount. The next level of discount begins with a quantity of 601. Vivo Towers will serve as the managing intermediary, and provide Ecopasses to interested residents at their own cost. The passes could also be purchased for just the three month introductory period as a promotion to encourage lease-up.

Controlled Storm Water Runoff Capture Rain Water Roof Collectors will capture rainwater for use in irrigation. This will have the compound effect of both reducing storm water runoff and reducing the amount of water that the complex demands for irrigation. (SS Credit 6.1 and SS Credit 6.2)

Permeable HardscapingOur hardscaped areas such as sidewalks and playground will utilize permeable materials to increase stormwater infiltration passively and reduce runoff. (SS Credit 6.1 and SS Credit 6.2)

Heat Island Effect ReductionKettner & Ash will use roof gardens and green roofs on some of the roofing area. This will be in combination with high-reflectivity materials on other roofs such as the one being leased to SDGE for photovoltaic arrays. These measures will increase the percentage of the sunlight that is reflected and thus decrease the amount of heat absorbed by the building. This in turn reduces the amount of heat expelled off the building mass, reducing the Heat Island Effect. (SS Credit 7.1 and SS Credit 7.2)

Light Pollution Reduction The Kettner & Ash development will utilize lighting that does not add to the ambient light pollution that is common in urban areas by minimizing upward exterior lighting. (SS Credit 8)

Water Efficiency

Water Efficient LandscapingKettner & Ash specifies native vegetation for xeriscaping for passive reduction of water use. Xeriscaping is the use of indigenous species of plants for landscaping that require no extra irrigation. These species are already designed to thrive in the natural climate of each locality. In San Diego, these are plants which are designed for the little rainfall that occurs in the region. These plants will reduce the need for




7070

irrigation of the courtyards and play area landscaping. (WE Credit 1.1 or WE Credit 1.2)

Greywater RecyclingGreywater recycling is used for irrigation of outdoor areas. This is achieved through rainwater retention systems, and shower/lavatory water recapturing systems. This will allow us to actively reduce runoff without requiring a costly water treatment system typically needed when reusing within the building. In addition, SDG&E offers tax rebates for greywater recycling systems. Further costs-savings would be achieved by lower utility costs thus lowering the operations budget. (WE Credit 1.1 or WE Credit 1.2)

Low-flow Water Fixtures and AppliancesOur project will install all low-flow water fixtures such as dual flush toilets and low-flow water showerheads and sink fixtures. The project will only install Energy Star appliances rated for lower water use such as front loading washers. These features will actively reduce the amount of water each resident uses without compromising the comforts of the lifestyle they are accustomed to. (WE Credit 3.1 or WE Credit 3.2)

Energy and AtmospherePhotovoltaic Shading DevicesPhotovoltaic shading devices will be used over tower windows to not only provide shade and passively reduce cooling costs but to actively produce energy as well. (EA Credit 1, EA Credit 2, and EA Credit 6)

Vegetative CoolingPlant materials stay relatively cool, even in direct sunlight, due to their high water content and photosynthesis process. Areas adjacent to live vegetation are naturally kept cool due to the shade that the vegetation provides, and its natural tendency to remain cool. A “Living Blade” of live ivy runs up the iconic blade on the South elevation of the tower, both shading and cooling the adjacent South facing balconies. This principle will also help to keep both the residential courtyard and the schools’ playground cool in the summer months.

Horizontal Balconies Horizontal balconies will not only provide a nice open private space but serve as passive shading devices for the units below. This will reduce the need for climate control and save on energy and utilities. (EA Credit 1)

Vertical Shading DevicesVertical Elements run up the West elevation of the tower to help shade the glass from the afternoon sun and passively reduce cooling needs. These also provide privacy to the individual balconies. (EA Credit 1)


7171

InsulationHigh R-value insulation will be used to maintain constant inside temperatures and passively reduce energy use. (EA Credit 1)

Thermal MassThe exposed concrete floors and walls used in many of the project’s spaces act as substantial thermal masses. These masses absorb heat during the day and release it at night, keeping it cool during the daytime and warm at night. This reduces energy needs at the time of highest demand in the building. (EA Credit 1)

Windows and DoorsWindows and doors with a high R-value and Low Infrared Transmittance will be used. This will help passively maintain the indoor temperatures and reduce energy costs. (EA Credit 1)

Natural VentilationResidents will have the ability to naturally ventilate their living spaces by opening windows and doors. This will provide a connection with the outside space, as well as achieving excellent indoor air quality. Some units have the ability for pass through ventilation (EA Credit 1)

Natural LightingStrategically placed windows will allow residential units and classrooms to rely more heavily on natural day lighting, dramatically reducing energy use for lighting. (EA Credit 1)

Low-energy LightingKettner & Ash will utilize innovate lighting systems such as hybrid solar lighting to actively reduce energy use. Hybrid solar lighting is a system where light is redirect from a parabolic collector on the rooftop of a building through fiber optic cables to lower floors. This light is then fed into interior fixtures which have fluorescent lights in addition to these fiber optic cables to ensure a constant level of lighting. LEDs and CFLs will also be used in all other lighting fixtures to reduce energy needs. (EA Credit 1)

Photovoltaics A large array of photovoltaics will be installed on the roof of the West wing mid-rise residential to actively capture San Diego’s abundant sunshine. Vivo Towers has two possible options for handling the operations of its photovoltaic systems. The first option consists of leasing roof space to San Diego Gas & Electric, who have a program whereby they pay rent to the project for roof space, where they in turn install their own photovoltaic system. This saves the initial costs that would be incurred by installing such a system while still providing the environmental benefits. It does not however directly reduce the utility bill, only provides the incentive of a subsidy in the form of “roof rent”.

If the space is not rented to SDG&E, Vivo Towers can choose to install and operate its own solar array, thus directly using the energy produced to minimize the utility bill. The project has 5400 square feet of roof space on which photovoltaic panels are feasible. That provides the project with space to install 54 kW worth of solar panels. Such a system would cost $486,000 installed. However, it would produce about 75,600 kWh per month, which would save approximately $10,055 per month in utility costs. In addition, it would qualify the project for the Expected Performance Buy Down program of the




7272

California Solar Initiative, from which Vivo Towers would receive a rebate of $135,000 upon installation of the PV system.

Through the California Solar Initiative (CSI), the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) will provide over $2.1 billion in solar incentives over the next decade to existing residential plus existing and new commercial, industrial and agricultural solar projects. The CSI has been allocated $203.5M for incentives in the San Diego region. SDGE and the California Center for Sustainable Energy assured us that we would qualify for such a system.

The bottom line cost would be $486,000 for installation minus the $135,000 rebate which is $351,000. It would save the development about $120,960 per year in energy costs. So the payback would be just short of 3 years. Starting in the fourth year, the system would save Vivo Towers $120,960 each year based on a constant cost of conventional energy. (EA Credit 1, EA Credit 2, and EA Credit 6)

Efficient HVACHVAC systems used in Kettner & Ash will be of the top level of efficiency in order to actively use less energy. This will help reduce the higher energy costs that are often required in regions that need air-conditioning like San Diego. (EA Credit 1)

Energy Recapture DevicesInnovative devices such as microturbines and local water heaters will be utilized to actively reduce energy loss. These would only be installed once their reliability and payback periods have been determimed. (EA Credit 1)

Energystar AppliancesOnly appliances rated for efficient use of energy will be installed thus actively reducing the energy needs of the project. (EA Credit 1)

Energy Use MonitorsEach unit will have an energy use monitor. This will be a display that displays real time energy use and historical energy use. This will make residents conscious of the amount of energy they are using. This will enable them to monitor their own energy use over time and learn how to reduce their utility costs. The lobby will also feature a screen displaying the energy use currently and historically across the whole building. This will be one of the main ways in which our building will interact with the residents actively. It will serve as a connection for the residents to understand the tangible energy savings they can make through reduced consumption of energy.

Materials and Resources


7373

Separation of WastesSeparate waste chutes will be installed at each trash location to collected recyclables in addition to garbage. Recyclables will also be stored separately on site until being collected. Recycling bins will also be present in all common areas to encourage recycling. (MR Prereq 1)

Composting / Greenwaste DisposalVivo Towers will have separate collection bins for composting and greenwaste. The city of San Diego offers pickup for these materials. Green waste makes up a large portion of the consumer waste stream and this will help mitigate that. Greenwaste will also be collected from maintenance of the common open spaces.

Adaptive Reuse Our project will be reusing the existing shell of the office building on the northeast corner of the site. It will be converted into the Urban Academy. This will cut down on the demand for new materials and prevent the need to dispose of a large quantity of waste. Reuse is the best way to reduce the high demands on resources of new materials.

Construction Waste ManagementAll construction waste will be managed at the site. Attempts to reuse or recycle whatever possible will be made. (MR Credit 2.1)

Recycled Content Construction MaterialsWe will make use of recycled construction materials such as recycled steel and fly ash concrete. This will reduce the need for virgin materials. (MR Credit 4.1 or MR Credit 4.2)

Regionally Sourced MaterialsKettner & Ash will utilize materials that are produced as locally whenever possible. This will enable us to reduce the net carbon output produced in the transportation of construction materials to the site. Southern California has many manufactures of construction materials and buying from these suppliers will further create jobs in the local economy. (MR Credit 5.1 or MR Credit 5.2)

FSC Certified WoodKettner & Ash will use FSC certified wood wherever possible. (MR Credit 7)

Rapidly Renewable MaterialsWood alternative materials such as cork, bamboo, and linoleum will be used for flooring and wherever else possible. These materials are rapidly renewable and help reduce the material demand on the environment. (MR Credit 6)

Modular SystemsModular systems, especially in the school




7474

classrooms, will enable cheaper construction costs with less construction waste at the site. They will also ease the construction and time required to complete the project.

Indoor Environmental Quality

Natural ventilation Kettner & Ash will utilize natural cross and stack ventilation to maximize natural cooling and heating. This will provide for energy savings as well. Using ambient air for ventilation is made very feasible by San Diego’s temperate climate. (EQ Credit 2 and EQ Credit 7.1)

Low Toxin SurfacesThe use of low VOC carpeting and finishes and non-toxic formaldehyde-free insulation will reduce the residents’ exposure to airborne toxins by increasing indoor air quality. This will reduce the likelihood of health complications such as asthma which are exacerbated by airborne toxins. (EQ Credit 4.1, EQ Credit 4.2, and EQ Credit 4.3)

Controllability of LightEach occupant will have complete control over the active and passive lighting features in their environment. (EQ Credit 6.1)

Controllability of Space Each room enables individual control of temperature, which is enabled through individual thermostats. Vivo Towers also has operable windows which allow for natural ventilation and improved air quality. This will provide an alternative to using HVAC thus reducing energy needs. (EQ Credit 6.2)

Green Edible WallsTo emphasize urban agriculture, each apartment will feature a green edible wall. This consists of wall that is more or less a series of small planters. In these small planters, residents can plant edible plants such as herbs for cooking. These walls will improve indoor air quality as well as provide a source of food for residents. This will enable the residents to have a direct connection with the food they are consuming and provide a significant cost-savings. In addition, it will create a connection to the process of growing food from which the majority of us are removed today. These walls are also aesthetically pleasing and a focal point to the units.

Indoor / Outdoor ConnectionsOur architecture features multiple indoor/outdoor connections. This increases indoor air quality and creates a connection for residents to the outdoors. (EQ Credit 7.1)


7575

Natural DaylightingThe development at Kettner and Ash maximizes the use of natural light. This will save on energy costs and improve the feel of the environment in rooms. These features will also enable for warming of thermal masses. (EQ Credit 8.1)

ViewsKettner & Ash will provide spectacular views of the core of San Diego and its waterfront. (EQ Credit 8.2)

Private Open SpaceIn addition to the lower courtyard, each apartment has its own private open space in the form of a patio or balcony. This enables residents to enjoy the outdoors in a more private setting.

Program Oriented

The following is a list of program oriented features that the development utilizes to encourage and incorporate sustainability into the residents’ daily lives. While many of these features are not directly related to the LEED certification program, they will provide valuable services and features to residents which enhance their day to day lives, as well as promoting sustainability.

Community Exchange / Thrift StoreWe plan on having a space where community members can leave unwanted stuff when they move elsewhere. This will either be in the form of a thrift store or just a space. This will save items from unnecessarily going into the waste stream. It will also save residents on the costs of having to furnish their new spaces. Items will be listed on the Vivo Towers Management website, as well as bulletin boards in the lobby and community spaces.

Community GardenAs another facet of our program of urban agriculture we will have a community garden in the central courtyard. This will serve a similar function to the edible walls in that it will provide a source of food. This will be greatly beneficial to the residents individually as well as provide a gathering point for the community and an activity for residents.

Edible WallsAs discussed earlier, edible walls will be installed in the apartments to provide a source of food.




7676

Edible Landscaping The outdoor landscaping will not only be native species but also species that are edible such as rosemary and lemon trees.

Sustainable EducationSustainable education information will be given to residents upon moving in and throughout their occupancy. Some of this information will inform them of the sustainable features of the building to help them achieve full utilization of them. Other information will be given to help residents live a more sustainable lifestyle. The information will be distributed through community newsletters, informational pamphlets, the Vivo Towers website, informational meetings run by the staff, and open discussion.

Pedestrian Courtyards & Frontage Kettner & Ash will have pedestrian courtyards and frontage to engage those walking by on the street. This will include features such as a grand staircase that help to reduce the scale and create a more intimate experience. This will provide enjoyable open spaces not just for residents but the community at large. It will help to merge the project into the fiber of the neighborhood that already exists and complement rather than contrast it.

Recycled ArtAny public art used in the development will be fabricated using recycled materials. This encourages recycling education, as well as simply reusing the materials.

Solar Trash Compactors Bins Big Belly Solar Trash Compactors will be used in outdoor areas to facilitate trash collection and reduce maintenance costs. These trash compactors look like normal trash receptacles, but using solar energy via a small collector, they compact the trash inside to make collection necessary only 1/3 of the times of a conventional trash receptacle.


7777Chapter 4 - Construction & Phasing



7878

Construction and PhasingAt PCH, we understand that a successful construction portion of any development project is vital to the success of the overall project. We plan on delivering a quality product without the occurrence of cost or schedule overruns. As a first step in accomplishing this, we propose the materials, schedule, means, and methods outlined below.

Building TypesTower- Type I with a high-strength concrete with fly ash super-structure and post-tension concrete floor decks. Podium- Modified type V with a wood frame over a concrete podium.Parking- Type I with a high-strength concrete with fly ash super-structure and post-tension concrete floor decks.

Innovative Materials

100ksi rebarWe are considering 100-ksi rebar as an option for tower super-structure reinforcement. 100-ksi rebar, manufactured by MMFX technologies Corp. in Irvine, CA, is a recently developed material that reduces the amount of seismic confinement steel in columns and shear-wall boundary elements by 40%, compared to 60-ksi rebar. It also reduces vertical rebar tonnage by 6 to 7%. This means less rebar congestion, which slows construction and can affect quality. With 100-ksi rebar, beam-column connection is expected to be 25% faster because there are fewer ties, greater rebar spacing, and reduced rebar diameter. Concrete placement will also take less time due to the reduced rebar congestion. The overall effects of using 100-ksi rebar over conventional 60-ksi bar are a reduction in the overall construction schedule duration and reduced material, labor, and equipment costs for rebar and structural concrete placement.


7979

ConXtechConXtech could be used in the podium. ConXtech is a new, architecturally flexible metal framing system targeted at the mid to high-rise high-density residential market. It can be used to build higher than the building code limitations governing wood and, with savings of 25-35% over conventional steel framing, is comparable in cost to wood frame construction. Other benefits of ConXtech over other super-structure types include that it erects in a fraction of the time because it is pre-manufactured and simple to assemble, creates virtually no onsite waste, doesn’t require shear walls, brace frames or the alignment of load paths, has better seismic performance, and it is far less labor intensive, non-combustible, and dimensionally stable. ConXtech also manufactures modular floor, stair, and exterior panel systems that can be integrated into the metal framing.

Superstructure

Exterior Walls: TowerThe building envelope of the tower will be a curtain wall system of modular architectural concrete panels. Modular concrete panels will decrease installation time, resulting in reduced costs and a shortened schedule. The utilization of low-e glazing decreases heating and cooling costs.

Exterior Walls: PodiumWe will utilize an Exterior Insulation and Finish System (EIFS) for the podium. EIFS is inexpensive and its insulation boards can cover a building’s entire exterior wall space, in essence, eliminating any thermal breaks in the insulation barrier. This can reduce energy consumption, reduce air infiltration, and increases interior comfort.

Interior FinishesMany of the tower finishes will consist of the exposed superstructure and ducts. This exposed finish can create a “high end loft” appearance while avoiding both the environmental and fiscal costs of additional finish materials.

Floor systemThe floor system and roof is cast-in-place post-tensioned flat plates supported by concrete columns. We are considering an exposed, finished concrete floor to stay congruent with the exposed finish look and for its economic and health benefits. Concrete finishing techniques such as staining, coloring, and polishing have long been in practice and are well developed. Economic advantages of an exposed concrete floor include not purchasing or installing additional finish material and very little long-term maintenance and replacement costs like those associated with conventional finish flooring such as carpet, hardwood. Health benefits include better indoor air quality as the need for flooring adhesives is eliminated, and elimination of indoor allergens that typically accompany carpeting.

Chapter 4 - Construction & Phasing



8080


8181Chapter 5 - Community Support



8282

Community Participation & SupportApproach and ProcessCommunity support for this project so far has been very enthusiastic. On April 3rd we presented the preliminary design to the CCDC’s Educational Task Force, a group of highly influential education and development leaders in San Diego. Many attendees requested a copy of our presentation and images to be posted on their respective websites. We have also had phone conversations with multiple local organizations regarding their support of this idea. Parents are excited about the prospect of providing schools, and everyone recognizes the need for affordable family housing in the area. While we are sensitive to the need for some confidentiality regarding the mass public and this project’s early status, we are confident in the community and local government’s support.

OrganizationsSupport for the Kettner and Ash project will come in many forms and from several different sources. One of the most important forms of support for this project is found through direct contact with key public agencies that have significant influence in how the City of San Diego plans and operates development projects. The Poly Collaborative Housing Team has reached out to several sources for both information and support in developing the proposal for this project. Some of the most important agencies that have supported the Kettner and Ash project are listed below with descriptions of their operations and relevance to our project.

Centre City Development CorporationThe Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC) was formed in 1975 by former San Diego Mayor and California Governor Pete Wilson and the City Council. The motivation in creating the CCDC was to aid in the revitalization of downtown San Diego, which had been physically and economically blighted from the previous two and a half decades of neglect and abandonment. From 1975 to present, the CCDC has acted as a public, non-profit organization in charge of implementing redevelopment projects and programs in downtown San Diego. Acting as a catalyst for public-private partnerships, it is crucial to have the full support of the CCDC from the beginning stages of any housing development located within their sphere of influence.

San Diego Unified School DistrictThe San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) has operated as the sole source school district in San Diego for over 150 years, since its inception in 1854. As of 2005, the SDUSD operates 118 elementary schools, 24 middle schools, 29 high schools, 35 charter schools and 15 alternative schools in an area of approximately two hundred square miles. In addition to academic curriculum, the SDUSD is tasked with management of a $1.51 billion bond measure passed by voters of San Diego to repair, rebuild and construct schools throughout the district. The Harborside and Museum Schools proposed as a part of the Kettner and Ash project are both charter schools and are subject to review and approval by the SDUSD and will be an important component of support for this project.


8383

San Diego Downtown PartnershipServing as the economic, cultural and governmental watchdog, the Downtown San Diego Partnership (DSDP) was formed in 1993 as a result from a merger of two separate business organizations. The DSDP is a privately funded non-profit organization that advocates and promotes the responsible growth of the downtown area in many aspects. One of those aspects is the development of public facilities and infrastructure that serve the downtown area. The Kettner and Ash project has elements of public facilities that will benefit from the support of the DSDP.

San Diego Housing FederationThe primary purpose of the San Diego Housing Federation (SDHF) is to promote the development of affordable housing with a focus of low income families and those who have housing need. As a tax exempt charitable organization, the SDHF promotes interest from all sectors of development and housing in the affordable housing market acting as an educator to the needs of low income families. The guiding principle of the SDHF is balance between housing and other living needs such as health care and transportation. Support of the Kettner and Ash project by SDHF is a pivotal component for long term success and will promote awareness of affordable housing in downtown San Diego.

San Diego Housing CommissionThe San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC) is a public agency that is tasked with connecting people of low income in San Diego with the rising costs of housing in the area. Since 1979, the SDHC has helped more than 75,000 people per year with housing needs through various programs. As one of the primary agencies that offer tax credits and other incentives for affordable housing, support from SDHC is one of the most critical elements to a successful affordable housing project in San Diego. In addition, the SDHC supports and promotes job training and educational programs for low income housing residents so that they are able to develop useful skills allowing them to become self sufficient.

There are several other agencies, firms and individuals that have been instrumental in supporting the Kettner and Ash project. Each of these firms is a significant part of the development process and will be valuable sources of support for the project. Letters of support have been included to demonstrate the overwhelming need for affordable housing in downtown San Diego and how the Kettner and Ash project will be in line with meeting that need.

Chapter 5 - Community Support



8484


8585Chapter 6 - Finance



86

FinanceGeneralVivo Towers represents a dynamic and complex project that highlights the challenges of affordable housing finance. Poly Collaborative Housing approached this complex project with the intention of developing a creative and realistic finance structure to achieve our project goals. In addition to the financial analysis of the affordable housing component, PCH examined the funding requirement necessary to create two new elementary schools in Downtown San Diego.

Project GoalsAttract low income families back into Downtown San Diego through the creation of 173 - affordable rental units, with a focus on 2 and 3 bedroom unit plans.Decrease operating expenditures by maximizing efficient use of space, integrating innovative - construction materials, and incorporating renewable energy sources.Create a secure and realistic financing structure that effectively leverages multiple funding - programs to achieve project feasibility.Incorporate and finance the construction of a LEED Silver certified affordable housing project.-

Project Overview With a total development cost of approximately $84 million, PCH worked closely with the San Diego Center City Development Corporation and Barone Galasso & Associates to develop an overall financing strategy that was realistic and effectively layered multiple funding programs to maximize project feasibility.

Formation of LLP

In assessing the financing options for Vivo Towers, PCH determined that two primary funding mechanisms would be required for project feasibility. Due to the size, complexity and development cost of Vivo Towers, PCH elected to pursue the use of Tax Exempt Bond Financing in conjunction with Federal 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credit program. To facilitate the use of these funding programs and improve the project’s competitive standing, PCH will form a new Limited Liability Partnership with the San Diego CCDC, Barone Galasso & Associates, and Red Capital Group for the syndication of tax credit proceeds and management of Vivo Towers. The inclusion of the CCDC will provide the LLP with a 501(c)3 designation and make the project eligible for property tax exemption.


87

Scope of Services

General PartnerBarone Galasso & Associates will serve as the General Partner in the LLP with a vested interest of 0.01%. BGA has extensive experience in the affordable housing industry having built and managed numerous affordable rental developments throughout California. In addition to serving as the lead developer, BGA will provide permanent property management services at project completion.

Limited PartnersRed Capital Group will serve as a limited partner and tax credit syndicator for the Vivo Towers project. RCG will have a 99.99% vested interest in the LLP and will provide the tax credit equity investment for the project.

Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC)The San Diego Center City Development Corporation will also be a Limited Partner and ensure the compliance and operation of Vivo Towers as an affordable rental project.

Affordable Rental Units

Vivo Towers will increase the supply of affordable rental units in Downtown San Diego by 173 units. All of the units will be rent restricted and available for low income families earning a maximum of 50% and 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI)

Long-Term Affordability

A minimum of 55-years of affordability restriction will be included as a condition of transferring title of the land and complying with CTCAC regulations

Chapter 6 - Finance



88

Affordable Housing Finance Structure

Project Sources and Uses

SOURCES OF FUNDS Construction Permanent USES OF FUNDS AmountTax Exempt Bond 46,223,613 - Hard CostsCCDC Soft Loan 23,477,076 23,477,076 Acquisition 200,000Capital Contributions Construction Costs 62,059,868

Limited Partners 14,342,244 30,645,646 General Contractor Exp. 7,136,885Deferred Developer Fees - 1,250,000 TOTAL HARD COSTS 69,396,752

MHP 5,190,000 Prop 1C - TOD - 8,650,000 Soft CotsTax Exempt Bond Financing - 14,830,211 Architecture and Engineering 3,469,838

Building Permit and Fees 2,267,595Financing Costs 4,130,322Legal Fees 45,000Capitalized Reserves 2,289,957Other Soft Costs 555,556Soft Cost Contingency 637,913Developer Fee 1,250,000TOTAL SOFT COSTS 14,646,180

TOTAL SOURCES 84,042,933 84,042,933 TOTAL USES 84,042,933

Affordable Rental Housing

Sources and Uses

Project Uses

Land AcquisitionThrough our arrangement with the CCDC, the existing office building and the 200’ x 300’ site will be acquired by the CCDC. Roughly half of the site, as well as the existing office building will be allocated for the construction of the two new urban schools with the remainder of the site available for the affordable housing project. The existing office building occupies roughly 10,000 SF of the site and will be acquired for $5,000,000. The remaining 50,000 SF will be acquired at $300/SF. The total acquisition cost of the site will be $20,000,000, which will be leased back to PCH housing for $1/Yr.

Schools• Existing Office Building• ~50% of Site

Affordable Housing

•Remaining 50% of Site

Acquisition Cost = $20,000,000


89

Construction CostsConstruction costs assumptions, including square footage hard costs, contingencies, general contractor general conditions, insurance, and LEED design premium, have been provided by Bryce Schlosser, a Project Manager for Swinerton Builders in San Diego. These cost assumptions include:

Tower core and shell: $200/SF•Parking structure: $100/SF•Commercial Space: $150/SF•Contractor general requirements: 5% of hard costs•Contractor overhead and profit: 5% of hard costs•Sub guard insurance against subcontractor default: 1.25% of hard costs•Property liability/property damage insurance; 1.25% of hard costs•LEED Silver design premium: 5% increase to hard costs•

Prevailing Wage To account for the increased labor costs associated with prevailing wage, PCH has provided a 20% increase to labor costs, which are estimated to be 60% of total construction hard costs. The 20% prevailing wage premium results in a $5,894,345 increase to construction hard costs.

Soft Costs, Contingencies and Developer Fee:Soft costs include architecture fees, construction period interest, insurance during construction, loan fees, legal fees, building permit and impact fees, and syndication costs (ineligible soft costs are excluded from eligible basis). Developer fees are capped per CTCAC regulations.

Project Sources

Vivo Towers will utilize 5 primary sources of permanent financing to achieve project feasibility; Tax Exempt Bond Financing, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, CCDC soft loan, Prop 1C-Transit Oriented Development, and the Federal Multifamily Housing Program.

Tax Exempt Bond FinancingIn accordance with the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee’s (CDLAC) procedures regarding Tax Exempt Bond Financing, Vivo Towers meets the application selection criteria and financial feasibility for tax exempt bond project outlined in Section 10326-10327 of the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee’s (CTCAC) Code of Regulations.

With a total development cost of $84,042,933, Vivo Towers’ use of $46,233,613 of tax exempt bond proceeds represents 55% of project costs and meets the CTCAC requirement that 50% of the project’s aggregate basis be financed through bond proceeds. By meeting this requirement, Vivo Towers automatically qualifies for an allocation of Federal 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits.

Based on our developer partner’s past experience and relationship with the local branch of the Red Capital Group (RCG), PHC and Vivo Towers will utilize RCG for the underwriting and credit enhancement for the tax-exempt bonds and LIHTC syndication.

Chapter 6 - Finance



90

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit EquityPursuant to the CDLAC and CTCAC regulations, Vivo Towers qualifies as a tax-exempt bond project and is therefore eligible for the automatic allocation of Federal 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits on a non-competitive basis; additionally these credits are not deducted from the state’s LIHTC volume cap. PCH has negotiated a tax credit factor of 0.85 from Red Capital Group along with the following equity investor pay-in schedule.

47% of the tax credit proceeds will be used during the construction phase, with the remaining 53% received at project completion.

Tax Credit Calculation

Unit Size Unit Basis Limit No. Of Units Basis X No. Of Units1 Bedroom 178,401 60 10,704,0602 Bedroom 215,200 52 11,190,4003 Bedroom 275,456 61 16,802,816

TOTAL Threshold Basis 173 $38,697,276

Adjustments to Basis Value Additional BasisPrevailing Wage 20% 7,739,455Parking Beneath Units 7% 2,708,809Day Care Center 2% 773,946Energy Efficiency 4% 1,547,891Toxic Mitigation 15% 5,804,591Distributive Energy Technology 5% 1,934,864Elevator 10% 3,869,728% Units Below 50% AMI 90% 90% 34,827,548% Units Below 35% AMI 10% 20% 15,210,490Total Adjustments to Basis 74,417,322

Adjusted Threshold Basis $113,114,598.27

issue Value AmountFederal Tax Credits

Total Eligible Basis from dev'l budget 77,037,823Grant Proceeds 0Total Qualified Basis 77,037,823Total Requested Unadjusted Eligible Basis lessor of above 77,037,823Difficult to Develop Area (DDA) 130%Total Adjusted Eligible Basis 100,149,170Applicable Fraction 100%Total Qualified Basis 100,149,170Applicable Percentage 3.60%

Annual Federal Credit 3,605,370

Total Project Cost 84,042,933 Permanent Financing 29,920,211 Funding Gap 54,122,722 Tax Credit Factor (TCF) 0.85 Total Credits Needed for Feasability 63,673,790 Annual Federal Credit Necessary for Feasability 6,367,379 Maximum Annual Federal Credits lessor of above 3,605,370

Equity Raised for Federal Credit 30,645,646

Remaining Funding Gap 23,477,075.72

Payment Trigger Percentage AmountConstruction Phase 47% 14,342,244100% Complete & IRS Form 8609 53% 16,303,402

Total 100% 30,645,646

Tax Credit Investor Pay In Schedule

CCDC Soft LoanPCH will obtain a soft loan from the CCDC in the amount of $23,477,076. Based on our initial conversations with BGA and the CCD, we determined a funding limit of $150,000 per rent-restricted unit for the soft loan. Our requested loan amount of $23,477,076 is approximately $135,000 per unit and is under the CCDC maximum.

The soft loan will carry a simple interest of 3%, which will be deferred and repaid on a percentage basis from project residual receipts.

Prop 1C – Transit Oriented Development (TOD)The purpose of the TOD Housing Program is to stimulate the production of housing developments located near transit stations that include affordable units and increase public transit ridership and minimize automobile trips.

Vivo Towers meets the eligibility requirements outlined in Section 103 of the TOD Housing Program Guidelines and has included a funding amount of $50,000 per rent restricted unit in accordance with Section 105 of the program guidelines. An annual interest payment of 0.42% of principle is included in the required project debt service as required by section 25 CCR 7308 of the Multifamily Housing Program.

The TOD Housing Program funds serve as a permanent financing source for the project and carry a simple interest rate of 3% on principle that accrues annually. Any project residual receipts after qualified debt service are paid to the program on percentage basis.


91

Multifamily Housing ProgramVivo Towers has included permanent, post construction financing from the Multifamily Housing Program on a base limit amount of $30,000 per rent restricted unit. The project meets the funding eligibility requirements and has structured the MHP financing to comply with Sections 7306 and 7307 of the MHP regulations.

The MHP Program funds serve as a permanent financing source for the project and carry a simple interest rate of 3% on principle that accrues annually. Any project residual receipts after qualified debt service are paid to the program on percentage basis.

Deferred Developer FeeThe maximum developer fee allowed per CTCAC regulations is the lessor of 15% of unadjusted project eligible basis, or, $2,500,000. PCH has included a developer fee of $2,500,000 in accordance with these program restrictions, and has deferred 50% ($1,250,000) of the developer fee based on BGA’s standard practice. Repayment of deferred developer fee occurs after required debit service and is spread evenly over 10 year period. Until repayment, the deferred developer fee acts as a project permanent financing source of funds.

Construction FinancingDuring the construction phase, PCH will utilize 3 funding sources to cover development costs; LIHTC Equity, CCDC soft loan and tax-exempt bond proceeds. In order to minimize interest expenses, PCH will use the LIHTC equity funds first, followed by the CCDC soft loan and finally draw on the bond proceeds.

Our initial tax credit calculation estimates that Vivo Towers will receive $30,645,646 in tax credit equity, 47% of which ($14,342,244) will be used during the construction phase. The second funding source will be in the form of a soft loan from the CCDC. The soft loan will carry a simple interest of 3% that will be deferred and paid out of project residual receipts. The soft loan of $23,477,076 is approximately $135,000 per rent-restricted unit, an amount that is under an estimated funding limit of $150,000 per unit.

The final construction period funding source will be the tax-exempt bond proceeds provided by Red Capital Group. Again, PHC is utilizing BGA’s close business relationships and previous project success with RCG to minimize additional financing expenses by dealing with one management team for financing at each stage of the project (construction, bond underwriting, and tax credit syndication).

The construction period bonds will be structured as 2-year revenue bonds and have an estimated yield of 4.25%. PCH has included an increase of 9.25% to the initial bond principle to cover construction period interest payments and bond underwriting expense.

Chapter 6 - Finance



92

Construction Phase

$14,324,244(47%) $23,477,076 $46,223,613

LIHTC Equity CCDC Soft Loan TE Revenue Bond

$16,303,402(53%)

$14,324,244 $23,477,076 $46,223,613 = $84,042,933

Permanent FinancingAt project conversion the tax credit equity and CCDC soft loan will remain in the project as permanent financing sources. Additionally a portion on the 2-year revenue bonds will convert to 30-year mortgage bonds that will be fully amortized and funded from project debt service. Based on our cash flow analysis, $14,830,211 of in the initial bond proceeds will remain in the project as a permanent financing source.

The four remaining funding sources, LIHTC equity (53%), MHP, TOD and deferred developer fee will repay the $31,393,402 of outstanding revenue bonds.

Project Conversion= $46,223,613TE Revenue Bond

DDF = $1,250,000

MHP = $5,190,000

TOD = $8,650,000

LIHTC = $16,303,402

Converts to 30 Year Bond = $14,830,211


93

Project OperationRents100% of Vivo Towers’ 173 units are rent restricted to low income applicants earning a maximum of 50% of the Area Median Income. Rental limits are determined using the 2008 California Redevelopment Law with Low Income Housing Tax Credits rental maximum.

SUMMARY TABLE

RENT LIMITS, 2008 (1)CENTRE CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

I. CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT LAW WITH LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS

25% AMI 30% AMI 35% AMI

Studio $316 $379 $442

1 Bedroom $361 $433 $505

2 Bedroom $406 $487 $568

3 Bedroom $469 $563 $656

40% AMI 45% AMI 50% AMI

Studio $505 $568 $631

1 Bedroom $577 $649 $721

2 Bedroom $649 $730 $811

3 Bedroom $750 $844 $938

55% AMI 60% AMI

Studio $694 $758

1 Bedroom $793 $866

2 Bedroom $892 $974

3 Bedroom $1,031 $1,125

II. CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT LAW ONLY

LOW INCOME MODERATE INCOME60% AMI 110% AMI

Studio $758 $1,389

1 Bedroom $866 $1,587

2 Bedroom $974 $1,785

3 Bedroom $1,082 $1,983

(1)

Source: State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, San Diego Housing Commission, California Redevelopment Law.

Reflects gross rent. Gross rent minus utility allowance = maximum cash rent. See the "San Diego Housing Commission Utility Allowance" to calculate the utility allowance based on a project's actual utility profile.

EXTREMELY LOW INCOME

VERY LOW INCOME

LOW INCOME

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.Filename: i:ccdc\CCDC 2008_Rents;4/11/2008;rks

Unit MixUnits are dispersed relatively evenly between 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units. PHC has included 1 bedroom platforms lofts and both 2 and 3 bedroom flats and Townhomes. Although the Townhome units are slightly larger then flat units, this is mainly due to the extra vertical circulation space required for Townhomes and therefore the same rental limits are charged for each type of unit.

Chapter 6 - Finance



94

Unit AMI Matrix & Rent Limits

Total 50% AMI 40% AMI 30% AMIAllocation Percentage per AMI Category 100% 50% 40% 10%1 Bedroom Platform Lofts 60 30 24 6 2 Bedroom Flats 40 20 16 4 2 Bedroom Townhomes 12 6 5 1 3 Bedroom Flats 37 19 15 4 3 Bedroom Townhomes 24 12 10 2 Total 173 87 69 17

AMI Level 1BR 2 BR 3 BR50% 676 811 938 40% 541 649 750 30% 406 487 563

Utility Allowance 1 BR 2 BR 3 BRHeating (Electric) 3 4 4Cooking (E) 2 3 3Other Electric 12 15 19Total 17 22 26

California Redevelopment Law w/ LIHTC - Rent Limits

Project Unit Dispursion

Target AMIThe total project unit allocation per AMI level was determined on a percentage basis to maximize Vivo Tower’s CTCAC application score.

Commercial SpaceVivo Towers will provide a small portion of ground floor commercial space. PHC will develop the core and shell of these spaces, with improvement costs paid for by the tenant. A commercial rental rate of $2.5/sf/mo. is consistent with industry knowledge reports, BGA estimates and current projects. Leases will be on a NNN basis

In addition to the commercial space, the 5 live work lofts are incorporated into the operating budget as commercial space and all costs associated with their development are excluded from the eligible basis.

Operational ExpensesTotal annual operating expense $4,190/unit, which is consistent with BGA’s comparative projects and exceeds the CTCAC minimum per unit operating expenses of $3,900/unit/yr. Additionally, vacancy rates, replacement reserves and rental assumptions are consistent with both CTCAC and BGA.

Management FeeA management fee of 6% of Gross Potential Residential Rental Income has been included for BGA.

Utility AllowancesUtility Allowances are consistent with the San Diego Housing Commission Utility Allowance Schedule: Revised March 10, 2008.



AMI Level 1BR 2 BR 3 BR50% 676 811 938 40% 541 649 750 30% 406 487 563





95

Debt ServiceDebt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) for the first year of building operation is 1.15 which exceeds the CTCAC minimum requirement of 1.10

School Financing StructureSources and Uses

Project Uses

The total development cost for the two schools is an “all-in” figure including the costs associated with Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment. Through our conversations with Phil Bona and other members of the CCDC, our final construction cost of $27,055,832, or $588/SF (including FF&E), is consistent with other comparative projects and serves as an appropriate benchmark for determining the financial burden associated with construction of these two schools.

Construction Cost Assumptions

Land Acquisition: $0•New Construction Hard Costs: $200/SF•Renovation of Existing Building: $150/SF•Contractor General Requirements: 5% of Hard Costs•Contractor Overhead and Profit: 5% of Hard Costs•Prevailing Wage Increase: 20% increase to labor costs, estimated to be 60% of total hard costs. •Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment: $200/SF of gross floor area. •Hard Cost Contingency: 11.25% which is a weighted average between 7.5% and 15% to account •for the increased risk associated with the renovation of the existing building

Project Sources

Due to complexities associated with the development of an effective financing structure for educational facilities, PCH did not attempt to develop an innovative financing structure for the construction of the Urban Academy and Museum Schools.

All of the development costs associated with the construction of the two schools are financed through a conventional construction loan at 6.5% interest for 24 months and a 50% interest draw reserve. At project completion the balance of the construction loan and interest reserve would convert to a permanent loan. Although a more detailed finance structure would include other more effective financing mechanisms, PCH’s goal was to provide the CCDC’s Educational Task Force with a “best-case/worst-case” scenario for the costs associated with the development of the two downtown school facilities.

Chapter 6 - Finance



96

Our initial estimate was that the two schools would be able to accommodate roughly 340 students. assuming the entire construction loan converted to a permanent loan at project completion, with an annual rate of 6.25% for 30 years, the annual funding burden per student would equal $5,879, or $3.62/SF.

At a rate of 5.25% for 40 years, the annual funding burden per student decreases to $4,049, or $2.49/SF.

ConclusionTaking into account the need for affordable housing in Downtown San Diego and the greater San Diego County area, and collaborating with prominent leaders in the business of affordable housing development, PCH has created a financing structure that provides long -term feasibility for Vivo Towers, the Urban Academy and Museum School.


97

Financial Analysis

Vivo Towers - Unit Mix

Average SF 587 Average SF 1,245Number 60 Number 5Percentage of Total 35% Total SF 6,225Total SF 35,208 *Not Included in Project TotalsTDC per Unit

Average SF 780 Average SF 1,266Number 40 Number 12Percentage of Total 23% Percentage of Total 7%Total SF 31,200 Total SF 15,192TDC per Unit TDC per Unit

5230%

Average SF 1,061 Average SF 1,354Number 37 Number 24Percentage of Total 21% Percentage of Total 14%Total SF 39,251 Total SF 32,496TDC per Unit

6135%

*Average square footages are based on weighted averages of the actual units.

173347

153,347Net (Rentable) Residential Square Footage

Total Unit Count

Total % of 3 bedroom units to total unitsTotal # of 3 bedroom units

Total Bedroom Count

Three Bedroom Flats Three Bedroom Townhomes

Two Bedroom Townhomes

One Bedroom Platform Lofts

Two Bedroom Flats

Total % of 2 bedroom units to total unitsTotal # of 2 bedroom units

Possible Live Work Lofts

Chapter 6 - Finance



98

Vivo Towers - Gross Square Footage PlanAffordable Housing Gross SFAffordable Residential (w/circulation & Support) 190,278Interior Community Spaces 4,017Commercial 12,479Outdoor Open Space 13,365

Parking with 3 Levels (with 4 Levels)# Commercial Parking Spaces 17 17# Residential Parking Spaces 159 213Total # Parking Spaces 176 230Gross SF of Parking 87,654 113,988Residential Parking Ratio 0.9 1.2Commercial SF/ dedicated space 734 734Avg Garage Gross SF per Space 498 496

Urban AcademyClassroom Space 14,692Administration 1,713Support & Circulation 5,881

Museum SchoolClassroom Space 8,671Administration 1,502Support & Circulation 3,951

Shared School SpacesMultipurpose / Cafeteria 2,351Library 2,595Outdoor Open Space 16,255

Residential Density (of entire 1.378 acre site) 126 du/acreResidential Density (of .689 acre Housing Site) 252 du/acreAffordable Housing Site GSF 220,139Schools Site GSF 41,356Affordable Housing Site FAR 7.3Schools Site FAR 1.4


99

Project Sources and Uses

SOURCES OF FUNDS Construction Permanent USES OF FUNDS Amount

Tax Exempt Bond 46,223,613 - Hard CostsCCDC Soft Loan 23,477,076 23,477,076 Acquisition 200,000

Capital Contributions Construction Costs 62,059,868

Limited Partners 14,342,244 30,645,646 General Contractor Exp. 7,136,885

Deferred Developer Fees - 1,250,000 TOTAL HARD COSTS 69,396,752

MHP 5,190,000

Prop 1C - TOD - 8,650,000 Soft CotsTax Exempt Bond Financing - 14,830,211 Architecture and Engineering 3,469,838

Building Permit and Fees 2,267,595

Financing Costs 4,130,322

Legal Fees 45,000

Capitalized Reserves 2,289,957

Other Soft Costs 555,556

Soft Cost Contingency 637,913

Developer Fee 1,250,000

TOTAL SOFT COSTS 14,646,180

TOTAL SOURCES 84,042,933 84,042,933 TOTAL USES 84,042,933

Affordable Rental Housing

Chapter 6 - Finance



100

Affordable Housing Development BudgetItem Cost per sf/unit/% Unit Project Total Eligible Basis

Land AcquisitionTotal Land Cost or Value 0 - - -Demolition 20 10,000 200,000 200,000 Legal 0Off-Site Improvements 0Total Acquisition Cost 200,000 200,000

Construction WorkSite Improvements 15 13,365 200,475 200,475 Construction Work -

Residential 196 190,278 37,294,488 37,294,488 Community/Shared 196 4,017 787,332 787,332 Commerical 150 12,479 1,871,850 1,871,850 Parking 100 87,654 8,765,400 4,382,700

Prevailing Wage Increase 20% 5,894,345 5,894,345 LEED Premium 5% 2,445,977 2,445,977 General Conditions 200,000/mo 2 Years 4,800,000 4,800,000 Total Construction Cost 62,059,868 57,677,168

General Contractor Expenses Construction Contingency 5% 3,102,993 3,102,993 General Contractor Fee 4% 2,482,395 2,482,395 Subgaurd Insurance Against Subcontractor Default 1.25% 775,748 775,748 Property Liability/Property Damage Insurance 1.25% 775,748 775,748

Total General Contactor Expense 7,136,885 7,136,885

Total Hard Cost 69,396,752 65,014,052

Architecture FeesArchitecture (Consultants Included) 4% (Of Hard Costs) 2,775,870 2,775,870 Sureveying and Engineering 1% (Of Hard Costs) 693,968 693,968 Total Architecture Fees 3,469,838 3,469,838

Building Permit and FeesBuilding Plan Check Fees 100,000 LS 100,000 100,000 Building Permit Fees 200,000 LS 200,000 200,000 Civil Engineering Plan Check Fee 30,000 LS 30,000 30,000 Civil Enginering Permits 50,000 LS 50,000 50,000 Development Impact Fees 3,450 173 596,850 596,850 Sewer Capacity Fees 1,300 173 224,900 224,900 Sewer Connection Fees 50,000 LS 50,000 50,000 Water Capacity Fees 2,765 173 478,345 478,345 Water Connection Fees 30,000 LS 30,000 30,000 County Water Fees 325,000 LS 325,000 325,000 Redevelopment Agency Processing Fee 2,500 LS 2,500 2,500 CTCAC Fees/Other 180,000 LS 180,000 180,000

Total Building Permits and Fees 2,267,595 2,267,595

Construction Interest and FeesConstruction Underwritting & Int. Exp. 9.25% of Bond Issue 1 3,865,759 3,865,759 Construction Loan Origination Fee 0.75% 32,109 32,109 Real Estate Taxes During Construciton 1.02% - - Insurance During Construction 1.50% 0 0 Title & Recording During Construction 5000 1 5,000 5,000 Total Construction Interest and Fees 3,902,869 3,902,869

**continued on next page**


101

Affordable Housing Development Budget (Cont.)Permanent Financing

Premanent Loan Fee 1% 0 148,302 - Cost of Issuance 0.50% 0 74,151 - Title & Escrow - Permanent 5000 5,000 - Total Permanent Financing Cost 227,453 -

Legal FeesLender Legal Cost Paid By Applicant 35,000 1 35,000 35,000 Other - Owner Legal 10,000 1 10,000 10,000 Total Legal Cost 45,000 45,000

Capitalized ReservesOperating Reserve 3 Months Stabalized 2,238,057 - Replacement Reserve 300 173 51,900 - Rent Up Reserve - - - Transition Reserve - - - Total Reserve Costs 2,289,957 -

OtherTax Credit App./Alloc./Monitoring Fees 60,000 60,000 -Syndication 35,000 35,000 -Third Party Reports (EIR, Etc.) 50,000 50,000 50,000 School Fees 2 190,278 380,556 380,556 Marketing/Rent-Up 10,000 10,000 Market Study 20,000 20,000 20,000 Total Other Costs 555,556 450,556

Soft Cost Contingency 5% 12,758,267 637,913 637,913

Total Project Costs Before Dev'p Fee 82,792,933 75,787,823

Developer CostsDeveloper Fee Max Allowable per TCAC vs. 15% of EB 2,500,000 2,500,000 Deffered Developer Fee 10% (1,250,000) (1,250,000) Total Developer Costs 1,250,000 1,250,000

Total Soft Costs 14,646,180 12,023,771

Total Project Cost 84,042,933 77,037,823

Chapter 6 - Finance



102



AMI Level 1BR 2 BR 3 BR50% 676 811 938 40% 541 649 750 30% 406 487 563





103

Ren

t S

ched

ule

AM

I Le

vel

Ren

tal

Lim

it C

alc

. Fo

rmu

laU

nit

S

ize

No

. o

f U

nit

sM

axim

um

G

ross

Ren

tLe

ss U

tili

ty

All

ow

an

ceM

axim

um

N

et

Ren

tP

rop

ose

d

Net

Ren

t

Mo

nth

ly

Inco

me a

t M

ax.

Ren

t

An

nu

al

Inco

me a

t M

ax.

Ren

t50

%Cal

. Red

ev'lp

. La

w/

1 BR

30

676

17

659

65

9

19

,770

23

7,24

0

LIH

TC2

BR

26

811

22

789

78

9

20

,514

24

6,16

8

3 BR

31

938

26

912

91

2

27

,816

33

3,79

2

68

,10

0

81

7,2

00

AM

I Le

vel

Ren

tal

Lim

it C

alc

. Fo

rmu

laU

nit

S

ize

No

. o

f U

nit

sM

axim

um

G

ross

Ren

tLe

ss U

tili

ty

All

ow

an

ceM

axim

um

N

et

Ren

tP

rop

ose

d

Net

Ren

t

Mo

nth

ly

Inco

me a

t M

ax.

Ren

t

An

nu

al

Inco

me a

t M

ax.

Ren

t40

%Cal

. Red

ev'lp

. La

w/

1 BR

24

541

17

524

52

4

12

,576

15

0,91

2

LIH

TC2

BR

21

649

22

627

62

7

13

,042

15

6,49

9

3 BR

24

750

26

724

72

4

17

,666

21

1,98

7

43

,28

3

51

9,3

98

AM

I Le

vel

Ren

tal

Lim

it C

alc

. Fo

rmu

laU

nit

S

ize

No

. o

f U

nit

sM

axim

um

G

ross

Ren

tLe

ss U

tili

ty

All

ow

an

ceM

axim

um

N

et

Ren

tP

rop

ose

d

Net

Ren

t

Mo

nth

ly

Inco

me a

t M

ax.

Ren

t

An

nu

al

Inco

me a

t M

ax.

Ren

t30

%Cal

. Red

ev'lp

. La

w/

1 BR

6

406

17

389

38

9

2,

334

28

,008

LIH

TC2

BR

5

487

22

465

46

5

2,

418

29

,016

3 BR

6

563

26

537

53

7

3,

276

39

,308

8,0

28

96

,33

2

11

9,4

11

1,4

32

,93

1

No

. o

f U

nit

sS

F/U

nit

To

tal

SF

Mo

nth

ly

Ren

t/S

F

Gro

ss

Mo

nth

ly

Inco

me

An

nu

al

Inco

me

Live

/Wor

k5

1,24

5

6,22

5

2.5

15,5

63

186,

750

Com

mer

ical

/Ret

ail S

pace

1

12,4

79

12,4

79

2.5

31,1

98

374,

370

46

,76

0

5

61

,12

0

To

tal

Co

mm

eri

cal

Ren

tal

Inco

me

To

tal

Mo

nth

ly I

nco

me

Desc

rip

tio

n

To

tal

Mo

nth

ly I

nco

me

To

tal

Mo

nth

ly I

nco

me

To

tal

Resi

den

tial

Ren

tal

Inco

me

Chapter 6 - Finance



104

Operating Budget

RENTAL INCOME PUM Monthly AnnuallyFrom Rent Schedule 690 119,411 1,432,931

Add: Miscellaneous Income Laundry 20 3,460 41,520 Vending 3 438 5,252

Add: Garage and Parking Spaces 59 10,133 121,591 Add: Commerical Income 46,760 561,120 Gross Potential Income 180,201 2,162,414 Less: Residential Vacancy @ 5% 35 5,971 71,647 Less: Commerical Vacancy @ 50% 2,338 280,560 Less: Laundry Vacancy @ 5% 173 2,076 Less: Vending Vacancy @5% 22 263 Less: Garage and Parking Vacancy @5% 507 6,080

Effective Gross Rental Income 1,141 171,191 1,801,790

OPERATING EXPENSES Administration

Advertising/Marketing 7.63 1,320 15,840 Accounting 2.67 462 5,543 Annual Audit 2.44 422 5,065 Legal Fees 6.1 1,055 12,664 Bank Fees 0.69 119 1,432 Credit Card Fees 1.18 204 2,450 Software/Maint./Leases 0.61 106 1,266 Office Supplies/Copier 1.07 185 2,221 Credit Check Expense 1.53 265 3,176 Postage/Delivery 1.07 185 2,221 Security Gaurds Contracted Services 23.71 4,102 49,222 Uniforms 0.92 159 1,910 Travel/Dues/Subscriptions 0.92 159 1,910

Total Administration Expenses 51 8,743 104,921

Management Fee @ 6% of GPI 10,812 129,745

Utilities Electricity 9 1,557 18,684 Gas 7 1,211 14,532 Water and Sewer 10 1,730 20,760 Trash / Recycling 6 1,038 12,456 Cable TV 4 692 8,304 Telephone, Fax & Internet 3 448 5,377

Total Utilities Expense 39 6,676 80,113

**continued on next page


105

Operating Budget (Cont.)Payroll

On-Site Manager Salaries 27 4,590 55,081 Front Desk Clerks/Community Liason 22 3,803 45,637 Leasing Agent 16 2,707 32,479 Payroll Processing 7 1,265 15,176 Payroll Taxes 21 3,653 43,840 Workman's Comp 15 2,634 31,608 Health Insurance 10 1,715 20,582 Employee Training 1 245 2,940

Total Payroll Expenses 119 20,612 247,343

Property Insurance and TaxesProperty and Liability Insurance 18 3,114 37,368 CA Partnership Tax 1 173 2,076 City Permit/Fees 3.66 633 7,598 Housing Authority Monitoring Fees 4.3 744 8,927 Real Estate Taxes (1.02% of Project Cost) - - - *eligible for property tax exemption - -

Total Property Insurance and Tax Expenses 27 4,664 55,969

Operating and Maintenance On-Site Manager Free Rent 888 10656Fire/Elevator Alarm Monitoring 2 330 3,965 Elevator Maint/Repairs 7 1,189 14,262 Carpet Cleaning 4 633 7,598 Pest Control 2 317 3,799 Landscaping 2 265 3,176 General Maintenance and Repairs 11 1,848 22,172

Total Operating and Maint. Expenses 26 4,581 54,972

Total Operating Expenses 56,089 673,063

Funded Reserves Required Replacement Reserve Deposits 25 4,325 51,900 Other Reserves - - -

Total Reserve Expense 25 4,325 51,900

Total Project Expenses 60,414 724,963

NOI 110,778 1,076,826

Finacial ExpensesBond Repayment 875,469 2nd Mortgage Debt Service - 3rd Mortgage Debt Service - Ground Lease 1

Total Financial Expense 875,470

**Total Project Expenses: $4,190/month**Operating Expenses are consistatnt with Barone Galasso & Associates compartive projects

Chapter 6 - Finance



106

Tax Credit Calculation

Unit Size Unit Basis Limit No. Of Units Basis X No. Of Units1 Bedroom 178,401 60 10,704,060

2 Bedroom 215,200 52 11,190,400

3 Bedroom 275,456 61 16,802,816

TOTAL Threshold Basis 173 $38,697,276

Adjustments to Basis Value Additional BasisPrevailing Wage 20% 7,739,455

Parking Beneath Units 7% 2,708,809

Day Care Center 2% 773,946

Energy Efficiency 4% 1,547,891

Toxic Mitigation 15% 5,804,591

Distributive Energy Technology 5% 1,934,864

Elevator 10% 3,869,728

% Units Below 50% AMI 90% 90% 34,827,548

% Units Below 35% AMI 10% 20% 15,210,490

Total Adjustments to Basis 74,417,322

Adjusted Threshold Basis $113,114,598.27

issue Value AmountFederal Tax Credits

Total Eligible Basis from dev'l budget 77,037,823

Grant Proceeds 0

Total Qualified Basis 77,037,823

Total Requested Unadjusted Eligible Basis lessor of above 77,037,823

Difficult to Develop Area (DDA) 130%

Total Adjusted Eligible Basis 100,149,170

Applicable Fraction 100%

Total Qualified Basis 100,149,170

Applicable Percentage 3.60%

Annual Federal Credit 3,605,370

Total Project Cost 84,042,933

Permanent Financing 29,920,211

Funding Gap 54,122,722

Tax Credit Factor (TCF) 0.85

Total Credits Needed for Feasability 63,673,790

Annual Federal Credit Necessary for Feasability 6,367,379

Maximum Annual Federal Credits lessor of above 3,605,370

Equity Raised for Federal Credit 30,645,646

Remaining Funding Gap 23,477,075.72

Payment Trigger Percentage AmountConstruction Phase 47% 14,342,244

100% Complete & IRS Form 8609 53% 16,303,402

Total 100% 30,645,646

Tax Credit Investor Pay In Schedule


107

Funding Calculations

Lender/Underwritter Red Capital Group Total Development Cost 84,042,933 50/50 Test 42,021,466 Term 2 YearsYield Rate 4.25%Bond Underwritting Expense 2,101,073 Interest Draw 50%Interest Expense During Construction 1,785,912 Total Underwritting and Interest Expense 3,886,986 Amount of Bond Financing Used During Const. (55%) 46,223,613

Lender/Underwritter Red Capital GroupLoan Term 30Interest Rate 4.25%Debt Coverage Ratio 1.23 Loan Fees (1%) 148,302.11 Loan Expenses (0.5%) 74,151.06 Total Loan Fees & Expenses 222,453.17 NOI 1,076,826 Debt Service 875,469 Maximum Monthly P&I (NOI/DCR/12) 72,956

Maximum Mortgage (PV of monthly Payments) 14,830,211

Lender CCDCLoan Term 55Interest Rate 3%CCDC Funding Amount per Unit 160,000 Number or Rent Restricted Units 173 Base Loan Amount 27,680,000 Funding Needed for Feasibility (from Tax Credit Calc.) 23,477,076 CCDC Soft Loan Requested 23,477,076 Payment Terms Interest Only/Deferred

Total Loan Amount 23,477,076

PROP 1C-TOD LoanInitial Base Amount per Unit 50,000 # of Rent Restricted Unit 173 Loan Amount 8,650,000 Term 55 Interest Rate 3%Annual Required Payment Rate 0.42%Annual Required Payment Amount 36,330.00

Max. Annual Accruable Interest 259,500

MHP LoanInitial Base Amount per Unit 30,000 # of Rent Restricted Unit 173 Loan Amount 5,190,000 Term 55 Interest Rate 3%Annual Required Payment Rate 0.42%Annual Required Payment Amount 21,798.00

Max. Annual Accruable Interest 155,700

Tax Exempt Bond Funding Determination

Permanent Bond Financing

CCDC Soft Loan

Chapter 6 - Finance



108

Cash

Flo

w A

naly

sis

- S

ho

rt F

orm

INC

OM

E F

RO

M H

OU

SIN

G U

NIT

SIn

flati

on

Year

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

13

Year

14

Year

15

Res

trict

ed U

nit R

ents

2.5%

1,43

2,93

1

1,

468,

754

1,50

5,47

3

1,

927,

133

1,97

5,31

1

2,

024,

694

Oth

er2.

5%-

-

-

-

-

-

G

ross

Po

ten

tial

Inco

me -

Ho

usi

ng

1,43

2,93

1

1,

468,

754

1,50

5,47

3

1,

927,

133

1,97

5,31

1

2,

024,

694

OTH

ER

IN

CO

ME

Laun

dry

2.5%

41,5

20

42

,558

43,6

22

55

,840

57,2

36

58

,667

Vend

ing

2.5%

5,25

2

5,

384

5,51

8

7,

064

7,24

0

7,

421

Gar

age

and

Par

king

2.5%

121,

591

12

4,63

1

127,

747

16

3,52

7

167,

615

17

1,80

5

Oth

er In

com

e 2.

5%-

-

-

-

-

-

C

omm

eric

al In

com

e2.

5%56

1,12

0

575,

148

58

9,52

7

754,

644

77

3,51

0

792,

848

G

ross

Po

ten

tial

Ino

mce

- O

ther

729,

484

74

7,72

1

766,

414

98

1,07

4

1,00

5,60

1

1,

030,

741

Gro

ss P

ote

nti

al

Inco

me -

To

tal

2,16

2,41

4

2,

216,

475

2,27

1,88

7

2,

908,

207

2,98

0,91

2

3,

055,

435

VA

CA

NC

Y A

SS

UM

PTIO

NS

Res

trict

ed U

nits

5.0%

71,6

47

73

,438

75,2

74

96

,357

98,7

66

10

1,23

5

Laun

dry

5.0%

2,07

6

2,

128

2,18

1

2,

792

2,86

2

2,

933

Vend

ing

5.0%

263

26

9

276

35

3

362

37

1

Gar

age

and

Par

king

5.0%

6,08

0

6,

232

6,38

7

8,

176

8,38

1

8,

590

Com

mer

ical

Inco

me

50.0

%28

0,56

0

287,

574

29

4,76

3

377,

322

38

6,75

5

396,

424

To

tal

Vaca

ncy

Lo

ss36

0,62

5

369,

640

37

8,88

1

485,

000

49

7,12

5

509,

553

Eff

ect

ive G

ross

In

com

e1,

801,

790

1,84

6,83

4

1,

893,

005

2,42

3,20

7

2,

483,

787

2,54

5,88

2

OP

ER

ATIN

G E

XP

EN

SES

AN

D R

ES

ER

VE D

EP

OS

ITS

Res

iden

tial E

xpen

ses

w/o

Rea

l Est

ate

Taxe

s3.

5%67

3,06

3

696,

620

72

1,00

2

1,01

7,04

5

1,

052,

641

1,08

9,48

4

R

eal E

stat

e Ta

xes

2.0%

Rep

lace

men

t Res

erve

s0.

0%51

,900

51,9

00

51

,900

51,9

00

51

,900

51,9

00

O

ther

Res

erve

s0.

0%-

-

-

-

-

G

roun

d Le

ase

2.0%

1

1

1

1

1

1

To

tal

Exp

en

ses

an

d R

ese

rves

724,

964

74

8,52

1

772,

903

1,

068,

946

1,10

4,54

2

1,

141,

385

Net

Op

era

tin

g I

nco

me

1,07

6,82

5

1,

098,

313

1,12

0,10

2

1,

354,

261

1,37

9,24

5

1,

404,

497

DEB

T S

ER

VIC

EB

ond

Pay

men

t87

5,46

9

875,

469

87

5,46

9

875,

469

87

5,46

9

875,

469

TO

D -

(Req

uire

d 0.

42%

Ann

ual I

nter

est P

aym

ent)

36,3

30

36

,330

36,3

30

36

,330

36,3

30

36

,330

MH

P - (

Req

uire

d 0.

42%

Ann

ual I

nter

est P

aym

ent)

21,7

98

21

,798

21,7

98

21

,798

21,7

98

21

,798

To

tal

Req

uir

ed

Deb

t S

erv

ice

933,

597

93

3,59

7

933,

597

93

3,59

7

933,

597

93

3,59

7

CA

SH

FLO

W a

fter

all

deb

t se

rvic

e14

3,22

9

164,

716

18

6,50

5

420,

664

44

5,64

8

470,

900

DEB

T S

ER

VIC

E C

OV

ER

AG

E R

ATIO

1.15

1.

18

1.20

1.

45

1.48

1.

50

Defe

rred

Deve

lop

er

Fee R

ep

aym

en

tD

evel

oper

Fee

Rep

aym

ent

25,0

00

25

,000

25,0

00

-

-

-

B

ala

nce

118,

229

13

9,71

6

161,

505

42

0,66

4

445,

648

47

0,90

0

Resi

du

al

Reci

pts

Dis

trib

uti

on

C

CD

C80

%94

,583

111,

773

12

9,20

4

336,

532

35

6,51

8

376,

720

M

HP

-TO

D20

%23

,646

27,9

43

32

,301

84,1

33

89

,130

94,1

80


109

Cash

Flo

w A

naly

sis

- Lo

ng

Fo

rmIN

CO

ME F

RO

M H

OU

SIN

G U

NIT

SIn

flati

on

Year

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4Y

ear

5Y

ear

6Y

ear

7Y

ear

8Y

ear

9Y

ear

10

Year

11

Year

12

Year

13

Year

14

Year

15

Res

trict

ed U

nit R

ents

2.5%

1,43

2,93

1

1,

468,

754

1,50

5,47

3

1,

543,

110

1,58

1,68

7

1,

621,

230

1,66

1,76

0

1,

703,

304

1,74

5,88

7

1,

789,

534

1,83

4,27

3

1,

880,

129

1,92

7,13

3

1,

975,

311

2,02

4,69

4

O

ther

2.5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Gro

ss P

ote

nti

al In

com

e -

Ho

usi

ng

1,43

2,93

1

1,

468,

754

1,50

5,47

3

1,

543,

110

1,58

1,68

7

1,

621,

230

1,66

1,76

0

1,

703,

304

1,74

5,88

7

1,

789,

534

1,83

4,27

3

1,

880,

129

1,92

7,13

3

1,

975,

311

2,02

4,69

4

OTH

ER

IN

CO

ME

Laun

dry

2.5%

41,5

20

42,5

58

43,6

22

44,7

12

45,8

30

46,9

76

48,1

50

49,3

54

50,5

88

51,8

53

53,1

49

54,4

78

55,8

40

57,2

36

58,6

67

Vend

ing

2.5%

5,25

2

5,

384

5,51

8

5,

656

5,79

8

5,

942

6,09

1

6,

243

6,39

9

6,

559

6,72

3

6,

891

7,06

4

7,

240

7,42

1

G

arag

e an

d P

arki

ng2.

5%12

1,59

1

124,

631

12

7,74

7

130,

941

13

4,21

4

137,

569

14

1,00

9

144,

534

14

8,14

7

151,

851

15

5,64

7

159,

538

16

3,52

7

167,

615

17

1,80

5

Oth

er In

com

e 2.

5%-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

C

omm

eric

al In

com

e2.

5%56

1,12

0

575,

148

58

9,52

7

604,

265

61

9,37

1

634,

856

65

0,72

7

666,

995

68

3,67

0

700,

762

71

8,28

1

736,

238

75

4,64

4

773,

510

79

2,84

8

Gro

ss P

ote

nti

al In

om

ce -

Oth

er

729,

484

74

7,72

1

766,

414

78

5,57

4

805,

213

82

5,34

4

845,

977

86

7,12

7

888,

805

91

1,02

5

933,

801

95

7,14

6

981,

074

1,

005,

601

1,03

0,74

1

Gro

ss P

ote

nti

al In

com

e -

To

tal

2,16

2,41

4

2,

216,

475

2,27

1,88

7

2,

328,

684

2,38

6,90

1

2,

446,

573

2,50

7,73

8

2,

570,

431

2,63

4,69

2

2,

700,

559

2,76

8,07

3

2,

837,

275

2,90

8,20

7

2,

980,

912

3,05

5,43

5

VA

CA

NC

Y A

SS

UM

PTIO

NS

Res

trict

ed U

nits

5.0%

71,6

47

73,4

38

75,2

74

77,1

55

79,0

84

81,0

61

83,0

88

85,1

65

87,2

94

89,4

77

91,7

14

94,0

06

96,3

57

98,7

66

101,

235

La

undr

y 5.

0%2,

076

2,12

8

2,

181

2,23

6

2,

292

2,34

9

2,

408

2,46

8

2,

529

2,59

3

2,

657

2,72

4

2,

792

2,86

2

2,

933

Vend

ing

5.0%

263

269

276

283

290

297

305

312

320

328

336

345

353

362

371

Gar

age

and

Par

king

5.0%

6,08

0

6,

232

6,38

7

6,

547

6,71

1

6,

878

7,05

0

7,

227

7,40

7

7,

593

7,78

2

7,

977

8,17

6

8,

381

8,59

0

C

omm

eric

al In

com

e50

.0%

280,

560

28

7,57

4

294,

763

30

2,13

2

309,

686

31

7,42

8

325,

364

33

3,49

8

341,

835

35

0,38

1

359,

141

36

8,11

9

377,

322

38

6,75

5

396,

424

To

tal V

aca

ncy

Lo

ss36

0,62

5

369,

640

37

8,88

1

388,

353

39

8,06

2

408,

014

41

8,21

4

428,

669

43

9,38

6

450,

371

46

1,63

0

473,

171

48

5,00

0

497,

125

50

9,55

3

Eff

ect

ive G

ross

In

com

e1,

801,

790

1,84

6,83

4

1,

893,

005

1,94

0,33

0

1,

988,

839

2,03

8,56

0

2,

089,

524

2,14

1,76

2

2,

195,

306

2,25

0,18

8

2,

306,

443

2,36

4,10

4

2,

423,

207

2,48

3,78

7

2,

545,

882

OP

ER

ATIN

G E

XP

EN

SES

AN

D R

ES

ER

VE D

EP

OS

ITS

Res

iden

tial E

xpen

ses

w/o

Rea

l Est

ate

Taxe

s3.

5%67

3,06

3

696,

620

72

1,00

2

746,

237

77

2,35

5

799,

388

82

7,36

7

856,

324

88

6,29

6

917,

316

94

9,42

2

982,

652

1,

017,

045

1,05

2,64

1

1,

089,

484

Rea

l Est

ate

Taxe

s2.

0%R

epla

cem

ent R

eser

ves

0.0%

51,9

00

51,9

00

51,9

00

51,9

00

51,9

00

51,9

00

51,9

00

51,9

00

51,9

00

51,9

00

51,9

00

51,9

00

51,9

00

51,9

00

51,9

00

Oth

er R

eser

ves

0.0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Gro

und

Leas

e2.

0%1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

To

tal Exp

en

ses

an

d R

ese

rves

724,

964

748,

521

772,

903

798,

138

824,

256

851,

289

879,

268

908,

225

938,

197

969,

217

1,00

1,32

31,

034,

553

1,06

8,94

61,

104,

542

1,14

1,38

5

Net

Op

era

tin

g I

nco

me

1,07

6,82

5

1,

098,

313

1,12

0,10

2

1,

142,

192

1,16

4,58

2

1,

187,

271

1,21

0,25

6

1,

233,

536

1,25

7,10

9

1,

280,

971

1,30

5,12

0

1,

329,

551

1,35

4,26

1

1,

379,

245

1,40

4,49

7

DEB

T S

ER

VIC

EB

ond

Pay

men

t87

5,46

9

875,

469

87

5,46

9

875,

469

87

5,46

9

875,

469

87

5,46

9

875,

469

87

5,46

9

875,

469

87

5,46

9

875,

469

87

5,46

9

875,

469

87

5,46

9

TOD

- (R

equi

red

0.42

% A

nnua

l Int

eres

t Pay

men

t)36

,330

36

,330

36

,330

36

,330

36

,330

36

,330

36

,330

36

,330

36

,330

36

,330

36

,330

36

,330

36

,330

36

,330

36

,330

M

HP

- (R

equi

red

0.42

% A

nnua

l Int

eres

t Pay

men

t)21

,798

21

,798

21

,798

21

,798

21

,798

21

,798

21

,798

21

,798

21

,798

21

,798

21

,798

21

,798

21

,798

21

,798

21

,798

To

tal R

eq

uir

ed

Deb

t S

erv

ice

933,

597

93

3,59

7

933,

597

93

3,59

7

933,

597

93

3,59

7

933,

597

93

3,59

7

933,

597

93

3,59

7

933,

597

93

3,59

7

933,

597

93

3,59

7

933,

597

CA

SH

FLO

W a

fter

all d

eb

t se

rvic

e14

3,22

9

164,

716

18

6,50

5

208,

596

23

0,98

5

253,

674

27

6,65

9

299,

940

32

3,51

2

347,

375

37

1,52

3

395,

955

42

0,66

4

445,

648

47

0,90

0

DEB

T S

ER

VIC

E C

OV

ER

AG

E R

ATIO

1.15

1.

18

1.20

1.

22

1.25

1.

27

1.30

1.

32

1.35

1.

37

1.40

1.

42

1.45

1.

48

1.50

Defe

rred

Deve

lop

er

Fee R

ep

aym

en

tD

evel

oper

Fee

Rep

aym

ent

25,0

00

25,0

00

25,0

00

25,0

00

25,0

00

25,0

00

25,0

00

25,0

00

25,0

00

25,0

00

-

-

-

-

-

Bala

nce

118,

229

13

9,71

6

161,

505

18

3,59

6

205,

985

22

8,67

4

251,

659

27

4,94

0

298,

512

32

2,37

5

371,

523

39

5,95

5

420,

664

44

5,64

8

470,

900

Resi

du

al R

eci

pts

Dis

trib

uti

on

C

CD

C80

%94

,583

11

1,77

3

129,

204

14

6,87

6

164,

788

18

2,93

9

201,

328

21

9,95

2

238,

810

25

7,90

0

297,

219

31

6,76

4

336,

532

35

6,51

8

376,

720

M

HP

-TO

D20

%23

,646

27

,943

32

,301

36

,719

41

,197

45

,735

50

,332

54

,988

59

,702

64

,475

74

,305

79

,191

84

,133

89

,130

94

,180

Chapter 6 - Finance



110

School Space AllocationItem Urban Academy School Museum School Total

Construction Demolition - Existing Structures incl. incl. 6,700Site Improvements incl. incl. 13,000Rehabilitation 27,392 0 27,392New Construction 0 18,606 18,606Total SF of Construction Work 65,698

Square Footage AllocationAdministration 1,400 700 2,100Circulation 2,700 6,900 9,600Library 0 2,000 2,000Multi-Purpose 2,650 0 2,650Classroom 14,849 9,225 24,074Bathroom 900 600 1,500MEP & Other 500 500 1,000Open Space - At Grade Shared Shared 10,514Open Space - Roof Deck Shared Shared 3,000Total SF Of Educational Space Provided 56,438

Number of Classrooms 12 8 20

Average SF per Classroom 1,237 1,153 1,204

Average SF per Student/Classroom 67 77 71


111

School Development Budget

ItemCost per

sf/unit/% Unit Total Acquisition

Total Land Cost or Value 0 - -Demolition - Existing Structures 20 6,700 134,000Legal 0Off-Site Improvements 0Total Acquisition Cost 134,000

Construction WorkSite Improvements 50 13,000 650,000Renovaiton/Rehabilitation 125 27,392 3,424,000New Construction 196 18,606 3,646,776General Requirements 5% 386,039Contractor Overhead & Profit 5% 386,039Prevailing Wage Increase 20% 926,493Furniture, Fixture and Equipment 200 45,998 9,199,600General Liability Insurance 80,000 1 80,000Total Construction Cost 18,698,947

Construction Contingency 11.25% 18,698,947 2,103,632

Total Hard Cost 20,936,578

Architecture Engineering FeesArchitecture (Consultants Included) 5% (0f Hard Costs) 1,046,829Sureveying and Engineering 1% (0f Hard Costs) 209,366Total Architecture Engineering Fees 1,256,195

Construction Period ExpensesConstruction Loan Interest (full utilization for 2yrs) 6.00% 22,192,773 1,731,036Construction Loan Origination Fee 0.75% 22,192,773 166,446Real Estate Taxes During Construciton 1.02% 0 -Insurance During Construction 1.50% 22,192,773 332,892Title & Recording During Construction 5000 1 5,000Total Construction Interest and Fees 2,235,374

Permanent Financing ExpensesPremanent Loan Fee 1% 24,428,147 244,281Cost of Issuance 1% 24,428,147 244,281Title & Escrow - Permanent 5000 1 5,000Total Permanent Financing Expenses 493,563

Legal FeesLender Legal Cost Paid By Applicant 35,000 1 35,000Other - Owner Legal 10,000 1 10,000Total Legal Cost 45,000

Soft Cost Contingency 5% 4,030,131 201,507

Total Project Costs Before Dev'p Fee 25,168,216

Developer CostsDeveloper Fee/Overhead/Profit 7.5% 25,168,216 1,887,616Total Developer Costs 1,887,616

Total Soft Costs 6,119,254

Total Project Cost 27,055,832

Total Project Cost per SF 588

Chapter 6 - Finance



112

School Funding Requirement Calculation

Description Urban Academy Museum School TotalLand Acquisition - - 20,000,000 Consultants 753,717 502,478 1,256,195 Construction 11,299,768 7,533,179 18,832,947 Contingencies 1,383,083 922,055 2,305,138 Financing Expense 1,637,362 1,091,575 2,728,937 Developer Costs 1,132,570 755,046 1,887,616

Total Project Costs 16,206,499$ 10,804,333$ 27,055,832$

Total Project Costs per SF 588$

Total Project Costs per Student 79,576$

Dev'l Budget Control EstimateTotal Principal 27,055,832 22,999,000 Annual Rate 6.25% 5.25%Term of Loan 30 40Monthly Payment ($166,587) ($114,735)Cost/SF ($3.62) ($2.49)

Annual Funding Requirement 1,999,048.96 1,376,822.27

Urban Academy Annual Funding Requirement 1,199,429.38 826,093.36

Museum School Annual Funding Requirement 799,619.58 550,728.91

Annual Funding per Student 5,879.56 4,049.48

Permanent Loan Burden


113113Chapter 6 - Finance



114114

Appendix A - Letters of Support


115115



116116


117117



118118


119119



120120


121121



122122


123123



124124


125125



126126


127127

Appendix B - Centre City Planed District Ordinance Excerpts

Design Requirements:From Centre City Development Corporation’s Centre City Planned District Ordinance

Street WallStreet Wall Frontage. A street wall containing habitable space shall be provided along 100% of the frontage along public streets, except for courtyard entrances and public open spaces, or where the site crosses an easement or active fault line.

The street wall shall be located within 5 feet of the property line adjoining any publicstreet except for properties where the street wall contains ground-level residential units, in which cases the street wall shall be set back a minimum of 3 feet and a maximum of 10 feet from the prop-erty line adjoining any public street.

The minimum height of the street wall shall be 45 feet as per Table 0310-A. In residential projects, an exception to this minimum height may be approved for roof-top open space if the area is located over 30 feet above the sidewalk grade and measures no more than 50 feet along the street wall. (15-6-3-43)

Courtyard entrance can be a maximum of 30 feet wide in residential projects, as specified in Section 156.0311(m)(2) of this Division.

The minimum ground floor height for buildings, measured from the average grade of the adjoining public sidewalk, in increments of no more than 100 feet along a project frontage, to the finish floor elevation of the second floor, shall be an average of 15’, but no less than 13’ at any one point. (15-6-3-42)

TowerThe maximum lot coverage of the tower portion of the building shall be 50% of the lot area. The maxi-mum tower floor plate dimensions shall be 200’ in the North-South direction, and 130’ in the East-West dimension (Table 0310-A). One boundary side of the tower must be set back a minimum of 15’ unless exempt by design review.

Upper Tower Composition: To create a graceful transition to the sky and avoid a cut-off, flat top appearance, the upper 20% of any tower (measured above the base) shall achieve an articulated form and composition using architectural techniques such as layering, material changes, fenestration patterns, and/or physi-cal stepbacks. Actual reduction of floor areas and/or recessed balconies can assist this composi-tion goal. Tower tops shall resolve mechanical penthouses and other technical requirements in an



128128

integrated coherent manner consistent with the composition below, yet not employ flamboyant or excessive skyline gestures.

Building facades over 50 feet wide should have plane offsets and material changes to create shad-ows and relief. Some elements of towers shall integrate with, and extend into, the building base facades to avoid the appearance of towers isolated from the street and their own bases.

Blank walls:Large or continuous blank walls shall be limited to 15% of a respective building facade area, must employ deep reveal scoring, texture and/or material changes to break up large surfaces, and have a maximum horizontal dimension of 15 feet.

Exterior Stairways. Exit stairways shall be incorporated into the enclosed floor plate of buildings. Exterior stairs connecting no more than three floors may be permitted through the Design Review process.

Glass: Glass materials shall exhibit visible light transmittance of a minimum of 60%. Glass color shall not be emphasized as a “signature” element, and subtle gray/green or blue/gray tints shall be encouraged if clear glass is not proposed.

Projecting balconies facing public streets shall average no less than 40% open (perforated mesh, 40% translucent glass, or open rail) or transparent above a height of 18 inches above the balcony walking surface. (15-6-3-47), (15-6-3-55)

Commercial Space DepthCommercial space shall have a minimum depth of 25 feet.

Common Open SpaceCommon outdoor open space areas shall have a minimum dimension of 40 feet when bordered by three building walls exceeding a height of 15 feet. A minimum of 10% of the common outdoor open space must be planting area. All common outdoor open space must be accessible to all residents of the project through a common corridor. Projects shall provide a minimum of 20% of the lot area as open space per table 0310-C. (15-6-3-50)

Common Indoor SpaceProvide at least one community room of at least 500 square feet for use by all residents of the project. The area is recommended to be located adjacent to, and accessible from common outdoor open space. This area may contain active or passive recreational facilities, meeting space, computer ter-minals, or other activity space, but must be accessible through a common corridor. (15-6-3-50)

Private Open SpaceAt least 50 percent of all dwelling units shall provide private open space, on a balcony, patio, or roof terrace, with a minimum area of 40 square feet each and an average horizontal dimension of 6 feet.


129129

Balconies should be proportionately distributed throughout the project in relationship to floor levels and sizes of units. (15-6-3-51)

Street Level DesignTo avoid a monotonous flat wall plane, storefront windows, bulkheads, entries, and other surfaces shall recess 6 to 18 inches from primary columns or walls. At no time should this result in the storefront being set back more than the allowable 5-foot setback from the front property line.

Building Materials: The building base shall be clad in durable upgraded materials (stone, tile, metal, brick, glass or simi-lar) from at least the floor slab of the second floor down to one (1) inch of finish sidewalk grade, and these materials shall wrap corners of exposed interior property line walls a minimum of 3 feet. Exit cor-ridors, garage openings, and all recesses shall provide a finished appearance to the street with street level exterior finishes fully wrapping into the openings a minimum dimension of 10 feet. (15-6-3-52)

Pedestrian Entrances Separate pedestrian entrances for a single nonresidential tenant must be at least 25 feet apart.

Door thresholds for any nonresidential use shall be at sidewalk level. Pedestrian ramps within the public right-of-way are prohibited, except where necessary for required disabled access to existing buildings when no alternative is available.

Recessed entrances shall not exceed 25 feet in width and the face of a door or gates shall be within 15 feet of the property line. (15-6-3-54)

Transparency A minimum of 60% of the street-facing building façade containing non-residential uses between 3 and 12 feet above the sidewalk shall be comprised of clear, non-reflective windows that allow views of indoor space. Interior blinds, drapes, and/or interior shelving for product displays visible from the public right-of-way may potentially obscure a maximum of 30% of the transparent area of each re-spective storefront or structural bay. (15-6-3-54)

Blank WallsNo more than 30% of the linear frontage of the first story street wall may consist of blank walls. The maximum length of any continuous blank wall is 20 feet, or 40 feet if the blank wall includes artwork approved by CCDC as part of the project review.

All blank wall area shall be enhanced with architectural detailing, material texture, ornamentation, and/or artwork. (15-6-3-54)

ParkingParking shall be provided at 1 space per dwelling unit. Additional parking spaces shall be provided at a ratio of one space for every 30 units. These spaces shall be permanently reserved and clearly marked for use by visitors/service only. The 1:1 ratio may be reduced with conditional approval.



130130

The project shall provide at least 3 levels of parking below grade prior to the provision of any park-ing above grade, unless the CCDC president determines that the site is significantly impacted by the underground water table, which would create exceptional financial hardship on the project.

Bicycle Storage: Secured bicycle storage shall be provided at a ratio of one area for every 5 dwelling units. Bicycle storage facilities shall be enclosed with access restricted to authorized persons.

Non-Residential Parking:Commercial/Retail parking shall be provided at 1 space per 1,000 sf, unless the GFA of the Commer-cial/Retail is less than 30,000 sf. (Table 0313-B). One motorcycle parking stall and one bicycle parking space shall be provided for every twenty required vehicle stalls.

No vehicular access curb may be located closer than 65 feet from the curb line of the closest inter-section. Curb cuts on the same parcel must be separated by a minimum of 80 feet. No curb cuts are permitted on the streets designated on Figure E (Limited Vehicle Access) unless driveway access is not feasible on adjacent streets due to lot size and/or configuration, or other significant factors. (15-6-3-72)


131



132

Appendix C - Team Biographies

Billy Jencks acted as Team Facilitator and Lead Architectural Designer for this year’s challenge. Billy is a 24 year old MBA student, with a Bachelors of Architecture from Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. Originally from Orange County, he has had internship experience working with the architecture firms Arca-num Architecture in San Francisco, KTGY Group in Irvine, and Austin Veum Robbins Partners in San Diego. After graduation this June, 2008 he plans to seek employment with an innovative and sustainable minded architectural design firm in California. Billy is an associate member of the American Insti-tute of Architects, and a LEED Accredited Professional.

Eric Cole acted as Architectural Team Leader. He is a M.B.A student at the California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. He holds a Bachelor of Architecture degree, also from Cal Poly. Mr. Cole works for Steven Pults and Associates as an intern architect and will begin work with Skidmore Ow-ings and Merrill in San Francisco this summer. He has played for four years and served as a leader of the Cal Poly Rugby club – ranked 2nd in the na-tion in 2004 – and has also played for the Washington Rugby Club. He is an avid sailor and furniture craftsman. Mr. Cole expects to eventually unite his passion for architecture with his budding business skills to start his own archi-tecture firm.

Erik Simon acted as City and Regional Planning Team Leader, and has a background in construction management. Upon graduation from the Uni-versity of Washington in 1999, Erik began working for one of the largest com-mercial general contractors in the Pacific Northwest. Working in the field of estimating for the first three years of his professional career provided a strong foundation for his transition into project management. Erik contributed eight years of professional construction management experience before decid-ing to pursue his Master’s Degree in City and Regional Planning at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Currently, Erik is completing his first year in the program and intends to graduate in June 2009. Erik’s specific interests are in the field of private redevelopment of industrial brownfield sites.

Adam Windham acted as Finance Team Leader for this year’s challenge. Adam earned his undergraduate degree in Construction Management at Cal Poly SLO, and is currently an MBA student. He has had experience in real estate development through work experience in the project management and construction field. Adam is motivated and excited to become an active member of the professional real estate finance community.


133

Mark Fairman – Architectural Designer. Mr. Fairman is an advocate for envi-ronmental responsibility in the building industry. Within the architectural sec-tor he has held three positions, the most recent as a designer for Bloodgood Sharp Buster, Architects—a residential architecture firm. His focus spans from low-income multi-family housing to complex institutions. In June 2007, Mr. Fair-man graduated cum laude from California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, with a Bachelor in Architecture. During his education, he studied for one year in Florence, Italy where as part of a multi-cultural team won an international design competition. His senior thesis involved designing a self-suf-ficient cancer treatment and rehabilitation center that focused on holistic and

alternative methods of treatment. He is currently pursuing an M.B.A. to develop the skills to effectively work with clients in the development industry. He will begin his career as an architectural designer with Gensler Architects this August in San Francisco.

Ashley Drum – Architectural Designer. Ashley obtained her Bachelors of Architecture degree from Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo in 2007. As an architec-ture student, she participated in various design competitions as well as served as an active member of the AIAS. Her internship experience has provided her with a vast knowledge of high-end residential design. Ashley is currently completing her Masters of Business Administration at Cal Poly and intends to graduate this June.

Ashley Nolting – Architectural Designer. Ashley is a student at California Poly-technic State University, San Luis Obispo. Ashley was born and raised in San Diego, California. She graduated Salutatorian from Patrick Henry High School in 2002. She is working on her Bachelor’s of Architecture expected in June 2008. Her emphasis throughout attending Cal Poly has been sustainability and green design. When graduating she will also be obtaining a minor in Sustain-able Environments. She plans to bring her emphasis on sustainable design into the professional world of architecture.

Brandi Eng-Rohrbach – Sustainability Specialist. Brandi has served various customer service, leadership, and internship roles. While earning her environ-mental science degree at Oberlin College, she was the manager of one of the cafeterias and Resident Assistant in one of the dorms. Ms. Eng-Rohrbach restarted and was the chief editor of the Oberlin College Yearbook. She has interned for organizations including the Cleveland Green Building Coalition, New York City Parks and Recreation, and Ohio Public Interest Research Group. She assists her parents’ tree service company by helping with the creation of documents. Originally from Emmaus, Pennsylvania, she currently resides in San Luis Obispo, California. Currently, Ms Eng-Rohrbach is pursuing a Masters in Business Administration at the California Polytechnic State University. She is the President of the Graduate School of Business Association which serves aca-

demically and socially the student body of her graduate program.



134

Alexander C. Smith – Finance Team Member. Alex continues his Masters in Business Administration for his final year and was a recent graduate from the school’s architecture program. Working as a junior architect in Half Moon Bay, land development intern in San Jose, SAT instructor, and recruitment coordinator at Google, Alex offers a breadth of experience to the team. He has served as chairman for Leadership Education Achievement and Devel-opment (LEAD) program, secretary, and president for the award-winning Cal Poly chapter of Sigma Nu. Raised in Half Moon Bay, Alex fostered a love for the natural environment, traveling, good character, and artistic expression.

Colin B. Clarke – City & Regional Planning Team Member. Colin has a Bach-elor of Science in Community & Regional Development with an emphasis in Policy & Planning and Organization & Management, as well as a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology: Organizational Studies. He is currently finishing up his first year of the Master of City & Regional Planning (MCRP) graduate program at Cal Poly, which is ranked nationally as number one in zoning administration, number six for land use planning, and number nine in the technology area. He greatly enjoys the program’s emphasis on practical, real-world learning experience.

Throughout his time as a student at UC Davis, Colin was involved on and off campus. He served as President and APA Liaison of the American Planning Association (APA) Student Chapter at UC Davis. Colin attended as many conferences, workshops, meetings, and forums as possible to fuel his level of intrigue (something he continues to do). He has completed internships at the City of Union City Economic & Community Development Department and with the City of Davis Planning Division of the Community Development Department.

Colin is extremely passionate about everything that is planning, especially creating projects that embrace place-making, transit-oriented development (pedestrian and biker-friendly environments, encouraging use of public transit), as well as green building practices and moving towards the prac-tice of sustainability. After an extensive amount of research over winter break, he is working with his parents to build their home “green” by working with the builder and a certified Green Point Rater from Build It Green. Just recently, Colin accepted a part-time job offer at Crawford Multari & Clark As-sociates, a consulting firm in downtown San Luis Obispo, where he is working on the Regional Permit-ting Plan (RPP) and Environmental Management System (EMS) for the San Luis Obispo County Public Works Department.


135

John Hanks – Construction Management. Born in Everett, WA, John gradu-ated valedictorian of Marysville-Pilchuck High School in 2003. In high school, he also received the Student-Athlete of the Year award and all-state honors twice in wrestling. John has since competed as a Cal Poly wrestler.John is set to graduate from Cal Poly in June of 2008 with a Business Ad-ministration, finance concentration degree with a Construction Manage-ment minor. In his college career, he was wrestling team representative in the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee and finished second place at the national ASC Preconstruction Services Competition. John has also worked as an intern for Swinerton Builders in San Diego and Seattle. This June, he will

start as a full-time Project Engineer managing Swinerton projects at Microsoft in Redmond, WA.

Robyn Bowie – Presentation Coordinator. Robyn is currently pursuing her MBA in Cal Poly’s accelerated one-year program. Before beginning the program, she received a BA in Communication Studies, also from Cal Poly. Throughout her undergraduate years, she worked for A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. where she became fully trained in all administrative operations. Robyn was also an active member of Alpha Phi Omega, a national community service fraternity, where she served on the executive board for a year. She looks forward to graduation and traveling to China and India with her fellow MBA students this June.



136

LEED-NC Version 2.2 Registered Project Checklist

Yes ? No

8 6 Sustainable Sites 14 Points

Y Prereq 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required

1 Credit 1 Site Selection 1

1 Credit 2 Development Density & Community Connectivity 1

1 Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1

1 Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access 1

1 Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms 1

1 Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles 1

1 Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity 1

1 Credit 5.1 Site Development, Protect of Restore Habitat 1

1 Credit 5.2 Site Development, Maximize Open Space 1

1 Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control 1

1 Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control 1

1 Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof 1

1 Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof 1

1 Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction 1

Yes ? No

2 2 1 Water Efficiency 5 Points

1 Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% 1

1 Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation 1

1 Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 1

1 Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction 1

1 Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction 1

Yes ? No

5 3 1 Energy & Atmosphere 17 Points

Y Prereq 1 Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems Required

Y Prereq 2 Minimum Energy Performance Required

Y Prereq 3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required

2 Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance 1 to 10

3 Credit 2 On-Site Renewable Energy 1 to 3

1 Credit 3 Enhanced Commissioning 1

1 Credit 4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management 1

1 Credit 5 Measurement & Verification 1

1 Credit 6 Green Power 1

continued…

Ash & KettnerSan Diego, Ca

Appendix D - LEED Checklist


137137

Yes ? No

4 5 4 Materials & Resources 13 Points

Y Prereq 1 Storage & Collection of Recyclables Required

1 Credit 1.1 Building Reuse, Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof 1

1 Credit 1.2 Building Reuse, Maintain 100% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof 1

1 Credit 1.3 Building Reuse, Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural Elements 1

1 Credit 2.1 Construction Waste Management, Divert 50% from Disposal 1

1 Credit 2.2 Construction Waste Management, Divert 75% from Disposal 1

1 Credit 3.1 Materials Reuse, 5% 1

1 Credit 3.2 Materials Reuse,10% 1

1 Credit 4.1 Recycled Content, 10% (post-consumer + ½ pre-consumer) 1

1 Credit 4.2 Recycled Content, 20% (post-consumer + ½ pre-consumer) 1

1 Credit 5.1 Regional Materials, 10% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Regio 1

1 Credit 5.2 Regional Materials, 20% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Regio 1

1 Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 1

1 Credit 7 Certified Wood 1

Yes ? No

9 5 1 Indoor Environmental Quality 15 Points

Y Prereq 1 Minimum IAQ Performance RequiredY Prereq 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Required

1 Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 11 Credit 2 Increased Ventilation 1

1 Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction 11 Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy 11 Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials, Adhesives & Sealants 11 Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials, Paints & Coatings 11 Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials, Carpet Systems 1

1 Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials, Composite Wood & Agrifiber Products 11 Credit 5 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control 1

1 Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems, Lighting 11 Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort 11 Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort, Design 11 Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort, Verification 1

1 Credit 8.1 Daylight & Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces 11 Credit 8.2 Daylight & Views, Views for 90% of Spaces 1

Yes ? No

2 3 Innovation & Design Process 5 Points

1 Credit 1.1 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title 1




1 Credit 2 LEED® Accredited Professional 1

Yes ? No

30 24 8 Project Totals (pre-certification estimates) 69 Points

Certified 26-32 points Silver 33-38 points Gold 39-51 points Platinum 52-69 points



138

9% BASIS LIMITS

COUNTYSRO &

STUDIO1

BEDROOM2

BEDROOMS3

BEDROOMS4+

BEDROOMSALAMEDA $167,958 $193,654 $233,600 $299,008 $333,114ALPINE $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301AMADOR $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301BUTTE $117,916 $135,956 $164,000 $209,920 $233,864CALAVERAS $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301COLUSA $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301CONTRA COSTA $153,578 $177,074 $213,600 $273,408 $304,594DEL NORTE $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301EL DORADO $117,916 $135,956 $164,000 $209,920 $233,864FRESNO $107,562 $124,018 $149,600 $191,488 $213,330GLENN $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301HUMBOLDT $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301IMPERIAL $121,367 $139,935 $168,800 $216,064 $240,709INYO $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301KERN $112,739 $129,987 $156,800 $200,704 $223,597KINGS $107,562 $124,018 $149,600 $191,488 $213,330LAKE $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301LASSEN $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301LOS ANGELES $119,066 $137,282 $165,600 $211,968 $236,146MADERA $107,562 $124,018 $149,600 $191,488 $213,330MARIN $153,578 $177,074 $213,600 $273,408 $304,594MARIPOSA $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301MENDOCINO $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301MERCED $107,562 $124,018 $149,600 $191,488 $213,330MODOC $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301MONO $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301MONTEREY $147,826 $170,442 $205,600 $263,168 $293,186NAPA $153,578 $177,074 $213,600 $273,408 $304,594NEVADA $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301ORANGE $120,792 $139,272 $168,000 $215,040 $239,568PLACER $117,916 $135,956 $164,000 $209,920 $233,864PLUMAS $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301RIVERSIDE $117,916 $135,956 $164,000 $209,920 $233,864SACRAMENTO $117,916 $135,956 $164,000 $209,920 $233,864SAN BENITO $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301SAN BERNARDINO $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301SAN DIEGO $124,243 $143,251 $172,800 $221,184 $246,413SAN FRANCISCO $174,286 $200,950 $242,400 $310,272 $345,662SAN JOAQUIN $107,562 $124,018 $149,600 $191,488 $213,330SAN LUIS OBISPO $138,623 $159,831 $192,800 $246,784 $274,933SAN MATEO $133,446 $153,862 $185,600 $237,568 $264,666SANTA BARBARA $138,623 $159,831 $192,800 $246,784 $274,933SANTA CLARA $138,048 $159,168 $192,000 $245,760 $273,792SANTA CRUZ $138,623 $159,831 $192,800 $246,784 $274,933SHASTA $117,916 $135,956 $164,000 $209,920 $233,864SIERRA $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301SISKIYOU $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301SOLANO $153,578 $177,074 $213,600 $273,408 $304,594SONOMA $165,658 $191,002 $230,400 $294,912 $328,550STANISLAUS $107,562 $124,018 $149,600 $191,488 $213,330SUTTER $117,916 $135,956 $164,000 $209,920 $233,864TEHAMA $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301TRINITY $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301TULARE $107,562 $124,018 $149,600 $191,488 $213,330TUOLUMNE $115,615 $133,303 $160,800 $205,824 $229,301VENTURA $138,623 $159,831 $192,800 $246,784 $274,933YOLO $117,916 $135,956 $164,000 $209,920 $233,864YUBA $117,916 $135,956 $164,000 $209,920 $233,864

REVISED: January 9, 2008

Appendix E - Financial Supplements


139

4% BASIS LIMITS

COUNTYSRO &

STUDIO1

BEDROOM2

BEDROOMS3

BEDROOMS4+

BEDROOMSALAMEDA $209,948 $242,068 $292,000 $373,760 $416,392ALPINE $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214AMADOR $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214BUTTE $150,127 $173,095 $208,800 $267,264 $297,749CALAVERAS $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214COLUSA $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214CONTRA COSTA $195,568 $225,488 $272,000 $348,160 $387,872DEL NORTE $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214EL DORADO $150,127 $173,095 $208,800 $267,264 $297,749FRESNO $132,871 $153,199 $184,800 $236,544 $263,525GLENN $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214HUMBOLDT $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214IMPERIAL $141,499 $163,147 $196,800 $251,904 $280,637INYO $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214KERN $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214KINGS $132,871 $153,199 $184,800 $236,544 $263,525LAKE $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214LASSEN $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214LOS ANGELES $154,729 $178,401 $215,200 $275,456 $306,875MADERA $132,871 $153,199 $184,800 $236,544 $263,525MARIN $195,568 $225,488 $272,000 $348,160 $387,872MARIPOSA $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214MENDOCINO $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214MERCED $132,871 $153,199 $184,800 $236,544 $263,525MODOC $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214MONO $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214MONTEREY $186,365 $214,877 $259,200 $331,776 $369,619NAPA $195,568 $225,488 $272,000 $348,160 $387,872NEVADA $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214ORANGE $155,879 $179,727 $216,800 $277,504 $309,157PLACER $150,127 $173,095 $208,800 $267,264 $297,749PLUMAS $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214RIVERSIDE $138,048 $159,168 $192,000 $245,760 $273,792SACRAMENTO $150,127 $173,095 $208,800 $267,264 $297,749SAN BENITO $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214SAN BERNARDINO $135,747 $156,515 $188,800 $241,664 $269,229SAN DIEGO $154,729 $178,401 $215,200 $275,456 $306,875SAN FRANCISCO $229,505 $264,617 $319,200 $408,576 $455,179SAN JOAQUIN $132,871 $153,199 $184,800 $236,544 $263,525SAN LUIS OBISPO $177,162 $204,266 $246,400 $315,392 $351,366SAN MATEO $166,808 $192,328 $232,000 $296,960 $330,832SANTA BARBARA $177,162 $204,266 $246,400 $315,392 $351,366SANTA CLARA $171,985 $198,297 $239,200 $306,176 $341,099SANTA CRUZ $177,162 $204,266 $246,400 $315,392 $351,366SHASTA $150,127 $173,095 $208,800 $267,264 $297,749SIERRA $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214SISKIYOU $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214SOLANO $195,568 $225,488 $272,000 $348,160 $387,872SONOMA $214,550 $247,374 $298,400 $381,952 $425,518STANISLAUS $132,871 $153,199 $184,800 $236,544 $263,525SUTTER $150,127 $173,095 $208,800 $267,264 $297,749TEHAMA $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214TRINITY $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214TULARE $132,871 $153,199 $184,800 $236,544 $263,525TUOLUMNE $139,774 $161,158 $194,400 $248,832 $277,214VENTURA $177,162 $204,266 $246,400 $315,392 $351,366YOLO $150,127 $173,095 $208,800 $267,264 $297,749YUBA $150,127 $173,095 $208,800 $267,264 $297,749

REVISED: January 9, 2008



140

200

8 O

pera

ting

Cos

ts S

umm

ary

Min

imum

s

At R

isk

and

Sing

le R

oom

N

on T

arge

ted

and

Spec

ial

Reg

ion

Proj

ect T

ype

(a)

Larg

e Fa

mily

Seni

orN

eeds

All

Oth

erEl

evat

or$3

,600

$3,6

00$2

,900

$3,7

00N

on-E

leva

tor

$3,4

00$3

,400

$2,7

00$3

,500

Cap

ital a

nd N

orth

ern

Are

a El

evat

or$3

,500

$3,5

00$2

,800

$3,7

00N

on-E

leva

tor

$3,3

00$3

,300

$2,6

00$3

,500

Cen

tral

Elev

ator

$3,2

00$3

,200

$2,5

00$3

,300

Non

-Ele

vato

r$3

,000

$3,0

00$2

,300

$3,1

00C

oast

alEl

evat

or$3

,900

$3,9

00$3

,100

$4,0

00N

on-E

leva

tor

$3,7

00$3

,700

$2,9

00$3

,800

East

Bay

Elev

ator

$4,6

00$4

,600

$3,6

00$4

,700

Non

-Ele

vato

r$4

,400

$4,4

00$3

,400

$4,5

00In

land

Em

pire

Elev

ator

$3,4

00$3

,400

$2,7

00$3

,500

Non

-Ele

vato

r$3

,200

$3,2

00$2

,500

$3,3

00Lo

s A

ngel

esEl

evat

or$3

,900

$3,8

00$3

,000

$4,0

00N

on-E

leva

tor

$3,7

00$3

,600

$2,8

00$3

,800

Ora

nge

Elev

ator

$3,6

00$3

,600

$2,8

00$3

,700

Non

-Ele

vato

r$3

,400

$3,4

00$2

,600

$3,5

00Sa

n D

iego

Elev

ator

$3,9

00$3

,900

$3,1

00$4

,000

Non

-Ele

vato

r$3

,700

$3,7

00$2

,900

$3,8

00Sa

n Fr

anci

sco

Elev

ator

$6,3

00$6

,300

$5,0

00$6

,500

Non

-Ele

vato

r$6

,100

$6,1

00$4

,800

$6,3

00Sa

n M

ateo

and

San

ta C

lara

El

evat

or$4

,600

$4,6

00$3

,600

$4,7

00N

on-E

leva

tor

$4,4

00$4

,400

$3,4

00$4

,500

(a) T

ax-E

xem

pt B

ond

Pro

ject

s w

ith 3

0% o

r mor

e of

thei

r uni

ts th

ree-

bedr

oom

or l

arge

r use

Lar

ge F

amily

col

umn.

Tax

-Exe

mpt

Bon

d P

roje

cts

desi

gned

prim

arily

to s

erve

Sen

iors

use

the

Sen

ior c

olum

n.

Tax-

Exe

mpt

Bon

d P

roje

cts

prim

arily

ser

ving

spe

cial

nee

ds p

opul

atio

ns o

r ser

ving

as

an

SR

O u

se th

e S

ingl

e R

oom

and

Spe

cial

Nee

ds c

olum

n.

Plea

se re

fer t

o R

egul

atio

n Se

ctio

n 10

327(

g)(1

) for

add

ition

al in

form

atio

n re

gard

ing

the

Ope

ratin

g Ex

pens

e M

inim

ums.


141

Other ElectricWater & SewerTrash

1. 1.

2. 2.

$ $

+ $ + $

+ $ + $

+ $ + $

+ $ + $

= $ = $

The monthly tenant paid rent would be:Allowable Gross Rent:Utility Allowance:Maximum Cash Rent

$8 $8 $8$10

Refrigerator$10 $10 $10

$64 $81 $93

Range/Microwave $10 $10$8 $8 $8 $8

$104

Other Electric

Water & Sewer

TOTAL UTILITY ALLOWANCE:

4.00

8.00

13.00

15.00

0.00

Water Heating (Gas or Electric)

$11 $14 $16$7 $10 $13 $15 $20 $22$5

$15

$10 $10 $10

$30 $41 $53

$10

$10 $13 $14$2 $2 $3 $3 $4 $5

$18 $21$2 $3 $4 $4 $6 $6

0 BR 1 BR 2 BR

$5 $6 $8

$9Water Heating

Find the column that represents the unit size.

From the column select the figures that represent the allowances for each tenant paid utility and appliance. Fill in and add these amounts below:

Heating the Unit (Gas or Electric)

Cooking (Gas or Electric)

$18$9 $12

Cooking

Heating

GasElectric

SAN DIEGO HOUSING COMMISSION UTILITY ALLOWANCE SCHEDULERevised: March 10, 2008

Gas

Other Electric

UTILITY ALLOWANCE COMPUTATION SHEET

Find the column that represents the unit size.

From the column select the figures that represent the allowances for each tenant paid utility and appliance. Fill in and add these amounts below:

Heating the Unit (Gas or Electric)

Dwelling Unit Size6 BR

$7 $9 $12 $14 $233 BR 4 BR 5 BR

849$

$10 $10 $10

TOTAL UTILITY ALLOWANCE:

Water & Sewer

40.00

Cooking (Gas or Electric)

Water Heating (Gas or Electric)

UTILITY ALLOWANCE COMPUTATION

($40)

$7$16

$19 $24 $27$7

Based on actual rates and average consumption estimates.

889$

Example: A two bedroom apartment affordable at 50% AMI is equipped with an electric heating system, a gas stove, and an individual gas water heater. Water and sewer are paid by the owner. The tenant would pay for gas & electric utilities. The utility allowance and rent computation is as follows:

$31

$10

ElectricGasElectric $5

$25



142

SUMMARY TABLE

RENT LIMITS, 2008 (1)CENTRE CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

I. CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT LAW WITH LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS

25% AMI 30% AMI 35% AMI

Studio $316 $379 $442

1 Bedroom $361 $433 $505

2 Bedroom $406 $487 $568

3 Bedroom $469 $563 $656

40% AMI 45% AMI 50% AMI

Studio $505 $568 $631

1 Bedroom $577 $649 $721

2 Bedroom $649 $730 $811

3 Bedroom $750 $844 $938

55% AMI 60% AMI

Studio $694 $758

1 Bedroom $793 $866

2 Bedroom $892 $974

3 Bedroom $1,031 $1,125

II. CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT LAW ONLY

LOW INCOME MODERATE INCOME60% AMI 110% AMI

Studio $758 $1,389

1 Bedroom $866 $1,587

2 Bedroom $974 $1,785

3 Bedroom $1,082 $1,983

(1)

Source: State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, San Diego Housing Commission, California Redevelopment Law.

Reflects gross rent. Gross rent minus utility allowance = maximum cash rent. See the "San Diego Housing Commission Utility Allowance" to calculate the utility allowance based on a project's actual utility profile.

EXTREMELY LOW INCOME

VERY LOW INCOME

LOW INCOME

Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.Filename: i:ccdc\CCDC 2008_Rents;4/11/2008;rks


143

Cal

iforn

ia T

rans

it St

atio

ns L

ocat

ed in

Urb

aniz

ed A

reas

as

of 1

/14/

08 Id

entif

ied

in S

ectio

n 10

3(a)

(2)(A

) of t

he D

ecem

ber 3

, 200

7 TO

D H

ousi

ng P

rogr

am G

uide

lines

*

AB

CD

EF

GU

RB

AN

IZED

AR

E AC

OU

NTY

CIT

YST

ATI

ON

NA

ME

STA

TIO

N L

OC

ATI

ON

TRA

NSI

TTY

PE O

F(A

DD

RES

S O

R IN

TER

SEC

TIO

N)

AG

ENC

YST

ATI

ON

210

Sac

ram

ento

Sac

ram

ento

Sac

ram

ento

Con

sum

nes

Riv

er C

olle

ge T

rans

it C

ente

r84

01 C

ente

r Pkw

yR

TB

us21

1S

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

olan

a B

each

Sol

ana

Bea

ch10

5 C

edro

s A

veA

MTR

AK

, NC

TDC

omm

Rai

l21

2S

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

ta F

e D

epot

/Am

eric

a P

laza

1050

Ket

tner

Blv

dN

CTD

, MTS

, SD

TC

omm

& L

ight

Rai

l, B

us

213

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

orre

nto

Val

ley

1117

0 S

orre

nto

Val

ley

Rd

NC

TDC

omm

Rai

l21

4S

an D

iego

San

Die

goO

cean

side

Coa

st H

ighw

ayG

odfre

y S

t & T

rem

ont S

tN

CTD

Ligh

t Rai

l21

5S

an D

iego

San

Die

goO

cean

side

El C

amin

o R

eal

S E

l Cam

ino

Rea

l & In

dust

ry R

dN

CTD

Ligh

t Rai

l21

6S

an D

iego

San

Die

goO

cean

side

Ran

cho

Del

Oro

Ran

cho

Del

Oro

Dr &

Oce

ansi

de B

lvd

NC

TDLi

ght R

ail

217

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Oce

ansi

deC

olle

ge B

oule

vard

Ave

nida

Del

Oro

& O

cean

side

Blv

dN

CTD

Ligh

t Rai

l21

8S

an D

iego

San

Die

goO

cean

side

Mel

rose

Mel

rose

Dr &

Oce

ansi

de B

lvd

NC

TDLi

ght R

ail

219

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Vis

taV

ista

Tra

nsit

Cen

ter

Oliv

e A

ve &

Vis

ta V

illag

e D

rN

CTD

Ligh

t Rai

l22

0S

an D

iego

San

Die

goV

ista

Esc

ondi

do A

veE

scon

dido

Ave

& P

hilli

ps S

tN

CTD

Ligh

t Rai

l22

1S

an D

iego

San

Die

goV

ista

Bue

na C

reek

S S

ante

Fe

Ave

& B

uena

Cre

ek R

dN

CTD

Ligh

t Rai

l22

2S

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

an M

arco

sP

alom

ar C

olle

geN

Las

Pos

as R

d &

Mis

sion

Rd

NC

TDLi

ght R

ail

223

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Mar

cos

San

Mar

cos

Civ

ic C

ente

rS

an M

arco

s B

lvd

& M

issi

on R

dN

CTD

Ligh

t Rai

l22

4S

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

an M

arco

sC

SU

San

Mar

cos

Bar

ham

Dr &

La

Mor

eeN

CTD

Ligh

t Rai

l22

5S

an D

iego

San

Die

goE

scon

dido

Nor

dahl

Roa

dN

orda

hl R

d &

Mis

sion

Rd

NC

TDLi

ght R

ail

226

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Esc

ondi

doE

scon

dido

Tra

nsit

Cen

ter

700

W V

alle

y P

kwy

NC

TDLi

ght R

ail

227

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Oce

ansi

deC

rouc

h S

tC

rouc

h S

t & O

cean

side

Blv

dN

CTD

Ligh

t Rai

l22

8S

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

City

Col

lege

12th

Ave

& C

St

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

229

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Die

go12

th M

arke

t12

th A

ve &

Mar

ket S

tS

DT

Ligh

t Rai

l23

0S

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Mis

sion

Val

ley

1400

Cam

ino

De

La R

eina

SD

T, M

TSLi

ght R

ail,

Bus

231

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Oce

ansi

deO

cean

side

Tra

nsit

Cen

ter

195

S. T

rem

ont S

tN

CTD

, ME

TRO

LIN

KC

omm

Rai

l23

2S

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Fent

on P

arkw

ay20

00 F

ento

n P

kwy

SD

T, M

TSLi

ght R

ail,

Bus

233

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Die

goR

io V

ista

2020

Qua

lcom

m W

ayS

DT,

MTS

Ligh

t Rai

l, B

us23

4S

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Pal

m A

ve23

40 P

alm

Ave

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

235

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Enc

inita

sE

ncin

itas

25 E

ast D

St

NC

TDC

omm

Rai

l23

6S

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

25th

& C

omm

erci

al25

th S

t & C

omm

erci

al S

tS

DT

Ligh

t Rai

l23

7S

an D

iego

San

Die

goC

arls

bad

Car

lsba

d V

illag

e27

75 S

tate

St

NC

TDC

omm

Rai

l23

8S

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Har

bors

ide

28th

St &

Har

bor D

rS

DT

Ligh

t Rai

l23

9S

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Con

vent

ion

Cen

ter

2nd

Ave

& J

St

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

240

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Die

go32

nd &

Com

mer

cial

32nd

Stre

et &

Com

mer

cial

St

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

241

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Die

goO

ld T

own

Tran

sit C

ente

r40

05 T

aylo

r St

AM

TRA

K, N

CTD

, SD

T, M

TSC

omm

& L

ight

Rai

l, B

us

242

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Die

goE

uclid

Ave

450

Euc

lid A

veS

DT

Ligh

t Rai

l24

3S

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Gra

ntvi

lle45

10 A

lvar

ado

Can

yon

Rd

SD

T, M

TSLi

ght R

ail,

Bus

244

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Die

go47

th S

t47

th S

t & C

asta

na S

tS

DT

Ligh

t Rai

l24

5S

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

5th

Ave

5th

Ave

& C

St

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

* Th

is "t

rans

it st

atio

ns" l

ist i

s no

t exh

aust

ive

but b

ased

on

the

best

info

rmat

ion

avai

labl

e at

the

time,

com

pile

d on

ly fo

r the

pur

pose

s of

the

TOD

Hou

sing

Pro

gram

. C

orre

ctio

ns a

re w

elco

me.

7 of

15



144

Cal

iforn

ia T

rans

it St

atio

ns L

ocat

ed in

Urb

aniz

ed A

reas

as

of 1

/14/

08 Id

entif

ied

in S

ectio

n 10

3(a)

(2)(A

) of t

he D

ecem

ber 3

, 200

7 TO

D H

ousi

ng P

rogr

am G

uide

lines

*

AB

CD

EF

GU

RB

AN

IZED

AR

E AC

OU

NTY

CIT

YST

ATI

ON

NA

ME

STA

TIO

N L

OC

ATI

ON

TRA

NSI

TTY

PE O

F(A

DD

RES

S O

R IN

TER

SEC

TIO

N)

AG

ENC

YST

ATI

ON

246

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Die

goG

asla

mp

Qua

rter

5th

Ave

& H

arbo

r Dr

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

247

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Die

goE

ncan

to/6

2nd

St

62nd

Stre

et &

Aki

ns A

veS

DT

Ligh

t Rai

l24

8S

an D

iego

San

Die

goC

arls

bad

Car

lsba

d P

oins

ettia

6511

Ave

nida

Enc

inas

NC

TDC

omm

Rai

l24

9S

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Alv

arad

o M

edic

al C

ente

r66

58 A

lvar

ado

Rd

SD

T, M

TSLi

ght R

ail,

Bus

250

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

La M

esa

70th

St

7255

Alv

arad

o R

dS

DT,

MTS

Ligh

t Rai

l, B

us25

1S

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Qua

lcom

m S

tadi

um94

49 F

riars

Rd

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

252

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

La M

esa

Am

aya

Dr

Am

aya

Dr &

Sev

erin

Dr

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

253

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Ysi

dro

Bey

er B

lvd

Bey

er B

lvd

& N

orth

Cot

tonw

ood

Rd

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

254

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Lem

on G

rove

Lem

on G

rove

Dep

otB

road

way

& L

emon

Gro

ve A

veS

DT

Ligh

t Rai

l25

5S

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Civ

ic C

ente

rC

St &

3rd

Ave

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

256

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

DS

U T

rans

it C

ente

rC

ampa

nile

Dr &

Har

dy A

veM

TSB

us25

7S

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Bar

rio L

ogan

Ces

ar C

have

z P

kwy

& M

ain

St

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

258

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

El C

ajon

Gill

espi

e Fi

eld

Cuy

amac

a S

t & W

eld

Blv

dS

DT

Ligh

t Rai

l25

9S

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

an Y

sidr

oS

an Y

sidr

oE

ast B

eyer

Blv

d &

Eas

t San

Ysi

dro

Blv

dS

DT

Ligh

t Rai

l26

0S

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Fash

ion

Val

ley

Tran

sit C

ente

rFa

shio

n V

alle

y R

d &

Riv

erw

alk

Dr

SD

T, M

TSLi

ght R

ail,

Bus

261

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

La M

esa

Gro

ssm

ont T

rans

it C

ente

rG

ross

mon

t Cen

ter D

r & F

letc

her P

kwy

SD

T, M

TSLi

ght R

ail,

Bus

262

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Die

goH

azar

d C

ente

rH

azar

d C

ente

r Dr &

Fra

zee

Rd

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

263

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Die

go12

th &

Impe

rial

Impe

rial A

ve &

Nor

th 1

2th

Ave

SD

T, M

TSLi

ght R

ail,

Bus

264

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Chu

la V

ista

Bay

front

/E S

tIn

ters

tate

5 &

E S

tS

DT

Ligh

t Rai

l26

5S

an D

iego

San

Die

goC

hula

Vis

taH

St

Inte

rsta

te 5

& H

St

SD

T, M

TSLi

ght R

ail,

Bus

266

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Ysi

dro

Iris

Ave

Iris

Ave

& 3

0th

St

SD

T, M

TSLi

ght R

ail,

Bus

267

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

eapo

rt V

illag

eK

ettn

er B

lvd

& W

G S

tS

DT

Ligh

t Rai

l26

8S

an D

iego

San

Die

goLa

Mes

aLa

Mes

a B

lvd

La M

esa

Blv

d &

Spr

ing

St

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

269

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

El C

ajon

El C

ajon

Tra

nsit

Cen

ter

Mai

n S

t & M

arsh

all A

veS

DT,

MTS

Ligh

t Rai

l, B

us27

0S

an D

iego

San

Die

goLe

mon

Gro

veM

assa

chus

etts

Ave

Mas

sach

uset

ts A

ve &

Lem

on G

rove

Ave

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

271

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

tee

San

tee

Tow

n C

ente

rM

issi

on G

orge

Rd

& C

uyam

aca

St

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

272

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Die

goM

oren

a/Li

nda

Vis

taN

apa

St &

Gai

nes

St

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

273

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

El C

ajon

Arn

ele

Ave

Nor

th M

arsh

all A

ve &

Arn

ele

Ave

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

274

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Die

goC

ount

y C

ente

r/Litt

le It

aly

Pac

ific

Hig

hway

& W

est C

edar

St

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

275

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Chu

la V

ista

Pal

omar

St

Pal

omar

St &

Indu

stria

l Blv

dS

DT

Ligh

t Rai

l27

6S

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Mis

sion

SD

Ran

cho

Mis

sion

Rd

& W

ard

Rd

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

277

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Die

goP

acifi

c Fl

eet

Sou

th 3

2nd

St &

Har

bor D

rS

DT

Ligh

t Rai

l27

8S

an D

iego

San

Die

goLa

Mes

aS

prin

g S

tS

prin

g S

t & P

alm

Ave

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

279

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Nat

iona

l City

24th

St

Wes

t 24t

h S

t & In

ters

tate

5S

DT

Ligh

t Rai

l28

0S

an D

iego

San

Die

goN

atio

nal C

ity8t

h S

tW

est 8

th S

t & H

arbo

r Dr

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

281

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Die

goA

mer

ican

Pla

zaW

est C

St &

Ket

tner

Blv

dS

DT

Ligh

t Rai

l

* Th

is "t

rans

it st

atio

ns" l

ist i

s no

t exh

aust

ive

but b

ased

on

the

best

info

rmat

ion

avai

labl

e at

the

time,

com

pile

d on

ly fo

r the

pur

pose

s of

the

TOD

Hou

sing

Pro

gram

. C

orre

ctio

ns a

re w

elco

me.

8 of

15


145

Cal

iforn

ia T

rans

it St

atio

ns L

ocat

ed in

Urb

aniz

ed A

reas

as

of 1

/14/

08 Id

entif

ied

in S

ectio

n 10

3(a)

(2)(A

) of t

he D

ecem

ber 3

, 200

7 TO

D H

ousi

ng P

rogr

am G

uide

lines

*

AB

CD

EF

GU

RB

AN

IZED

AR

E AC

OU

NTY

CIT

YST

ATI

ON

NA

ME

STA

TIO

N L

OC

ATI

ON

TRA

NSI

TTY

PE O

F(A

DD

RES

S O

R IN

TER

SEC

TIO

N)

AG

ENC

YST

ATI

ON

282

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Die

goM

iddl

eton

Wes

t Pal

m S

t & K

ettn

er B

lvd

SD

TLi

ght R

ail

283

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

San

Die

goW

ashi

ngto

n S

tW

est W

ashi

ngto

n S

t & P

acifi

c H

ighw

ayS

DT

Ligh

t Rai

l28

4S

an D

iego

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Wes

tfiel

d U

TC45

45 L

a Jo

lla D

rM

TSB

us28

5S

an D

iego

San

Die

goE

l Caj

onP

arkw

ay P

laza

415

Par

kway

Pla

zaM

TSB

us28

6S

an D

iego

San

Die

goE

scon

dido

Nor

th C

ount

y Fa

ir (2

)27

2 E

. Via

Ran

cho

Pkw

yN

CTD

Bus

287

San

Die

goS

an D

iego

Car

lsba

dP

laza

Cam

ino

Rea

lM

arro

n R

d &

El C

amin

o R

eal

NC

TDB

us28

8S

an D

iego

San

Die

goC

hula

Vis

taS

outh

wes

tern

Col

lege

900

Ota

y La

kes

Rd

MTS

Bus

289

San

Fra

ncis

co-O

akla

ndS

an M

ateo

Ath

erto

nA

ther

ton

1 D

inke

lspi

el S

tatio

n Ln

CA

LTR

AIN

Com

m R

ail

290

San

Fra

ncis

co-O

akla

ndS

an M

ateo

Red

woo

d C

ityR

edw

ood

City

1 Ja

mes

Ave

CA

LTR

AIN

Com

m R

ail

291

San

Fra

ncis

co-O

akla

ndA

lam

eda

Uni

on C

ityU

nion

City

10 U

nion

Squ

are

BA

RT

Hea

vy R

ail

292

San

Fra

ncis

co-O

akla

ndS

an M

ateo

Mill

brae

Mill

brae

100

Cal

iforn

ia D

rC

ALT

RA

INC

omm

Rai

l29

3S

an F

ranc

isco

-Oak

land

San

ta C

lara

Pal

o A

ltoS

tanf

ord

100

Em

barc

ader

o R

dC

ALT

RA

INC

omm

Rai

l29

4S

an F

ranc

isco

-Oak

land

San

ta C

lara

Pal

o A

ltoC

alifo

rnia

Ave

101

Cal

iforn

ia A

veC

ALT

RA

INC

omm

Rai

l29

5S

an F

ranc

isco

-Oak

land

San

Mat

eoM

enlo

Par

kM

enlo

Par

k11

20 M

erril

l St

CA

LTR

AIN

Com

m R

ail

296

San

Fra

ncis

co-O

akla

ndS

an F

ranc

isco

San

Fra

ncis

co22

nd S

treet

1149

22n

d S

tC

ALT

RA

INC

omm

Rai

l29

7S

an F

ranc

isco

-Oak

land

San

Fra

ncis

coS

an F

ranc

isco

Civ

ic C

ente

r11

50 M

arke

t St

BA

RT

Hea

vy R

ail

298

San

Fra

ncis

co-O

akla

ndS

an M

ateo

San

Bru

noS

an B

runo

1151

Hun

tingt

on A

veB

AR

TH

eavy

Rai

l29

9S

an F

ranc

isco

-Oak

land

San

Mat

eoB

urlin

gam

eB

road

way

1190

Cal

iforn

ia D

rive

CA

LTR

AIN

Com

m R

ail

300

San

Fra

ncis

co-O

akla

ndA

lam

eda

Oak

land

12th

Stre

et12

45 B

road

way

BA

RT

Hea

vy R

ail

301

San

Fra

ncis

co-O

akla

ndS

an M

ateo

S. S

an F

ranc

isco

So

Fran

cisc

o 13

33 M

issi

on R

dB

AR

TH

eavy

Rai

l30

2S

an F

ranc

isco

-Oak

land

Ala

med

aS

an L

eand

roS

an L

eand

ro14

01 S

an L

eand

ro B

lvd.

BA

RT

Hea

vy R

ail

303

San

Fra

ncis

co-O

akla

ndA

lam

eda

Oak

land

Wes

t Oak

land

1451

7th

Stre

etB

AR

TH

eavy

Rai

l30

4S

an F

ranc

isco

-Oak

land

Ala

med

aS

an L

eand

roB

ay F

air

1524

2 H

espe

rian

Blv

d.B

AR

TH

eavy

Rai

l30

5S

an F

ranc

isco

-Oak

land

Con

tra C

osta

Ric

hmon

dR

ichm

ond

16th

& M

acD

onal

d A

veA

MTR

AK

Com

m R

ail

306

San

Fra

ncis

co-O

akla

ndC

ontra

Cos

taR

ichm

ond

Ric

hmon

d17

00 N

evin

Ave

BA

RT

Hea

vy R

ail

307

San

Fra

ncis

co-O

akla

ndA

lam

eda

Ber

kele

yN

orth

Ber

kele

y17

50 S

acra

men

to S

tB

AR

TH

eavy

Rai

l30

8S

an F

ranc

isco

-Oak

land

Ala

med

aO

akla

nd19

th S

treet

1900

Bro

adw

ayB

AR

TH

eavy

Rai

l30

9S

an F

ranc

isco

-Oak

land

San

Fra

ncis

coS

an F

ranc

isco

S.F

. Sta

te19

th A

ve &

Hol

low

ay A

veM

UN

ILi

ght R

ail

310

San

Fra

ncis

co-O

akla

ndS

an F

ranc

isco

San

Fra

ncis

coS

tone

stow

n19

th A

ve &

Win

ston

Dr

MU

NI

Ligh

t Rai

l31

1S

an F

ranc

isco

-Oak

land

San

Mat

eoM

illbr

aeM

illbr

ae20

0 N

orth

Rol

lins

Rd

BA

RT

Hea

vy R

ail

312

San

Fra

ncis

co-O

akla

ndA

lam

eda

Frem

ont

Frem

ont

2000

BA

RT

Way

BA

RT

Hea

vy R

ail

313

San

Fra

ncis

co-O

akla

ndS

an F

ranc

isco

San

Fra

ncis

co16

th S

t Mis

sion

2000

Mis

sion

St

BA

RT

Hea

vy R

ail

314

San

Fra

ncis

co-O

akla

ndA

lam

eda

Ber

kele

yD

ownt

own

Ber

kele

y21

60 S

hattu

ck A

venu

eB

AR

TH

eavy

Rai

l31

5S

an F

ranc

isco

-Oak

land

San

Fra

ncis

coS

an F

ranc

isco

24th

St M

issi

on28

00 M

issi

on S

tB

AR

TH

eavy

Rai

l31

6S

an F

ranc

isco

-Oak

land

Ala

med

aH

ayw

ard

Sou

th H

ayw

ard

2860

1 D

ixon

Stre

etB

AR

TH

eavy

Rai

l31

7S

an F

ranc

isco

-Oak

land

San

Mat

eoB

urlin

gam

eB

urlin

gam

e29

0 C

alifo

rnia

Dr

CA

LTR

AIN

Com

m R

ail

* Th

is "t

rans

it st

atio

ns" l

ist i

s no

t exh

aust

ive

but b

ased

on

the

best

info

rmat

ion

avai

labl

e at

the

time,

com

pile

d on

ly fo

r the

pur

pose

s of

the

TOD

Hou

sing

Pro

gram

. C

orre

ctio

ns a

re w

elco

me.

9 of

15



146

Demand slows down; vacancy stays low SAN DIEGO COUNTY OVERVIEW Similar to the office and industrial markets in San Diego County, new supply out-paced demand to cause an overall increase in vacancy in 2007. However, the magni-tude of this imbalance was relatively small considering the fact that vacancy has been relatively low and new construction is dwindling and will continue to decline in the upcoming years. For this reason, the retail market outperformed the office and in-dustrial markets considerably.

The December 2007 San Diego County employment rate measured 4.9% at year-end. This was slightly higher than the national rate of 4.8%, but considerably lower than the state rate of 5.9% during the same period. In Q4 2007, approximately 12,900 net jobs countywide were created, supporting a 1.1% employment increase -- or 14,900 net jobs – for 2007. Industries reporting the most impressive gains in 2007 were “Trade, Transportation, and Utilities” (4,400 net jobs) followed by “Professional and Business Services” (2,800 net jobs) and “Information” (800 net jobs). In contrast, the “Construction” and “Financial Activities” sectors lost a total of 4,100 and 1,100 net jobs, respectively. The USD Index of Leading Economic Indicators for San Diego County pointed to a

r e t a i lCOLLIERS INTERNATIONAL | SAN DIEGO

The Knowledge Report RETAIL | FOURTH QUARTER | 2007

New Supply , Net Absorpt ion & Vacancy

MARKET INDICATORS

For the second consecutive year, vacancy increased with the year-end 2007 rate reaching 3.5%. While there was strong net absorp-tion of 474,769 square feet for the year, new sup-ply outpaced demand with 733,467 of new shopping centers coming online.

3.5%

3.2%

3.0%

4.4%

4.1%

3.5%

4.0%

3.1%

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Tho

usan

ds o

f Squ

are

Feet

2.6%

2.8%

3.0%

3.2%

3.4%

3.6%

3.8%

4.0%

4.2%

4.4%

4.6%

Vac

ancy

Rat

e

New Supply Net Absorption Vacancy

NEW SUPPLY, ABSORPTION AND VACANCY RATES

2007 Q4

2007 Q3

Change

Direct 3.29% 3.15%

Sublease 0.25% 0.30%

Total 3.53% 3.46%

VACANCY BY SPACE TYPE

2007

Q4 2007 YTD

Total 42,843 474,769

NET ABSORPTION

NEW SUPPLY

2007 Q4

2007 YTD

Total 156,626 733,467


147

Demand slows down; vacancy stays low SAN DIEGO COUNTY OVERVIEW Similar to the office and industrial markets in San Diego County, new supply out-paced demand to cause an overall increase in vacancy in 2007. However, the magni-tude of this imbalance was relatively small considering the fact that vacancy has been relatively low and new construction is dwindling and will continue to decline in the upcoming years. For this reason, the retail market outperformed the office and in-dustrial markets considerably.

The December 2007 San Diego County employment rate measured 4.9% at year-end. This was slightly higher than the national rate of 4.8%, but considerably lower than the state rate of 5.9% during the same period. In Q4 2007, approximately 12,900 net jobs countywide were created, supporting a 1.1% employment increase -- or 14,900 net jobs – for 2007. Industries reporting the most impressive gains in 2007 were “Trade, Transportation, and Utilities” (4,400 net jobs) followed by “Professional and Business Services” (2,800 net jobs) and “Information” (800 net jobs). In contrast, the “Construction” and “Financial Activities” sectors lost a total of 4,100 and 1,100 net jobs, respectively. The USD Index of Leading Economic Indicators for San Diego County pointed to a

r e t a i lCOLLIERS INTERNATIONAL | SAN DIEGO

The Knowledge Report RETAIL | FOURTH QUARTER | 2007

New Supply , Net Absorpt ion & Vacancy

MARKET INDICATORS

For the second consecutive year, vacancy increased with the year-end 2007 rate reaching 3.5%. While there was strong net absorp-tion of 474,769 square feet for the year, new sup-ply outpaced demand with 733,467 of new shopping centers coming online.

3.5%

3.2%

3.0%

4.4%

4.1%

3.5%

4.0%

3.1%

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Tho

usan

ds o

f Squ

are

Feet

2.6%

2.8%

3.0%

3.2%

3.4%

3.6%

3.8%

4.0%

4.2%

4.4%

4.6%

Vac

ancy

Rat

e

New Supply Net Absorption Vacancy

NEW SUPPLY, ABSORPTION AND VACANCY RATES

2007 Q4

2007 Q3

Change

Direct 3.29% 3.15%

Sublease 0.25% 0.30%

Total 3.53% 3.46%

VACANCY BY SPACE TYPE

2007

Q4 2007 YTD

Total 42,843 474,769

NET ABSORPTION

NEW SUPPLY

2007 Q4

2007 YTD

Total 156,626 733,467

weakening local economy that may con-tinue into early 2008. As of December 2007, the index has declined 20 of the last 21 months, resulting in a 8.0% de-crease over one year.

Demand in San Diego County retail was relatively flat in the fourth quarter of 2007 with only 42,843 square feet of net absorption. This brought the overall net absorption in 2007 to 474,769 square feet. Bolstered by new construction in Chula Vista, the South County posted the highest net absorption of any market in the county with 87,940 square feet in fourth quarter.

Over the course of fourth quarter, va-cancy remained virtually unchanged at 3.5%. However, it increased slightly over the year-end 2006 vacancy of 3.2%. Since year-end 2003, vacancy has remained at or below 4.0%. Vacancy is predicted to in-crease to over 4% during 2008 due to sof-tening demand and recession concerns. However, vacancy should not increase dramatically due to limited construction

activity in 2008. When examining the major submarkets – those with over 1 million square feet of inventory – the highest vacancy (7.0%) occurred in San Marcos. Only the major submarkets of College Area, La Mesa, and Escondido posted vacancies over 5.0%. Sublease vacancy remained low county-wide at 0.3%. Only 156,626 square feet of construction was completed in fourth quarter. This brought the 2007 new supply total to 733,467 square feet. An additional 178,067 square feet is currently under construction with 1.8 million square feet of potential future development on the drawing board. Over 80% of this is planned for North County. Rental rates throughout the county have been stable since mid-year 2003. At the end of fourth quarter 2007, average ask-ing rates stood at $1.93 per square foot triple-net, a mere $0.01 increase from

(Continued on page 4)

The Knowledge Report | Fourth Quarter | 2007 | San Diego

VACANCY RATES BY MARKET

SALES AND LEASING ACTIVITY

COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL

PROPERTY NAME SUBMARKET SALES PRICE SIZE SF PRICE / SF CAP RATE

Casa De Oro Center Spring Valley $13,075,000 71,000 $184.15 N/A

Tri-City Crossroads Oceanside $10,600,000 42,646 $249.96 6.00%

Torrey Highlands Plaza Rancho Penasquitos $8,400,000 14,042 $598.21 7.00%

7808-7816 Miramar Road Miramar $5,950,000 20,314 $292.90 N/A

Hillside Village Shopping Center Mid-City $4,085,000 18,700 $218.45 7.60%

Presidio Plaza Morena $2,600,000 10,927 $237.94 N/A

PROPERTY NAME SUBMARKET TENANT SIZE SF RENT / SF*

Marketplace at Liberty Station Pacific Beach/Pt. Loma Vons 55,385 N/A

687 S. Coast Highway 101 Encinitas Whole Foods Market 25,000 N/A

Fallbrook Plaza Fallbrook/Bonsall Kahoots, Inc. 7,520 $1.40

South Bay Plaza National City Dean’s Shoeshack 5,000 N/A

Camino Village Plaza Encinitas Black Whale Lighting 4,873 $2.70

790 N. Johnson Avenue El Cajon Sleeptrain 4,627 $1.05

* Effective rent on a NNN basis.

LEASE ACTIVITY

SALES ACTIVITY

2.8%

3.1%

1.9%

4.5%

2.5%

3.0%

3.2%

3.0%

4.8%

2.1%

3.4%

2.8%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8%

Central SanDiego

North SanDiego

I-15 Corridor

NorthCounty

East County

South County

Direct Vacancy Sublease Vacancy

All market areas of the county reported vacancy at or below 5% at the end of fourth quarter 2007. Sublease va-cancy was nearly non-existent with all markets posting rates below 1% with South County reporting virtually non-existent availability.



148

CENTRAL SAN DIEGOClairemont 18 1,473,915 1.93% 0.00% 28,495 1.93% (5,920) 57,115 - - - - $2.85College Area 27 1,510,784 4.90% 0.36% 79,519 5.26% (22,471) (45,674) - - 10,000 - $1.61Downtown/Coronado 4 75,277 3.14% 0.00% 2,365 3.14% - 2,524 - - - 99,797 $2.50Kearny Mesa 58 2,892,874 2.99% 0.00% 86,495 2.99% (31,624) (24,817) - - - - $2.08Logan Heights 11 548,818 2.58% 0.00% 14,157 2.58% (2,157) (5,309) - - - - $1.51Mid-City 23 986,724 4.16% 0.00% 41,038 4.16% 209 (17,838) - - - 23,000 $1.71Mission Valley 15 1,603,319 0.12% 0.09% 3,282 0.20% - 1,350 - - - - $2.91Morena 32 1,805,459 2.90% 0.00% 52,429 2.90% (16,421) (5,141) - - - - $1.82Navajo/San Carlos 22 1,043,738 4.24% 0.00% 44,295 4.24% 29,079 (41,580) - - - - $1.55Pacific Beach/Pt. Loma 17 793,184 1.57% 0.00% 12,425 1.57% (6,170) 5,104 - - - - $2.62Southeast S.D. 8 273,265 0.51% 0.00% 1,400 0.51% - 1,000 - - - - $1.30Tierrasanta 6 265,424 2.98% 0.00% 7,920 2.98% - (2,520) - - - - $2.18Total 241 13,272,781 2.76% 0.05% 373,820 2.82% (55,475) (75,786) - - 10,000 122,797 $1.81

EAST COUNTYEast County 8 282,364 3.42% 0.00% 9,669 3.42% - 13,009 - - 72,000 - $2.00El Cajon 69 3,416,285 2.24% 0.08% 79,471 2.33% 4,645 (13,041) - - - - $1.54La Mesa 33 1,475,995 2.28% 2.78% 74,694 5.06% (1,995) (34,108) - - - - $1.77Lakeside 8 345,985 1.68% 0.00% 5,810 1.68% 34,754 36,674 - - - - $1.24Lemon Grove 8 393,974 2.67% 0.00% 10,520 2.67% - (570) - - - - $1.38Ramona 10 417,127 1.54% 0.00% 6,420 1.54% - 1,478 - - - - $1.22Santee 21 1,262,896 4.38% 0.00% 55,266 4.38% (1,896) (8,928) - - - 71,530 $1.73Spring Valley 13 994,096 1.79% 1.66% 34,357 3.46% (1,300) (89) - - - - $1.44Total 170 8,588,722 2.51% 0.70% 276,207 3.22% 34,208 (5,575) - - 72,000 71,530 $1.60

I-15 CORRIDORPoway 29 1,553,552 3.05% 0.00% 47,364 3.05% 9,440 (11,481) - - - - $2.40Rancho Bernardo 27 2,344,242 1.31% 0.41% 40,315 1.72% (4,371) 300,779 - 240,239 - 38,000 $2.50Rancho Penasquitos 9 581,075 1.09% 0.43% 8,835 1.52% 5,494 (5,107) - - - - $2.93Scripps Ranch 12 312,929 1.51% 0.19% 5,334 1.70% (1,000) (2,174) - - - - $2.72Total 77 4,791,798 1.86% 0.27% 101,848 2.13% 9,563 282,017 - 240,239 - 38,000 $2.46

NORTH COUNTYCarlsbad 24 1,559,774 4.44% 0.17% 71,858 4.61% 3,172 6,735 - - - 45,000 $2.90Del Mar/Solana Beach 17 1,022,790 0.72% 0.43% 11,735 1.15% 716 11,301 - - - - $3.89Encinitas 37 2,834,290 1.72% 0.08% 51,039 1.80% (2,702) (29,733) - - - - $2.41Escondido 70 3,781,709 5.58% 0.27% 221,220 5.85% (47,937) 110,028 - 178,712 - 16,000 $1.71Fallbrook/Bonsall 10 491,749 3.05% 0.00% 15,000 3.05% 7,000 (12,488) - - - - $1.58Oceanside 58 4,214,146 5.72% 0.54% 263,996 6.26% (12,745) 25,891 - 26,000 36,766 1,052,955 $2.07San Marcos 48 2,529,418 6.92% 0.10% 177,619 7.02% (11,541) (21,932) - - 29,301 188,707 $1.78Vista 56 3,054,572 3.68% 0.28% 121,123 3.97% 37,980 25,586 - 44,685 30,000 122,648 $1.84Total 320 19,488,448 4.51% 0.28% 933,590 4.79% (26,057) 115,388 - 249,397 96,067 1,425,310 $2.04

NORTH SAN DIEGOCarmel Valley 7 622,953 1.10% 0.00% 6,864 1.10% (1,060) (2,699) - - - 24,000 $4.50La Jolla 13 838,089 4.02% 0.00% 33,711 4.02% 3,213 (600) - - - - $4.27Mira Mesa 31 2,325,295 1.47% 0.41% 43,630 1.88% 3,420 (2,849) - - - - $1.84Miramar 14 391,519 11.70% 0.13% 46,314 11.83% (455) 5,393 - - - - $1.87University City 6 454,822 5.13% 0.35% 24,931 5.48% (12,454) (17,492) - - - - $2.13Total 71 4,632,678 3.10% 0.25% 155,450 3.36% (7,336) (18,247) - - - 24,000 $2.03

SOUTH COUNTYChula Vista/Bonita 82 5,267,001 3.06% 0.03% 162,767 3.09% 101,466 201,755 156,626 243,831 - 94,229 $2.26National City 24 1,401,918 4.64% 0.00% 65,064 4.64% (4,993) (26,274) - - - - $1.10San Ysidro/Imperial Beach 35 2,128,882 1.73% 0.00% 36,816 1.73% (8,533) 1,491 - - - - $1.93Total 141 8,797,801 2.99% 0.02% 264,647 3.01% 87,940 176,972 156,626 243,831 - 94,229 $1.78

MARKET TOTALS - SAN DIEGO COUNTYTotal 1,020 59,572,228 3.29% 0.25% 2,105,562 3.53% 42,843 474,769 156,626 733,467 178,067 1,775,866 $1.93

* Building inventory consists of shopping centers over 10,000 SF ,excluding regional malls. ** Average rental rates are average asking rates quoted “triple net” on a “per square foot per month” basis.


COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL

Existing Properties † Absorption New Supply U/C & Proposed Rent

Submarket Bldgs Total

Inventory SF *

Direct Vacancy

Rate

Sublease Vacancy

Rate

Total Vacant

SF

Vacancy Rate

Current Period

Net Absorption Current SF

Net Absorption

YTD SF

Net New Supply Current SF

Net New Supply YTD

SF

Under Construction

SF

Proposed SF

Avg. Rental Rate **

† Note: Adjustments in total inventory and number of buildings may occur for various reasons including — but not limited to — square footage adjustments, property type changes, and demolition of properties which could affect increases and/or decreases in the property sample.


149


(Continued from page 2)

third quarter. However, this was a sig-nificant 9.0% increase from a year ago. Average rents exceed over $2.00 per square foot in 19 of the 40 submarkets. Some retail centers in the premier sub-markets of Carmel Valley, La Jolla, Carlsbad, and Rancho Bernardo are commanding rents in the $3.50 to $4.50 per square foot triple-net range. The highest averages are $3.89 per square foot in Del Mar/Solana Beach, $4.50 per square foot in Carmel Valley, and $4.27 per square foot triple-net in La Jolla. Investment sales activity (strip, neighborhood, community, lifestyle, and power centers over 10,000 square

feet) decreased slightly compared to 2006. There were 29 reported sales compared to 32 sales in 2006.

Average cap rates have declined over the past six years but increased mini-mally in 2007 to 6.1%. Many buyers have adopted a “wait-and-see” approach to the market. We anticipate that dur-ing 2008, investment sales activity will pick up when cap rates begin to ap-proach 7.0% or greater. In 2007, the median sales price per square foot de-creased by $12 to $226 per square foot. This the second highest average price historically, with 2006 being the peak at $238 per square foot.

241 OFFICES IN 54 COUNTRIES ON 6 CONTINENTS USA 98 Canada 18 Latin America 14 Asia Pacific 46 EMEA 65 $54 billion in annual transaction volume 595.7 million square feet under management 9,327 Professionals

CONTACT INFORMATION

SAN DIEGO: Jim Zimsky Managing Director 4660 La Jolla Village Dr. Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92122 Tel: 858.455.1515 Fax: 858.546.9146 RESEARCH: Christopher Reutz Director of Research Tel: 858.677.5385

CARLSBAD: Jim Spain Managing Director 5930 Priestly Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Tel: 760.438.8950 Fax: 760.438.8925

This report has been prepared by Colliers Macaulay Nicolls Inc. (CMN) for general information only. Informa-tion contained herein has been obtained from sources deemed reliable and no representation is made as to the accuracy thereof. Colliers International does not guaran-tee, warrant or represent that the information contained in this document is correct. Any interested party should undertake their own inquiries as to the accuracy of the information. Colliers International excludes unequivocally all inferred or implied terms, conditions and warranties arising out of this document and excludes all liability for loss and damages arising there from. This report and other research materials may be found on our website at www.colliersmn.com. Colliers Macaulay Nicolls Inc. and its country subsidiaries are member firms of Colliers International Property Con-sultants, an affiliation of independent companies with over 240 offices throughout more than 50 countries worldwide.

Rental rates have followed an increasing trend for over five years. As of fourth quarter 2007, the average asking rental rate stood at $1.93 per square foot on a triple-net basis. Strong retail demand will continue to drive rental rates up-ward for the foreseeable future.

$1.66$1.70

$1.78

$1.93$1.92

$1.55

$1.76

$1.87

$1.40$1.45$1.50$1.55$1.60$1.65$1.70$1.75$1.80$1.85$1.90$1.95$2.00

Q203

Q303

Q403

Q104

Q204

Q304

Q404

Q105

Q205

Q305

Q405

Q106

Q206

Q306

Q406

Q107

Q207

Q307

Q407

$ / S

F (N

NN

)

Average $/SF (NNN)

AVERAGE ASKING DIRECT RENTAL RATES

$88 $89

$110

$133

$226

$182

$238

$141

9.9% 10.0%

9.4%

8.5%

6.9%

6.0% 6.1%

7.5%

$75

$100

$125

$150

$175

$200

$225

$250

$275

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Pric

e Pe

r SF

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

Cap

Rat

e

Median $/SF Cap Rate

SHOPPING CENTER INVESTMENT TRENDSThere were 29 shopping center sales in 2007 post-ing a median price per square foot of $226. The dip in median price for 2007 was followed by cor-responding minor increase in cap rate to 6.1%. In 2008, cap rates are ex-pected to increase.



150

References

1Austin, Douglas H. “Affordable Housing in Downtown San Diego.” Urban Land. January 2004, pg. 36-37.

2Baxamusa, Murtaza H. (AICP). “Half of San Diego County lives in unaffordable housing.” Center on Policy Initiatives (CPI). 8 January 2007. <http://www.onlinecpi.org>.

3Baxamusa, Murtaza H. (AICP). “Housing Affordability Falls by 8 Percentage Points.” Center on Policy Initiatives (CPI). 3 October 2006. <http://www.onlinecpi.org>.

4Calavita, Nico. “San Diego Adopts Inclusionary Housing.” Planning. October 2002, pg. 32.

5CCDC. Affordable Housing Policy Considerations. Updated 3/7/07.<http://www.ccdc.com/resources/resource_files/Affordable_Housing_Policy_Considerations.pdf>.

6CCDC. Downtown Affordable Housing Strategy. March 2007. <http://www.ccdc.com/resources/resource_files/Affordable_Housing_Strategy.pdf>.

7CCDC. San Diego Downtown Community Plan: Rising on the Pacific. April 2006. <http://www.ccdc.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/planning.community_plan>.

8CCDC. What is Affordable Housing? <http://www.ccdc.com/resources/resource_files/Affordable_Housing_What_Is_It.pdf>.

9City-Data.com. “92101 Zip Code Detailed Profile.” 9 March 2008.<http://www.city-data.com/zips/92101.html>.

10Crary, David and Konrad, Rachel. “On two coasts, renters squeezed by lack of affordable housing.” The San Diego Union-Tribune 14 September 2007.

11Davis, Mike, Mayhew, Kelly and Jim Miller. “Under the perfect sun: the San Diego tourists never see.” New York: New Press, 1946.

12Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners. “San Diego Downtown Community Plan: Adopted April 2006.” Centre City Development Corporation.

13ESRI forecasts for 2007. Radius 1, 3, & 5 miles from Kettner & Ash.

14“Green Buildings: The Wave of the Future.” The Global EnviroTimes 17 (Apr. 2008). 16 Apr. 2008.


151

15Housing Resources Directory (2007-2008). County of San Diego Department of Housing and Community Development.<http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/sdhcd/docs/housing_resource.pdf>.16Jervey, Gay. “A Revival for San Diego’s Downtown.” The New York Times 11 July 2004.

17Katz, Ashley. “Newly Released Studies Confirm Energy Savings Significant in LEED, ENERGY STAR Buildings.” United States Green Building Coalition. 3 Apr.2008. 15 Apr. 2008. <http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070602/news_1mc2solara.html>.

18Lenz, Bree. “Innovative Connections.” The American Institute of Steel Construction. Aug. 2005. 28 Mar. 2008. <http://www.aisc.org/MSCTemplate.cfm?Section=Modern_Steel_Construction2&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=27992>

19National Railway Historical Society. n.d. 15 April 2008. <http://www.nrhs.com>

20“Nico Calavita Retires, Professor of Public Administration & Urban Studies.” 23 May 2004. SDSUniverse. <http://www.sdsuniverse.info/people_content.asp?id=16939>.

21“Mission History.” Mission Basilica San Diego de Alcala. n.d. 10 April 2008. <http://www.missionsandiego.com/mission_history.htm>

22Pedal to the Park. n.d. 15 April 2008. <http://pedaltothepark.com>

23Petrillo, Lisa. “Energy-efficient affordable housing: Eco-friendly units were designed for low-income families.” The San Diego Union – Tribune 2 June 2007.

24Pierce, Emmet. “A land bank for foreclosed properties? Task force looks for way to keep ownership local.” The San Diego Union – Tribune 17 February 2008, pg. A.1.

25Post, Nadine. “High-Strength Rebar Called Revolutionary.” Cary Kopczynski & Company. 23 Sept. 2007. ENR Magazine. 26 Mar. 2008. <http://www.ckcps.com/pdf_files/ENR_high_Strength_Rebar.pdf>

26Schendler, Auden and Randy Udall. “LEEDing Us Astray?” Grist. 26 October 2005. 29 Feb 2008. <http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/10/26/leed>.

27Silagi, Richard. Rail Pictures. n.d. 15 April 2008 <http://www.railpictures.net>

28Steele, Jeanette. “Going downtown for housing: Agency’s effort helps meet demand for low-cost rentals.” The San Diego Union – Tribune 3 February 2008, pg. B.1.

29“TBN North America.” The Bergen Network. n.d. 15 April 2008. <http://thebergennetwork.com/index2.php>



152

30The ConXtech Website. ConXtech. 25 Mar. 2008 <http://www.conxtech.com/owners.php>

31U.S. Census Bureau. Census of Population and Housing: ESRI Forecasts for 2007 and 2012.

32U.S. Census Bureau. Poverty Thresholds 2007. 29 January 2008. <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.html>.

33Weisberg, Lori. “Buying or renting, housing is still pricey: ‘Affordability problems’ persistent, report says.” The San Diego Union – Tribune 30 January 2008, pg. A.1.

34Weisberg, Lori. “Greener pastures outside of county? Region sees more leave than move here; housing costs blamed.” The San Diego Union – Tribune 22 March 2007.

35Weisberg, Lori. “Out of Sites: Few city-owned properties are suitable for affordable housing.” The San Diego Union-Tribune 26 August 2007.

Community Participation - Organizations

Centre City Development Corporation: About CCDC. 8 April 2008 http://www.ccdc.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/aboutCCDC.home.

San Diego Unified School District: About the district: Overview. 8 April 2008 http://www.sandi.net/about/index.html

About the Downtown San Diego Partnership: Who we are. 16 April 2008 http://www.downtownsandi-ego.org/

San Diego Housing Federation: Purpose. 16 April 2008 http://www.housingsandiego.org/about.php

San Diego Housing Commission: About us and our programs. 16 April 2008 http://www.sdhc.net/


153

Documents

BOFA CALPOLY 2008