The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-01-10-2006-5BCouncil Meeting: December 13, 2005 To: Mayor and City Councii Chairperson and Redevelopment Agency From: City and Agency Staff ~ ~ ~i~~ _~~ ~ Santa Monica, Cali o"rnia ' Subject: The Village at the Civic Center: Selection of Developer-Design Team; Authorization for Exclusive Negotiation Agreement; Consideration of Building Heights; and Community Design Process INTRODUCTION This report recommends that the Redevelopment Agency (Agency) approve the selection of The Related Companies of California (Related) as the developer- design team for the development of the Village at the Civic Center and authorize the Executive Director to enter into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Related for the purpose of formalizing this selection and the Agency's commitment to working with them towards developing the Village site. This report also recommends that the City Council/Agency permit Related to explore with the community a building height that achieves the desired 325 residences in the Village and direct staff to identify a community engagement process for the design of the Village. BACKGROUND The City adopted the Civic Center Specific Plan (CCSP) in 1993, establishing a vision for the Civic Center area. In April 2000, the City's Redevelopment Agency (Agency) purchased 11.3 acres of property within the Civic Center from the RAND Corporation. Subsequent to the Agency's acquisition of this property, the ,~ 1 ,1(~(" ~~ ~', ~~~J~ City embarked on a comprehensive update to the original CCSP, which was adopted on June 28, 2005. The CCSP includes the Village Special Use District (Village) which is bounded by Main Street, Ocean Avenue, Pico Boulevard, and the future extension of Olympic Drive from Main Street to Ocean Avenue. The Village plan provides for housing, commercial and open space elements (Attachment A). As delineated on the illustrative plan of the CCSP, the Village includes three undeveloped sites, a neighborhood green, pedestrian walkways (mews), and associated infrastructure. The Village is envisioned as an urban neighborhood containing mid-rise, mixed- use buildings that will be closely integrated with the adjacent open space and mews, the existing RAND corporation headquarters and the 1733 Ocean Avenue office building. The Village allows a maximum of 325 residences, and a maximum of 20,000 square feet of ground-floor, neighborhood-serving commercial uses. At least 160 of the residences shall be affordable to very-low and low-income households, with an emphasis on family housing. The Village also requires the inclusion of live-work units suitable for artists. Staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in May 2005 to three developer- design teams competing for development of the Village. The three teams, 1) Bridge Housing Corporation/BRE, 2) Castle and Cooke, Inc., and 3) The Related Companies of California, were selected as finalists from sixteen responses to a Request for Qualifications received and evaluated by a staff committee 2 (Committee) comprised of representatives from the departments of Community and Cultural Services, Environmental and Public Works Management, Finance, Planning and Community Development, Resource Management, and the offices of the City Manager and the City Attorney. Consultants expert in urban design and architecture, and real estate economics, assisted the Committee in its evaluation of the proposals. The guiding principles and development strategies in the RFP were discussed by the City Council on December 14, 2004, and include the following directions: • Maintain a minimum of 325 residences, including 160 affordable housing residences; • Minimize height when possible or demonstrate clear advantages for taller buildings, if proposed; • Allow a product mix of ownership and rental housing, including live-work and family housing; • Maximize open space and include it throughout the site; • Create a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood environment, which connect the residences to the proposed park north of the future e~ension of Olympic Drive; • Consider alternative energy technologies and methods. 3 Responses to the RFP were received in September 2005 and the Committee that reviewed and evaluated the RFQ responses also reviewed and evaluated the RFP responses. DISCUSSION The RFP sent to the finalists required that the proposals address three main topics: 1) development strategy; 2) integrated design analysis; and 3) financial concepts. These topics were to be addressed while being mindful of the guiding principles. The RFP required a development strategy demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the potential market, existing context of the site, and the development process, including an interactive community design process, proposed land uses, product types, infrastructure requirements and sustainable development opportunities. The RFP required an integrated design analysis articulating an interpretation of the urban context of the site, rather than a highly refined finished product, and recognition of the importance of surrounding landmarks. Finally, the RFP required a description of financial concepts revealing the development costs, funding sources and revenues estimated far each of the three sites, including the neighborhood green space and other infrastructure improvements associated with this development. In addition to the concept plan for the Village that complies with the adopted CCSP, the teams were permitted to submit an alternative concept plan reflective of the development-design teams' best ideas for responding to the City's 4 overarching goals for the site. Each of the three teams submitted a base concept plan and an alternative concept plan for the Village. The review Committee consequently considered six concepts in total. The Committee also conducted interviews with each of the three developer- design teams to further explore and clarify their proposals. While it was evident that each of the developer-design teams had committed a significant amount of energy, time and resources in responding to the RFP, the proposal submitted by Related was exceptional in terms of expressing its development strategy, integrated design analysis (Attachments B and C) and financial concepts for both the base concept plan and the alternative concept plan. The composition of the Related developer-design team is detailed in Attachment D. The Related proposal demonstrates an extensive analysis of the site's design opportunities, including integration of the arts with architectural, environmental and urban design issues. For example, the means suggested for conserving and generating energy promises to be as much a subject of artistic expression in the public realm as part of the architectural expression of the buildings. The design concepts show a firm knowledge of pedestrian flows in the area and how to bring pedestrians into and through the site with an active ground floor contribution to street life. For example, while the edge of the development on the ground floor facing the park may be somewhat more passive since there will be no retail on the park side, this team proposes lively `double-sided, public pedestrian streets 5 within the site to draw people from Ocean Avenue into and through the site, with the arts activating these ground floor spaces. Additionally, the Related design concepts provide for a meaningful integration of affordable and market-rate housing within each of the three sites, rather then separating the affordable housing from the market-rate housing. Finally, Related's proposal provides a specific vision regarding sustainable design elements. The sustainable design vision for the Village is thoroughly explained in Related's proposal and involves elements of building design and materials, on-site energy generation, energy and water reduction strategies, and recycling of construction and consumer waste. This vision includes solar panels, micro-turbines (which simultaneously produce electricity, heating, cooling and hot water), solid waste reduction technologies, storm water mitigation, grey water recycling, and building design that maximizes sunlight for heat and light and maximizes air flow for natural cooling. The Related proposal represents the best offer to the Agency concerning the number of proposed residences, minimization of City/Agency subsidy and purchase price for the Village site. Additionally, Related was the only team to accept the stipulation in the RFP that the site will be conveyed to the developer via a long-term ground lease. Related's proposal contains the greatest number of proposed residences (that were financially feasible) while maintaining the fifty- six foot height limit established for the site in the CCSP. Related's proposal also 6 includes the greatest number of two-bedroom and three-bedroom affordabie residences while targeting the lowest average household income. While none of the financially feasible concepts proposed 325 residences within the fifty-six foot high limit, Related concluded that 325 residences could be accommodated on the Village site if a sixty-five foot height limit was allowed. Therefore, it is recommended that the Council/Agency permit the Related team to explore with the community, during the public process described below, how an additional nine feet of building height (for a total of 65 feet) may afford enough design flexibility to satisfy the competing objectives of maximizing the number and size of residences, maximizing open space and minimizing building height. The Related proposal communicates a clear and engaging approach to the community design process lead by the design team, which is comprised of architects with extensive experience in Santa Monica and its community process. The ensemble of three architectural firms on the Related design team will assure a variety and unity of architectural responses for this large scale development. The design team also includes finro landscape architects and two artists, enhancing the eventual richness of the Village site. Finally, the Related proposal identified and articulated a comprehensive community engagement process. This Related process includes a longer community engagement period (as did all the responses), versus the very 7 intense, short duration charrette previously envisioned. A community design process that spans several months would allow various components of the proposed Village design (massing, circulation, open/public space, art, sustainability, landscaping, etc.) to be thoroughly explored. In a collaborative effort with Related, staff will shape the community engagement process and report back to the Council/Agency. Most likely, the design of the Village development will be achieved with extensive community involvement spanning several months during 2006. At the conclusion of this process, staff will prepare a Development and Disposition Agreement, which specifies the scope and terms of the development for Council/Agency consideration. City staff is currently involved in discussions with the Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison and the California Public Utilities Commission concerning a potential partnership with these utilities in the design and installation of energy efficiency technologies and distributed energy generation systems as a part of the Village development. These discussions were initiated and facilitated by staff from the Energy Coalition, a non-profit organization that has been assisting the City on energy efficiency and energy policy issues since 1994. City and Energy Coalition staffs are exploring various precedent-setting approaches that would likely include a direct and significant financial investment by the utilities in the energy systems and energy efficiency 8 measures that will serve the Village development. During the community engagement phase of the development, City and Energy Coalition staff will finalize discussions with the utilities to arrive at the specific set of energy actions to be included in a proposed City-utilities partnership for the Village development. These recommendations will be included for Council review and approval when the development agreement with Related is submitted for Council consideration. In summary, the proposal submitted by Related demonstrates a thorough design analysis, an ability to integrate public art, open space, pedestrian flows, and environmental concepts with mixed-use development, and demonstrated experience and creativity and a willingness to conduct a truly interactive community design process within the limits of financial feasibility. FINANCIAL/BUDGETARY IMPACT The selection of a developer for the ViNage does not have an immediate financial or budgetary impact. RECOMMENDATION This report recommends that the Redevelopment Agency: 1) Approve the selection of The Related Companies of California as the developer-design team for the development of the Village at the Civic Center; and 2) Authorize the Executive Director to enter into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with The 9 Related Companies of California for the purpose of formalizing this selection and the Agency's commitment to working with them in developing the Village site. This report also recommends that the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency: 1) Permit The Related Companies of California to explore with the community a building height that achieves the desired 325 residences in the Village; and 2) Direct staff to identify a community engagement process for the design of the Village. Prepared by: Jeff Mathieu, Director Bob Moncrief, Housing & Redevelopment Manager Ron Barefield, Housing Administrator Jim Kemper, Senior Administrative Analyst Resource Management Department Andy Agle, Interim Director Sarah Lejuene, Senior Planner Planning and Community Development Department Lyn Cacciatore, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Craig Perkins, Director Environmental and Public Works Department Steve Stark, Director Finance Department Barbara Stinchfield, Director Karen Ginsberg, Assistant Director Community and Cultural Services Department Village Special Use District Related's Base Concept Plan Related's Alternative Concept Plan Related's Developer-Design Team 10 Attachment A Villa~c e Special Use District of the Civic Center Specific Plan ~ ~ -- __ _.____ _ ~ ___. ~ _ t~ ~ ~!;~t 3~ ~~--- _ -~._., .: ~~ , I __ _.. ~`_"._._~ ---- . _._.. ~ i _fl ~! €~_. t7 ~ ! d _ - °--°-°-___~ ._.,~;,~~ ~~_ _..... _ _ ._. ....... ~ _. ~_F ~."___". Attachment B Related's Base Concept Plan ~' ~ ; .'i ~ ~~. ' ~ ~ S j ~ ~ H ~ '~B 3 ~ y ' ~ ~: , ~ , f-, 4 F • " ' ` 1 ~~ . . . .. . _".. _, , _.~-_ --. . . ... .. ~vn ` ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 4.~'• .. . / x /~ lr ~ ~ ~~ ~~f~ .. ~ ~ ~ F '' ~ '`~ ~ ,~ =T'~~~~ ~ f r / ~ 1 ~~a _ `V , , f'IF F ( , ,`' f '` r ~ ~ ;~ - ~ ~ ;'', '7 i ~ ~_~ ~ ~~ ; ( o: ~ ~ ~~: fi f~ <~ ~' ~ `rai '~t ;~ ~ ~ ~._~ : I ~'V ~- ~~ ~, f ~ ~ ~~ i .~.~. " _ ~1 / ~ ~ J ~ ~ / ~~1~ f ~ ~r ~ .~. ~ ( , ,/~ ~! ~ S~` ^ ~ , ~ ~ - E~ ,/ ~ ~ ~ '~@ ~ .t' _ _. j !1 Y `+. ,':~y/ . j ~~` . $7 % ~4 . , ~'~ (. +r ~ . } ~i ? 3 ` it\~ ~. ~. .~:~_. "' ,u~ ~... :. ... .. i",5~!~ 1 t '"";'{v~ _ , 1 = ? ., ,y , d ~. ~.~. ~ti~:s , {~S ;+ ~, ~` , ~i 4 za f }'r ~~ ~ ..?L[.r : ~ ~ ~_f ~ k~ ~~ .y`. 'q ~..' ... ~- ~~ ~~ ~-{ 3 i .i F~~ f° e `~-~ ~ ~u Y ~ ~ .~ i5 .~, ~ :^3 • ~~ i' 't 2`a -~ ~' _ 0 U a E m ~ v cri ^O a .~ o~ v ~ . .. . . . S;. . . .. .. x,.~. ..~. v. ' ~~ ~~ .. . ... .. .. ... . .,. ~ . , .. :. .. . . , . . .... . ., ,. ~. _. _. . . ... . . . . . . . .... . . _ .: J. ~« . ... . . , . .. . , ~ ~ , . . . , 't Y . ~ i. ~ n . " . 't.` . . F x Attachment C Related's Alternative Concept Plan Attachment D Related's Developer-Design Team Master Developer The Related Companies of California Non-Profit Development Partner Community Corporation of Santa Monica Desiqn Team Moore Ruble Yudell Architects & Planners Koning Eizenberg Architecture Pugh + Scarpa Architecture Mia Lehrer + Associates (Landscape Architecture) Hood Design (Landscape Architecture) Public Artists Catherine Wagner Janet Zweig 20 City Council Meeting: December 13, 2005 Santa Monica, CA SUPP~EMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO $-B ~A~ ~ ~ ~OQ~ To: Mayor and City Councii From: Cifiy Staff Subject: Schematics and Development-Design Teams From Village Proposals Introduction This office received a request to make publicly available, prior to the Council meeting on December 13th, copies of the schematics submitted by the three fi~ms which responded to the request for propasals on The Village. In response to that request, copies of the schematics from the three firms are being supplied as attachments to this Supplemental Report. Aiso attached are the Development-Design teams for each. Generally speaking, written proposals, like bid documents, are received and reviewed by staff and are not forwarded or made available to individual Council members prior to public deliberation as a body at a Council meeting. In this case, the schematics a~e only a small, though crucial, part of each submission. They are being excerpted and supplied ta the entire Council and the public in advance as a visual aid to supplement the staff report. Hopefully, making them available to everyone prior to the meeting will help inform arad facilitate thorough consideration and discussion of this extremely unusual and important item. Prepared by: Gordon R. Anderson, Acting City Manager Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney Jeff Mathieu, Director Resource Management Andy Agle, Acting Director of Planning and Community Development ~~~ .~ ~ ~20~1~ Developer-Deign Team Bridge Nousing/BRE Master Developer BRIDGE/BRE BRIDGE Housing Corporation, San Francisco - Affordable Housing Developer BF~E, Irvine CA - Market Rate Deaeloper Remainder of Project Team MVE - Architect ah'be - Landscape Architect Haddad/D~ugan - Public Artist Global Green USA - Sustainability Advisar CTG Energetics - Alternative Energy KPFF - Civil Engineers Mo~ley Builders - General Contractar Z ~ ~ ~ ,,~.. . . . , . ~ . . . ~ .~. '~, I . i ~.,. . .~.. ~ ~ , . ~ .. . ~; ~+ ~ ~V ~ ~' ~ I ~( ~ • i .• ~a.J ~ea~ . ~•. I _- ..._..._ . ~ rv~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~'.~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ {. A ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ i~' ~ ~ '~ ~ =~ ~ ~ , ~„~ ~~' Y ~5:, ~i ,.'4i ~: f ~ya~qp ~ • . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ } . , ~p` . a~ ~.- , ~i.~ ~*' ~ ~ ~ r~m~ 4~{ • nwr ~e'. t+.s#~) •~ ~.~~ s q , ,# ..~_ ~1 :~ ~ - -" . ,r ~ ,, ' ~p°~ ; .. 0 ~ ~ ~~'~ ~• ~ . ~ ~ ..< rn ~ , ~! ~.+r. '~ ,,- ~~ ~ ~ 1 h., G+v~wn+ ", ~ i{~ ~ • ~i ~ :~ , _ , , .:~, ~ `_ ~ ~~„~" .-3 ;~ ~'~ ` ~~ '~; ~ ~~ ERi .~ -~Xw~ ( ~~p~.~ ~ :'r'"' '~f ~'e N ~ v ~~ '~ ,3 ' . `~- ~-i_ ' ~ . •) !I +\ ~ f _ ~~~1~~., . ~(~ ~ Y" ~~.y ~ +^ \ ~~' • ~ 3 ~ ~ t ~.' ~, . _.-...e. . ~~ ~ ~_ ~i I ' ~ ^ / ~~ _ -- ~ , _. ~ _ ~ ~~ : - -~-~ ~.~ ~._ - -- ,. PO~.1.(i.x,IPwnt!0 19 ~ . I . .. . ~t.i 1 ~ ~ ~ -~~^ d . . ~ ~, ~Y ~ ~ ~ i . . I ~, l .u..~..~ , . ' ~ . r , r d~,~.. k.,,....~ ~ ~ ~~ _.... . ~,._ ~ &tiE¢ ~ f ~` , . . .. 1„~v.~. . y~.. ~ ~ ~~4?Oy., . ., ._. w,+'e_-'r3. . G~- -r+- _- J - ~C!' - - ~ .. ~ , . . . ~~ p.~~ ,, r ~ _ I ~:-' ~i ~.~ ~s '.. : ~.r` ~` ~; ~r' `. .. • ~~rt ~~ ~<t ~ ~~ .~.~ 7 ( ~~ ~'; ~~ ~, ~~~ ~, ~, ~; ~; ~~? ~a, ~~~ ~; ~; '. I 'NIh'tNtY11 Gi7llU'!U LL'J%L ~'Lh!7 ~'rc~-L ua c._:p. r-s I•~::s ~:*w~ hc,-.rr li ~..wart Uu, •. K-.u ti. :r,:i'.d6~.qa Grr^•i i~~ Y~ ~~ ~~~ ~ , , . ~ ~ r. ` ._~ w: 14A~a1 ~:_.~ w+~..~i .ks`Cx,.v'w.~~~l cax~.v t-°~"+~« i ~ . ! ~. ~ ' . . _ _ F~~~~~ _ _ __~ ~ __ __._, .'. ~'!d"lf.R? tl "_'.._., . .........._ _. _,.~.~.~ ~ ~ N?iMN ~ I ~...__. . ~"___'IS~viaPS .... . ' ti(r' I~ If7Fi h~ n irl Tn7M1 fl ~il ~ •: ~ ~ . ... .~'~~i.. . ~. I .~~,I.!. ~C~I~If° LULNCL Bridge/BRE Required ~ ~~~ t, ~ f~ 4. ' It?~..P.. L:.4i1. PI t f1 ., } }'~~ " ~"~}~ ` ~ $d i. ~~}~ 4 b~ ~~ ~ .w.. ~ s ~ R ~~~Eea ~ ~~ p ~~ ~~ a;.r,,~;r'~~ , ~~ .y.t ~.~ ~,, ~~ +~{~~ ~~~ ~~ ~s 4n , y '{+ R . r~~ ,- wa~` -" 4 1 t k_ a_y,,,, -~~ R kt 9 ~~ ~~ . bm" ~ ~w xi~a~ ~ , _ ~r•[ v tac,a u.~;ar-it 1 Awwows' ~^'~,:~~'~' ~ ~ ~~ ~~ . ~ ~..~ ~,,. ~ ~ ~ .~''`~' `a ' ~'' ._ .4- ~ ~~ + A ~'~ ~ ~?y<~§ ~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~ ~. t~ I . ~ ¢ t / ~t ~~ ~~ r ~ F ~ ~ F . _..r__ ' ~ ~ ..r ...~ .~__..~~__.~ vi~;v eucm, ^~a~n:n~c~ ~~.~r~~r~. z :~~ ";~ ..-~s. ~ ~ , ~.~ ..~ +.. .,~ ~, m~ ~,~ ~~u~' ~ ~' `~... r #7'~ , ^... .,~ q~ A: yk . %~.`~ `~. .« .. -e . ~"'4A .ro%{t+ 4~`,+' ~~ . . i:; ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~v ~ ~~ .j~ ' ~1~~.T6"'8 i~!{'~~~ . ':Ilh t(~tdl,~ilft~l.{INITf i.(i~2 7ftt`~t711:~' -. . ~_. Cor~~~nuNi_i~Y -a~ Nn~ruF~ni_ S~~T~:r~s ~ Yi SI 1 C~ !: !' ~ .. ~ ~o~ ~9 Bridge/BRE Altemate . ? , . ~ .l , , ' ~ - ~, .. . '~i .. . . ' ~ . .. ~. - ~ ,. ~ }~ ' .. . ' ~ i ~ :' ri . ~? ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~.., ~• . i r , ' ~~ '~+' ~' ~. ~''y' ±f , ~ .. ~'r - r- t' ~ ~ . ~ . ; - ~ .._ . . ~\ ~ ~• f . r . ...a . . . . . ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~~ ~ ,.~ _ ~:%~''~~"~,, ~:: `~ ~ ~ ~ ~~' 7 .~ , ~`~,m.•" ~..' ~,-~~ ~' ~. ~~' _ ~ y~a~:`'j ~~~ ~~ ~ `~ ~ ' ~ . ~ t` ~ .' ~ ~~-~~ ~ f ~~ # ~, ~~,,~ ~ r ( f:" ~~ ~ ,. ' S,~. ~.+ ~! ~n~~ ~ . ;m `~ ' ~'- .` .. ~ `1a 3 ~ t . . 1~ C ~ # ryx ,~~. ~. , . . ! .. ~.. . ~ A ~~t~ ~ -r, , ~ ~ ~: , ~ ~ . , .. .~.~ ~~. r ~ ~ ., ~, ~ ._,~k ~<.., -" ~ '~ , .4 ~ ~, ~i ~ ; ~ .fl,., ; ~ ~ . ;`~'' ~ ~~ -..i x) ~~ 'W F~~ ~•- ;u; _ ,w i ,' r ~ri , ~5,,` .F f ~^'' ~~ ~ .. ~ w..~~~+~ 1 .. \)' ~ f }~ t I ~ ' " ~~I . " Q ~ ~ ' M ~ ., i ~ . ! lltiiGl iwa ~ ~ ~ .. ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ` _~ ~ ~~ ~ , `, ~ ~~}-~`.+t: 1 5~~ _~~ ~..~,. ¢~/y^.~•' ....' {i• ~. ii•~` -~ ~: i ~ ~T~l, .., ( .. . ~ j ~, ~~~ ~~~~ Y~t . '+th t~V 1 [! ~ t . ... _~i-~" ~~.F .. i , ~i , ~ ~.~. ~ N. B•a ~' w ~~~ ~ ~ a~..., ~ ~. ~, ~' . ~ .Cyk: ~i ~'n. i ' ~ HI. ~ ~ .~ . ~[ ~ a ~ ~ ~ 1 . .. .._ ~.. .~~~ ~1 ~ _ I W ~ ~ , ~`~~ " ~ .- L ,~,~,. ~ } ~~ I .: . ~.. . J~,~`."~IF '450' ~ ~ _ ~,! ~, ._ . _ ..,._ ~.__ 1 .~ $ c` ~ t!~:, -. 1 ~. $~ ~ ~~ ` ~,• ~ ~ i ~ . ( ••~•~ ~ J _ ~ -~ ~ ~ '~ ~ , _~+ . '6 ~ ~ ~~ .~ `` ~~wi ~3 ~j r.n ~~ ___..(}~1. ~t ~r__ ~t . l ... « ~t ~~.. w~ r '~.~ ~_ ~i ~_. r ~~~ ~~ ~.rt~' . '~. ~ ~'~ ~.v'~ '~}:: f~1,a ~G:r . ~, t ~~ ~ ~i ~ "~~~~'M'{ ~;: ~+', '~.w~ ~" •' ~4 07fnfitllvl} ;I ' i ~ ~ . . ...., - . . . , ~... .. . . :.... ,,~~ . . ;~ , ~.. . . . . . . . . . . :3n~.ws~: :uu w'i GRQ4i1G i_('v[~ PLAN ~'r9c:!•~s~ Gallrnn In•.4;. IC~rmmr.. L~srhvn. Jni;s ~.::h nb~..; anr~ v;I,iga Gr,,p,-. ~ ~~~~ ~'~'~" _ ~~ ~-.~,~»~ ~~3 ~ ~ ~ +A1 ~G r^rt~j~ . rr ~ 3 ~~' ~~- '"51 1f w ~ ~i te ~.:ru, ' _. . . ~. i_` """ . ~ . _ .. ~ Fl.._. . . ~ . ..... _... ~ _ . ' . » ~ ~.;i.u nri~do,~ .. 7 p..a~-. ..... . . . _ . . , ~ . ni.:l~t... .... .. . . >[t'ICi~! h~A ..`•.~r .. . Uu?ERLE El~'Vy i - - r` i ; ,~,,~i ~ js,e;' ~' - ~ 'ti-"~r-~'~~ ` ~ "~ ~" ~ `k~ ~ ~ .,t., ~ r ,~ ~~r ~7 ~ ~~.~k~5 Ar~ . ~' ~~`~+'a ., ~ , ' ~ ~3yr~'"' i 'b A ~y,#~ 3, ~+> 3 l 4~r;.y~ ~' a' h M ~~ ~ E 1!c'~~p ,, a ~:. ~ ~„~.~4~~. ,. ,~.~~ .,. ¢ ~~~ ~ ~~ y ~ ~ 'p~ 4 r $M~ .. '~l,_..... ~ _.) # ~~ 'IIEW f~[}U Hlh 7:[ (,Z+:v,+f,~f.5 ~ "'m "~s!~i ~ ~ ~~ .'*y`~a.,,~ ~ ' -~ ~,..:~. , „~s~ ~'~~ ~ 1y,'s s ~•~ ,,,~ ~G.,~ . 3 ~ ` y<+ ~+. r' `~ ~, ~ u. ,y. ~ 'ti., , "':~ ~ a ~ ; '` ;+~ ~ ; ~R:. , 1 ~' ~~ ~ ~ ~-P~ ~~ !,, ~ ~~ 49L!N f~rt;N "P[iUNING ~'p@IICY}'• ~ 5f C~IC~N L' IR 'Jif tiY f R;?.Vi °['(?.VAi11Nll"'f~ [{I(?Nl.li!~'UN€ .. -:.. ,...,. •. . ~.~lf..':I ~~. .i. I 'i`~.~ ~ .. .~F~ . . . , BFttOGE . ~.. ' C~~7f~1FLL1Cl'J{~~v: CC7MMU(`1lTY -f- f'r1~,TUF?/1L SY~'i.LM~ ~,~.~``~ Developer-Deign Team Castle ~ Cooke Master Developer Castle & Cooke, Wesfinrood CA Non-Profit Development Partner Steadfast Companies, Headquartered in Southern California Remainder of Project Team Van Tilburg, Banvard and Soderberg, AIA - Architect Pamela Burton & Company - Landscape Architect Novogradac & Company - Affordable housing accounting firm Zinner Consultants - Sustainability Advisor Marathon Communications - Public affairs and community autreach Matt Construetion - General ~pntractor Wilshire Realty - Condominium market specialist John Rolaff - Public Artist Psomas - Civil Engineers Cox, Castle & Nicholson - Fteal estate transactions and development specialist Castle & Cooke Required ~VlltuM~ian ~~ MExa1!-il~a ~~ ~ ~~ , , ~" ~ ~ .~~ -:,:J Slfe A: ` ~ ~ ~` AIIDRDkSLE APARTMEM11~ ~tM M~x ~ - ~ .. ~ ~ . ~ •~3 tARt6A~6~Sx.+ . , ~, • 12S 26t 1 EA BC S25 ~.i. '23 3BR28Afdl,IWft ~ d •4 1lR38A~1.450at,;r ` . ,. ~ r • I60 Totol YiMs • 56`-0` Mo~imaan He1pIM,~~ ~ •2.VCqs~f.cwonavse •2SYh754t4 JIOV~Al4V „~ .,,~ r . ~ . ~ ~ ~ °Liva•work' ~. , y~ ~ 261 Twklnp itatls In 3uofe_rtonaan Ga~oge ~ - ! ''~ ~ € ~ '' . '~~`~' q ~~,,,,~, S ~ 7 N~ ~ y . . RTY+ l, ~ ` * ~ ~a• ~ ~ ~ as ~~ ~ xsJX MIXE~•USEO B91lPING ~:y¢~ ~ 8I ConAerninlums 2J 950 s.f. (av.J • 6 Wa•works unxls ~ • 56'•0' 6laximum Heigrll~ .7,6~Osf.Clu6haufe ~,~ • T,600 i f. Reect[ • l Od Pakinq SlaYs In r.~w . SuMermiecan Wragr d~,c' ~~ n , a r~ : ~~ =~ p . ~ , ~~ ~~ ~~~ "~ ~ ...,."~ PAIEOSTREAM~.~~. : ~. ~~~~~ ~~ v '~ "# ~'-'"'~{~ ~ 1.,;,J ~ ~ -~~-`...1 •~ c y . ~ '.~ ~,'°~ ".SY "..°iaf ?~'`°S+ -~ ,`.~ . °''"`~ 'S ^''5 '~e?~. . ' .~ -- ..~ , -- ~_ ~ ~.v , , ~ n ~ ~:`: , -,~{- ~... ~ ~~-~~ . 31ep-backs ~_.___...~e _i ~. '°- Site C: '~3 ~ rwtco-use euaoinrc ~y • M COntlarnt~utmf - ~~ ~ • $~ 475 s.L (ov.) ~R q I ~.. ~. " +~w ~ 1y s • 4 !Fr@-vr0.kY Wflh • Sd'•U° M9HIIYIURI ftFi¢HI _ ;~ ~., l CQURTYpRC ,~ I ~ ~ ~f~~ ~ • Lbo6f f. dUbnu~if .4.90D31, Rptnll ~ 4 ~ ~ ~-! C-~ ~ '' ~`~k~ • 21! ~mklny StaS~ fn ~ . ,.,~:_.. „~ ,,,~; ~' , Suw.anansanGae~pa Required Proposd : 8ocrd No. 2 ~~ ILLUSTRATIVE 51TE PLAIV ~~e~EF, T H E V I L L A~ E i i '~ Cityq' j ~± p /~~', r/~ .~ ~'~'',.,/'~• '~ Canta Mnnir~a~ ~~R-~~F~~~S~ ~ ~l~ -~~ ~-t ~t;..:.~'o~ { +, :s~~~ ~ . ~~. ~ ~ v~ ~. ~~''~~ ~~C ~ ;'~ lf'~~~ ° come,~ a.F~~u~a~ron~ noAyorcl at SiroaP Castle & Cooke Alternate ~~ ~ sx ~-; ~ ~ ee~~sinq A!!k~.~~b-'Wn ti'~SCdeM' ep~~kkes At¢ ~tls Pk12R 46/~yI~C}~ Bu~Cinq sPiaGe rasoa JF ~a Rane MJ~e~"0 euiips~qmeaastep,ao+.~~ / ~~ PuF~ tade0lwW ~ / ~ ~-~ ~; .,~/ ~~~~k~~ Site A: Y~~' A. ~r.,~a vxia~ ~ cr,:s .+wta.GCt u.nme~GS ~ ,• . `~ . a~~e..: _:... . ~ `,`~ ~~~,. :;:, ~. ~. , .. aa isa'~aa€~s..s ~ "-' . _ .: ~ ..v-u~uasu.~ " ~ r' ~ ` ~a ~ arJr ¢aw a~ t2sn t "~.. .~ ~ •s atR~-rt~iu.L:'~ ~ ~.;. . .s6~7icfidUnd+ ~ - ~6 A ~ ~ ,.~ '. . 57 •SY.b' kLOaul9Yn}1YiBhG;, ~ ~ ~°~ .,~ ~ •t00u~1 GW6hou~a ,~ . . . Ghp~PtHrMSadsnfa~Ititl~rA Sl~epu+p • 18 ~n~h ae ¢ a-~~w bve~ •' liva wotl~ • 79 ~ wrcmq S!bih in . ~ i~ ~ :+ ~ '~ h~ . .... *- ~ ~ ~'y 1 Sub+e3wran Co.:~a m+e, ~ ~ . , :. g ~y ~~ . ' ~ Y~ , . ~ ~ ~S ~~~ *~. ~k E - ' ..;.a~ ^a~~g ~ . b , ~ :3: ~ e~i:: e..- ~ ~ ~. ~..~:e.- ~ ` ~. € s ~ ~'! Y'Ii~ ~ ~~. ~ f ~ ~ ! - -- - ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~~ ' ` ~ ~ ~, - s,~o .~.y, , ~-~.1 ~, ~y. ,~ , !fan ftrtsf ~ + "~ ihE#i =e ~ v -' ~ , ~ "-~ ~ '~ . : :, ^~ ~ ,~ ~ ~" ~ "`~ ~ ..`~ '•:~ +~ ~ "~'f ~ " . ~ p ^~ ~ „ p ~ . „k~ . , . . Q. , r ~ " : ..,a~, . . .T_..._. ._. __ ` Slt~ g~ '~`~~' ~ ~ ruxeo-~sa as„~n~,rc ~ ~ ' ~ ~~°~. ~ .... ~ -__ k~ C~4x.~+"~5 ~ _ a ~.o5a la. 7 ~' ; ' ' .. :. . -7 ~'41: ; j ' j t ~f+r-wrn ~•n ~""~3",,, ~~_~' Ca~.LM.wr.e~ s 7~' 2.F trYr a! r ~y ~ ; ~ ~ .. i.+a~, .s..~$ .... . ,~ l, " ~ . :ifi tau.9 9taMS ,K . f..'-' " ~ i ~: ~5a. 'Fo . ` ~F :rrtc~r~+ax~ caac~ . .p ~~ , ~ i.. .. ~L+~.~j~`_'- ~ . „~' , ~„~, ~ ~ ~ : counYmu ononi.a• ~/ ,. ~^... ~ s>. ~ I4wPtd nief ., .~ •'~ 7~~~ ~ _`'~' ' . . J , Gwwwctin~ ya f Y Gecn PLaiaCps •rur~y FO[ldi~~iF4iCb:k~ _ ~~$~ . . Gtl ~PW .eonn . . .. ~ prefamtl A.ftemdtfwe: Bearn ~lo. ~ .~~~ ~~, r~~ Fr.eae~a e4sat aa~y. a• ~aoe. r~+on ~- ~:.~~v= ~~~~~~ ~".~` ~~ ~,~ _ ~.._ A~,~ ~ P ~,,:~ ~~ ~,s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '7 J ~ $IlE - se?stn-v sw ~ i ' #~R4' 6f l~a41 ~ S~ 7n~is $ Y t~~ a. i. {rT. ? ' - .~ ~ . • t T: -4 ~-.:.. ~i s E C6G i~ Ck.B*m~+s $~~n 4~~l ~ 6~vu6 ,.~~ 5i '' i ~ . FaO+e+~insuwGa~a9s ~~ - ~ ~ ~ -~~ n. '1`t~,. ~ Derreloper-Deign Team The l~elated Companies Master Developer The Related Companies of California Non-Prafit Development Partner Community Corporation of Santa Monica Design Team Moore Ruble Yudell Arohitects & Planners Koning Eizenberg Architecture Pugh + Scarpa Architecture Mia Lehrer + Associates (Landscape Architecture) Hood Design (Landscape Architecture) Public Artists Catherine Wagner Janet Zweig Related Required - A ~ ~,x,,,~,. ; ~ _ . , ~ _ ~ ' ! ~ _- , , ~ , ~, , ti ~ ~ ~ , , ;_ ~ .: r r ~ ti, '~ . : , , _.. _ . ,, ~ - ._. ;, . b -~ -'-~ tiJ.....~ • ~ ,. ~ ' I .~. i~_ , , :. -.. f` „ • ` L '~' . t'', ~ -_ _ _ MIY ", ,~...,~ ,ry ~. - _ _ ! *.` : ~, / ti ~ ~~ ~w ~ ~ '~' ~ ~~'s~',e -.- ~~~ ~~~ /,'4,~ 1 '~~ ~ j~ ~. s~ >e~'-e~ ;~~ ~ + ,. , ` ( ~~~ ~~ f,i ~~ ~` l l ~f~ ~ \\ 1 y~ ~ If . ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ `` ~` ' . ~ tl~ 1 ~ r - . . •r . T ~~ ~ „" '°~~ : ,. } 4 ~ ~~ ' ~ . "~ ~'~' ! ~' ~ --"'_ ~ ,i ,A . .. , '~ _-,~_.~~ ~ M.,, :~ ... k , ki y ~. ~ . : . . °'`-.~"'`'ti..._ ~t ,.... ~~ !. I .. .. . ~ ry ,4.~1 ~. "~- ;,~~ ... ~~_ . " . ; ; ,. ~ T~ ~ .'.'" i~ .~ . ~ . . ~ .. ;. ~ M ' ._ __ ~ ~ ___.._ .,.;~y h...~ .,.x. '^~r~'~• a ~ ~.~ ~ ~~ '^"' `i . ~ ' S= i~-~n--~-- ~ ~~ ; , ;. 1 i1 C~ i I , "~ i E ~~ y i~" K ~ ~; . .... ~. ~ Hr y I i. ~ ' r y,,' ~ `r . . :4«~. n*..~ . a4 .~.-~ ~n ;.; e» . o~ 'I ~ ~~' ... a5 ;. ~~a~ . ._.... i ~ ~~ V -~ n ~ ~ ' '• ' I r. f .. A 9 - _._.. ,, . ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~k ' ~+~1: ~~~~~ a s.....~ .•. ,,~.~ ~~; ~,'., ; .F'~ #'°'ti . ,...~i ~ ~-~ : , 3 ~ ~~e y`d ?~m3 C ~ . ~.. ~.~ ;. ,._ r .~ . : . , x .s a~~ ' . . ,~~. ,-~ .. . " _. ,.. ,.. . _ ... ._. .. ... . ... . . ~ ...r~. h ..~ ~,4. . . 1' n µ ... '. e.e.r. IA4 +s f~., .. .~. .~.. ~. '-' .... ' . ~~~ . ~ . .. ~ . ~ ~ . . ri . ie r> .i_~~~ . ..._......_ ~u` u ' . ntu.~~~,x~..~ .~ ~ ' V~~~v~ .~:r~~ ~~~ VF< ~n~+~~l e - .~~ Jw..u - ~, - ~ '~ n ~ . .e . if . .,, u . ~~ n~ - ~ 4' ~. ~ . ~ _ -. ,.~.~ ... ..~ ~ ~: ~ fIi L_ :€4' '.. ~ ' ~ v: .. ~~ ~ ~~~ .... ~v~' ~i ~~ ~ ac~+ 1 .~w• ~.. ~e~fTa ! i~ Y.J.~~~ao4 : ~ . ..... .. f ~~ 1 .+a,~ .. . ; ~mxu ~~if..._ ' ~ .i t t t . -Ji,..a w n_ . .. . .. . ... . . ~...,,~ L ......., . . .,. t:. ._ , . . . . . , . . . ... . . ..._ , ' ~r .3) ~_ V~~::-f4.t,^•. .. .f~ u~.rc~..~si • e' . ~ n• ~ 1~1~ .. ., , ~ -~~ ,. ` . ..P. .. " •' ~~, ~~ ~~~ ~.., ~ ~ ~ ~ . . -.~_,... 4 . . .1 .r • .~ a ~ i! ~' I ~ 7e~1'~ ~ «.~...., ~~~ ..s ~'', r~ - ~~' `~' p__ ~_._ a .~. s ~ ~ ~'~+'~`~' ~ ~ ~ ,.~ ,~ ~.: ~ .. -- x ' 1 --~ .._Y. ' . 1 . f _. . d ~ '~ . -'~~e.~~am.~. ~~.I: .~^.--- . ,~... . , . . ..~ ..,. .,.,~r. . . . . . , . , . ~~ R~quircd Sthcmc - Caurtyard Related Required - B _,. , ~ , . t ~ ~ . ,:_t_, _ ~ ~ ~- ,; ~ w , ...E. , 3 ` ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ i 1 e " ~ w' ~ ~ , ~p ^' j • ~ ,d ~, $•.,.. ~~r'~ ( ..,.. l~- i ", ~ - _ ,.. '~ . a-. k ~ . . . . ._. . . . . lJki ~ i lAil~l~ ~~ ~-y~ " ~~ ~"Sy,~~ . y ; . ' ~ .~„' -~.~~.'""' ~~"~~'~e - ~ ~ '~ i~~ ~~J '~ •- 4"~~, r ,' • * _ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~4 2, ~ `Y , _ ~ . ~, . ~ t~2 ~ i r~ ~~ t,~? r' z ..~-~.,,~s ~ ' ~ ~ • ~. F.ia Y~ ~~'T.3'~ t ~v~` ~ ~ar i~ ' ~ :a°'ey~'-~'rv~ •~ _~1Wf~a'~y~ ~ r1~tiX s"c ie _ PrN ': '. ~ '~- "°"'°~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..~. ~' i~~~~~s~ r _ y ~_ , -~' ~ ~ : t ,;,w ' ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~k ~f~~a.. .~~~,a~ ~ ,~, ~ . ".++'~ , tr~'w"'~ "`"'_ ~t ~ ~,..t . :._ • +~sz"'-: ~ . `. rs ... - - ~.z~:; ~ ~ ~ e , . ; • , S +I I ~YM ( , r ~N~~ ..,~ .<,..~.. . ~~~" ~~'i~ ~,.it ~w ~ ~' ~ '~~'T'~p ,:. ~ i ~ ~~ , .. ~ ~ ~, ~ , " , ;~~, ~ ~ ,s~; ~ ~ •~ ~. u `- ~ ~ I a ~ ~ ~ `" , ~ ~ ~~~ " r~.,"sz ~ ,, , . , ~ - , ._ . z ~_ ~. ~ . . . . . . . . ~~-. _-.~~,. ~~,~,.,. - - y~~~~eFtt rtt r~ •r +.t ..~, . ~• ~m••-rs~ :.l.• ~~y°"~~~~ tI~~7 ~f , -~ ~.~ 1-~ -- ~+ ~ .. _ • ~~~~._ '~. r ~ .. `; k . ~ (.,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '- ~r ,.:y . .~I -- -t°~, .. i + I f'"`~ .~,~ p I ~. _.a..__. . _ n::.~~ ,. ~.~~ i I i'_ pr ~.,~ ~.n.' ~.* _'1 I _ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ,...J .J..~rr ..-- -- - ~~ i ~ ,_( .~ ~'~ ~ t' r i e .~ . "~ ~t . ~_ - _,., ~ : : ~ .. , . ~ ~ !~ t~ ~~ i ~ i_ _ ,.~ , ~ ( ~ '_, . ~~4 - - e. ~ f ~j~ a il m " u .__. . y~ ue - - . .~ ~~ fi , ~I_A P:i~ _. . ' - 1a..4 , I 1 ~''` ~ ~' ', ~ .• ,~, ' /drV+_~nur, ~ " ~.~~ ~r• a~~,~.~e.n.lt+_•~~+'F_~~:f~+Cin: u.1YJ~~~•tO:n~•Aa }iiiiGV ~a~ ~rt~i~+~:..u u~Y~ NY~ .rsn~..t~N' - , , .. vN -1~M~r1 •ma~Yr~~ 12'~YY~~r I~~.tY R~qui~°~d Sck~erne - Co~~cy~r~d Related Alternate- A • . 3z a-`.;y.::.76:c: , ., . . ~ . . , .. 1,. . ~ p! ~ . . . . . , ' id~ . , ~ ~~;! ~~ ~. ~ _ ~ ~ ~,r. ~ , „ ~ ~ ~ , _ . , ~ . -, " - . ~ ~~ .,, . , ; .,~ ~ ~ _ ~ - . : i, ~ ~- ~~t ti ~ ~ .~ ~ ~;~ ~~ ~, ;~ ~' ,~ ~ ,`~, > I f ~ 7 h . . ~ ~ ~...xt! . ~ . . . ~ , ~ ~ . . ~ ., ~ , e; Ir ~... rt.. _ ~ ~ , Y -gy4- . ~, °~ ~ ~~ 'eD:{".- ~ ~. ~ .I:NF ~~ j ~° ~._._'~' . , ' ~ _ ~ .._. _ . _. ._. . a ' . . .`:5 s ' i ~~_~-~:a~: "- F i , ., . ' ~ + 3 . (I " e.~'~`"~^^rz~----- - ' ".. ~ ~~s ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~,~ ~ _ ~. ' , , . ,, _ _ ,. . . .r -- f~ '~ " "~=`.` ~~.._ ~.~ . . ~ , r ~ :: .. ti... s ~ __ ~ ~~q~ ' , _ .., , ,} ~ ~;. .~ ~~„_......_~ ~;:, ~~, ;d ~r ~~~~7~~ e . ~' ~ i; i . ~ ~ I ,~ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ . ~ ; ~ j 'f ~ ,t~ s ~ ; i „~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ t~~ ~ ~ i ki, ' :"3V ~ ~ ~ '~.H.•i¢. e a f4 ~ i l t .! i~ ~J ~ 1~ .j,~. y 2~ ki. ~ ' ` ~ fI3 t~ ' ~:. ~ ~ ~~ ~t ~~~~I ~ . : i ~ 1 ~Y ~ ~ ~ I ~ ... . . . . ~ ~ .. M1i ~`4 ~ ~'t33.E - "'~ i . , t li ~ . ._. ~ _ { 'r + k R -« s.., ... ti., ~.~~ r,>«, ,.. ,., ~,~ _t. : ,.~~ .s .• r"~':: 1~A AS, ~~ ~ -~.~~j~ ~~ , -~:: ~ ~ . .. ~ '.. "Ss ~~~i~' ~, ~.`: y_1 e. • 1} ~ >....,,.. ~ >.~..~.~.~. .~. ..!4.a.~ fll -4~.r:• a,x -..~ i .~ ~ ~..-~._:.. . ~. ~ `~~ .~~~y,~ ~ i " ''~ ..'~^--~ ~~~~`~'~,~I* ,',~~ ~~e ..._.W ~ a. r~.~a ~~:'.... _._,.~ x.i.l_... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,.~.~ ' i ~, i~ ,. ~, ,,..,, . ___ ,.~w~~,,~_„~ „. I`~~ u-'+,.~ ~~,7"" • n ~ i ~.., ~.~..... ~; ;~ ~ ~ t: ~i ~ A,~~ p B . -...- t•.l ~, ' w~n ~ ~ ~~+ pCr~ . ~ •`•' ~~_~ ' ': : .~ ~ "' ~~....~r.1.. ~ ~~~j~ ' T..+_.~L..~«"~"~'t' i a { 1 a aL~,_ .y ,... ra.. .- ...~r.. ....,... ~-J . ~. ~e6+....,.'p.i.~........-»-.AJ.. I .a6_~-.-~_......'~._.e- -~~...~ .._~+^- ~=--J~~. ..... .:~...~ __.______ ..r..n~a~.,~ri~..~ {~+~ }(~ ~ w ~ I ~..za, a,~ lwu,~ ' •.=.+r ! ` I ~ M1" 1~.~ °".~"'~ ~4~' f ~ ~ F p..~ ~,. ~s~ ~ ~~~ ~ '~{~~lP4 N1 i .,,.. '~~ R1 a _.~.5` f.. 1~ ~ `l; ~ ~ I~ ~' ~ R~t3~1 ~~~ .~,. .~~....~~ ~ _ ...-3.,,'-,. ~al.lr ~ _a~.a~a ..~~~~~....__$.M_s..~$,,..-~.6. 1~~--~~-t.~ ~4 ` . ;.e~ si il~i.! . P.i~' tt:~ - ~;:~I'Ir° 'r!'i~ (_-. Related Alternate- B , r , ,, . I , . . ~ • y..~,... , ~ g - , . + ....,.. + ~ _. , ; ~'~ '~ ~~' ;~ ~ ,. ~ i. • w , . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.. ~ ,' . ':l f ~~ . ~~c~..»~ ~ , ~~_ ~ ~ -_ , i • ~~• ~ - ~ 7 I~~ ~ ,.~. ~ ~ uu~,.~' z«.M ~a t .ees .., . ._... -~ ~' ..,a. , .. « ...a , ..... . . re~. ~i. i 4 «~,,, ' ~ ~, ~1 ~v ~,R.A~d-4~~1i . _. . ~y{~ .. « ~' p ', ,~ ~~~., '~ .' ~ w~ k ~~ ~,~i ~ _ 1 ` p ~ V -4 . ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~y, ~.. ~ i ~ ~ ~` ~~ r I ~7 f~.~"~~~~.~.xi" Y . I' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ -l ~~ ~4 ~K ~ ~ f~ `e~ q ~ ~ `: `,~'~"E~1' ~ ~ ~ ,~ +-~ ~ -- _.. ~" ' ~ ~ .~.s~ ~~# ~w ~ ` _~ _ - ~ ~j~ ~ ~ ~ 4 +~l~~r'Sc „(F>~ s~~n._ { ~ t 5 ~^}'n"~ i` ~S ~ ri~-~€'r~ _~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~s•~ .,a.....' ~;. ~~ '~' '~~,~ s'i - i t ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ k~ ~ Y ~~ .~_~ ~f ~~T ~v} ' * _ .~ ~. _ ~ ~ ~~.. i ~ .... , ~~,~ ~ ,.~. . ^ ~ ~" ~'`'~.! ~. ° . i ~ ~` ~ . ; . y 4~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ '~ ~. ~ ~ -~ ~ ~, . i ~ : ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~' ~ ~ . ~~~ . ,~ '~-~ ~ ~ ~' ~ , r i ; ~ ~. .. ~~~ . . ~ . . . . i i.. _~ 41~w+,a+ • • ~ ~ s . ~F~-!' C,~ , . . ~ • ~; ,' .. .. ~' ~• ~ ~~. ~ ~'y~" ' ~~ ~,,3 •._`~ ' ; `11n 1 '"-' ;; ~ ~ ~~ " . ~'' '~i~«, ~';=~~ i I 1 '`' ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ' r ~ r,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - "~.:~-- . I} ,, ~`'~, ,., I I ~ ~~ ~.~~ r y ~;i.,~.,.~ i.~ - i i ~s `~J I ' . ' ~~~ .1'~~_~`.:..1~ .. jr)° ~ ~ ~~'~ , . ~ J'' ~ ~-`•' a . `L . ~_ ~ , ".,j~ _. ` ~ i I~ ~ rr~ ..a` e.. ,' .,_. _ ,. ~.._ -- .._ ~ o~ '~ ~~i t~ ~'~" j „ ~.~G3 ,~ ; ~ .. i .~~~~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ . 5 ~~, .' 'r 1~..~ ~ i 4 _ rni - ~ .., . . ~ i ~4 . ~ ~ , . i i i .~ ~ l .. _•. uFtr.: . -i 14'C ' 4u ~~~s.n~ ~ u. iucuc i.al v..~su n fi 4.s xw~n ]t~.:S~:tiM :~M1~n~N ~!a`,M"rM ~~}1#[sY..f1Vi: ~ it: ..7 ~Lu ,x4`1';3 r~..,. i ~sr~~ ~~ '',~ i C'.i,'f COMPARISON OF VILLAGE PROPOSALS Relafed > Bridg~/BR~ Castfe & ~ooke Base : Alter~ative $ase Alternative Base Alternative # of Units 298 325 285 302 Not financially 253 ~ ~~ ~165 + 133) (165 + 160) (160 + 125) (160 + 142) feasible ~160 + 93) ~ ,~~ ~~ ~: ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ sr ~ Alternative ~ ' _ ;, ; 65' ~; 56' (A & 8) ~ " 56' (A & Bj Height ~ ~~; 88'-120' (C) . ~~§~; -. 120' (C) 3.~sa ~ . ~.~Y~ .~: ~. .. 1-bd 0 0 51 36 10 ~ 2-bd = 106 106 51 57 68 ~~ 3-bd 49 49 41 51 ~~a 48 'a ~` 4-bd 0 0 7 6 9 Q LJV11 ' 10 10 1 Q 10 25 Tatal , 165 165 160 16Q 160 AVerage Targ~t 51.5% 51.5% 48.0% 49.9% n/a 58.9% Affordabiiity ~afOUfl[{ NO (Land ~10 (Land offer NO (land ~~as~ Y2S Y2S offer would be would be tl/a offer would be discounted) discounted) discounted) December 30, 2005 Santa Monica, CA INFORMATION REPORT To: Mayor and City Council Chairperson and Redevelopment Agency From: City and Agency Staff Subject: The Village at the Civic Center: Detailed Financial Evaluation and Design Comparisons of Responses to the Request for Proposals INTRODUCTION At the City Council/Redevelopment Agency (Council/Agency) meeting of December 13, 2005, to enable comprehensive review, staff was directed staff to provide additional information related to the analysis of financial proposals and scaleable plans of the three responses to the Request for Proposals (RFP) BACKGROUND The staff report dated December 13, 2005 (Item 8-B), summarized the review of the responses to the Village RFP by the interdepartmental evaluation committee (Committee). The Committee evaluated two main areas of the RFP responses: (1) the development strategy; integrated design analysis; and financial concepts; and (2) which developer/design team submitted the best proposal. A supplemental staff report was added as well, providing schematics and composition of the three responding developer/design teams. 1 Council/Agency found the staff report and the supplemental report insufficient to enable them to make fully informed decisions, and specifically asked staff to submit the complete financial pro formas as submitted by the respondents to the RFP, more readable design concept drawings, expanded summary charts, and any other narrative or numerical material that would more fully explain the basis for the information, conclusions, and recommendations in the initial staff report. DISCUSSION In response, two staff comparison charts and two consultant analyses are attached to this report, as well as the requested pro forma financial information. The first chart (Attachment A), provides an overall comparison of the three responses including the number of proposed units, alternative building heights, land value offers, affordable unit types, average target affordability, and ground lease consideration. The second chart (Attachment B) provides more information regarding the number of market units, affordable and market unit size, and total unit square footage. Throughout its evaluation of the RFP responses, the Committee has been assisted by Keyser Marston Associates and Pyatok Architects, Inc., firms with experience in public/private real estate development, and architecture/planning, respectively. A report prepared by Keyser Marston (Attachment C) provides financial comparisons of the proposals, including summary narrative, summary tables of the salient features of each team's pro formas, and the complete pro formas as submitted for each team. The 2 report by Pyatok Architects (Attachment D), articulates reasons for variances in the potential of total residences under each team's concept plans, and addresses the feasibility of achieving the Council/Agency goal of 325 residential units. Comparative Desiqn Approaches To address a gap in the original staff report, the design concepts of all three developer- design teams are summarized in this section of the Information Report. All teams presented thoughtful integrated design concepts. The Castle & Cooke team presented a design concept with multiple residential courtyards and pathways throughout, and a central green among the new residential and existing office buildings. The buildings and open spaces were conceived to promote a sequence of discovery, with strong pedestrian and visual permeability: the central green would incorporate a Mediterranean botanic garden. The Castle and Cooke design concept clearly demonstrated a strong commitment to incorporating sustainability into the design and construction. The Bridge/BRE team's approach features a strong design concept organized around the confluence of community and natural systems, incorporating the four elements (fire, earth, air and water), and their confluence with the contextual themes of democracy, recreation, tourism and commerce, and natural resources. The design concept includes a central node of confluence where environmental aspects of the Village converge in an artistic functional symbol of green infrastructure, as well as smaller nodes of confluence 3 where environmental elements of the Village meet cultural aspects of Santa Monica. This design concept incorporates plazas and a central green that serve as nodes of confluence, as well as residential plazas. Streets, greens and pathways would be activated by townhouses, live/work housing, residential entrances, cafes, and retail. The Bridge/BRE proposal demonstrates a strong commitment to incorporating sustainability into the design and construction. The Related team presented an innovative approach to integrating market rate and affordable housing into the Village, by approaching Sites A, B, and C as one development, and by creating multiple buildings throughout the site, rather than the three or four buildings proposed by the other teams. This approach allows market rate and affordable housing to be distributed throughout the area, rather than segregated into separate areas. This also provides the affordable family housing with direct access to the Village Green, and provides the market rate housing with valuable frontage on Olympic Drive and Ocean Avenue. Creating more, but smaller, buildings also enhances sustainability of the residences by reducing double-loaded corridors, thereby increasing opportunities for cross-ventilation to cool the residences and for natural light to permeate the residences. Additional features in the Related design concept by designing multiple buildings include increased site permeability through the integration of open space and pathways throughout the site, thus creating a fine-grain neighborhood with a strong orientation to indoor-outdoor living. Related also demonstrated a unique approach to employing a 4 team of design professionals, with three architecture firms, two landscape architects and two artists. The multiple team members will collaborate to develop an integrated design approach for the site, but individual firms will take primary responsibility for individual buildings and open spaces, promoting diversity and richness within the site, reflecting the diversity and richness of other Santa Monica neighborhoods. Achievinq 325 Residences in the Alternative Desiqn Concepts None of the developer-design teams was able to achieve 325 residences in its required base design concept. However, Related was able to achieve 325 residences in its alternative plan, whereas the other teams were not. The disparity in density and height between the Related concept and the other design concepts is outlined below: • The Related concept maintains a lower maximum height by spreading the building bulk more evenly across all the building sites. • The Related concept maximizes the use of street level space planning placing all parking below grade. • The Related concept takes advantage of the existing slope to build down as well as up. • The Bridge concept achieved 302 residences, including a tower element of 120 feet. • Despite the tower element, Bridge compromised its opportunity to achieve 325 residential units by utilizing one-half of its first floors for parking, in a parking scheme that is mainly underground. 5 • The density of the Castle & Cooke concept is significantly less than the other concepts because the average unit size is significantly larger, most particularly with regard to the market residences. Financial Concepts Of the three teams, Related was the only team to agree to acquire the entire site under a long-term ground lease. The other teams required the sites for the market residences to be sold to them. Related would prefer an outright sale of the property under the market units, but considers a long-term ground lease viable mainly because it plans to prepay the ground lease compensation. Lease prepayment enhances the ability of Related to obtain financing because it lowers the risk for lenders, and it provides prospective condominium owners certainty that they will not bear any lease payment obligations over the term of the lease. Additionally, Related considers a long-term lease with a municipality or agency of government, such as this specific arrangement, to be more secure than a lease with a private owner who may be less accountable. Related has experience with long-term ground leases; in fact, Related has constructed two ownership developments under long-term ground leases, and was recently awarded a third development on the same basis. Regarding the land value, Related offered the largest compensation for the Village site under the base and alternative scenarios. Related's net compensation to the City/Agency is estimated at $14.4 million under the base concept and $21.8 million under the alternative concept. 6 CONCEPT PLANS In addition to each Council/Agency member receiving a full-size scaleable set of concept plans, the City Clerk's office and the City Manager's Office have a scaleable set of plans for each proposal for public viewing. The December 13, 2005 original staff report provided the same plans, in a smaller format, to all members of the public. Prepared by: Gordon R. Anderson, Acting City Manager Jeff Mathieu, Director of Resource Management Bob Moncrief, Housing & Redevelopment Manager Ron Barefield, Housing Administrator Jim Kemper, Senior Administrative Analyst Andy Agle, Interim Director Planning and Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: A: Comparison of Village Proposals B: Comparison of Village Design Concepts C: Keyser Marston Financial Memorandum & Summary Table D: Pyatok Architects, Inc. Memorandum 7 Attachment A COMPARISON OF VILLAGE PROPOSALS # 4f Units ' ' 298 325 285 302 n/a 253 ; (165 + 133) (165 + 160) (160 + 125) (160 + 142) (160 + 93) ' Alternatiue ~ ' ~ ~° ftl~ ~ `~ " 56' Affordable ' ~~ ~~ ~~ ~t/~ ~~` ~ 56' (A & B) ° : ~l ~ 56' (A & B) ~ Height ~~~ , ~, 65' Market ~ 88'-120' (C) ~ , ~~~ 120' (C) ~ Land Qffer- $36.57M $44M $33.3M $41.35M n/a $10M Adjusted for ' $36.57M $44.OOM $33.31 M $41.35M $10.OOM Infrastructure ~~~~, ($11.62M) ($11.62M) ($3.31 M) ($3.37M) n/a ($6.75M) and $1( 0.56M) $10.56M) $3( 3.31 M) $2( 6.35M) ~(0)** ' /affordable $14.39M $21.82M ($3.31 M) $11.63M $3.25M Units Gap ; f, li 9-bd '~I 0 0 51 36 10 ~ '~ 2-bd~~~ ; ' 106 106 51 57 68 m ~~ 3-bd ' 49 49 41 51 n/a 48 '~ ~' ' 4-bd ' 0 0 7 6 9 ~ L/W 'i 10 10 10 10 25 Q Total i 165 165 160 160 160 51.8% I 51.8% I 49.7% I 50.5% I n/a I 58.9% Affordable: Affordable: Affordable: Ground Yes Yes Yes Yes n~a Yes Lease Ownership: Ownership: Ownership: No No No * Developer said this concept "presents unique financial risks that are unacceptable" to them, and was therefore not financially feasible without a significant subsidy from the City ** Developer proposed to fund the affordability gap internally rather than structuring the gap as a residual receipts loan that could potentially be repaid to the Agency over time Attachment B COMPARISON OF VILLAGE DESIGN CONCEPTS ' Related ' Brid~e/BRE ' Castle & Gooke Base Alternative Base Alternative Base * Alternative T4tal 298 325 285 302 n/a 253 ~ ~ , ~ ~ Affordable 165 165 160 160 n/a 160 Market 133 160 125 142 n/a 93 Building ' 56' ' 56' (A & B) 56' *** Height ** 56 Affordable ' 56 gg°_120' (C) n/a (A & B) ' 65 Market 120 (C) ~, 1-bdrrn 0 0 51 36 n/a 10 ,~ ~~~ 2-bdrm 106 106 51 57 n/a 68 w ~~ a ~~ 3-bdrm 49 49 41 51 n/a 48 -~ ~~ ' L 4-bdrm 0 0 7 6 n/a 9 ~° Li~e/Work ~ 10 10 10 10 n/a 25 ~ 'Total 165 165 160 160 n/a 160 Total ~lffordable 359 359 304 327 n/a 326 Bedraoms **** 0-bdrrn 0 0 15 0 n/a 0 +.~ ~~ 1-bdrm 0 0 56 72 n/a 0 ~' w ~~ '~ 2-bdrm ~ 90 106 54 70 n/a 43***** ~ ~ 3-bdrm 43 54 0 0 n/a 50***** To#al 133 160 125 142 n/a 93 ' Tatal Marke# 309 374 164 212 n/a 236***** Bedrooms ~,N Affardable ' 856 sqft. 856 sqft. 918 sqft. 960 sqft. n/a 888 sqft. ~ sn ~ = Q~ Market 1,297 sqft. 1,301 sqft. 858 sqft. 1,149 sqft. n/a 2,704 sqft. Total Units Square ' 313 800 349 500 254 101 316 761 n/a 393 575 Foo#age , , , , , Average Targe# ~ 51 8% 51 8% 49 7% 50 5% n/a 58 9% ~~ Affo~'dabilixy . . . . . * Developer said this concept "presents unique financial risks that are unacceptable" to them, and was therefore not financially feasible without a significant subsidy from the City ** The "(A & B)" and "(C)" in this row refer to the Village Special Use District sites as established in the Civic Center Specific Plan. *** Developer asserts that 6 stories can be achieved within a 56-foot height limit **** Excludes live/work units, which do not typically have bedrooms ***** Proposal includes 1,900 and 3,396 square foot units. Number of bedrooms is not specified. SUMMARY TABLE 1 BASE CASE THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA APPENDIX A-1 APPENDIX A-2 Total APPENDIX B-1 APPENDIX B-2 Total Related Related Related Bridge Bridge Bridge Castle & Cook Affordable Apts Ownership Units Base Case Affordable Apts Ownership Units Base Case Base Case PROJECT DESCRIPTION Land Area (Square Feet) Land Area (Acres) Total Units Density (Units/Acre) Residential Area (GLA) Average Unit Size (GLA) Retail Area (GLA) Total Building Area (GLA) 90,605 40,511 131,116 2.08 0.93 3.01 165 133 298 79 143 99 141,300 172,500 313,800 856 1,297 1,053 16,211 16,211 141,300 188,711 330,011 74,923 56,192 131,116 1.72 1.29 3.01 160 125 285 93 97 95 146,851 107,250 254,101 918 858 892 3,500 8,000 11,500 150,351 115,250 265,601 Developer indicated that this concept "presents unique financial risks that are unacceptable" to them. A project that would comply with the RFP would require and undisclosed amount of public assistance. COST/REVENUE L Construction Costs Direct Costs Indirect Costs Financing/Closing Costs Total Construction Costs Per Unit II. Average Affordability (% of Median) III. Fundina Sources/Sales Revenues Permanent Financing Tax Credits/Other Sales Revenues (Residental + Retail) Total Per Unit IV. Threshold Developer Profit Total As % of Revenue V. Gross Land Value/(Financial Gap) VI. Infrastructure Cost Adiustment to Land Pvmt Infrastructure Costs (Developer) Infrastructure Costs (City) Reduction to Developer Land Offer VII. Net Land Payment After Adjustments $39,858,000 $53,570,000 $93,428,000 6,088,000 19,269,000 25,357,000 2, 209, 000 14, 925, 000 17,134, 000 $48,155,000 $87,764,000 $135,919,000 $291,800 $659,900 51.8% $6,760,000 30,829,000 $148,780,000 $37,589,000 $148,780,000 $186,369,000 $227,800 $1,118,600 $24,441,000 $24,441,000 16.4% ($10,566,000): $36,575,000 $26,009,000: Residual Effective Cash Receipts Note Payment Offer $1,691,000 $1,690,000 $3,381,000 15, 000, 000 $11,619,000 $14,390,000 $49,778,000 $54,501,000 $104,279,000 10,920,000 12,402,000 23,322,000 5,199,000 6,923,000 12,122,000 $65,897,000 $73,826,000 $139,723,000 N.A. $411,900 $590,600 49.7% N.A. $4, 994, 000 27,592,000 $113,171,000 $32,586,000 $113,171,000 $145,757,000 N.A. $203,700 $905,400 $6,034,000 $6,034,000 N.A. 5.3% N.A. ($33,311,000): $33,311,000 $0: Effective N.A. Residual Receipts Cash Payment Note Offer $0 $11,691,000 $11,691,000 15,000,000 $3,309,000 N.A. ($3,309,000) N.A. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: 12_O5_Village Pfs; Sum_Base; 12/29/2005 Page 1 of 2 SUMMARY TABLE 2 ALTERNATNE CASE THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA Land Area (Square Feet) Land Area (Acres) Total Units Density (Units/Acre) Residential Area (GLA) Average Unit Size (GLA) Retail Area (GLA) Total Building Area (GLA) L Construction Costs Direct Costs Indirect Costs Financing/Closing Costs Total Construction Costs Per Unit II. Average Affordability (% of Median) III. Fundina Sources/Sales Revenues Permanent Financing Tax Credits/Other Sales Revenues (Residental + Retail) Total Per Unit IV. Threshold Developer Profit Total As % of Revenue V. Gross Land Value/(Financial Gap) VI. Infrastructure Cost Adiustment to Land Pvmt Infrastructure Costs (Developer) Infrastructure Costs (City) Reduction to Developer Land Offer VII. Net Land Payment After Adjustments APPENDIX C-1 APPENDIX C-2 Total APPENDIX D-1 APPENDIX D-2 Total Related Related Related Bridge Bridge Bridge Affordable Apts Ownership Units Alt Case Affordable Apts Ownership Units Alt Case PROJECT DESCRIPTION 90,605 40,511 131,116 2.08 0.93 3.01 165 160 325 79 172 108 141,300 208,200 349,500 856 1,301 1,075 16,211 16,211 141,300 224,411 365,711 $39,858,000 $62,785,000 $102,643,000 6,088,000 22,576,000 28,664,000 2,209,000 17,891,000 20,100,000 $48,155,000 $103,252,000 $151,407,000 $291,800 $645,300 51.8% $6,760,000 30,829,000 $177, 340, 000 $37,589,000 $177,340,000 $214,929,000 $227,800 $1,108,400 $30,088,000 $30,088,000 17.0% ($10,566,000): $44,000,000 $33,434,000: Residual Effective Cash Receipts Note Payment Offer $1,691,000 $1,690,000 $3,381,000 15, 000, 000 $11,619,000 $21,815,000 90,605 40,511 131,116 2.08 0.93 3.01 160 142 302 77 153 100 153,661 163,100 316,761 960 1,149 1,049 3,000 8,000 11,000 156,661 171,100 327,761 COST/REVENUE $47,897,000 $77,897,000 $125,794,000 10,784,000 15,539,000 26,323,000 4, 962, 000 10, 217, 000 15,179, 000 $63,643,000 $103,653,000 $167,296,000 $397,800 $730,000 50.5% $5,900,000 31,391,000 $178, 573, 000 $37,291,000 $178,573,000 $215,864,000 $233,100 $1,257,600 $33,568,000 $33,568,000 18.8% ($26,352,000): $41,352,000 $15,000,000: Residual Receipts Effective Cash Note Payment Offer $0 $11,626,000 $11,626,000 15,000,000 $3,374,000 $11, 626, 000 APPENDIX E-1 APPENDIX E-2 Total Castle & Cooke Castle & Cooke Castle & Cooke Affordable Apts Ownership Units Alt Case 90,605 40,511 131,116 2.08 0.93 3.01 160 93 253 77 100 84 142,075 251,500 393,575 888 2,704 1,556 0 0 0 142,075 251,500 393,575 $35,110,000 $105,122,000 $140,232,000 6,434,000 26,409,000 32,843,000 2,551,000 20,703,000 23,254,000 $44,095,000 $152,234,000 $196,329,000 $275,600 $1,636,900 $44, 370, 600 $11,483,000 17, 304, 000 $209,690,000 $28,787,000 $209,690,000 $238,477,000 $179,900 $2,254,700 $32,148,000 $32,148,000 15.3% ($15,308,000): $25,308,000 $10,000,000: Deduction from Actual Cash Land Offer Payment Offer $0 $8,250,000 $8,250,000 15, 000, 000 I $6,750,000 $3, 250, 000 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: 12_O5_Village Pfs; Sum_Alt; 12/29/2005 Page 2 of 2 ~ I~ ~ J ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a ~..~~ ~ ~ AI?~`iSiJI~S [N 1'1J13L1£;/l'IL[VPsTE REAL CSTATE l3LVL-LC7PMLNT MEMORANDUM To: Bob Moncrief, Housing Manager n~~v~scs~.s ~r~: RF~$r. ~~,~a,-F City of Santa Monica It~ l~ EYE LfJ F'h+k E h-f A.FI=C~QtL7rlRl.C Ii~.f.7Lf5IN~ ~.~«h~7~~~. r~~~~a.~~~~~~,- From: Kathleen Head s~~ ~ra~.r~cwsc~ ~- l~e~~~ ~~~~~~~~ Date: December 29, 2005 -fiMt?T1-iYC. KkI~,N.Y !`vhTF: E~Et1.C FLINK [~L~$~~ ~~. x~Rh Subject: Village RFP Responses: Financial Evaluation C'~C}[S~~9tT ].1ti`E~[~M£7RtE~ Lt35 At~7GELtiS c~L~~N ~~"~"~. ~' Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) acted as a technical advisor to the City of Santa KRI~NL$~N H. F3£AC) ~~~~~ ~~- ~~~~ Monica (City) committee that evaluated the responses to The Village Request for I',~tif4. C;. RNCi~:.RiC3t~ ,~~~C,Q~~ g~ 5t,~,-~,~,~, Proposals (RFP). The KMA role in the process was to rank the three finalist teams' proposals in terms of the financial evaluation criteria spelled out in the RFP. Specifically, s'~~ ~'~~~° KMA evaluated the proposals on the following measures: ~c~.n~u n~ °t ~a~~a~~~ l~nu~ c, ~4A~ua 1. Inclusion of 325 residential units, with at least 160 units subject to long-term income and affordability covenants; 2. Minimization of height, or an identification of the clear advantages created by the inclusion of taller buildings; 3. The willingness to accept site conveyance in the form of a ground lease; and 4. The monetary offer made for the site. Each team was allowed to submit a"Base Case" proposal that strictly adhered to the RFP development scope requirements. In addition, the RFP allowed the teams to submit a"Alternative Case" that represented the teams' vision of how the City's policy objectives could best be met. The RFP required the teams to submit conceptual plans to illustrate the team's vision of the site's development potential. However, the RFP also stated that the actual scope of development would be identified at the conclusion of a community input process. 5(3~ 5~]l1TH GRAN[l AVEI~tlE, SUITE 14~C) ~ L(]S AQVC:ELE~, C~EL[FC7RNI.+R ~{1{}~l ~ PHC~NE: ~13 fs22 $(1~15 ~~AX: 213 6~~ 52174 Village Memo; SM:KHH:gbd !~?W ~. [GEYSERAAARSTC3~1.CC3hA 19305.001 /009 To: Bob Moncrief, City of Santa Monica December 29, 2005 Subject: Village RFP Responses: Financial Evaluation Page 2 Therefore, the pro formas submitted with the proposals can only be used to understand the teams' perspective on the cost, revenue and developer return for the project. The land price for the site will be set after the required development scope is identified. KMA reviewed the proposals submitted by the following teams: Related Companies and Community Corporation of Santa Monica (Related)' 2. Bridge Housing Corporation and BRE (Bridge) 3. Castle & Cooke, Inc. and Steadfast Housing (Castle & Cooke) The purpose of the KMA financial evaluation is to identify the development team that best meets the RFP financial criteria. As part of the analysis, KMA considered the viability of the financial assumptions used in the three developer proposals. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY It is the KMA conclusion that Related submitted the strongest financial proposal of the three teams. The factors that influenced this conclusion are: Both the Base and Alternative Case development scopes proposed by Related provide the greatest number of units; the Base Case provides 298 units and the Preferred Case provides 325 units. No other proposal achieved the 325 unit goal established in the RFP. 2. The Related Base Case adheres to the 56 foot height limit imposed by the Civic Center Specific Plan (CCSP); the Alternative Case increases the market rate buildings' height to 65 feet in order to meet the RFP goal for 325 residential units. The proposed nine foot height variation is materially less than the 32 to 64 foot variations proposed by the other two teams. 3. Related agreed acquire the entire site under a long-term ground lease, while the other two teams required that the land under the market rate units be sold to the team. Related demonstrated how a ground lease can be made viable for ownership units. ' Related submitted Base and Alternative Case proposals for a Courtyard scheme and a Living Street scheme. The financial characteristics do not vary significantly between the schemes, and so KMA only evaluated the Courtyard scheme. Village Memo; SM:KHH:gbd 19305.001 /009 To: Bob Moncrief, City of Santa Monica December 29, 2005 Subject: Village RFP Responses: Financial Evaluation Page 3 4. Related offered the greatest net compensation for the site under both the Base and Alternative Case options. Related's net compensation is estimated at $14.4 million under the Base Case and $21.8 million under the Alternative Case. It is the KMA conclusion that the Related proposal is superior to the other proposals on all four financial evaluation measures. This conclusion holds true for both the Base and Alternative Cases, as illustrated in the Analysis section of this memorandum. ANALYSIS To allow for a consistent comparison of the four financial evaluation criteria, KMA re- created the teams' pro formas in a standardized format without altering any of the teams' assumptions. Summary Tables 1 and 2 identify the salient features of the teams' pro formas under the Base and Alternative Cases.2 In addition, the pro formas for each team are presented in appendices that are organized as follows: Base Case Appendix A-1 Related 9% Tax Credit Apartment Project Appendix A-2 Related Market Rate Ownership Project Appendix B-1 Bridge 9% Tax Credit Apartment Project Appendix B-2 Bridge Market Rate Ownership Project Alternative Case Appendix C-1 Related 9% Tax Credit Apartment Project Appendix C-2 Related Market Rate Ownership Project Appendix D-1 Bridge 9% Tax Credit Apartment Project Appendix D-2 Bridge Market Rate Ownership Project Appendix E-1 Castle & Cooke 4% Tax Credit Apartment Project Appendix E-2 Castle & Cooke Market Rate Ownership Project Z KMA did not re-create the Castle & Cooke Base Case pro forma, because they stated that the concept "presents unique financial risks that are unacceptable". Village Memo; SM:KHH:gbd 19305.001 /009 To: Bob Moncrief, City of Santa Monica December 29, 2005 Subject: Village RFP Responses: Financial Evaluation Page 4 Residential Unit Count The proposed projects include the following unit counts and affordability standards: Base Case Related Bridge Unit Count Affordable Apartment Units Market Rate Ownership Units Total Units Average Unit Size Affordable Apartments Market Rate Ownership Units Average Affordability as a% of the County Median Income 165 133 160 125 298 285 856 918 1,297 858 52% 50% Alternative Case Castle & Related Bridge Cooke Unit Count Affordable Apartment Units 165 160 160 Market Rate Ownership Units 160 142 93 Total Units 325 302 253 Average Unit Size Affordable Apartments 856 960 888 Market Rate Ownership Units 1,301 1,149 2,704 Average Affordability as a% of the County Median Income 52% 50% 59% The following conclusions can be derived from the preceding tables: 1. None of the teams proposed to develop 325 units in the Base Case, and only Related reached the 325 unit threshold in the Alternative Case. 2. All three teams met the requirement to provide at least 160 units subject to income and affordability covenants. Related exceeded the requirement by five units in both the Base and Alternative Cases. Village Memo; SM:KHH:gbd 19305.001 /009 To: Bob Moncrief, City of Santa Monica December 29, 2005 Subject: Village RFP Responses: Financial Evaluation Page 5 3. The largest average unit size for the affordable apartments is the Bridge proposal. This is attributable to the following factors: a. The Bridge proposal includes large three-bedroom and live-work units at 1,231 square feet; and four-bedroom units at 1,300 square feet. However, the Bridge proposal also includes a large number of one- bedroom units in both the Base and Alternative Cases (51 and 36 units, respectively). b. The proposed unit mix for the Related 9% tax credit project is comprised solely of two- and three-bedroom units at unit sizes of 800 and 1,000 square feet. The development scope also includes five live-work units at 600 square feet and five live-work units at 900 square feet. c. The Castle & Cooke proposal includes one- through four-bedroom units. Each unit type is smaller than the proposed Bridge units, with the exception of the four-bedroom units. The four-bedroom units are set at 1,450 square feet. 4. The Bridge proposal provides the lowest average affordability level of the three proposals. The reasons for this are: a. The Bridge and Related 9% tax credit projects have essentially the same average affordability level. The difference is that Related provided 10 live-work units affordable to households earning 100% of the Los Angeles County median income (Median), while the Bridge live-work units are proposed to be affordable at 60% of the Median. b. Castle & Cooke proposed to develop the apartments under the tax- exempt bond/4% tax credit program. This program allows more lenient income and affordability criteria than the 9% tax credit program. Height Limit The RFP allowed the teams to submit an alternative proposal that was not bound by the 56-foot height limit imposed by the CCSP. In response, all three teams maintained the height of the affordable apartment buildings at 56 feet. Under the Alternative Case, the proposed heights for the market rate ownership buildings are: Village Memo; SM:KHH:gbd 19305.001 /009 To: Bob Moncrief, City of Santa Monica Subject: Village RFP Responses: Financial Evaluation Related 65 feet Bridge 88 feet to 120 feet Castle & Cooke 120 feet Ground Lease December 29, 2005 Page 6 All three teams proposed to acquire the affordable apartment buildings' land on the basis of a long-term ground lease. Comparatively, only Related agreed to apply a long-term ground lease to the market rate ownership units. Both the Bridge and Castle & Cooke teams indicated that it would not be financially viable to construct market rate ownership units on ground leased land. The cited reasons are: Lenders will not provide construction financing for an ownership project on ground leased land; 2. Home buyers will impose a significant discount on the price they are willing to pay for a home on ground leased land; and 3. There are a limited number of mortgage lenders that will finance homes purchased on ground leased land. Related supported their proposal to ground lease the entire site on the following basis: Related has actually constructed two ownership projects, and was recently awarded a third project, on ground leased land. This indicates that the team has experience financing ownership projects on ground leased land. 2. Related indicated that the only way they would agree to enter into a ground lease is if they are allowed to pay 100% of the ground lease compensation upfront. 3. Related believes that the site is a premier property in the Southern California marketplace. Given the uniqueness of the opportunity, Related believes that home buyers will accept the fact that the property will revert to the City after 99 years. Village Memo; SM:KHH:gbd 19305.001 /009 To: Bob Moncrief, City of Santa Monica December 29, 2005 Subject: Village RFP Responses: Financial Evaluation Page 7 KMA has evaluated other ownership projects that were constructed on ground leased land. It has been our experience that the concerns raised by Bridge and Castle & Cooke are valid. However, we have found that ground leases can be viable if the terms are structured appropriately. Specific issues that must be considered in structuring a ground lease are: A ground lease represents a temporary conveyance of property; at the conclusion of the ground lease term the property reverts to the property owner. Recognizing that the property can only be used as collateral during the ground lease term, mortgage lenders will typically require the ground lease term to run for at least 1.5 times the length of the loan amortization period. This provides the lender with a cushion to receive full repayment if the borrower experiences financial difficulties during the loan amortization period. 2. Construction lenders' primary interest is that the developer will generate sufficient sales revenues to repay the construction loan. If there is inordinate risk that the project will not achieve market acceptance, it will be difficult to obtain construction financing. As such, construction lenders must be provided with a comfort level that home buyers will be willing to purchase homes on ground leased land. 3. A ground lease typically requires the lessee to make monthly lease payments to the property owner. These payments are usually set at a fixed amount for a number of years, and then adjusted upward periodically. Wth long-term ground leases, the property value is often re-appraised approximately half way through the lease term. Future payment increases, which are of unknown amounts, create a significant financial risk to both the property owner and the mortgage lender. 4. It is most common for home buyers to purchase the fee interest in the land under their homes; these interests can be resold in perpetuity. Under a ground lease, the ownership period is limited to the length of the ground lease term. KMA concurs with Related's perspective that the Village site represents a truly unique property within the Southern California marketplace. As a result it is possible to impose terms that would constrain the development opportunities in lesser locations. However, the ground lease terms must be structured in a manner that conforms to lenders' underwriting criteria, and that does not materially constrain the project's attractiveness from a market perspective. The Related proposal achieves these goals in the following ways: Village Memo; SM:KHH:gbd 19305.001 /009 To: Bob Moncrief, City of Santa Monica December 29, 2005 Subject: Village RFP Responses: Financial Evaluation Page 8 1. Related is proposing to prepay the entire ground lease compensation to the Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency. As a practical matter, the structure resembles a land purchase transaction where the land payment is made at the close of escrow. Under a prepaid ground lease, the home owners never incur a lease payment obligation. This eliminates the following issues: a. The home buyer and lender risk associated with future increases in the payment amount; and b. The lender risk that a home owner will default on the ground lease payment during the mortgage amortization period. 2. Related is proposing to enter into a ground lease with a 99-year term. This clearly eliminates the lenders' collateral risk for the first purchasers. This, in turn, mitigates the construction lender risk that the homes will not achieve market acceptance. However, once the ground lease reaches the +/- 50th year, it is likely that mortgage lenders will begin to require home loans to be amortized over less than a 30-year period. 3. Given the proposed 99-year ground lease term, the first home purchasers will have the opportunity to resell their home while a significant term remains on the ground lease. In fact, it is likely that premium resale values will continue to be achievable over the first 50+ years. Thereafter, it should be expected that prospective home purchasers will begin placing discounts on the homes as a reflection of the limited time period for which they will own the home. This issue cannot be resolved in any case where the land ownership is set for a finite time period. Land Conveyance Offers The RFP required the teams to provide land compensation offers as part of the response. In addition, the RFP indicated that significant infrastructure construction responsibilities will be imposed on the selected team. However, when KMA reviewed the teams' pro formas, it was evident that each team applied significantly different cost assumptions to the required infrastructure improvements. To provide for a consistent comparison, KMA set the infrastructure costs at the same amount for all three teams. At the City staff's instruction, the allowance was set at $15 million. Village Memo; SM:KHH:gbd 19305.001 /009 To: Bob Moncrief, City of Santa Monica Subject: Village RFP Responses: Financial Evaluation Affordable Housing Component December 29, 2005 Page 9 Each team concluded that the affordable housing units will generate a financial gap even if it is assumed that the land under the affordable housing project is conveyed to the selected team at no cost. However, the estimated financial gaps varied widely among the three proposals. Since the teams all applied similar loan underwriting and tax credit syndication assumptions, the variation in the estimated gap must be explained by other causes. The reasons identified by KMA are: 1. Castle & Cooke assumed that the affordable housing would be financed with a tax-exempt mortgage revenue bond and the automatically awarded 4% tax credits. The interest rate savings and higher rent levels allowed by these programs are insufficient to make up for the additional tax credit proceeds that could be generated by a 9% tax credit project with conventional financing. 2. The Related and Castle & Cooke cost estimates fall within the same range, at $276,000 to $292,000 per unit. Comparatively, Bridge's per unit construction cost estimates total $412,000 under the Base Case and $398,000 under the Alternative Case. This difference equates to $106,000 to $136,000 per unit. 3. The tax credit program imposes caps the eligible basis that can be applied per unit, and all three proposed projects exceed the established cap. Any cost that cannot be included in the tax credit basis increases the unfunded financial gap on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Based on the assumptions detailed in the teams' pro formas, the financial gaps associated with the affordable housing components are estimated as follows: Base Case # of Affordable Total Units Per Unit Related $10, 566, 000 165 $64, 000 Bridge $33,311,000 160 $208,000 Alternative Case # of Affordable Total Units Per Unit Related $10, 566, 000 165 $64, 000 Bridge $26,352,000 160 $165,000 Castle & Cooke $15,308,000 160 $96,000 Village Memo; SM:KHH:gbd 19305.001 /009 To: Bob Moncrief, City of Santa Monica December 29, 2005 Subject: Village RFP Responses: Financial Evaluation Page 10 Market Rate Housing Component The three teams proposed materially different development scopes for the market rate housing units. The salient features of the proposed projects can be described as follows: Related Related assumed that the same unit types would be constructed under both the Base and Alternative Cases. The only difference is that the Alternative Case includes 27 more units than the Base Case. The key assumptions applied in the Related proposal are: 1. The unit mix includes two- and three-bedroom units ranging in size from 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. 2. Related estimated the construction costs at $645,0000 to $660,000 per unit before consideration of any land acquisition costs.3 3. The projected sales prices for the market rate units averages $800 per square foot of living area; the average price equates to $1.04 million per unit. 4. The threshold developer profit is set at 16.4%. Bridae Bridge varied the scope of the market rate units between the Base and Alternative Cases. The major features of the Bridge proposal are: 1. Unit Mix: a. The Base Case project includes 125 studio, one- and two-bedroom units. The average unit size equals 858 square feet. b. The Alternative Case development scope includes 142 one- and two- bedroom units at an average size of 1,149 square feet. 2. Construction Costs Excluding Land Acquisition: 3 The costs associated with the ancillary retail space are included in the per unit construction cost estimates identified in this section for all three proposals. Village Memo; SM:KHH:gbd 19305.001 /009 To: Subject a. b Bob Moncrief, City of Santa Monica December 29, 2005 Village RFP Responses: Financial Evaluation Page 11 The estimated costs for the Base Case, which has smaller units, total $591,000 per unit. The costs for the Alternative Case units are estimated at $730,000 per unit. 3. Average sales price: a. The average sales price is projected at $1,025 per square foot under the Base Case, or $879,000 per unit. b. The average sales price under the Alternative Case is projected at $1,075 per square foot, or $1.23 million. 4. Developer Return: a. The Bridge proposal states that the ownership component of the proposed Base Case does not meet the team's normal profit threshold. However, the team indicated that they would be willing to go forward with the Base Case as proposed. The resulting developer return under this scenario is estimated at 5.3%. b. The ownership component under the Alternative Scenario is projected to generate an 18.8% return; this return conforms to the team's typical threshold profit requirements. Castle & Cooke proposed to build large luxury condominium units. The resulting scope of development is dramatically different than the Related and Bridge proposals. The key features of the Castle & Cooke market rate ownership units are: 1. The project scope is limited to 93 units, and the average unit size is slightly more than 2,700 square feet of living area. 2. The construction costs, excluding land acquisition costs, are estimated at $1.6 million per unit. 3. The sales prices are projected to average $834 per square foot, which equates to $2.25 million per unit. 4. The threshold developer return is calculated at 15.3%. Village Memo; SM:KHH:gbd 19305.001 /009 To: Bob Moncrief, City of Santa Monica Subject: Village RFP Responses: Financial Evaluation Gross Land Payment Offers December 29, 2005 Page 12 Based on the pro formas submitted in the teams' proposals, the gross land payments being offered for the market rate ownership units are summarized in the following tables: Base Case Total # of Units Per Unit Related $36,575,000 133 $275,000 Bridge $33,311,000 125 $266,000 Alternative Case Total # of Units Per Unit Related $44,000,000 160 $275,000 Bridge $41, 352, 000 142 $291, 000 Castle & Cooke $25,308,000 93 $272,000 Net Land Payment Offers Each of the teams estimated the infrastructure costs at less than the $15 million allowance currently being applied by the City. While it is clear that the actual costs will be dependent on the scope of improvements ultimately required for the project, it is necessary to create a consistent comparison for the purpose of evaluating the RFP responses. To bring the teams infrastructure cost estimates up to the $15 million threshold, the gross compensation being offered by the teams must be reduced as follows: Related $11,619,000 Bridge Base Case: $3,309,000 Alternative Case: $3,374,000 Castle & Cooke $6,750,000 The gross land offers must also be reduced by the financial gap associated with the affordable housing component. Under the Related and Bridge proposals, the affordability gap is treated as a residual receipts loan that will be repaid to the Agency if the project generates sufficient cash flow. Comparatively, the Castle & Cooke proposal simply reduces the land payment offer by an amount equal to the affordability gap. No residual receipts loan is proposed. Village Memo; SM:KHH:gbd 19305.001 /009 To: Bob Moncrief, City of Santa Monica December 29, 2005 Subject: Village RFP Responses: Financial Evaluation Page 13 KMA estimated the teams' net land payment offers in the following tables: Base Case Related Bridge Gross Land Offer $36,575,000 $33,311,000 (Less) Affordable Housing Gap (10,566,000) (33,311,000) (Less) Infrastructure Adjustment (11,619,000) (3,309,000) Net Land Offer $14,390,000 ($3,309,000) Alternative Case Related Castle & Bridge Cooke $41, 352, 000 $25, 308, 000 (26,352,000) (15,308,000) (3,374,000) (6,750,000) Gross Land Offer $44,000,000 (Less) Affordable Housing Gap (10,556,000) (Less) Infrastructure Adjustment (11,619,000) Net Land Offer $21,815,000 $11,626,000 $3,250,000 CONCLUSIONS Based on the preceding evaluation, it is the KMA conclusion that the Related proposal represents the best financial proposal submitted in response to the RFP. This conclusion is based on the following factors: 1. The Related proposal provides the greatest number of units under both the Base and Alternative Cases. 2. The Related Base Case adheres to the height limit imposed by the CCSP, and the Alternative Case only increases the height of the market rate buildings by nine feet. The proposed height variation is materially less than the Alternative Cases proposed by the other two teams. 3. Related agreed to take possession of the entire site in the form of a long-term ground lease, while the other two teams required that the land under the market rate units be sold to the team. 4. Related offered the greatest net compensation for the site under both the Base and Alternative Case options. The estimated net compensation package under the Related proposal is $17 million greater under the Base Case, and $10.2 million greater under the Alternative Case. Village Memo; SM:KHH:gbd 19305.001 /009 APPENDIX A-1 RELATED/CCSM BASE CASE APARTMENT PRO FORMA APPENDIX A-1: BASE CASE: TABLE 1 ESTIMATED CONSTRTUCTION COSTS 118 VERY-LOW INCOME UNITS; 36 LOW INCOME UNITS; & 10 MEDIAN INCOME UNITS RELATED COMPANIES/CCSM: 9% TAX CREDIT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Direct Costs' Off-Site Improvements $1,324,000 On-Site Improvements 90,605 Sf Land $19 /Sf 1,691,000 Parking 274 Spaces $36,164 /Space 9,909,000 Residential Building Costs 141,300 Sf GBA $191 /Sf 26,934,000 Total Direct Costs 165 Units $241,560 /Unit $39,858,000 II. Indirect Costs Architecture, Eng & Consulting 5.3% Direct Cost $2,105,000 Public Permits & Fees 165 Units $6,503 /Unit 1,073,000 Taxes, Legal & Accounting 0.8% Direct Cost 315,000 Insurance 165 Units $0 /Unit 0 Marketing/Leasing 165 Units $910 /Unit 150,000 Developer Fee 165 Units $13,910 /Unit 2,295,000 Soft Cost Contingency 1.8% Ind + Fin Cost 150,000 Total Indirect Costs 165 Units $36,900 /Unit $6,088,000 III. Financinq Costs Interest During Construction 165 Units $6,950 /Unit 1,146,000 Loan Origination Fees 165 Units $3,720 /Unit 614,000 Capitalized Reserve 165 Units $1,540 /Unit 254,000 Tax Credit Costs 165 Units $1,180 /Unit 195,000 Total Financing Costs 165 Units $13,390 /Unit $2,209,000 IV. Total Construction Costs 165 Units $291,850 /Unit $48,155,000 ' Includes a 21% allowance for contractor overhead, supervision costs, profit and direct cost contingencies. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File Name: 12_O5_Village Pfs; Pf_Related_Apt_Dev_Base; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX A-1: BASE CASE: TABLE 2 STABILIZED NET OPERATING INCOME 118 VERY-LOW INCOME UNITS; 36 LOW INCOME UNITS; & 10 MEDIAN INCOME UNITS RELATED COMPANIES/CCSM: 9% TAX CREDIT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Income' Manager 1 Unit @ $0 /Month $0 VL Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 30% Median 2-Bdrms @ 800 Sf 11 Units @ $378 /Month 49,900 3-Bdrms @ 1,000 Sf 5 Units @ $432 /Month 25,900 VL Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 40% Median 2-Bdrms @ 800 Sf 16 Units @ $526 /Month 101,000 3-Bdrms @ 1,000 Sf 8 Units @ $302 /Month 29,000 VL Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 50% Median 2-Bdrms @ 800 Sf 53 Units @ $673 /Month 428,000 3-Bdrms @ 1,000 Sf 25 Units @ $772 /Month 231,600 Low Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 60% Median 2-Bdrms @ 800 Sf 25 Units @ $820 /Month 246,000 3-Bdrms @ 1,000 Sf 11 Units @ $942 /Month 124,300 Live Work (a~ 100% Median Live-Work @ 650 Sf 6 Units @ $1,228 /Month 88,400 Live-Work @ 900 Sf 4 Units @ $1,474 /Month 70,800 Laundry/Miscellaneous Income 165 Units @ $5.50 /Month 11,000 Gross Income $1,405,900 (Less) Vacancy and Collection 5.0% Gross Income (70,300) Effective Gross Income (EGI) $1,335,600 II. Operatinq Expenses General Operating Expenses 165 Units @ $3,770 /Unit $622,100 Property Taxes 165 Units @ $182 /Unit 30,000 Service Costs 165 Units @ $303 /Unit 50,000 Capital Reserve 165 Units @ $250 /Unit 41,300 Total Operating Expenses 165 Units @ ($4,510) /Unit ($743,400) III. Net Operating Income $592,200 1 Based on Los Angeles County 2005 incomes distributed by HUD/HCD. The rents are based on the rents published by TCAC. Utilities allowances: 2-Bdrm $64; & 3-Bdrm $79. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File Name: 12_O5_Village Pfs; Pf_Related_Apt_Dev_Base; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX A-1: BASE CASE: TABLE 3 FINANCIAL GAP CALCULATION 118 VERY-LOW INCOME UNITS; 36 LOW INCOME UNITS; & 10 MEDIAN INCOME UNITS RELATED COMPANIES/CCSM: 9% TAX CREDIT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Available Fundinq Sources A. Permanent Financing Net Operating Income $592,200 Debt Service Coverage 1.10 Interest Rate/Mortgage Constant 7.00% Interest Total Supportable Debt B. Net Tax Credit Proceeds' 165 Units @ C. Other Funding Sources 165 Units Total Available Funding Sources II. Financial Gap Total Available Funding Sources (Less) Total Construction Costs 7.98% Constant $6, 760, 000 $186,840 /Unit $30,829,000 $0 /Unit $0 $37, 589, 000 $37,589,000 (48,155, 000) Total Financial Gap 165 Units $64,000 /Unit ($10,566,000) ' Tax credit yield @$0.95/gross tax credit dollar. Tax credit factor @ 7.96%. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File Name: 12_O5_Village Pfs; Pf_Related_Apt_Dev_Base; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX A-2 RELATED/CCSM BASE CASE OWNERSHIP PRO FORMA APPENDIX A-2: BASE CASE:TABLE 1 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS 133 MARKET RATE UNITS + 16,211 SF RETAIL SPACE RELATED COMPANIES/CCSM: OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Direct Costs' Off-Site Improvements $1,690,000 On-Site Improvements 40,511 Sf Land $76 /Sf 3,097,000 Parking 320 Spaces $36,000 /Space 11,504,000 Residential Building Costs 172,500 Sf GLA $204 /Sf 35,142,000 Retail Building + Ten Imp Costs 16,211 Sf GLA $132 /Sf 2,137,000 Total Direct Costs $53,570,000 II. Indirect Costs Architecture, Eng & Consulting 6.6% Direct Costs $3,538,000 Public Permits & Fees 133 Units $15,241 /Unit 2,027,000 Taxes, Legal & Accounting 4.4% Direct Costs 2,356,000 Insurance 133 Units $17,203 /Unit 2,288,000 Marketing/Leasing 133 Units $22,857 /Unit 3,040,000 Developer Fee 1.9% Sales Revenue 2,894,000 Soft Cost Contingency 9.1% Ind + Fin Costs 3,126,000 Total Indirect Costs $19,269,000 III. Financinq/Closinq Costs Interest During Construction 6,661,000 Loan Origination Fees 1,310,000 Cost of Sales 4.7% Sales Revenue 6,954,000 Total Financing/Closing Costs $14,925,000 IV. Total Construction Cost 133 Units $659,900 /Unit $87,764,000 ' Includes a 20% allowance for contractor costs. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: 12_05_Village Pfs; Pf Related_Own_Base; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX A-2: BASE CASE:TABLE 2 SALES REVENUE PROJECTIONS 133 MARKET RATE UNITS + 16,211 SF RETAIL SPACE RELATED COMPANIES/CCSM: OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Residential Sales Revenue' 2-Bedroom - 1,200 sf 3-Bdrm - 1,500 sf Total Residential Sales Revenue II. Retail Sales Revenue Z $10,780,000 III. Total Sales Revenue $148,780,000 ' The average price equates to $800/sf of gross living area. Z Based on rent @$42/sf/year; a 5% vacancy & collection allowance; and a 6% capitalization rate. 90 Units $960,000 /Unit $86,400,000 43 Units $1,200,000 /Unit 51,600,000 133 Units $1,037,590 /Unit $138,000,000 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: 12_05_Village Pfs; Pf Related_Own_Base; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX A-2: BASE CASE:TABLE 3 SUPPORTABLE LAND VALUE CALCULATION 133 MARKET RATE UNITS + 16,211 SF RETAIL SPACE RELATED COMPANIES/CCSM: OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Total Sales Revenue See APPENDIX A-2: BASE CASE:TABLE 2 $148, 780, 000 Prolect Costs Construction Costs Threshold Developer Profit Total Project Costs See APPENDIX A-2: BASE CASE:TABLE 1 16.4% Sales Revenue $87, 764, 000 24,441,000 $112,205,000 III. Supportable Land Value 133 Units $275,000 /Sf $36,575,000 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: 12_05_Village Pfs; Pf Related_Own_Base; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX B-1 BRIDGE/BRE BASE CASE APARTMENT PRO FORMA APPENDIX B-1: BASE CASE: TABLE 1 ESTIMATED CONSTRTUCTION COSTS 82 VERY-LOW INCOME UNITS; & 76 LOW INCOME UNITS BRIDGE/BRE: 9% TAX CREDIT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Direct Costs' Off-Site Improvements $0 Direct Costs 146,851 Sf GBA $339 /Sf 49,778,000 Total Direct Costs 160 Units $311,110 /Unit $49,778,000 II. Indirect Costs Architecture, Eng & Consulting 7.4% Direct Cost $3,683,000 Public Permits & Fees 160 Units $17,125 /Unit 2,740,000 Taxes, Legal & Accounting 1.2% Direct Cost 580,000 Insurance 160 Units $2,730 /Unit 437,000 Marketing/Leasing 160 Units $1,750 /Unit 280,000 Developer Fee 160 Units $17,500 /Unit 2,800,000 Soft Cost Contingency 2.5% Ind + Fin Cost 400,000 Total Indirect Costs 160 Units $68,250 /Unit $10,920,000 III. Financinq Costs Interest During Construction 160 Units $27,470 /Unit 4,395,000 Loan Origination Fees 160 Units $2,610 /Unit 417,000 Capitalized Reserve 160 Units $1,100 /Unit 176,000 Tax Credit Costs 160 Units $1,320 /Unit 211,000 Total Financing Costs 160 Units $32,490 /Unit $5,199,000 IV. Total Construction Costs 160 Units $411,860 /Unit $65,897,000 ' Includes an 8% allowance for contractor overhead, supervision costs, profit and direct cost contingencies. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File Name: 12_O5_Village Pfs; Pf_Bridge_Apt_Dev_Base; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX B-1: BASE CASE: TABLE 2 STABILIZED NET OPERATING INCOME 82 VERY-LOW INCOME UNITS; & 76 LOW INCOME UNITS BRIDGE/BRE: 9% TAX CREDIT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Income' Manager 2 Units @ $1,702 /Month $40,800 VL Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 30% Median 1-Bdrm @ 620 Sf 5 Units @ $332 /Month 19,900 2-Bdrms @ 850 Sf 6 Units @ $391 /Month 28,200 3-Bdrms @ 1,231 Sf 4 Units @ $447 /Month 21,500 4-Bdrms @ 1,300 Sf 1 Unit @ $469 /Month 5,600 VL Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 35% Median 1-Bdrm @ 620 Sf 5 Units @ $394 /Month 23,600 2-Bdrms @ 850 Sf 6 Units @ $465 /Month 33,500 3-Bdrms @ 1,231 Sf 4 Units @ $532 /Month 25,500 4-Bdrms @ 1,300 Sf 2 Units @ $564 /Month 13,500 VL Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 40% Median 1-Bdrm @ 620 Sf 5 Units @ $455 /Month 27,300 2-Bdrms @ 850 Sf 6 Units @ $539 /Month 38,800 3-Bdrms @ 1,231 Sf 4 Units @ $617 /Month 29,600 4-Bdrms @ 1,300 Sf 2 Units @ $659 /Month 15,800 VL Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 45% Median 1-Bdrm @ 620 Sf 5 Units @ $517 /Month 31,000 2-Bdrms @ 850 Sf 6 Units @ $612 /Month 44,100 3-Bdrms @ 1,231 Sf 4 Units @ $702 /Month 33,700 4-Bdrms @ 1,300 Sf 2 Units @ $754 /Month 18,100 VL Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 50% Median 1-Bdrm @ 620 Sf 5 Units @ $578 /Month 34,700 2-Bdrms @ 850 Sf 6 Units @ $686 /Month 49,400 3-Bdrms @ 1,231 Sf 4 Units @ $787 /Month 37,800 Low Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 60% Median 1-Bdrm @ 620 Sf 26 Units @ $701 /Month 218,700 2-Bdrms @ 850 Sf 21 Units @ $833 /Month 209,900 3-Bdrms @ 1,231 Sf 19 Units @ $957 /Month 218,200 Live Work (a~ 60% Median Live-Work @ 1,231 Sf 10 Units @ $957 /Month 114,800 Laundry/Miscellaneous Income 160 Units @ $9.00 /Month 17,000 Retail Income 3,500 Sf @ $24.00 /Sf/Yr 84,000 Gross Income $1,435,000 (Less) Vacancy and Collection 5.7% Gross Income (82,310 Effective Gross Income (EGI) $1, 352,690 Operatinq Expenses General Operating Expenses 160 Units @ $4,400 /Unit $704,000 Property Taxes 160 Units @ $0 /Unit 0 Service Costs 160 Units @ $0 /Unit 0 Capital Reserve 160 Units @ $364 /Unit 58,300 Total Operating Expenses 160 Units @ ($4,760) /Unit ($762,300) Net Operating Income $590,390 1 Based on Los Angeles County 2005 incomes distributed by HUD/HCD. The rents are based on the rents published by TCAC. Utilities allowances: 1-Bdrm $36; 2-Bdrm $51; 3-Bdrm $64; & 4-bdrm $101. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File Name: 12_O5_Village Pfs; Pf_Bridge_Apt_Dev_Base; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX B-1: BASE CASE: TABLE 3 FINANCIAL GAP CALCULATION 82 VERY-LOW INCOME UNITS; & 76 LOW INCOME UNITS BRIDGE/BRE: 9% TAX CREDIT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Available Fundinq Sources A. Permanent Financing Net Operating Income Debt Service Coverage Interest Rate/Mortgage Constant Total Supportable Debt B. Net Tax Credit Proceeds' C. Other Funding Sources Total Available Funding Sources II. Financial Gap Total Available Funding Sources (Less) Total Construction Costs $590,400 1.41 7.50% Interest 160 Units @ 160 Units 8.39% Constant $4, 994, 000 $171,510 /Unit $938 /Unit $27,442,000 $150,000 $32, 586, 000 $32,586,000 (65, 897, 000) Total Financial Gap 160 Units $208,200 /Unit ($33,311,000) ' Tax credit yield @$0.95/gross tax credit dollar. Tax credit factor @ 8.00%. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File Name: 12_O5_Village Pfs; Pf_Bridge_Apt_Dev_Base; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX B-2 BRIDGE/BRE BASE CASE OWNERSHIP PRO FORMA APPENDIX B-2: BASE CASE:TABLE 1 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS 125 MARKET RATE UNITS + 8,000 SF RETAIL SPACE BRIDGE/BRE: OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Direct Costs' Off-Site Improvements $11,691,000 On-Site Improvements 56,192 Sf Land $244 /Sf 13,686,000 Bldg + Parking Costs 107,250 Sf GLA $272 /Sf 29,124,000 Total Direct Costs $54,501,000 II. Indirect Costs Architecture, Eng & Consulting 2.0% Direct Costs $1,063,000 Public Permits & Fees 125 Units $16,000 /Unit 2,000,000 Taxes, Legal & Accounting 1.3% Direct Costs 735,000 Insurance 125 Units $18,800 /Unit 2,350,000 Marketing/Leasing 125 Units $18,192 /Unit 2,274,000 Developer Fee 3.1% Sales Revenue 3,524,000 Soft Cost Contingency 2.4% Ind + Fin Costs 456,000 Total Indirect Costs $12,402,000 III. Financinq/Closinq Costs Interest During Construction 3,980,000 Loan Origination Fees 0 Cost of Sales 2.6% Sales Revenue 2,943,000 Total Financing/Closing Costs $6,923,000 IV. Total Construction Cost 125 Units $590,600 /Unit $73,826,000 ' Includes a 16% allowance for contractor costs. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: 12_05_Village Pfs; Pf Bridge_Own_Base; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX B-2: BASE CASE:TABLE 2 SALES REVENUE PROJECTIONS 125 MARKET RATE UNITS + 8,000 SF RETAIL SPACE BRIDGE/BRE: OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Residential Sales Revenue' Studio - 550 sf 1-Bdrm - 750 sf 2-Bdrm - 1,050 sf 2-Bd rm - 1,100 sf Total Residential Sales Revenue II. Retail Sales Revenue Z $3,240,000 III. Total Sales Revenue $113,171,000 ' The average price equates to $1,025/sf of gross living area. Z Based on rent @$36/sf/year; a 10% vacancy & collection allowance; and an 8% capitalization rate. 15 Units $563,750 /Unit $8,456,000 56 Units $768,750 /Unit 43,050,000 48 Units $1,076,250 /Unit 51,660,000 6 Units $1,127,500 /Unit 6,765,000 125 Units $879,450 /Unit $109,931,000 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: 12_05_Village Pfs; Pf Bridge_Own_Base; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX B-2: BASE CASE:TABLE 3 SUPPORTABLE LAND VALUE CALCULATION 125 MARKET RATE UNITS + 8,000 SF RETAIL SPACE BRIDGE/BRE: OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Total Sales Revenue See APPENDIX B-2: BASE CASE:TABLE 2 $113,171, 000 Prolect Costs Construction Costs Threshold Developer Profit Total Project Costs See APPENDIX B-2: BASE CASE:TABLE 1 5.3% Sales Revenue $73, 826, 000 6,034,000 $79, 860, 000 III. Supportable Land Value 125 Units $266,488 /Unit $33,311,000 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: 12_05_Village Pfs; Pf Bridge_Own_Base; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX C-1 RELATED/CCSM ALTERNATIVE CASE APARTMENT PRO FORMA APPENDIX C-1: ALTERNATIVE CASE: TABLE 1 ESTIMATED CONSTRTUCTION COSTS 118 VERY-LOW INCOME UNITS; 36 LOW INCOME UNITS; & 10 MEDIAN INCOME UNITS RELATED COMPANIES/CCSM: 9% TAX CREDIT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Direct Costs' Off-Site Improvements $1,324,000 On-Site Improvements 90,605 Sf Land $19 /Sf 1,691,000 Parking 274 Spaces $36,164 /Space 9,909,000 Residential Building Costs 141,300 Sf GBA $191 /Sf 26,934,000 Total Direct Costs 165 Units $241,560 /Unit $39,858,000 II. Indirect Costs Architecture, Eng & Consulting 5.3% Direct Cost $2,105,000 Public Permits & Fees 165 Units $6,503 /Unit 1,073,000 Taxes, Legal & Accounting 0.8% Direct Cost 315,000 Insurance 165 Units $0 /Unit 0 Marketing/Leasing 165 Units $910 /Unit 150,000 Developer Fee 165 Units $13,910 /Unit 2,295,000 Soft Cost Contingency 1.8% Ind + Fin Cost 150,000 Total Indirect Costs 165 Units $36,900 /Unit $6,088,000 III. Financinq Costs Interest During Construction 165 Units $6,950 /Unit 1,146,000 Loan Origination Fees 165 Units $3,720 /Unit 614,000 Capitalized Reserve 165 Units $1,540 /Unit 254,000 Tax Credit Costs 165 Units $1,180 /Unit 195,000 Total Financing Costs 165 Units $13,390 /Unit $2,209,000 IV. Total Construction Costs 165 Units $291,850 /Unit $48,155,000 ' Includes a 21% allowance for contractor overhead, supervision costs, profit and direct cost contingencies. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File Name: 12_O5_Village Pfs; Pf_Related_Apt_Dev_Alt; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX C-1: ALTERNATIVE CASE: TABLE 2 STABILIZED NET OPERATING INCOME 118 VERY-LOW INCOME UNITS; 36 LOW INCOME UNITS; & 10 MEDIAN INCOME UNITS RELATED COMPANIES/CCSM: 9% TAX CREDIT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Income' Manager 1 Unit @ $0 /Month $0 VL Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 30% Median 2-Bdrms @ 800 Sf 11 Units @ $378 /Month 49,900 3-Bdrms @ 1,000 Sf 5 Units @ $432 /Month 25,900 VL Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 40% Median 2-Bdrms @ 800 Sf 16 Units @ $526 /Month 101,000 3-Bdrms @ 1,000 Sf 8 Units @ $302 /Month 29,000 VL Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 50% Median 2-Bdrms @ 800 Sf 53 Units @ $673 /Month 428,000 3-Bdrms @ 1,000 Sf 25 Units @ $772 /Month 231,600 Low Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 60% Median 2-Bdrms @ 800 Sf 25 Units @ $820 /Month 246,000 3-Bdrms @ 1,000 Sf 11 Units @ $942 /Month 124,300 Live Work (a~ 100% Median Live-Work @ 650 Sf 6 Units @ $1,228 /Month 88,400 Live-Work @ 900 Sf 4 Units @ $1,474 /Month 70,800 Laundry/Miscellaneous Income 165 Units @ $5.50 /Month 11,000 Gross Income $1,405,900 (Less) Vacancy and Collection 5.0% Gross Income (70,300) Effective Gross Income (EGI) $1,335,600 II. Operatinq Expenses General Operating Expenses 165 Units @ $3,770 /Unit $622,100 Property Taxes 165 Units @ $182 /Unit 30,000 Service Costs 165 Units @ $303 /Unit 50,000 Capital Reserve 165 Units @ $250 /Unit 41,300 Total Operating Expenses 165 Units @ ($4,510) /Unit ($743,400) III. Net Operating Income $592,200 1 Based on Los Angeles County 2005 incomes distributed by HUD/HCD. The rents are based on the rents published by TCAC. Utilities allowances: 2-Bdrm $64; & 3-Bdrm $79. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File Name: 12_O5_Village Pfs; Pf_Related_Apt_Dev_Alt; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX C-1: ALTERNATIVE CASE: TABLE 3 FINANCIAL GAP CALCULATION 118 VERY-LOW INCOME UNITS; 36 LOW INCOME UNITS; & 10 MEDIAN INCOME UNITS RELATED COMPANIES/CCSM: 9% TAX CREDIT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Available Fundinq Sources A. Permanent Financing Net Operating Income $592,200 Debt Service Coverage 1.10 Interest Rate/Mortgage Constant 7.00% Interest Total Supportable Debt B. Net Tax Credit Proceeds' 165 Units @ C. Other Funding Sources 165 Units Total Available Funding Sources II. Financial Gap Total Available Funding Sources (Less) Total Construction Costs 7.98% Constant $6, 760, 000 $186,840 /Unit $30,829,000 $0 /Unit $0 $37, 589, 000 $37,589,000 (48,155, 000) Total Financial Gap 165 Units $64,000 /Unit ($10,566,000) ' Tax credit yield @$0.95/gross tax credit dollar. Tax credit factor @ 7.96%. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File Name: 12_O5_Village Pfs; Pf_Related_Apt_Dev_Alt; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX C-2 RELATED/CCSM ALTERNATIVE CASE OWNERSHIP PRO FORMA APPENDIX C-2: ALTERNATIVE CASE:TABLE 1 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS 160 MARKET RATE UNITS + 16,211 SF RETAIL SPACE RELATED COMPANIES/CCSM: OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Direct Costs' Off-Site Improvements $1,690,000 On-Site Improvements 40,511 Sf Land $76 /Sf 3,097,000 Parking 374 Spaces $36,000 /Space 13,446,000 Residential Building Costs 208,200 Sf GLA $204 /Sf 42,415,000 Retail Building + Ten Imp Costs 16,211 Sf GLA $132 /Sf 2,137,000 Total Direct Costs $62,785,000 II. Indirect Costs Architecture, Eng & Consulting 6.6% Direct Costs $4,160,000 Public Permits & Fees 160 Units $15,113 /Unit 2,418,000 Taxes, Legal & Accounting 4.3% Direct Costs 2,707,000 Insurance 160 Units $17,000 /Unit 2,720,000 Marketing/Leasing 160 Units $21,519 /Unit 3,443,000 Developer Fee 1.9% Sales Revenue 3,395,000 Soft Cost Contingency 9.2% Ind + Fin Costs 3,733,000 Total Indirect Costs $22,576,000 III. Financinq/Closinq Costs Interest During Construction 8,002,000 Loan Origination Fees 1,507,000 Cost of Sales 4.7% Sales Revenue 8,382,000 Total Financing/Closing Costs $17,891,000 IV. Total Construction Cost 160 Units $645,300 /Unit $103,252,000 ' Includes a 20% allowance for contractor costs. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: 12_05_Village Pfs; Pf Related_Own_Alt; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX C-2: ALTERNATIVE CASE:TABLE 2 SALES REVENUE PROJECTIONS 160 MARKET RATE UNITS + 16,211 SF RETAIL SPACE RELATED COMPANIES/CCSM: OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Residential Sales Revenue' 2-Bedroom - 1,200 sf 3-Bdrm - 1,500 sf Total Residential Sales Revenue II. Retail Sales Revenue Z $10,780,000 III. Total Sales Revenue $177,340,000 ' The average price equates to $800/sf of gross living area. Z Based on rent @$42/sf/year; a 5% vacancy & collection allowance; and a 6% capitalization rate. 106 Units $960,000 /Unit $101,760,000 54 Units $1,200,000 /Unit 64,800,000 160 Units $1,041,000 /Unit $166,560,000 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: 12_05_Village Pfs; Pf Related_Own_Alt; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX C-2: ALTERNATIVE CASE:TABLE 3 SUPPORTABLE LAND VALUE CALCULATION 160 MARKET RATE UNITS + 16,211 SF RETAIL SPACE RELATED COMPANIES/CCSM: OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Total Sales Revenue >ee APPENDIX C-2: ALTERNATIVE CASE:TABLE $177, 340, 000 Prolect Costs Construction Costs Threshold Developer Profit Total Project Costs $133, 340, 000 III. Supportable Land Value 160 Units $275,000 /Sf $44,000,000 >ee APPENDIX C-2: ALTERNATIVE CASE:TABLE $103,252,000 17.0% Sales Revenue 30,088,000 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: 12_05_Village Pfs; Pf Related_Own_Alt; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX D-1 BRIDGE/BRE ALTERNATIVE CASE APARTMENT PRO FORMA APPENDIX D-1: ALTERNATIVE CASE: TABLE 1 ESTIMATED CONSTRTUCTION COSTS 76 VERY-LOW INCOME UNITS; & 82 LOW INCOME UNITS BRIDGE/BRE: 9% TAX CREDIT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Direct Costs' Off-Site Improvements $0 Direct Costs 153,661 Sf GBA $312 /Sf 47,897,000 Total Direct Costs 160 Units $299,360 /Unit $47,897,000 II. Indirect Costs Architecture, Eng & Consulting 7.4% Direct Cost $3,563,000 Public Permits & Fees 160 Units $17,125 /Unit 2,740,000 Taxes, Legal & Accounting 1.2% Direct Cost 580,000 Insurance 160 Units $2,630 /Unit 421,000 Marketing/Leasing 160 Units $1,750 /Unit 280,000 Developer Fee 160 Units $17,500 /Unit 2,800,000 Soft Cost Contingency 2.5% Ind + Fin Cost 400,000 Total Indirect Costs 160 Units $67,400 /Unit $10,784,000 III. Financinq Costs Interest During Construction 160 Units $26,440 /Unit 4,230,000 Loan Origination Fees 160 Units $2,560 /Unit 410,000 Capitalized Reserve 160 Units $1,100 /Unit 176,000 Tax Credit Costs 160 Units $910 /Unit 146,000 Total Financing Costs 160 Units $31,010 /Unit $4,962,000 IV. Total Construction Costs 160 Units $397,770 /Unit $63,643,000 ' Includes an 8% allowance for contractor overhead, supervision costs, profit and direct cost contingencies. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File Name: 12_O5_Village Pfs; Pf_Bridge_Apt_Dev_Alt; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX D-1: ALTERNATIVE CASE: TABLE 2 STABILIZED NET OPERATING INCOME 76 VERY-LOW INCOME UNITS; & 82 LOW INCOME UNITS BRIDGE/BRE: 9% TAX CREDIT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Income' Manager 2 Units @ $1,702 /Month $40,800 VL Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 30% Median 1-Bdrm @ 620 Sf 3 Units @ $332 /Month 12,000 2-Bdrms @ 850 Sf 6 Units @ $391 /Month 28,200 3-Bdrms @ 1,231 Sf 5 Units @ $447 /Month 26,800 4-Bdrms @ 1,300 Sf 0 Units @ $469 /Month 0 VL Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 35% Median 1-Bdrm @ 620 Sf 3 Units @ $394 /Month 14,200 2-Bdrms @ 850 Sf 6 Units @ $465 /Month 33,500 3-Bdrms @ 1,231 Sf 5 Units @ $532 /Month 31,900 4-Bdrms @ 1,300 Sf 2 Units @ $564 /Month 13,500 VL Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 40% Median 1-Bdrm @ 620 Sf 3 Units @ $455 /Month 16,400 2-Bdrms @ 850 Sf 6 Units @ $539 /Month 38,800 3-Bdrms @ 1,231 Sf 5 Units @ $617 /Month 37,000 4-Bdrms @ 1,300 Sf 2 Units @ $659 /Month 15,800 VL Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 45% Median 1-Bdrm @ 620 Sf 3 Units @ $517 /Month 18,600 2-Bdrms @ 850 Sf 6 Units @ $612 /Month 44,100 3-Bdrms @ 1,231 Sf 5 Units @ $702 /Month 42,100 4-Bdrms @ 1,300 Sf 2 Units @ $754 /Month 18,100 VL Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 50% Median 1-Bdrm @ 620 Sf 3 Units @ $578 /Month 20,800 2-Bdrms @ 850 Sf 6 Units @ $686 /Month 49,400 3-Bdrms @ 1,231 Sf 5 Units @ $787 /Month 47,200 Low Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 60% Median 1-Bdrm @ 620 Sf 21 Units @ $701 /Month 176,700 2-Bdrms @ 850 Sf 27 Units @ $833 /Month 269,900 3-Bdrms @ 1,231 Sf 24 Units @ $957 /Month 275,600 Live Work (a~ 60% Median Live-Work @ 1,231 Sf 10 Units @ $957 /Month 114,800 Laundry/Miscellaneous Income 160 Units @ $9.00 /Month 17,000 Retail Income 3,000 Sf @ $24.00 /Sf/Yr 72,000 Gross Income $1,475,200 (Less) Vacancy and Collection 5.6% Gross Income (82,520 Effective Gross Income (EGI) $1, 392,680 Operatinq Expenses General Operating Expenses 160 Units @ $4,400 /Unit $704,000 Property Taxes 160 Units @ $0 /Unit 0 Service Costs 160 Units @ $0 /Unit 0 Capital Reserve 160 Units @ $364 /Unit 58,300 Total Operating Expenses 160 Units @ ($4,760) /Unit ($762,300) Net Operating Income $630,380 1 Based on Los Angeles County 2005 incomes distributed by HUD/HCD. The rents are based on the rents published by TCAC. Utilities allowances: 1-Bdrm $36; 2-Bdrm $51; 3-Bdrm $64; & 4-bdrm $101. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File Name: 12_O5_Village Pfs; Pf_Bridge_Apt_Dev_Alt; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX D-1: ALTERNATIVE CASE: TABLE 3 FINANCIAL GAP CALCULATION 76 VERY-LOW INCOME UNITS; & 82 LOW INCOME UNITS BRIDGE/BRE: 9% TAX CREDIT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Available Fundinq Sources A. Permanent Financing Net Operating Income Debt Service Coverage Interest Rate/Mortgage Constant Total Supportable Debt B. Net Tax Credit Proceeds' C. Other Funding Sources Total Available Funding Sources II. Financial Gap Total Available Funding Sources (Less) Total Construction Costs $630,400 1.27 7.50% Interest 160 Units @ 160 Units 8.39% Constant $5, 900, 000 $195,040 /Unit $1,156 /Unit $31,206,000 $185,000 $37,291, 000 $37,291,000 (63,643,000) Total Financial Gap 160 Units $164,700 /Unit ($26,352,000) ' Tax credit yield @$0.95/gross tax credit dollar. Tax credit factor @ 8.00%. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File Name: 12_O5_Village Pfs; Pf_Bridge_Apt_Dev_Alt; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX D-2 BRIDGE/BRE ALTERNATIVE CASE OWNERSHIP PRO FORMA APPENDIX D-2: ALTERNATIVE CASE:TABLE 1 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS 142 MARKET RATE UNITS + 8,000 SF RETAIL SPACE BRIDGE/BRE: OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Direct Costs' Off-Site Improvements $11,626,000 On-Site Improvements 40,511 Sf Land $336 /Sf 13,610,000 Bldg + Parking Costs 163,100 Sf GLA $323 /Sf 52,661,000 Total Direct Costs $77,897,000 II. Indirect Costs Architecture, Eng & Consulting 1.5% Direct Costs $1,207,000 Public Permits & Fees 142 Units $16,000 /Unit 2,272,000 Taxes, Legal & Accounting 1.5% Direct Costs 1,198,000 Insurance 142 Units $16,549 /Unit 2,350,000 Marketing/Leasing 142 Units $23,521 /Unit 3,340,000 Developer Fee 2.6% Sales Revenue 4,589,000 Soft Cost Contingency 2.3% Ind + Fin Costs 583,000 Total Indirect Costs $15,539,000 III. Financinq/Closinq Costs Interest During Construction 5,639,000 Loan Origination Fees 0 Cost of Sales 2.6% Sales Revenue 4,578,000 Total Financing/Closing Costs $10,217,000 IV. Total Construction Cost 142 Units $730,000 /Unit $103,653,000 ' Includes a 15% allowance for contractor costs. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: 12_05_Village Pfs; Pf Bridge_Own_Alt; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX D-2: ALTERNATIVE CASE:TABLE 2 SALES REVENUE PROJECTIONS 142 MARKET RATE UNITS + 8,000 SF RETAIL SPACE BRIDGE/BRE: OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Residential Sales Revenue' 1-Bdrm Mid-Rise- 925 sf 1-Bdrm Tower- 950 sf 2-Bdrm Mid-Rise- 1,305 sf 2-Bdrm Tower- 1,415 sf Total Residential Sales Revenue II. Retail Sales Revenue Z $3,240,000 III. Total Sales Revenue $178,573,000 ' The average price equates to $1,075/sf of gross living area. Z Based on rent @$36/sf/year; a 10% vacancy & collection allowance; and an 8% capitalization rate. 42 Units $994,375 /Unit $41,764,000 30 Units $1,021,250 /Unit 30,638,000 30 Units $1,402,875 /Unit 42,086,000 40 Units $1,521,125 /Unit 60,845,000 142 Units $1,234,740 /Unit $175,333,000 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: 12_05_Village Pfs; Pf Bridge_Own_Alt; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX D-2: ALTERNATIVE CASE:TABLE 3 SUPPORTABLE LAND VALUE CALCULATION 142 MARKET RATE UNITS + 8,000 SF RETAIL SPACE BRIDGE/BRE: OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Total Sales Revenue >ee APPENDIX D-2: ALTERNATIVE CASE:TABLE $178, 573, 000 Prolect Costs Construction Costs Threshold Developer Profit Total Project Costs $137,221, 000 III. Supportable Land Value 142 Units $291,211 /Unit $41,352,000 >ee APPENDIX D-2: ALTERNATIVE CASE:TABLE $103,653,000 18.8% Sales Revenue 33,568,000 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: 12_05_Village Pfs; Pf Bridge_Own_Alt; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX E-1 CASTLE & COOKE ALTERNATIVE CASE APARTMENT PRO FORMA APPENDIX E-1: ALTERNATIVE CASE: TABLE 1 ESTIMATED CONSTRTUCTION COSTS 17 VERY-LOW INCOME UNITS; & 143 LOW INCOME UNITS CASTLE & COOKE: 4% TAX CREDIT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Direct Costs' Off-Site Improvements $0 On-Site Improvements 90,605 Sf Land $19 /Sf 1,707,000 Direct Costs 142,075 Sf GBA $235 /Sf 33,403,000 Total Direct Costs 160 Units $219,440 /Unit $35,110,000 II. Indirect Costs Architecture, Eng & Consulting 4.6% Direct Cost $1,600,000 Public Permits & Fees 160 Units $8,000 /Unit 1,280,000 Taxes, Legal & Accounting 2.3% Direct Cost 823,000 Insurance 160 Units $0 /Unit 0 Marketing/Leasing 160 Units $1,440 /Unit 231,000 Developer Fee 160 Units $15,630 /Unit 2,500,000 Soft Cost Contingency 0.0% Ind + Fin Cost 0 Total Indirect Costs 160 Units $40,210 /Unit $6,434,000 III. Financinq Costs Interest During Construction 160 Units $12,940 /Unit 2,071,000 Loan Origination Fees 160 Units $2,460 /Unit 394,000 Capitalized Reserve 160 Units $0 /Unit 0 Tax Credit Costs 160 Units $540 /Unit 86,000 Total Financing Costs 160 Units $15,940 /Unit $2,551,000 IV. Total Construction Costs 160 Units $275,590 /Unit $44,095,000 ' Includes an 10% allowance for contractor overhead, supervision costs, profit and direct cost contingencies. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File Name: 12_O5_Village Pfs; Pf_Castle_Apt_Dev_Alt; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX E-1: ALTERNATIVE CASE: TABLE 2 STABILIZED NET OPERATING INCOME 17 VERY-LOW INCOME UNITS; & 143 LOW INCOME UNITS CASTLE & COOKE: 4% TAX CREDIT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Inrnmc ~ VL Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 50% Median 1-Bdrm @ 575 Sf 2-Bdrms @ 825 Sf 3-Bd rms @ 1,100 Sf 4-Bdrms @ 1,450 Sf Low Inc Redev, & TC (a~ 60% Median 1-Bdrm @ 575 Sf 2-Bdrms @ 825 Sf 3-Bd rms @ 1,100 Sf 4-Bdrms @ 1,450 Sf Live Work (a~ 60% Median Live-Work @ 0 Sf Laundry/Miscellaneous Income Gross Income (Less) Vacancy and Collection Effective Gross Income (EGI) 4 Units @ $553 /Month 26,500 7 Units @ $660 /Month 55,400 5 Units @ $756 /Month 45,400 1 Unit @ $829 /Month 9,900 31 Units @ $676 /Month 251,500 61 Units @ $808 /Month 591,500 43 Units @ $926 /Month 477,800 8 Units @ $1,019 /Month 97,800 0 Units @ $0 /Month 0 160 Units @ $12.50 /Month 24,000 $1, 579, 800 5.0% Gross Income (79,000) $1, 500, 800 Operatinq Expenses General Operating Expenses 160 Units @ $3,360 /Unit $537,600 Property Taxes 160 Units @ $0 /Unit 0 Service Costs 160 Units @ $0 /Unit 0 Capital Reserve 160 Units @ $250 /Unit 40,000 Total Operating Expenses 160 Units @ ($3,610) /Unit ($577,600) Net Operating Income $923,200 1 Based on Los Angeles County 2005 incomes distributed by HUD/HCD. The rents are based on the rents published by TCAC. Utilities allowances: 1-Bdrm $61; 2-Bdrm $77; 3-Bdrm $95; & 4-bdrm $121. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File Name: 12_O5_Village Pfs; Pf_Castle_Apt_Dev_Alt; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX E-1: ALTERNATIVE CASE: TABLE 3 FINANCIAL GAP CALCULATION 17 VERY-LOW INCOME UNITS; & 143 LOW INCOME UNITS CASTLE & COOKE: 4% TAX CREDIT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Available Fundinq Sources A. Permanent Financing Net Operating Income $923,200 Debt Service Coverage 1.15 Interest Rate/Mortgage Constant 5.75% Interest Total Supportable Debt B. Net Tax Credit Proceeds' 160 Units @ C. Other Funding Sources 160 Units Total Available Funding Sources II. Financial Gap Total Available Funding Sources (Less) Total Construction Costs 7.00% Constant $11,483, 000 $108,150 /Unit $17,304,000 $0 /Unit $0 $28, 787, 000 $28,787,000 (44, 095, 000) Total Financial Gap 160 Units $95,700 /Unit ($15,308,000) ' Tax credit yield @$0.00/gross tax credit dollar. Tax credit factor @ 0.00%. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File Name: 12_O5_Village Pfs; Pf_Castle_Apt_Dev_Alt; 12/23/2005 APPENDIX E-2 CASTLE & COOKE ALTERNATIVE CASE OWNERSHIP PRO FORMA APPENDIX E-2: ALTERNATIVE CASE:TABLE 1 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS 93 MARKET RATE UNITS + 0 SF RETAIL SPACE CASTLE & COOKE: OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Direct Costs' Off-Site Improvements $8,250,000 Direct Costs 251,500 Sf GLA $385 /Sf 96,872,000 Total Direct Costs II. Indirect Costs Architecture, Eng & Consulting Public Permits & Fees Taxes, Legal & Accounting Insurance Marketing/Leasing Developer Fee Soft Cost Contingency Total Indirect Costs III. Financinq/Closinq Costs Interest During Construction Loan Origination Fees Cost of Sales Total Financing/Closing Costs $105,122, 000 9.9% Direct Costs $10,406,000 93 Units $0 /Unit 0 7.9% Direct Costs 8,317,000 93 Units $15,000 /Unit 1,395,000 93 Units $0 /Unit 0 3.0% Sales Revenue 6,291,000 0.0% Ind + Fin Costs 0 $26,409,000 5.5% Sales Revenue 9,132,000 0 11,571,000 $20, 703, 000 IV. Total Construction Cost 93 Units $1,636,900 /Unit $152,234,000 ' Includes a 0% allowance for contractor costs. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: 12_05_Village Pfs; Pf Castle_Own_Alt; 12/26/2005 APPENDIX E-2: ALTERNATIVE CASE:TABLE 2 SALES REVENUE PROJECTIONS 93 MARKET RATE UNITS + 0 SF RETAIL SPACE CASTLE & COOKE: OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Residential Sales Revenue' Unit#1- 1,900 sf 43 Units $1,520,000 /Unit $65,360,000 Unit #2- 3,396 sf 50 Units $2,886,600 /Unit 144,330,000 Total Residential Sales Revenue 93 Units $2,254,730 /Unit $209,690,000 ' The average price equates to $0/sf of gross living area. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: 12_05_Village Pfs; Pf Castle_Own_Alt; 12/26/2005 APPENDIX E-2: ALTERNATIVE CASE:TABLE 3 SUPPORTABLE LAND VALUE CALCULATION 93 MARKET RATE UNITS + 0 SF RETAIL SPACE CASTLE & COOKE: OWNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT THE VILLAGE SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA I. Total Sales Revenue ~ee APPENDIX E-2: ALTERNATIVE CASE:TABLE $209,690,000 II. Prolect Costs Construction Costs Threshold Developer Profit Total Project Costs $184, 382, 000 III. Supportable Land Value 93 Units $272,129 /Unit $25,308,000 ~ee APPENDIX E-2: ALTERNATIVE CASE:TABLE $152,234,000 15.3% Sales Revenue 32,148,000 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: 12_05_Village Pfs; Pf Castle_Own_Alt; 12/26/2005 Attachment D MEMORANDUM To: Bob Moncrief, Housing Manager City of Santa Monica From: Peter Waller, Principal Date: December 27, 2005 Subject: The Village at Civic Center Relative Density of Alternate Schemes At the request of the City of Santa Monica, acting as architecUplanner advisor, Pyatok has reviewed the submissions by the three finalists for the Village at Civic Center development and has prepared the following report addressing the density and maximum height of the Alternate Schemes, as summarized below. In essence, this memo summarizes why the Related Companies alternate scheme can achieve 325 units, while the other two finalists could not achieve the same number of units. The Related Companies 325 units with a maximum height of 65 feet Bridge Housing 302 units with a ma~mum height of 120 feet Castle & Cooke 253 units with a maximum height of 120 feet From this basic comparison the question arises how The Related Companies managed to achieve a higher density while maintaining a lower overall height. Information Provided Consistent with the requirements of the Request for Proposal the design concepts for all three teams are diagrammatic in character. Moreover, the level of information provided varies significantly. The Related Companies provided ground level plans with at-grade spot elevations, typical upper level plans, and a number of site sections. The Bridge scheme provided some ground level plans and some sectional studies, but no upper floor level plans. The Castle & Cooke scheme provided only a conceptual site plan with no sectional information or upper floor plans. This lack of consistent information makes it difficult to prepare a detailed comparison of how each design achieved the number and distribution of units indicated. However, from the information provided it is possible to draw the following general conclusions. Maximum Height vs. Bulk While both Bridge and Castle & Cooke proposed taller structures on Site C, both schemes maintained the maximum 56 foot height limit on Sites A& B. By comparison, The Related Companies proposed structures of 65 feet in height on portions of Site B as well as on Site C, thereby spreading the total building bulk over a wider area. The overall building bulk of the schemes is probably more comparable then suggested by the disparity in maximum height. Pvatok Architects, Inc. 1611 Teleg,rabh Ave Suite 200, Oakland CA 94612 510-465-7010 FaY 510-465-8575 Attachment D Parking Strategies The Related scheme indicated three levels of parking below grade at Sites A, B& C which allows the street level to be devoted entirely to residential units and other uses. The Bridge scheme indicated only two levels of parking below grade at Sites A& B. On Site C, the Bridge scheme included three levels of parking below grade, but also dedicated approximately one-half of the street level to parking, thereby reducing the area available for residential units or other uses. The Castle & Cooke scheme did not provide enough information to allow a comparison of parking strategies. Taking advantage of the existing slope of Site On Site A, the Related scheme took advantage of the prevailing slope to create a pedestrian street at an elevation of 44 feet above sea level, significantly lower than the adjacent elevation at Olympic Drive of 58 feet above sea level. This lower street level allows the adjacent building sites to be seven stories in height, thereby significantly increasing the area available for residential units. Based on the information provided for the Bridge and Castle & Cooke schemes, it does not appear that either took similar advantage of the prevailing slope. Unit Size There is significant variation in the average affordable and market rate units' sizes for each scheme. For example, in the Related scheme the average affordable housing unit is 856 square feet while in the Bridge scheme the average affordable housing unit is 960 sq. ft. However when the total area of affordable and market rate units is combined and divided by the total number of proposed units the average unit size for the Related scheme is 1075 sq. ft. versus 1048 sq. ft. for the Bridge scheme. On this basis, we conclude that variation in unit size is not a significant factor in explaining the variation in overall density between the Related and Bridge schemes. The Castle and Cooke scheme, on the other hand, includes very large market rate units resulting in an average unit size of 1555 sq. ft. almost 50 percent larger than the other two schemes. This larger average unit size is a primary reason for the lower overall density of the Castle & Cooke scheme. Summary In summary the disparity in density and height between the Related scheme and the Bridge scheme can be explained by three factors. First, the Related scheme maintains a lower maximum height by spreading the building bulk more evenly across all three sites. Second, the Related scheme maximized the use of street level space by placing all parking below grade; and third, the Related scheme took advantage of the existing slope to build down, as well as up. Finally, the density of the Castle & Cooke scheme is significantly less than the other schemes because the average unit size is significantly larger than either the Related or Bridge schemes. Pvatok Architects, Inc. 1611 Teleg,rabh Ave Suite 200, Oakland CA 94612 510-465-7010 FaY 510-465-8575