Bofa Calpoly 2008

VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
CAL POLY: san luis obispo
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements Introduction Chapter 1 - Site Description and Analysis
- San Diego History and Planning Information - Existing Site Analysis
9
10 - 26 26 - 34
Chapter 2 - Design
- Unit Plans - Composite Floorplans - Elevations and Sections
35
40 - 45 51 - 61 62 - 64
Chapter 3 - Sustainability
- Green Building Rating Systems - Sustainable Features of Kettner and Ash
65
66 - 68 68 - 76
Chapter 4 - Construction and Phasing Chapter 5 - Community Participation and Support Chapter 6 - Finance
- Affordable Housing Financing Structure - School Financing Structure - Financial Analysis
77 81 84
88 - 93 94 - 95 96 - 112
Appendix A - Letters of Support - 114 Appendix B - Centre City Planed District Ordinance Excerpts - 126 Appendix C - Team Biographies - 132 Appendix D - LEED Checklist - 137 Appendix E - Financial Supplements - 138 References - 150 Contact Information - Back Page
3
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Acknowledgements
The Kettner and Ash affordable housing project has thoroughly employed the hearts and minds of the Poly Collaborative Housing team over the last few months. We brought together some exceptional talent in this competition, fostering a new appreciation for the collaborative spirit. It has been an honor to represent and work with organizations that continually provide people in the community with affordable housing options. Organizations in the process with us opened their doors, shared knowledge, and provided much needed encouragement to take on a project they knew would challenge us to the very end. We would like to acknowledge with great appreciation, the following people for their selfless donation of time and effort to this competition: Nancy Conk, Bank of America Stephen Harriman, AIA, Stephen E. Harriman & Associates Cindy Heavens, Satellite Housing Inc. Thomas Iamesi, First Community Housing Mark Kaiser, Fairfield Department of Planning and Development Marguerite Lonergan, SB Architects Michael Galasso, President, Barone Galasso & Associates Daniel Hanks, Commercial Sales Associate, Coldwell Banker Bain & Associates Tom Scott, Executive Director, San Diego Housing Federation Charlie Adler, GIS, CCDC Fred Agbulos, GIS, CCDC Bryce Schlosser, Project Manager, Swinerton San Diego Ben Airth, Program Manager, California Center for Sustainable Energy Philip J. Bona, AIA / APA, Assistant Vice President, Architecture and Planning, Centre City Development Corporation Pablo Collin, Project Manager, Austin Veum Robbins Partners Tom Anglewics, Director of Urban Design, Austin Veum Robbins Partners James Watts, Director of Architecture and Planning, San Diego Unified School District The entire CCDC educational task force Dan Panetta, Coach, Poly Collaborative Housing
We are grateful for the continual support, encouragement, and understanding of our friends and family during the course of this incredible learning experience. Lastly, we would like to thank Bank of America for their everlasting support in affordable housing education.
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Introduction
Poly Collaborative Housing
Cal Polys team, Poly Collaborative Housing, is a multidisciplinary group of undergraduate and graduate students from the City and Regional Planning, Architecture, Construction Management, Environmental Studies, and Business fields. Through close interaction between team members, it has been our intention that every member of the team learn just as much from this project as they give to it. This continual give and take between peers is the basis for our method of design, both financially and architecturally. While the majority of the team has little or no work experience, this model of integration ensures that all team members learn from each others past experience, and come away from the project as better planners, designers, and business people.
Barone Galasso & Associates

This year Poly Collaborative Housing (PCH) has had the exciting opportunity to work with a developer partner in San Diego. Through mutual contacts the team was put in connection with Michael Galasso of Barone Galasso & Associates, Inc. (BGA). Mr. Galasso is also a member of the Centre City Development Corporations Educational Task Force and has offered tremendous support throughout this process, from identifying a promising site to rallying support in the local community and government. In 1986, Michael Galasso and his partner, James Barone, started Barone Galasso & Associates. Their purpose was to develop and manage affordable housing throughout California. During the last decade, BGA has partnered with both public agencies and private investors to support the development of over 400 units specifically for low and moderate income families and individuals. BGAs work has won them numerous design awards as well as established them as a leader in the development of affordable housing.
The Need for Vivo Towers at Kettner & Ash

Need for Affordable Housing
Downtown San Diego faces three major challenges today: 1) New development has yielded a majority of one bedroom and studio condominiums in the Downtown residential market. This type of professional loft development completely ignores the need for family housing in the urban core. Affordable family housing is in great demand as low income workers who support the service industry move back to Downtown. 2) The gentrification of the downtown core has forced many of San Diegos low income families to search for more economical living conditions in the surrounding communities. Unlike San Francisco and Los Angles, San Diego lacks an effective and reliable regional public transportation system for these families to reach the downtown core. The only alternative for many is a long commute on Californias
Introduction
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
overcrowded and congested freeway system, adding to the pollution problems that plague many of Californias urban centers. 3) An increase in the number of families located in or near Downtown has in turn led to more children in the urban core. This has placed considerable strain on Downtown San Diegos education system. The San Diego School District is struggling to support the increasing volume of students in their existing urban facilities.
Need for Downtown Schools

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

The Harborside School was founded in 1995 mainly for Luke Walton, the grandson of Walmart founder Sam Walton, by Sams daughter-in-law. When Luke graduated in 2004, he and his mothers money left
6
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
for Jackson Hole, Wyoming. This left the school scrambling for money which eventually ran out at the end of 2004. By that time the Harborside School held roughly 150 children grades K-6, whose teachers and school disappeared almost over night. Currently most of the students are attending Washington Elementary, a nearby public school, but issues have arisen due to the former Harborside School pupils alternative curriculum. Parents and students alike are unhappy with the situation, and a new space for the Harborside School needs to be found as quickly as possible. Another downtown elementary school, the Museum School, has found itself in a similar situation. Difficulties with the school have forced it out of its prior home to a temporary facility. Although the school is still in session, it needs to find a permanent home for its 75 students. Our project seeks to provide that permanent home for both of these schools. Located on the former Harborside School site, and centrally located just south of Little Italy, this project is the obvious answer for a sustainable location for these two charter schools. By sharing community spaces such as the library, playground, and multipurpose cafeteria, these two schools can join forces to each realize the efficiencies of a larger school, while maintaining the control and curriculums of smaller schools. This principle of the economies of scale of shared spaces is what makes this a viable site for these two urban schools.
Introduction to Vivo Towers

Poly Collaborative Housing (PCH) has decided to take on an exciting and ambitious project for this years Bank of America Low-Income Housing Challenge. In addition to alleviating Californias shortage of affordable housing, PCH wanted to develop a project that would make a significant impact on the community in a multitude of dimensions. In conjunction with Barone Galasso & Associates, PCH has selected a site in downtown San Diego that will increase the supply of affordable rental housing for the areas low income families, while simultaneously improving the educational opportunities for Downtown San Diegos children through the creation of two new elementary school facilities. Our development solves all three of these major problems in one creative solution. Our site is located on the north edge of the downtown core district, just south of Little Italy on India Street - a main commercial thoroughfare. Current zoning restrictions mandate that a minimum of fifty percent of gross floor area be allocated for employment uses. In cooperation with the San Diego Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC), PCH plans to obtain a zoning variance to allow for the affordable housing development by creating educational facilities for two existing charter schools. These two schools will serve the adjoining affordable housing families, as well as nearby urban families with children currently attending the nearby, but overcrowded, Washington Elementary School. By providing affordable housing for families as well as two much needed charter school facilities, PCHs ambitious project will provide a model for sustainable community oriented development in San Diegos urban setting.
Introduction
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Chapter 1 - Site Description & Analysis
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Site Description & Analysis

Area Description:
San Diego is located on the coast in the southwestern corner of California, just north of the Mexico border. It is the second largest city in California, and eighth largest in the United States, with 1.3 million people. Two of the largest industries in the area are the military with Naval, Coast Guard, and Marine bases, and biotechnology with many facilities throughout the area. Geographically, it is split into eight communities, including the Central region which encompasses the downtown area as well as our project site.
San Diego
History
The earliest Native American inhabitants of the San Diego region date from about 7,500 B.C. The first Europeans claimed the region for Spain in 1542 when Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo set foot on San Diego soil. Although he named the area San Miguel after the saint whose feast day was closest to the landing according to Spanish tradition, the city was later renamed in 1602 when Sebastian Vizcaino arrived with three ships from Acapulco.21 He declared the area San Diego after his flagship and in honor of Saint Didacus of Alcala, whose feast day was closest to Vizcainos landing and the name has stuck ever since. In 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain and San Diego came under Mexican rule. Then in 1848, the United States gained Alta California from Mexico and the first attempts of settlement and development began. Early development struggled for several years until Alonzo Horton purchased 960 acres in 1867 and began to promote growth. Hortons vision for San Diego started with one of his first planning acts: the division of land into 200 by 300 foot plats, each with twelve 50 by 100 foot lots in order to maximize and emphasize the valuable corner lots. Introduction of rail lines in the 1880s continued to fuel the development boom and by 1885, San Diego had its first street car system. Development continued through the turn of the century with key additions to the city such as the San Diego Union Building, Hotel San Diego, improvements to the street car systems and the Bank of America Building. The early 1900s saw a formalization of planning efforts in downtown San Diego. John Nolan was responsible for introducing plans to improve the bayfront area, enhance links between the waterfront and historic Balboa Park, improve gateways such as railroad stations and port areas and the design of a Civic Center with a plaza. These planning efforts outlined principles of street hierarchy and promoted open spaces and parkways, and continue to guide development today. In 1915, San Diego was ready to showcase itself to the rest of the nation as the Panama-California Exposition Worlds Fair was held in Balboa Park. The Exposition was an incredible success as San Diego saw an influx of business into the downtown area over the next several years. Following World War I, San Diego was made home to the United States Navys Pacific fleet and has remained a vital sea port for both military and civilian use. As buses began to replace street cars, San Diegos downtown began to expand and sprawl outwards. The early 1950s were a dynamic time for housing and transportation as most U.S. cities saw a significant
10
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
decline to their downtown core areas as people moved away with the development of suburbs. San Diego was no exception and the placement of Interstate 5 at the eastern edge of downtown created a further divide between the downtown core area and the outlying suburb areas. The downtown area continued to see decline until hitting a perceived bottom in the early 1970s with escalated vacancies and decreased property values resulting in physical and social blight to the area. In 1975, San Diego created the Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC) to address these issues and lead an effort to revitalize the downtown area. Horton Plaza was opened in the early 1980s as a cultural center for shopping and entertainment marking the beginning of a successful gentrification movement that continues today. Other successful projects that have lead to a vibrant downtown San Diego area include a renovated U.S. Grant Hotel, historic restoration to the Gaslamp Quarter, a successful convention center and the introduction of a trolley system. Moving into the 21st century, downtown San Diego has promoted a new boom in residential development with strong connections to the waterfront areas along with opportunities for urban living. With the convention center doubling and a new baseball stadium for the San Diego Padres, downtown San Diego is seeing a continued growth in businesses and amenities to coincide with the growing residential development.
Some notable features of San Diego

- Balboa Park, overlooking both downtown San Diego and the Pacific Ocean - The Gaslamp Quarter Historic District - Old Town San Diego - San Diegos five missions - San Diego de Alcala, San Luis Rey, Pala, Santa Ysabel, Las Flores - The San Diego Aircraft Carrier Museum - The world famous San Diego Zoo
Future Outlook
The future of San Diego is difficult to determine, even for the planning department, but a few things seem plausible. The city as a tourist destination will continue to increase, and many wealthy retirees will continue to relocate to the region, causing displacement of lower-middle income residents to communities outside the core area. Transportation issues will increase as population grows, causing Los Angeles-scale traffic issues. Although the universities will expand, education and jobs for local residents will struggle to sustain.
The Columbia District

History
The most defining characteristic of the Columbia Neighborhood, where our site is located, is its close proximity and connection to San Diegos waterfront. It was this characteristic that provided motivation for early development beginning in the late 1800s and early 1900s with prominent projects such as a Victorian style train depot and the Broadway Pier on the waterfront. Municipal warehouses comprised most of the land and building uses in the early 1900s, leaving an area that was very much devoid of intrigue and interest. It was the introduction of the railway to this neighborhood in 1913 that provided the vitality needed to complete development along the waterfront area. Recreational uses followed, closely marked by the building of Lane Field in the 1930s, which was the original home of the San Diego Padres. From this time to current day, the Columbia Neighborhood has been a diverse area with a multitude of uses including office buildings, hotels, retail, museums and residential development.
11
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Future Outlook
The City of San Diego envisions the Columbia Neighborhood as a rich mixed use district with strong recreational and functional connections to the waterfront. The Port Authority controls development along the citys waterfront and has produced the North Embarcadero Visionary Plan to ensure development along the water will be consistent with the citys goals and vision. The Columbia Neighborhood contains many of San Diegos tallest buildings including Emerald Plaza, First National Bank Center and One America Plaza and continues to promote strong office use development to attract new businesses to the area. With the distinguishing characteristic of the waterfront, there is a planned connection through development to have a step down effect as building near the water. This step down effect offers more opportunities for mixed use developments with a strong emphasis on housing. The CCDC has encouraged the Columbia Neighborhood to embrace its history by showcasing the Santa Fe Depot located in the heart of the neighborhood and by placing other attractions such as the Museum of Contemporary Art nearby to promote the area.
Demographics, Statistics, & Opinion

Travel + Leisure Magazines annual survey for Americas Favorite Cities in 2007 found San Diego to have Americas best weather, with sunshine, ocean breezes, and an average daily temperature of 78 degrees. The survey results showed that visitors and residents each voted weather as the citys best feature. There was no surprise that visitors and residents each ranked affordability as the worst feature of San Diego. Out of the top 25 cities in America, San Diego ranked 21st, only considered more affordable when compared to Honolulu, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York (the worst). The United States Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) defines affordable as housing that costs no more than 30% of a households monthly incomemean[ing] rent and utilities in an apartment [with a] monthly mortgage payment and housing expenseshould be less than 30% of a households monthly income to be considered affordable.8 In San Diego County, 39.5% of households lived in unaffordable housing at the turn of the century. By 2005 that number had jumped to 48%, or 488,795 households.3 However, according to Murtaza H. Baxamusa, who contributes to research at the Center on Policy Initiatives even the conventional 30% affordability level is biased against lower-income households and large families, who cannot realistically afford the 30% level without compromising other basic needs. This means housing in San Diego County is even more unaffordable than it appears when initially analyzing the data. In an article published in late 2002, Nico Calavita, a professor in the School of Public Administration & Urban Studies at San Diego State University for the past twenty-three years noted that, the rental vacancy rate has hovered around 1.5% for the last two years while rents have jumped an average of 10% a year over five years. Evictions have multipliedThe city council on August 6 also declared a housing state of emergency, launched a program to speed permits for affordable housing, agreed to issue up to $55 million in bonds to be repaid with redevelopment set-aside funds, and charged the city manager to establish a task force to develop other proposals for affordable housing, including new financial sources for the Housing Trust Fund.4 Once established, a council-appointed task force on affordable housing presented several recommendations for creating new revenues to subsidize housing for low-income households, but the council chose not to back any of them, and the task force was later dismantled.35 What was supposed to be a multipronged strategy for addressing San Diegos severe shortage of housing for low- and middle-income workers has had limited success even after sorting through hundreds of city-owned properties, with high hopes of finding some suitable acreage
12
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
for building housing affordable to low- and middle-income householdsSan Diego officials have pretty much come up empty-handed despite an inventory of 3,400 parcels of land.35 Most properties were too small to deliver units and others would be cause for significant community opposition. Therefore, the private sector has the ability to play a huge role in providing affordable housing, something our proposal wholeheartedly embraces. The projects that do surface have interest lists [that] swell,33 such as one local affordable housing project that had 800 families on the waiting list.23 The demand for low-cost housing is huge, especially for families and seniors. The waiting list for federally subsidized Section 8 housing in San Diego is 40,000names long, according to the housing commission. For one of the agencys affordable projects under construction downtown, 400 people are on the waiting list for 275 units.28 Many have noticed, buildings in downtown that have not even started construction are [already] fully sold out.16 Ken Sauder, president of Wakeland Housing and Development Corp. says, its extraordinarily difficult for rentersWith rents increasing, which they are, people will have to pay a larger portion of their income for rent. Many often pay 50% and probably now some are spending 70%).33 The author of an article in The San Diego Union Tribune admits, theres a staggering demand for affordable housing in high-rent San Diego County, where some thirteen percent of workers earn less than $20,000 per year.23 Living in downtown San Diego is far from being inexpensive. A regular studio apartment costs approximately $1,400 a month, while a two-bedroom rental goes for $1,920, according to averages from the San Diego County Apartment Association.28 The fair market rent for a two-bedroom is $1,205, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, but in order to afford this level of rent, a household must earn an annual income of at least $48,200, which translates into a housing wage of $23.17 far more than the state minimum hourly wage of $7.50, which has only been increased to $8 since the beginning of 2008.2 At last years minimum wage of $7.50, a worker in San Diego County would have had to have worked 124 hours per week, 52 weeks per year, in order to afford a two-bedroom home.2 According to the Center for Housing Policy, the number of working-family renters paying more than half their income for housing has soared from 1 million to 2.1 million since 1997. Overall, advocacy groups say there are 9 million low-income renter households and only 6.2 million units they can reasonably afford.10 The Affordable Housing Policy Considerations document on the CCDC website states that, the vast majority of downtowns affordable housing units (2,600 of the 3,200 units) are in East Village, Marina, and other downtown neighborhoods located south of Broadway; the document brings up the issue of whether the public believes CCDC should actively promote the production of affordable housing in all of downtowns neighborhoods and districts. Please refer to the attached map on the following page to view existing affordable housing projects, almost all are clustered far from the waterfront and San Diego Bay. Obviously, affordable housing should be encouraged in all areas of downtown, including the Columbia District and north of Broadway, where our site lies. According to an article in The San Diego Union Tribune, downtown officials are, in fact, trying to spread the projects north of BroadwayTheres also a push to provide larger units, with two and three bedrooms, to serve families.28
13
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Southern Hotel 40-45% AMI 50 SRO Studios
Rent ($486-547)
Kettner & Ash
10th and B Apartments 68 studios ($416-720), 57 1-bdrm. ($379-778), 32 2-bdrm($454-923), 73 3-bdrm ($434-1066) 30-60% AMI
Villa Harvey Mandel 85 studios, 5 one bedroom ($395) 40-50% AMI, Services for disabled
500 West (Old YMCA) 52 Furnished SROs 50-70% AMI ($604-725)
Island Village 280 Studios ($613-737) 60% AMI
Lillian Place 74 Units: 1-bdrm($329-1155) 2-bdrm ($393-1,383) 3-bdrm ($450-$1595) 30-110%AMI
Studio 15 60% AMI 274 Studios ($491-737)
One might believe that with all of the foreclosures, the mortgage crisis, and steep fall in housing prices would only help the working class afford a place to live in San Diego, yet it is quite the contrary. In 2007, San Diego County foreclosures rose 353% over 2006 to 7,349, while default notices the start of the foreclosure process increased 128% to 20,138the highest since DataQuick Information Systems began keeping track of county foreclosures in 1988 and defaults in 1992all segments of the San Diego region have been affected by foreclosures.24 Lori Weisberg of The San Diego Union Tribune also cites the soaring number of foreclosures, but writes that, aspiring home buyers may be cheering the steep drop in housing prices, but the reality is that most workers in San Diego County still do not
14
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
earn enough to buy the median-priced home of $440,000, according to the annual Paycheck to Paycheck: Wages and the Cost of Housing in America study by the Center for Housing Policy based in Washington, D.C.33 Barbara Lipman, director of the research center, holds that San Diego has faced affordability problems even when in a recession.33 In other words, it is almost as if San Diego is in its own housing bubble, if you will, seemingly untouched and not influenced by the greater trends in California and around the country. Marney Cox, chief economist for the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), believes were not going to get back to where the median-income household can afford the medianpriced home, so housing will still be unaffordable in San Diegoborrowing has gotten tougher, so that doesnt mean there are a lot more households that are qualified to buy.33 The Housing Resources Directory for 2007-2008, put out by the County of San Diego Department of Housing and Community Development, states that, housing costs in the San Diego region continue to rise at an unprecedented rate. Unfortunately, escalating rents and home prices make it very difficult for lower-income households to find decent and safe housing that they can afford. Sheila Crowley, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, says, they dont do things that we all would like to do save money to buy a house, or for college or retirement. Its a very day-to-day existence.10 Please refer to the table at right for Area Median Income data for San Diego County (Housing Resources Directory 2007-2008). Within one mile of our project site at Ash & Kettner, 16.1% of households earn less than $10,000 in annual income, 24.4% of households earn less than $15,000, 33.4% of households earn less than $20,000, and 40.6% of households earn less than $25,000.13 Within the sites ZIP Code 92101, the average home value is a whopping $736,132, when compared to the national average of $275,659, while the median household income is only $28,994, with 68.1% of households earning less than $50,000.13 Clearly, the people residing in downtown San Diego are in dire need of any assistance they can get. According to Peter Hall, former president of CCDC, there were fewer than 10,000 people living in downtown San Diego 10 years ago. Now there are about 22,000, and he expects that number to rise to 85,000 by 2030.16 One major policy that the city wishes to employ is the active encouragement in attracting more families. Within one mile of the site, the average household size is 1.46; only 3,099 (20%) of the areas 15,319 households are family households.13 The home mortgage crisis has received far more notice, but experts say the ranks of renters with dire housing problems are growing faster than the ranks of defaulting homeowners.10 Part of the Downtown Affordable Housing Strategy, adopted in March 2007, seeks to expand supply of rental housing for low-income families with emphasis on two- and three-bedroom apartments. The majority of affordable units in downtown, 87%, are studio units, which CCDC has been criticized for by community members who argue that downtown should provide a larger supply of units suitable for families with children.5 The statistics speak for themselves: within five miles of the site, the median household income is only $42,214 while the median family income is only slightly more at $44,836.13 Within five miles of the site, 13.7% of families earn less than $15,000 in annual income, 33.5% of families earn less than $30,000, and 50.2% of families earn less than $45,000. It is quite apparent that low-income families are in need of special attention.
15
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
According to Doug Austin, a renowned developer and award-winning design recipient in San Diego for more than 30 years, the citys affordability goal is to provide housing that households comprising the general workforce can afford to purchase.1 The study from the Center for Housing Policy also found that, registered nurses, identified as the fastest-growing occupation in the United States, cannot afford to purchase a home in more than half the metropolitan areas studied, including San Diego, where the median pay for a nurse is $62,410. Food preparation workers, another high-growth occupation, have no hope of purchasing a home, and with an average wage of $10.22 an hour, they are hard-pressed to afford a one-bedroom apartment in San Diego, which requires an hourly wage of $19.10.33 Tania Jones, a registered nurse, and her husband, a sound engineer, recently were able to purchase a home in Rancho San Diego for $417,000, but only after Tania spent five months working at her hospital job 12 hours a day, five days a weekNow with a mortgage payment of $3,300 and other monthly bills totaling $2,500, they have to live frugally, watching what they spend and rarely going out to eat.33 Weisberg notes that, for renters, especially those in lower-paying jobs, tough choices must often be made as they try to juggle housing, food and utility expenses in a rental market that has grown increasingly expensive.33 Utility bills can often be the crushing blow for some people living on the edge financially, yet only 2% of affordable-housing developers integrate renewable energy features into their projects, according to the Energy Commission.23 Our proposal will make renewable energy a top priority, along with the most sophisticated green building technology available in order to prevent the buildings design, something out of renters control, from making them struggle more financially. Christy Figueroa, a single mother of four said that even though prices have been going down to buy a home, the rent prices are still up and that her family has periodically gone without electricity or water service because she could not always afford to pay her bills and monthly rent.33 Fortunately, the following goals explicitly put forth in the San Diego Downtown Community Plan, adopted in April 2006, now act as a support structure for the development of affordable housing:
3.4-G-1 Continue to promote the production of affordable housing in all of downtowns
neighborhoods and districts 3.4-G-3 Increase the supply of rental housing affordable to low-income persons 3.4-G-4 Preserve and expand the supply of single room occupancy (SRO) and living units (small studio apartments) affordable to very low-income persons. 3.4-P-1 Utilize land-use, regulatory and financial tools to facilitate the development of housing affordable to all income levels, including: -Development intensity bonuses for builders creating affordable units. -Acquisition and site assembly of sites for future development -Agreements to secure long-term affordability restrictions 3.4-P-3 Assist in securing sites and financing the construction of rental housing, with emphasis on creating one- and two-bedroom units affordable to households earning up to 80% of area median income. Leverage Agency resources with other public and private funds for low-income housing. 3.4-P-4 Encourage preservation and construction of SRO and living units with the following actions: -Provide funds to renovate older buildings and secure rent restrictions -Allow reduced parking for projects with rent-restricted units
16
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
According to a document entitled Affordable Housing Policy Considerations, the Downtown Community Plan has established that downtown will have 53,100 residential units by 2025. If 15% of those units are affordable, as required by California Redevelopment Law, then downtown must have about 8,000 affordable units by 2025. By June 2007, downtown will have approximately 3,200 affordable units completed or under construction, which means the goal over the next 15-20 years is to create 4,800 affordable units.5
Community Amenities
The San Diego Downtown Community Plan shows the site within the Central District (Core) and identifies it as being part of a neighborhood center. The Plan has already identified the site as an opportunity site within the Columbia District neighborhood, with increased building intensity and a view corridor on the northern portion of the site looking west down Ash Street towards the San Diego Bay. The Plan also shows Ash Street (adjacent to the northern half of the site) as a Green Street, which serves to link parks and other downtown amenities, connect neighborhoods to the waterfront and Balboa Park, and provide outdoor destinations. Enhanced landscapingincluding double rows of treesand expanded sidewalk widths are important components. In addition, Ash Street to the north, Kettner Street to the west, and A Street to the south all are designated as having bike paths and lanes. See attached street typology on page 18. This is an ideal situation, given that our intent is to promote alternative modes of transportation and more active lifestyles.
Arts & Cultural Locations

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

Despite being in an urban setting, our site is close to a great deal of open space. Just two to three blocks northwest are the CAC Waterfront Parks overlooking the San Diego Bay. There is also a park proposed for a site only two blocks south of the project site. Moreover, the sizeable and well-known Balboa Park is less than one mile northeast of Ash & Kettner. Please refer to Parks and Open Spaces Map on page 20 from the San Diego Downtown Community Plan.
17
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
18
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Site
19
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Site
20
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Public Transit
A sizeable proportion of the population within the area walk to work (31%), but the majority (40%) drive alone to work, something we intend to change drastically.9 See the chart representing the Means of Transportation to Work on page 22. In terms of proximity to transit, the site is two blocks north of the trolley and train stations, making the project eligible for a number of state loan programs, and allowing for easy access around the rest of the city and region. There is even a proposed downtown shuttle route that goes south on Kettner Street and east on A Street. See Transit Network Map on page 24 and the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) map on page 25. The Coaster The Coaster, run by the North County Transit District, is a good alternative to driving when traveling the San Diego coastline. The 22 train fleet runs weekdays and Saturday. The Coaster offers 8 stops convenient for both work and recreational activities. 19
The Trolley The San Diego Trolley is known for its reliability, safety, and convenience. Often called San Diegos moving landmark, the Trolley is a convenient way to get around, whether commuting to work, traveling to the International Border, or heading to downtowns shopping, restaurants, harbor and historic attractions.27
Buses The Metropolitan Transit System runs the bus system as well as the trolley making getting around the city easy and fast. With over 100 lines serving the greater San Diego area mobility around the city is accessible to everyone. Schedules are posted online or by phone.29
Bikes Biking can be a good alternative when traveling shorter distances. There are several designated bike paths in the downtown core. Bikers in San Diego also have the luxury of flat terrain in the downtown core.22 See Bikeways of the Southwestern San Diego Region Legend and Bike Map on pages 22 and 33 respectively.
21
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
22
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Site
23
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
24
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
25
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Existing Affordable Housing in San Diego

Within the downtown area there are numerous affordable housing development sites (See map on p14). The newly proposed 10th and B Apartments most closely matches our housing program and aesthetic. At 30 to 60% of AMI 10th and B offers rents from $379-778 for single bedroom, $454-923 for double bedroom, and $434-1066 for triple bedroom units. These rates are comparable to other neighboring affordable housing projects. The notable architect-developer Ted Smith of San Diego offers both substantive and philosophical advice on building inexpensively. Through modest and affordable units, Smiths buildings promote urban living that reconnects inhabitants with the city, each other, and themselves. Our attitude is, you dont need a better house than your parents. You need to be downtown, you need to get out of your car, you need to have a little unit, you need to not be upset that your kitchen is not a giant kitchen with 3,000 miles of counter space. I dont want to get too far with this, but were in the war in Iraq because our houses are too big. Think about that, its a long hop for most people, but its true. - San Diego City Beat 2007 His project, Essex, takes its aesthetic cue from a WWII aircraft carrier. To symbolize the smoke stacks of the ship and work around the rules of height restriction Smith utilizes a series of loft spaces officially noted as an uninhabited crest or pinnacle of the building. The building utilizes exterior corridors recessed six feet below the floor plate so as to allow for floor to ceiling windows without privacy issues when others walk in front of respective units. Steps come immediately after opening the door to a unit and a entwined series of unit volumes makes for the fina l product: An affordable apartment complex that is iconic, livable, and inter-connected.
Existing Site Analysis

Description
The site is a full 200 by 300 city block, approximately 60,810 square feet (or 1.4 acres) in size between Ash and A Street, and between Kettner and India Street in Downtown San Diego. Just South of Little Italy, and on the North edge of the Downtown Core District, the surrounding area has enjoyed fantastic urban growth in the last few years, with two adjacent residential towers currently under construction immediately to the West. Our mixed use site will connect two large existing residential developments, both built in the last seven years Allegro Tower (designed by Austin Veum Robbins Partners) to the North, bottom left, and Treo (designed by Carrier Johnson) to the South, bottom right. This connection will also serve to better tie Little Italy to the Downtown Core, and the integrated corner park will fulfill planning visions for the area by encouraging green open space.
26
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Current Uses
Existing Office Building: A vacant three story office building currently occupies 10,000 sf at the northeast corner of the site. The design calls for this building to be reused and converted into school facilities for the Harborside School. The building has been vacant for over three months, demonstrating the lack of demand for office space on this site. While substantial retrofits will be undertaken, reusing this building should provide a new space for the Harborside School as quickly as possible, as well as diverting tons of material from landfills, adding to the sustainability of the project. Harborside School: The abandoned Harborside School occupies the entire West side of the site. This substandard structure will be demolished (while carefully recycling or reusing appropriate materials) to make way for our designs Museum School and affordable housing podium. Parking Lot: A seldom-used surface parking lot occupies the southeast corner of the site. This inefficient use of space on such valuable Downtown land is one of the last remnants of the underutilization which plagued this area up until only a few years ago. Automotive Repair Facilities: Two automotive repair shops occupy the East side of the site. While these are still in operation, they are a completely inappropriate use of the site, which is now surrounded by residential and ground floor commercial uses. Our design proposes similar residential and ground floor commercial and retail uses, which will help transform this area into a vibrant pedestrian cooridor. The individual parcels that accomodate these uses are currently owned by five distict individual owners. The office building is currently for sale by broker, while the other uses unsuitability will make them easy to acquire.
Site Opportunities
View Corridors Per the Centre City PDO, view corridors will be maintained down Ash and A Streets to the West of the site. This will ensure fantastic views to the San Diego Harbor from both the Harborside School on Ash Street and the affordable housing on A Street for years to come. See view corridor diagram at right. Offsite Amenities & Community Programs Downtown San Diego has an existing concentration of the regions human service facilities that provide shelter, meals, counseling, job training, youth programs, and other services to help seniors, the working poor, the sick and disabled, abuse victims, students, and single parents with children, but the community plan mentions that prevention of homelessness should be prioritized, including maintenance of affordable housing options and partnerships with human service providers to address needs (Community Plan 12-1). Existing human services in the downtown area, provided by a variety of state, county, city, and private agencies, include family/individual counseling, recovery services, childcare and after school programs, prevention activities, senior services, emergency/ outreach services, community centers and youth activity centers, employment services, and domestic
27
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
violence services (Community Plan 12-2). Several of these different types of community services offered by non profit or municipal agencies are located within a short distance from the Kettner and Ash project. Approximately 5 miles away but easily accessible by public transportation there is a Community Service Center run by the City of San Diego. This municipal agency offers a very wide array of different services including but not limited to city job listings and applications, community event information, crime prevention information, and social service referrals. There are three YMCAs located within a three mile radius of the project with the closest one being a little less than two miles away. The Deaf Community Services of San Diego is located approximately one and a half miles away from Vivo Towers. The San Diego Youth and Community Services organization operates throughout the entire downtown area specializing in youth outreach, drug awareness and youth activities. There are several other community services that continue to operate in the downtown area and this trend will certainly grow with the influx of family housing into this area of high need. The goal of the downtown community plan is integrating human service facilities into neighborhoods, allowing service accessibility where people live and work. Smaller facilities that blend in with neighborhood development patterns and potentially generate fewer off-site impacts are preferable to larger facilities. Smaller facilities also enable tighter on-site management (Community Plan 12-2). The policies set forth in the downtown community plan explicitly allow human service facilities in the Core area, and promote child care, youth activities, and after-school/summer programs (Community Plan 12-4). It should also be noted that the CCDC Board has recently asked project applicants to include qualityof-life features in their projects such as eco-roofs, carsharing programs, public art, open space, and energy conservation for LEED certification.5 Climate Analysis San Diego has an incredibly mild climate with very little wind. Average temperatures top out at about 80 degrees Fahrenheit with a minimum of 50. Shading devices and natural ventilation will help minimize cooling loads in the summer months, while efficient glazing and insulation will help keep interiors comfortable even on winter nights. Thankfully this mild climate will allow the building to use much less energy for HVAC than most comparable buildings in other locations and exterior open spaces will be comfortable any time of the year. The chart at right contains outdoor temperatures for every 2 hour mark of an average day for every month in the year. The temperatures are derived from a sin function of the average maximum and minimum temperatures recorded for each month over the 30 years between 1961 and 1990. All temperatures are in degrees Fahrenheit.
28
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
The sun path diagram below illustrates the path of the sun over the site at all times of the year. The black concentric lines indicate the altidude of the sun (the angle above the horizon), and the black radial lines indicate the azimuth (directional angle in relation to South). The red lines indicate the month and time of day. Colors are overlayed on the diagram to indicate times of overheating or cooling. See the key below for descriptions of the colors. Two different shading maps have been overlayed on the diagram to indicate times that can be protected by continuous horizontal shading devices at 30 or 60 degrees above the horizon. See http://squ1.org/wiki/Sun-Path_Diagram for a more detailed description of sun path diagrams.
29
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Site Constraints
Legal Constraints: Centre City Planned District Ordinance Zoning
30
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Core District (C): This district serves as a high-intensity office and employment center. The district operates as a center of regional importance and as a primary hub for business, communications, office, and hotels, with fewer restrictions on building bulk and tower separation than in other districts. Mixed-use projects shall be accommodated as important components of the areas vitality. Retail, cultural, educational, entertainment, residential, civic, and governmental uses are all permitted. Within the Core District a minimum of 40 percent of the ground floor street frontage shall contain active commercial uses. (15-6-3-16)
Employment Required Overlay (-ER): In order to ensure that there are adequate opportunities for employment based commercial uses, at least 50 percent of the GFA within each project in this overlay district shall contain floor area dedicated to employment uses such as professional office, education, cultural uses, retail, hotel, and other similar commercial uses. Residential uses in this district cannot exceed more than 50 percent of GFA, counted against the Base Floor Area Ratio within any project. (15-6-3-20). PCH will request a variance to this overlay due to the appropriateness of the development in regards to adjacent developments, the location of the site on the edge of the overlay, and most importantly the provision of the two urban schools.
31
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Commercial Street Overlay (-CS): On designated Commercial Streets a minimum of 60 percent of the ground floor street frontage shall contain active commercial uses. (15-6-3-19) Limited Vehicle Access Overlay: No curb cuts are permitted on the streets designated as limited vehicle access unless driveway access is not feasible on adjacent streets due to lot size and/or configuration, or other significant factors. FAR Requirements: The development must have a Floor Area Ratio between 5 and 8 per the Centre City PDO. This FAR is found by dividing the gross floor area of the project by the total site area (60,000sf). The FAR may be increased to a maximum of 14 if necessary by providing affordable housing and other bonus amenities. See FAR graphic at right. Architectural Requirements: The Centre City PDO calls for various architectural requirements that helped to shape the tower form, street wall, and many other components of the project. Refer to Appendix B for the complete list of relevant architectural requirements.
Physical Constraints
One Way Streets: The development site is bound on all sides by one way streets which flow counterclockwise around the site. This complicates on-street drop off zones for the schools, and calls for unique access to and from the subterranean parking garage. See image of one way streets at right.
Noise: The affordable housing avoids excessive urban noise by rising above it, as well as partially facing in on its own quiet courtyard open space. The Northwest corner park provides an excellent buffer for most of the schools uses. Both schools act as a physical barrier to isolate school activities from the residential uses.
32
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Urban Shadows: As with any urban site our development must take into account both the shadows cast on it, and the shadows it casts itself, when considering open outdoor space. While these shadows will remain comfortable in the summer and fall, they may be uncomfortable in the winter, and can block solar access to photovoltaic panels or hybrid solar lighting collectors.
33
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Proximity of Uses: The close proximity of residential and educational uses in this project calls for mitigation of many issues including noise, access and security, and occupancy separations (fire code, etc), all of which are satisfied by this design. Cost Efficiency: Being primarily an affordable housing project, construction must be as cost efficient as possible. Extreme care has been taken to ensure that the design satisfies a high level of utility and beauty, while avoiding any unnecessary cost. The mid-rise portion of the affordable housing is extremely cost efficient, with minimal corners and openings. The articulation and balconies are created with prefabricated units which are attached externally to the existing flat stucco shell. The tower uses cost efficient glazing systems and exposed finishes achieving a high end loft feeling without high cost.
34
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Chapter 2 - Design
35
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Design
Approach and Process
This design is the product of a multitude of different opinions and ideas convergent in a single form. Our team started with four separate architectural designs, all based on the prescribed elements of the rehabilitation of the office building, the tower in the Southeast corner (to maximize solar access), and the podium building type. While some ideas were naturally sacrificed, others evolved into the finished design, which focuses on providing functional, comfortable, and beautiful spaces to occupants while maintaining building efficiency. Over the past four months input from industry professionals including our developer partner, local San Diego architects, and academics have helped to shape the design into what it is today.
General Design Criteria

Design Goals
- Maximize sustainability - Build an aesthetically pleasing development - Engage downtown residents - Focus on efficient and useful programming and layout - Keep design appropriate to site and neighborhood Framing our potential design were a significant number of constraints and guidelines created by the Centre City Planned District Ordinance, the International Building Code, Americans with Disabilities Act, and other relevant codes, as well as LEED. This comprehensive list of constraints and guidelines helped to stimulate the design process due to the context and structure they created.
36
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Uses Diagram
Chapter 2 - Design
37
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Program
38
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Chapter 2 - Design
39
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Residential
Our goal is to accommodate families with a variety of incomes in mostly 2 and 3 bedroom units, which parallels the Downtown Affordable Housing Strategy document put forth by CCDC. 3 bedroom units make up 35% of the unit count, with another 30% to be 2-bedroom units. The remaining balance is made up of one bedroom platform loft units. Retail, which is encouraged by the Commercial Overlay of the CCDC PDO, will be included on the ground floor at the base of the residential building on India Street, an active street frontage required by the San Diego Downtown Community Plan (Figure 3-7). These uses will be a welcome addition to serve the new residents as well as those affiliated with the school and, of course, the greater Downtown community.
Building Uses
Tower The crux of the project, the tower, is where the majority of the residential space is to be located. Sited on the southeast corner, the tower is constrained to 22 stories in order to maximize construction efficiencies. In designing the tower, we focused mainly on solar orientation to allow sun into the open spaces below, efficient circulation, and maximizing the residential square footage. To minimize solar heat gains during the summer months, balconies are integrated that provide shade to the units below, and vertical elements protect the West face from the midday afternoon sun. Operable doors and windows in all tower units allow natural breezes within the units. The plan of the tower was designed to minimize the space lost to circulation and reduce the use of interior double loaded corridors. This allows us to dedicate more square footage to the housing units while creating pleasant exterior walkways that encourage residents to interact with their neighbors. Two and three bedroom flats: Two and three bedroom flats, which are clustered around the elevator core, comprise the bulk of the units in the tower, as can be seen in the Unit Mix Table. These flats were designed with the intention of attracting families to the project. All these units have terrific views of Downtown San Diego or the harbor. See associated two and three bedroom floorplans.
40
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Chapter 2 - Design
41
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Platform Lofts: The north wing of the tower is comprised of one bedroom platform lofts. This unit type is a marriage of a one bedroom unit and an open loft studio. An elevated bedroom with wall provides privacy for the bed, while making the living space and kitchen more open. This unit type also allows for incredibly efficient and slender unit plans. See Platform Loft floorplan above right. Midrise Residential Town Homes: Two story residential units occupy the space on the southwest corner above the ground floor. These 2 and 3 bedroom town homes surround the large courtyard and have ample day lighting and views either into the courtyard or out over the urban streets. The two story town home configuration allows for a maximum number of bedrooms within relatively narrow units. Three bedroom units are typically 25 wide, and two bedroom units are generally 19 wide. These widths allow for comfortable bedrooms on the second floor, with living spaces on the first. The town homes also make common circulation space unnecessary on the 3rd and 5th levels, reclaiming an impressive total of 4,500 square feet for rentable uses. See associated two and three bedroom townhome floorplans.
42
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Chapter 2 - Design
43
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
44
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Chapter 2 - Design
45
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Ground Floor Live/Work: The street frontage of the southwest corner is occupied by five live/work units. These spaces are designed for self employed professionals who want to live and work in an area that caters to the daily crowds of downtown San Diego. The front of the unit offers space for an office with fantastic street front visibility, while the back provides space for a two story open loft. The demand for commercial and retail uses in this area is very unpredictable due to the incredible volume of new development this area is seeing. If demand for street front retail does increase dramatically, these live/ work units will be easily converted into commercial space. Ground Floor Commercial: Traditional commercial and retail space, as well as the management office, residential lobby, and community flex space is provided on the Southeast corner of the development, and as required along India Street. This commercial space adds to the existing pedestrian quality of the existing street front across India, and will serve to better connect Little Italy to the Core District and the rest of Downtown. Grand Staircase: The grand staircase located on A Street, on the South side of the residential courtyard, provides a welcoming entry into the courtyard and the development. Although it is gated for security, anyone is welcome to sit on the sunny lower steps and enjoy the pedestrian atmosphere. It also breaks up the street wall of the project creating a more intimate and welcoming scale and providing architectural diversity. This staircase also creates an implied connection with the Treo project to the south. Treo has a smaller entry stair located directly across the street from our grand staircase. Podium and Parking The Podium Building Type: The entire residential portion of the site (the Southern half) is a wrapped podium building. A parking garage with access off of both India Street and Kettner Boulevard is wrapped by commercial spaces on the ground floor, and extends three levels underground. The roof of this concrete podium, (the second floor) is the foundation for the residential tower, midrise, and courtyard uses. Parking: This project provides 170 new residential units, over half of which are 2 and 3 bedroom units. That makes for a lot of cars. Despite the sites proximity to many public transport lines and hubs, the project must provide for a large number of cars so as not to overwhelm the existing parking capacity of the area. Currently the three level subterranean parking garage accommodates for .9 spaces per unit with an additional 17 spaces for school and commercial use. While this ratio is acceptable, the parking could easily be increased to a four level garage if there is a substantial need for more school or commercial use parking. Community Indoor Space Communal gathering spaces are an important aspect of this family project. Currently, a 1,000 square foot flexible space with full kitchen and adjoining 1,000 square foot deck on the 4th floor of the tower are dedicated for community use, as well as another 1,000 square foot deck attached to the Southwest residential mid-rise (See South Elevation on p 63). There is also a small community flex space connected to the managers office and lobby on the ground floor. An internet caf may be integrated into the ground floor commercial space to provide computer access to both residents and the surrounding community. A double height exercise and fitness facility
46
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
is provided directly off of the South edge of the courtyard, under the community deck mentioned above. This makes acoustical concerns for the deck a non-issue. The courtyard space adjoining the fitness room provides ample space for outdoor Tai Chi or Yoga classes. Open Space The temperate San Diego climate allows for much of the community space to be comfortably located outdoors. This is the driving force behind our large 7,800 square foot courtyard, which provides private and shared open spaces, barbeque area, fountain, seating, landscaping, and a small lawn. If there is the need, the 2nd floor residential town house adjacent to the lawn could be easily converted into a day care facility. In addition, smaller roof decks are located on the 4th and 17th floors which provide fantastic views of Downtown San Diego and the Harbor.
The Urban Academy and Museum Schools

Located along the northern portion of the block are two charter schools - the Urban Academy and the Museum School. These two charter schools have separate classrooms and administration, but enjoy the efficiencies of a larger school by sharing common facilities such as the library, multi-purpose room, kitchen and outdoor space. The Museum Schools curriculum focuses on the arts and languages, while the Urban Academy focuses on successful urban lifestyles. Currently there is a circa 1950s, three story office building that will be converted into the Urban Academy.
Chapter 2 - Design
47
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Classrooms
Urban Academy Classrooms benefit from the high ceilings and large windows of the current office building. The new Museum Building matches the existing levels of the office building and also provides extensive Northwest facing glass for excellent day lighting without solar gain. Classrooms on the ground floor will serve younger children (K-2), while upper classrooms will support the older children, as well as auxiliary spaces such as art rooms and computer labs. All larger classroom spaces will be initially designed as an open floor plan, to be later subdivided by modular partitions as is necessary for each years different class sizes. One example of an acceptable modular partition is National Partitions acoustically sound DecoWall.
Administration
The Urban Academy administration is located on the Northeast corner of the building, mainly due to the existing architecture. When designing for the rehabilitation, we saw the need to respect the existing architecture and locate the entry and administration where it is clearly defined by the exterior articulation of the building. The Museum School entry and administration is located on the opposite side of the school site, on the West side. This separation of administrations should encourage the differentiation of the two schools and their curriculums, while easily sharing communal spaces for day to day activity.
Multi-Purpose Space
The Southwest corner of the existing building will be cut out and replaced with a steel moment frame structure, to accommodate for a 3rd floor roof play area, and help with earthquake retrofit stability issues. This double height steel structure will also house the multipurpose room / cafeteria for the two schools. This 2,000 sf room is adjacent to a full kitchen, and includes a service area and storage for tables and chairs.
48
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Open Space
Outdoor play areas are located both on the roof of the new multipurpose/cafeteria space and on the northwest corner of the site. In total there are 16,255 square feet of outdoor space. This should support up to 230 children, which will easily accommodate the existing sizes of the two schools. Should the schools grow, recess and lunch times may be alternated to accommodate for more children sharing the outdoor spaces. The corner park will be closed to the public until 4:00 pm on school days, at which time the gates will be opened providing the surrounding community with a much needed public park on weekends and weekday afternoons.
Security
A very important concern was the security for the elementary schools outdoor play space located at the corner of two busy streets. By recessing the play areas several feet below street level, we created a subtle but significant differentiation between the spaces that is further aided by the use of a vegetated buffer planted with native bushes and trees. A decorative iron fence will inconspicuously run along the middle of the buffer, and include lockable gates at the two entry locations so as to provide a solid layer of protection.
Building Services
Low income housing located in downtown San Diego will look toward Vivo Towers as a model for other housing projects to emulate. Acting as an example, it is important for this development to set a high standard not only with the end use product but with end use services as well. Poly Collaborative Housing has taken a long term investment approach and is proposing that community services be one of the key focus points of the entire Kettner and Ash development. While there are several community groups and services within a reasonable distance of the project that offer opportunities to residents, it is important for us to make a clear effort in connecting these groups and services to the residents. As part of the proposal to offer building services, it is perhaps the most important service to provide this connection through an in-house community services coordinator that will be part of the building management team. It will be this staff persons responsibility to act as a liaison between residents who have specific needs and the community building services that are available. Some examples of community services that can be connected to residents in need through this services coordinator would be vocational training, transportation information, sustainable living workshops, job search services, or any of the existing services discussed in the Site Opportunities section. The services coordinators continued involvement with available community services will provide aid to residents as the needs of the residents continue to evolve. This team member will also control the use and daily operations of the on site community spaces. Vivo Towers offers certain services that would make it more appealing to families in need of affordable living conditions than the existing comparable projects. Two particular services that Poly Collaborative Housing is proposing make this project unique from the others. The first is an ongoing ESL service and the other is an after school care program. Our intention is to develop and ESL program using qualified residents in exchange for reduced monthly rent. This program would offer benefits for all that are involved. The qualified resident teaching ESL would have the opportunity to contribute to their direct
Chapter 2 - Design
49
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
community and would benefit by having a reduced monthly rent. In exchange, the residents who are taking the ESL classes would benefit by becoming more prepared to work in the local economy. The second unique community service is an after school care program that utilizes the open space and facilities of the Urban Academy and Museum School. Due to the legal structure of charter schools, there is no foreseeable way to offer seats in either school to residents over other public families who are on the waiting list, however they do have just as good a chance of admittance as does any other family in the neighborhood. The Urban Academy and Museum School will serve some families from Vivo Towers through admittance to the schools, but they will serve all of the families, as well as the surrounding community, by providing facilities and space for after school and various community programs. This could take on several different forms such as qualified residents acting as supervisors of the program that would include children that are both tenants or attending one of the schools. Whatever the outcome may be of this agreement, there are opportunities in offering this community service that should be investigated further and taken advantage of. Other service oriented amenities included in the project include: Furniture & clothing exchange (physical space for storage, bulletin board, and online posting) Bicycle space (parking & storage) Courtyard garden (urban agriculture) Community kitchen (take turns cooking for each other, as occurs in some co-housing) Assembly space for gatherings Self-management program (engage people in caring about where they live and enabling them to make decisions about what is needed and wanted in terms of additional amenities and maintenance) Public art Car-sharing Childrens play areas Sustainability/green living/healthy lifestyle educational program (e.g. nutrition, diet, carbon footprint, zero waste, energy efficiency) Computer skills class Childcare ESL classes Workforce training and employment placement program Childcare Facilities Live/Work Units
50
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Chapter 2 - Design
51
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
52
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Chapter 2 - Design
53
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
54
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Chapter 2 - Design
55
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
56
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Chapter 2 - Design
57
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
58
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Chapter 2 - Design
59
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
60
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Chapter 2 - Design
61
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
62
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Chapter 2 - Design
63
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
64
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Chapter 3 - Sustanability
65
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Sustainability
Sustainability is Affordability
Only 2 percent of affordable-housing developers integrate renewable energy features into their projects, according to the Energy Commission. Yet utility bills can be the crushing blow for some people living on the edge financially.23 Sustainability is not what comes to mind immediately when thinking about affordable housing. Yet the residents in affordable housing are often unable to afford enormous energy and utility bills. The cost of energy has risen exponentially in recent years making it a much larger burden on homeowners. These forces are what make sustainability such an attractive solution financially for affordable housing developments. Focusing on sustainability also helps prevent climate change and protect our environment. We believe however that a focus on sustainability should be broadened to a focus on the triple bottom line. The triple bottom line is profits, people, and planet. For our project we looked at the ability for sustainability to serve all three parts of the bottom line. It can serve to save money, improve peoples lives, and preserve our planet. Kettner & Ash will incorporate a variety of features in an attempt to be sustainable. Some of these are conventional wisdom while some are more creative and innovative. Throughout the design of the project we have consulted the guidelines of the US Green Building Councils Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) guidelines.
Green Building Rating Systems, and LEED

Most green building standards currently exist only at a regional level. However, LEED is the only standard that is prominent on a national level as well as an international level. Currently, the most viable alternative to LEED is Californias Build it Green. Although we considered using both Build it Green and LEED as rating systems for our project, we felt that LEED better complemented our project and goals than Build it Green, which is generally geared towards smaller residential projects. LEED is by far the most marketable and well-known system for judging the degree to which large buildings are sustainable. The popularity alone makes it the obvious grading system of choice. The fact that LEED is so well-known and so pervasive in the public awareness makes it the most relevant. Standards are only effective if they are widely used and are measures with which to compare. LEED has also been shown to reduce operating costs. Many articles detail that LEED is a system which has a proven track record. One article from the most recent issue of The Global Envirotimes, an online newsletter, stated Not only are these LEED certified buildings a financial incentive to builders and property owners, due to their increased value, they are also cheaper to operate with an average payback time of 12 to 24 months to recoup the additional costs involved.
66
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
According to the United States Green Building Coalition (USGBC) green buildings: Reduce energy use by 30 to 50% Reduce carbon emissions 35% Have a 40% reduction in water usage Account for 70% less solid waste
An article by Ashley Katz also detailed that these benefits have been verified by a third party other than the USGBC.17 The USGBC is the creator and manager of the LEED standard. The article also went into the proven cost savings associated with LEED, Two recently released studies, one by the New Buildings Institute (NBI) and one by CoStar Group, have validated what USGBC members have been saying all along: third-party-certified buildings outperform their conventional counterparts across a wide variety of metrics, including energy savings, occupancy rates, sale price, and rental rates. In the NBI study, the results indicate that new buildings certified under LEED are, on average, performing 25-30% better than non-LEED certified buildings in terms of energy use. The CoStar Group study found that LEED buildings command rent premiums of $11.24 per square foot and have 3.8 percent higher occupancy rates than conventional buildings. The studies also demonstrate that there is a correlation between increasing levels of LEED certification and increased energy savings. Gold and Platinum LEED certified buildings have average energy savings approaching 50%.17 These articles further extol the proven cost savings in operations that LEED can provide. While other standards exist, the sheer popularity and number of results LEED has make it the clear choice for our project.
Criticisms of LEED
Although LEED is considered the market leader, this does not mean it is the best. There are still many concerns about LEED. Some relevant ones are raised by Schendler and Udall in their article Top Green building system is in desperate need of repair. The issues that they are raising are some of the same problems that many people see with LEED. They are: mediocre green buildings where certification, not environmental responsibility, is the primary goal; a few super-high-level eco-structures built by ultra-motivated (and wealthy) owners that stand like the Taj Mahal as beacons of impossibility; an explosion of LEED-accredited architects and engineers chasing lots of money but designing few buildings; and a discouraged cadre of professionals who want to build green, but cant afford to certify their buildings.26 While LEED certification does cost money, we feel it is necessary to be certified to increase awareness and marketability of our project and to have a benchmark to strive for. In addition, San Diego provides expedited discretionary processes for buildings that achieve LEED silver. This incentive may actually make LEED certification pay for itself on such a large project, due to significantly reduced delays in the
67
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
approval of key documents and plans. The payback periods on the sustainable measures described in the following are manageable, and will significantly reduce building operating costs in the future through durability of materials and decreased resource usage.
Sustainable Features of Kettner & Ash

Vivo Towers encourages and enable residents to live a more sustainable lifestyle. Many features of our project passively save energy and resources. On the other hand, many of our sustainable features benefits (such as recycling programs) can only be achieved through active use by residents. Our program centers on creating awareness of these features and encouraging their use. The following is a list of sustainable strategies that we plan to integrate into our project. They are organized under the main categories in the LEED rating system, however some do not directly relate to LEED Credits. Those that do directly relate to LEED Credits are noted.
Sustainable Sites
Site Selection
As discussed earlier, our site is located in San Diegos city core. It is an urban infill site. Urban infill focuses on the reuse of obsolete or underutilized buildings and sites usually in the urban core. This type of development is considered smart growth and is crucial to reviving depressed neighborhoods and connecting them with more prosperous communities. In addition, urban infill minimizes the use of undeveloped land and maximizes our access to amenities. See Chart for the locations of the amenities. The location is also within blocks of the main transit hub of San Diego. (SS Credit 1, SS Credit 2, and SS Credit 4.1)
Alternative Transportation
Bike Storage Our project will have bike storage to reduce reliance on fossil fuel transportation. The storage will make the use of bikes as easy as grabbing a taxi. The ability to bike will provide residents with an affordable alternative to the expensive form of transportation known as the personal car. (SS Credit 4.2) Carshare There will be designated spots in the residential parking structure for car-share programs like Zipcar, which enables residents to
68
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
have access to a car without owning one. This will enable occupants to have the ability to move more freely that comes with having a personal car without the tremendous costs of owning one. Ecopass Ecopass is a system that provides a discount for riding mass transit. This is achieved through buying transit passes in bulk. The program requires that there is one contact person who manages the program. There is a 25 person minimum at all times and the start up period is for three months. After the three month period, the terms extend to a yearly basis. All passes must be pre-paid for the entire contract duration period. The base cost for a pass is $64 per person per month. In order to receive any type of bulk discount, the minimum purchase is a quantity of 300, which yields a 10% discount. The next level of discount begins with a quantity of 601. Vivo Towers will serve as the managing intermediary, and provide Ecopasses to interested residents at their own cost. The passes could also be purchased for just the three month introductory period as a promotion to encourage lease-up.
Controlled Storm Water Runoff

Capture Rain Water Roof Collectors will capture rainwater for use in irrigation. This will have the compound effect of both reducing storm water runoff and reducing the amount of water that the complex demands for irrigation. (SS Credit 6.1 and SS Credit 6.2) Permeable Hardscaping Our hardscaped areas such as sidewalks and playground will utilize permeable materials to increase stormwater infiltration passively and reduce runoff. (SS Credit 6.1 and SS Credit 6.2)
Heat Island Effect Reduction

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

The Kettner & Ash development will utilize lighting that does not add to the ambient light pollution that is common in urban areas by minimizing upward exterior lighting. (SS Credit 8)
Water Efficiency
Water Efficient Landscaping
Kettner & Ash specifies native vegetation for xeriscaping for passive reduction of water use. Xeriscaping is the use of indigenous species of plants for landscaping that require no extra irrigation. These species are already designed to thrive in the natural climate of each locality. In San Diego, these are plants which are designed for the little rainfall that occurs in the region. These plants will reduce the need for
69
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
irrigation of the courtyards and play area landscaping. (WE Credit 1.1 or WE Credit 1.2)
Greywater Recycling
Greywater recycling is used for irrigation of outdoor areas. This is achieved through rainwater retention systems, and shower/ lavatory water recapturing systems. This will allow us to actively reduce runoff without requiring a costly water treatment system typically needed when reusing within the building. In addition, SDG&E offers tax rebates for greywater recycling systems. Further costs-savings would be achieved by lower utility costs thus lowering the operations budget. (WE Credit 1.1 or WE Credit 1.2)
Low-flow Water Fixtures and Appliances
Our project will install all low-flow water fixtures such as dual flush toilets and low-flow water showerheads and sink fixtures. The project will only install Energy Star appliances rated for lower water use such as front loading washers. These features will actively reduce the amount of water each resident uses without compromising the comforts of the lifestyle they are accustomed to. (WE Credit 3.1 or WE Credit 3.2)
Energy and Atmosphere

Photovoltaic Shading Devices
Photovoltaic shading devices will be used over tower windows to not only provide shade and passively reduce cooling costs but to actively produce energy as well. (EA Credit 1, EA Credit 2, and EA Credit 6)
Vegetative Cooling
Plant materials stay relatively cool, even in direct sunlight, due to their high water content and photosynthesis process. Areas adjacent to live vegetation are naturally kept cool due to the shade that the vegetation provides, and its natural tendency to remain cool. A Living Blade of live ivy runs up the iconic blade on the South elevation of the tower, both shading and cooling the adjacent South facing balconies. This principle will also help to keep both the residential courtyard and the schools playground cool in the summer months.
Horizontal Balconies
Horizontal balconies will not only provide a nice open private space but serve as passive shading devices for the units below. This will reduce the need for climate control and save on energy and utilities. (EA Credit 1)
Vertical Shading Devices

Vertical Elements run up the West elevation of the tower to help shade the glass from the afternoon sun and passively reduce cooling needs. These also provide privacy to the individual balconies. (EA Credit 1)
70
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Insulation
High R-value insulation will be used to maintain constant inside temperatures and passively reduce energy use. (EA Credit 1)
Thermal Mass
The exposed concrete floors and walls used in many of the projects spaces act as substantial thermal masses. These masses absorb heat during the day and release it at night, keeping it cool during the daytime and warm at night. This reduces energy needs at the time of highest demand in the building. (EA Credit 1)
Windows and Doors

Windows and doors with a high R-value and Low Infrared Transmittance will be used. This will help passively maintain the indoor temperatures and reduce energy costs. (EA Credit 1)
Natural Ventilation
Residents will have the ability to naturally ventilate their living spaces by opening windows and doors. This will provide a connection with the outside space, as well as achieving excellent indoor air quality. Some units have the ability for pass through ventilation (EA Credit 1)
Natural Lighting
Strategically placed windows will allow residential units and classrooms to rely more heavily on natural day lighting, dramatically reducing energy use for lighting. (EA Credit 1)
Low-energy Lighting
Kettner & Ash will utilize innovate lighting systems such as hybrid solar lighting to actively reduce energy use. Hybrid solar lighting is a system where light is redirect from a parabolic collector on the rooftop of a building through fiber optic cables to lower floors. This light is then fed into interior fixtures which have fluorescent lights in addition to these fiber optic cables to ensure a constant level of lighting. LEDs and CFLs will also be used in all other lighting fixtures to reduce energy needs. (EA Credit 1)
Photovoltaics
A large array of photovoltaics will be installed on the roof of the West wing mid-rise residential to actively capture San Diegos abundant sunshine. Vivo Towers has two possible options for handling the operations of its photovoltaic systems. The first option consists of leasing roof space to San Diego Gas & Electric, who have a program whereby they pay rent to the project for roof space, where they in turn install their own photovoltaic system. This saves the initial costs that would be incurred by installing such a system while still providing the environmental benefits. It does not however directly reduce the utility bill, only provides the incentive of a subsidy in the form of roof rent. If the space is not rented to SDG&E, Vivo Towers can choose to install and operate its own solar array, thus directly using the energy produced to minimize the utility bill. The project has 5400 square feet of roof space on which photovoltaic panels are feasible. That provides the project with space to install 54 kW worth of solar panels. Such a system would cost $486,000 installed. However, it would produce about 75,600 kWh per month, which would save approximately $10,055 per month in utility costs. In addition, it would qualify the project for the Expected Performance Buy Down program of the
71
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
California Solar Initiative, from which Vivo Towers would receive a rebate of $135,000 upon installation of the PV system. Through the California Solar Initiative (CSI), the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) will provide over $2.1 billion in solar incentives over the next decade to existing residential plus existing and new commercial, industrial and agricultural solar projects. The CSI has been allocated $203.5M for incentives in the San Diego region. SDGE and the California Center for Sustainable Energy assured us that we would qualify for such a system. The bottom line cost would be $486,000 for installation minus the $135,000 rebate which is $351,000. It would save the development about $120,960 per year in energy costs. So the payback would be just short of 3 years. Starting in the fourth year, the system would save Vivo Towers $120,960 each year based on a constant cost of conventional energy. (EA Credit 1, EA Credit 2, and EA Credit 6)
Efficient HVAC
HVAC systems used in Kettner & Ash will be of the top level of efficiency in order to actively use less energy. This will help reduce the higher energy costs that are often required in regions that need airconditioning like San Diego. (EA Credit 1)
Energy Recapture Devices

Innovative devices such as microturbines and local water heaters will be utilized to actively reduce energy loss. These would only be installed once their reliability and payback periods have been determimed. (EA Credit 1)
Energystar Appliances
Only appliances rated for efficient use of energy will be installed thus actively reducing the energy needs of the project. (EA Credit 1)
Energy Use Monitors

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

72
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Separation of Wastes
Separate waste chutes will be installed at each trash location to collected recyclables in addition to garbage. Recyclables will also be stored separately on site until being collected. Recycling bins will also be present in all common areas to encourage recycling. (MR Prereq 1)
Composting / Greenwaste Disposal

Vivo Towers will have separate collection bins for composting and greenwaste. The city of San Diego offers pickup for these materials. Green waste makes up a large portion of the consumer waste stream and this will help mitigate that. Greenwaste will also be collected from maintenance of the common open spaces.
Adaptive Reuse
Our project will be reusing the existing shell of the office building on the northeast corner of the site. It will be converted into the Urban Academy. This will cut down on the demand for new materials and prevent the need to dispose of a large quantity of waste. Reuse is the best way to reduce the high demands on resources of new materials.
Construction Waste Management

All construction waste will be managed at the site. Attempts to reuse or recycle whatever possible will be made. (MR Credit 2.1)
Recycled Content Construction Materials

We will make use of recycled construction materials such as recycled steel and fly ash concrete. This will reduce the need for virgin materials. (MR Credit 4.1 or MR Credit 4.2)
Regionally Sourced Materials

Kettner & Ash will utilize materials that are produced as locally whenever possible. This will enable us to reduce the net carbon output produced in the transportation of construction materials to the site. Southern California has many manufactures of construction materials and buying from these suppliers will further create jobs in the local economy. (MR Credit 5.1 or MR Credit 5.2)
FSC Certified Wood
Kettner & Ash will use FSC certified wood wherever possible. (MR Credit 7)
Rapidly Renewable Materials

Wood alternative materials such as cork, bamboo, and linoleum will be used for flooring and wherever else possible. These materials are rapidly renewable and help reduce the material demand on the environment. (MR Credit 6)
Modular Systems
Modular systems, especially in the school
73
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
classrooms, will enable cheaper construction costs with less construction waste at the site. They will also ease the construction and time required to complete the project.
Indoor Environmental Quality

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

The use of low VOC carpeting and finishes and non-toxic formaldehyde-free insulation will reduce the residents exposure to airborne toxins by increasing indoor air quality. This will reduce the likelihood of health complications such as asthma which are exacerbated by airborne toxins. (EQ Credit 4.1, EQ Credit 4.2, and EQ Credit 4.3)
Controllability of Light
Each occupant will have complete control over the active and passive lighting features in their environment. (EQ Credit 6.1)
Controllability of Space
Each room enables individual control of temperature, which is enabled through individual thermostats. Vivo Towers also has operable windows which allow for natural ventilation and improved air quality. This will provide an alternative to using HVAC thus reducing energy needs. (EQ Credit 6.2)
Green Edible Walls

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

Our architecture features multiple indoor/outdoor connections. This increases indoor air quality and creates a connection for residents to the outdoors. (EQ Credit 7.1)
74
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Natural Daylighting
The development at Kettner and Ash maximizes the use of natural light. This will save on energy costs and improve the feel of the environment in rooms. These features will also enable for warming of thermal masses. (EQ Credit 8.1)
Views
Kettner & Ash will provide spectacular views of the core of San Diego and its waterfront. (EQ Credit 8.2)
Private Open Space

In addition to the lower courtyard, each apartment has its own private open space in the form of a patio or balcony. This enables residents to enjoy the outdoors in a more private setting.
Program Oriented
The following is a list of program oriented features that the development utilizes to encourage and incorporate sustainability into the residents daily lives. While many of these features are not directly related to the LEED certification program, they will provide valuable services and features to residents which enhance their day to day lives, as well as promoting sustainability.
Community Exchange / Thrift Store

We plan on having a space where community members can leave unwanted stuff when they move elsewhere. This will either be in the form of a thrift store or just a space. This will save items from unnecessarily going into the waste stream. It will also save residents on the costs of having to furnish their new spaces. Items will be listed on the Vivo Towers Management website, as well as bulletin boards in the lobby and community spaces.
Community Garden
As another facet of our program of urban agriculture we will have a community garden in the central courtyard. This will serve a similar function to the edible walls in that it will provide a source of food. This will be greatly beneficial to the residents individually as well as provide a gathering point for the community and an activity for residents.
Edible Walls
As discussed earlier, edible walls will be installed in the apartments to provide a source of food.
75
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Edible Landscaping
The outdoor landscaping will not only be native species but also species that are edible such as rosemary and lemon trees.
Sustainable Education
Sustainable education information will be given to residents upon moving in and throughout their occupancy. Some of this information will inform them of the sustainable features of the building to help them achieve full utilization of them. Other information will be given to help residents live a more sustainable lifestyle. The information will be distributed through community newsletters, informational pamphlets, the Vivo Towers website, informational meetings run by the staff, and open discussion.
Pedestrian Courtyards & Frontage

Kettner & Ash will have pedestrian courtyards and frontage to engage those walking by on the street. This will include features such as a grand staircase that help to reduce the scale and create a more intimate experience. This will provide enjoyable open spaces not just for residents but the community at large. It will help to merge the project into the fiber of the neighborhood that already exists and complement rather than contrast it.
Recycled Art
Any public art used in the development will be fabricated using recycled materials. This encourages recycling education, as well as simply reusing the materials.
Solar Trash Compactors Bins

Big Belly Solar Trash Compactors will be used in outdoor areas to facilitate trash collection and reduce maintenance costs. These trash compactors look like normal trash receptacles, but using solar energy via a small collector, they compact the trash inside to make collection necessary only 1/3 of the times of a conventional trash receptacle.
76
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Chapter 4 - Construction & Phasing
77
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Construction and Phasing

At PCH, we understand that a successful construction portion of any development project is vital to the success of the overall project. We plan on delivering a quality product without the occurrence of cost or schedule overruns. As a first step in accomplishing this, we propose the materials, schedule, means, and methods outlined below.
Building Types
Tower- Type I with a high-strength concrete with fly ash super-structure and post-tension concrete floor
decks.
floor decks.
Podium- Modified type V with a wood frame over a concrete podium. Parking- Type I with a high-strength concrete with fly ash super-structure and post-tension concrete
Innovative Materials
100ksi rebar
We are considering 100-ksi rebar as an option for tower super-structure reinforcement. 100-ksi rebar, manufactured by MMFX technologies Corp. in Irvine, CA, is a recently developed material that reduces the amount of seismic confinement steel in columns and shear-wall boundary elements by 40%, compared to 60-ksi rebar. It also reduces vertical rebar tonnage by 6 to 7%. This means less rebar congestion, which slows construction and can affect quality. With 100-ksi rebar, beam-column connection is expected to be 25% faster because there are fewer ties, greater rebar spacing, and reduced rebar diameter. Concrete placement will also take less time due to the reduced rebar congestion. The overall effects of using 100-ksi rebar over conventional 60-ksi bar are a reduction in the overall construction schedule duration and reduced material, labor, and equipment costs for rebar and structural concrete placement.
78
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
ConXtech
ConXtech could be used in the podium. ConXtech is a new, architecturally flexible metal framing system targeted at the mid to high-rise high-density residential market. It can be used to build higher than the building code limitations governing wood and, with savings of 25-35% over conventional steel framing, is comparable in cost to wood frame construction. Other benefits of ConXtech over other super-structure types include that it erects in a fraction of the time because it is pre-manufactured and simple to assemble, creates virtually no onsite waste, doesnt require shear walls, brace frames or the alignment of load paths, has better seismic performance, and it is far less labor intensive, non-combustible, and dimensionally stable. ConXtech also manufactures modular floor, stair, and exterior panel systems that can be integrated into the metal framing.
Superstructure
Exterior Walls: Tower
The building envelope of the tower will be a curtain wall system of modular architectural concrete panels. Modular concrete panels will decrease installation time, resulting in reduced costs and a shortened schedule. The utilization of low-e glazing decreases heating and cooling costs.
Exterior Walls: Podium

We will utilize an Exterior Insulation and Finish System (EIFS) for the podium. EIFS is inexpensive and its insulation boards can cover a buildings entire exterior wall space, in essence, eliminating any thermal breaks in the insulation barrier. This can reduce energy consumption, reduce air infiltration, and increases interior comfort. Interior Finishes Many of the tower finishes will consist of the exposed superstructure and ducts. This exposed finish can create a high end loft appearance while avoiding both the environmental and fiscal costs of additional finish materials.
Floor system
The floor system and roof is cast-in-place post-tensioned flat plates supported by concrete columns. We are considering an exposed, finished concrete floor to stay congruent with the exposed finish look and for its economic and health benefits. Concrete finishing techniques such as staining, coloring, and polishing have long been in practice and are well developed. Economic advantages of an exposed concrete floor include not purchasing or installing additional finish material and very little long-term maintenance and replacement costs like those associated with conventional finish flooring such as carpet, hardwood. Health benefits include better indoor air quality as the need for flooring adhesives is eliminated, and elimination of indoor allergens that typically accompany carpeting.
Chapter 4 - Construction & Phasing
79
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
80
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Chapter 5 - Community Support
81
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Community Participation & Support

Approach and Process
Community support for this project so far has been very enthusiastic. On April 3rd we presented the preliminary design to the CCDCs Educational Task Force, a group of highly influential education and development leaders in San Diego. Many attendees requested a copy of our presentation and images to be posted on their respective websites. We have also had phone conversations with multiple local organizations regarding their support of this idea. Parents are excited about the prospect of providing schools, and everyone recognizes the need for affordable family housing in the area. While we are sensitive to the need for some confidentiality regarding the mass public and this projects early status, we are confident in the community and local governments support.
Organizations
Support for the Kettner and Ash project will come in many forms and from several different sources. One of the most important forms of support for this project is found through direct contact with key public agencies that have significant influence in how the City of San Diego plans and operates development projects. The Poly Collaborative Housing Team has reached out to several sources for both information and support in developing the proposal for this project. Some of the most important agencies that have supported the Kettner and Ash project are listed below with descriptions of their operations and relevance to our project.
Centre City Development Corporation

The Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC) was formed in 1975 by former San Diego Mayor and California Governor Pete Wilson and the City Council. The motivation in creating the CCDC was to aid in the revitalization of downtown San Diego, which had been physically and economically blighted from the previous two and a half decades of neglect and abandonment. From 1975 to present, the CCDC has acted as a public, non-profit organization in charge of implementing redevelopment projects and programs in downtown San Diego. Acting as a catalyst for public-private partnerships, it is crucial to have the full support of the CCDC from the beginning stages of any housing development located within their sphere of influence.
San Diego Unified School District
The San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) has operated as the sole source school district in San Diego for over 150 years, since its inception in 1854. As of 2005, the SDUSD operates 118 elementary schools, 24 middle schools, 29 high schools, 35 charter schools and 15 alternative schools in an area of approximately two hundred square miles. In addition to academic curriculum, the SDUSD is tasked with management of a $1.51 billion bond measure passed by voters of San Diego to repair, rebuild and construct schools throughout the district. The Harborside and Museum Schools proposed as a part of the Kettner and Ash project are both charter schools and are subject to review and approval by the SDUSD and will be an important component of support for this project.
82
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
San Diego Downtown Partnership

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

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

The San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC) is a public agency that is tasked with connecting people of low income in San Diego with the rising costs of housing in the area. Since 1979, the SDHC has helped more than 75,000 people per year with housing needs through various programs. As one of the primary agencies that offer tax credits and other incentives for affordable housing, support from SDHC is one of the most critical elements to a successful affordable housing project in San Diego. In addition, the SDHC supports and promotes job training and educational programs for low income housing residents so that they are able to develop useful skills allowing them to become self sufficient. There are several other agencies, firms and individuals that have been instrumental in supporting the Kettner and Ash project. Each of these firms is a significant part of the development process and will be valuable sources of support for the project. Letters of support have been included to demonstrate the overwhelming need for affordable housing in downtown San Diego and how the Kettner and Ash project will be in line with meeting that need.
Chapter 5 - Community Support
83
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
84
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Chapter 6 - Finance
85
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Finance
General
Vivo Towers represents a dynamic and complex project that highlights the challenges of affordable housing finance. Poly Collaborative Housing approached this complex project with the intention of developing a creative and realistic finance structure to achieve our project goals. In addition to the financial analysis of the affordable housing component, PCH examined the funding requirement necessary to create two new elementary schools in Downtown San Diego.
Project Goals
Attract low income families back into Downtown San Diego through the creation of 173 affordable rental units, with a focus on 2 and 3 bedroom unit plans. Decrease operating expenditures by maximizing efficient use of space, integrating innovative construction materials, and incorporating renewable energy sources. Create a secure and realistic financing structure that effectively leverages multiple funding programs to achieve project feasibility. Incorporate and finance the construction of a LEED Silver certified affordable housing project.
Project Overview
With a total development cost of approximately $84 million, PCH worked closely with the San Diego Center City Development Corporation and Barone Galasso & Associates to develop an overall financing strategy that was realistic and effectively layered multiple funding programs to maximize project feasibility.
Formation of LLP
In assessing the financing options for Vivo Towers, PCH determined that two primary funding mechanisms would be required for project feasibility. Due to the size, complexity and development cost of Vivo Towers, PCH elected to pursue the use of Tax Exempt Bond Financing in conjunction with Federal 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credit program. To facilitate the use of these funding programs and improve the projects competitive standing, PCH will form a new Limited Liability Partnership with the San Diego CCDC, Barone Galasso & Associates, and Red Capital Group for the syndication of tax credit proceeds and management of Vivo Towers. The inclusion of the CCDC will provide the LLP with a 501(c)3 designation and make the project eligible for property tax exemption.
86
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Scope of Services
General Partner
Barone Galasso & Associates will serve as the General Partner in the LLP with a vested interest of 0.01%. BGA has extensive experience in the affordable housing industry having built and managed numerous affordable rental developments throughout California. In addition to serving as the lead developer, BGA will provide permanent property management services at project completion.
Limited Partners
Red Capital Group will serve as a limited partner and tax credit syndicator for the Vivo Towers project. RCG will have a 99.99% vested interest in the LLP and will provide the tax credit equity investment for the project.
Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC)

The San Diego Center City Development Corporation will also be a Limited Partner and ensure the compliance and operation of Vivo Towers as an affordable rental project.
Affordable Rental Units

Vivo Towers will increase the supply of affordable rental units in Downtown San Diego by 173 units. All of the units will be rent restricted and available for low income families earning a maximum of 50% and 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI)
Long-Term Affordability
A minimum of 55-years of affordability restriction will be included as a condition of transferring title of the land and complying with CTCAC regulations
Chapter 6 - Finance
87
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Affordable Housing Finance Structure

Project Sources and Uses
SOURCES OF FUNDS Tax Exempt Bond CCDC Soft Loan Capital Contributions Limited Partners Deferred Developer Fees MHP Prop 1C - TOD Tax Exempt Bond Financing Affordable Rental Housing Construction Permanent USES OF FUNDS 46,223,613 - Hard Costs 23,477,076 23,477,076 Acquisition Construction Costs 14,342,244 30,645,646 General Contractor Exp. 1,250,000 TOTAL HARD COSTS 5,190,000 8,650,000 Soft Cots 14,830,211 Architecture and Engineering Building Permit and Fees Financing Costs Legal Fees Capitalized Reserves Other Soft Costs Soft Cost Contingency Developer Fee TOTAL SOFT COSTS 84,042,933 84,042,933 TOTAL USES Amount 200,000 62,059,868 7,136,885 69,396,752
TOTAL SOURCES
3,469,838 2,267,595 4,130,322 45,000 2,289,957 555,556 637,913 1,250,000 14,646,180 84,042,933
Sources and Uses

Project Uses
Land Acquisition
Through our arrangement with the CCDC, the existing office building and the 200 x 300 site will be acquired by the CCDC. Roughly half of the site, as well as the existing office building will be allocated for the construction of the two new urban schools with the remainder of the site available for the affordable housing project. The existing office building occupies roughly 10,000 SF of the site and will be acquired for $5,000,000. The remaining 50,000 SF will be acquired at $300/SF. The total acquisition cost of the site will be $20,000,000, which will be leased back to PCH housing for $1/Yr.
Schools
Existing Office Building ~50% of Site
Affordable Housing
Remaining 50% of Site
Acquisition Cost = $20,000,000
88
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Construction Costs
Construction costs assumptions, including square footage hard costs, contingencies, general contractor general conditions, insurance, and LEED design premium, have been provided by Bryce Schlosser, a Project Manager for Swinerton Builders in San Diego. These cost assumptions include:
Tower core and shell: $200/SF Parking structure: $100/SF Commercial Space: $150/SF Contractor general requirements: 5% of hard costs Contractor overhead and profit: 5% of hard costs Sub guard insurance against subcontractor default: 1.25% of hard costs Property liability/property damage insurance; 1.25% of hard costs LEED Silver design premium: 5% increase to hard costs
Prevailing Wage
To account for the increased labor costs associated with prevailing wage, PCH has provided a 20% increase to labor costs, which are estimated to be 60% of total construction hard costs. The 20% prevailing wage premium results in a $5,894,345 increase to construction hard costs.
Soft Costs, Contingencies and Developer Fee:

Soft costs include architecture fees, construction period interest, insurance during construction, loan fees, legal fees, building permit and impact fees, and syndication costs (ineligible soft costs are excluded from eligible basis). Developer fees are capped per CTCAC regulations.
Project Sources
Vivo Towers will utilize 5 primary sources of permanent financing to achieve project feasibility; Tax Exempt Bond Financing, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, CCDC soft loan, Prop 1C-Transit Oriented Development, and the Federal Multifamily Housing Program.
Tax Exempt Bond Financing

In accordance with the California Debt Limit Allocation Committees (CDLAC) procedures regarding Tax Exempt Bond Financing, Vivo Towers meets the application selection criteria and financial feasibility for tax exempt bond project outlined in Section 10326-10327 of the California Tax Credit Allocation Committees (CTCAC) Code of Regulations. With a total development cost of $84,042,933, Vivo Towers use of $46,233,613 of tax exempt bond proceeds represents 55% of project costs and meets the CTCAC requirement that 50% of the projects aggregate basis be financed through bond proceeds. By meeting this requirement, Vivo Towers automatically qualifies for an allocation of Federal 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Based on our developer partners past experience and relationship with the local branch of the Red Capital Group (RCG), PHC and Vivo Towers will utilize RCG for the underwriting and credit enhancement for the tax-exempt bonds and LIHTC syndication.
89
Chapter 6 - Finance
Total Qualified Basis Total Requested Unadjusted Eligible Basis Difficult to Develop Area (DDA) PCH: Poly Collaborative Housing Total Adjusted Eligible Basis Applicable Fraction Total Qualified Basis Low-Income Housing TaxPercentage Credit Equity Applicable Pursuant to the Annual CDLAC and CTCAC Federal Credit regulations, Vivo
lessor of above
VIVO:Towers
Towers qualifies as a tax-exempt bond and is therefore eligible for the automatic allocation of Federal 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits Total Project Cost 84,042,933 on a non-competitive basis; additionally these credits are not deducted from the states LIHTC volume Permanent Financing 29,920,211 Funding Gap 54,122,722 cap. PCH has negotiated a tax credit factor of 0.85 from Red Capital Group along with the following Tax Credit Factor (TCF) 0.85 equity investor pay-in schedule. Total Credits Needed for Feasability 63,673,790 47% of the tax received at project completion.
Annual Federal Credit Necessary for Feasability Maximum Annual Federal Credits credit proceeds will be used during the Equity Raised for Federal Credit Remaining Funding Gap Tax Credit Investor Pay In Schedule Payment Trigger Percentage Amount Construction Phase 47% 14,342,244 100% Complete & IRS Form 8609 53% 16,303,402 Total 100% 30,645,646
77,037,823 77,037,823 130% 100,149,170 100% 100,149,170 3.60% project 3,605,370
construction
lessor of above phase, with
the remaining
6,367,379 3,605,370 53% 30,645,646
23,477,075.72
CCDC Soft Loan

PCH will obtain a soft loan from the CCDC in the amount of $23,477,076. Based on our initial conversations with BGA and the CCD, we determined a funding limit of $150,000 per rent-restricted unit for the soft loan. Our requested loan amount of $23,477,076 is approximately $135,000 per unit and is under the CCDC maximum. The soft loan will carry a simple interest of 3%, which will be deferred and repaid on a percentage basis from project residual receipts.
Prop 1C Transit Oriented Development (TOD)

The purpose of the TOD Housing Program is to stimulate the production of housing developments located near transit stations that include affordable units and increase public transit ridership and minimize automobile trips. Vivo Towers meets the eligibility requirements outlined in Section 103 of the TOD Housing Program Guidelines and has included a funding amount of $50,000 per rent restricted unit in accordance with Section 105 of the program guidelines. An annual interest payment of 0.42% of principle is included in the required project debt service as required by section 25 CCR 7308 of the Multifamily Housing Program. The TOD Housing Program funds serve as a permanent financing source for the project and carry a simple interest rate of 3% on principle that accrues annually. Any project residual receipts after qualified debt service are paid to the program on percentage basis.
90
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Multifamily Housing Program

Vivo Towers has included permanent, post construction financing from the Multifamily Housing Program on a base limit amount of $30,000 per rent restricted unit. The project meets the funding eligibility requirements and has structured the MHP financing to comply with Sections 7306 and 7307 of the MHP regulations. The MHP Program funds serve as a permanent financing source for the project and carry a simple interest rate of 3% on principle that accrues annually. Any project residual receipts after qualified debt service are paid to the program on percentage basis.
Deferred Developer Fee

The maximum developer fee allowed per CTCAC regulations is the lessor of 15% of unadjusted project eligible basis, or, $2,500,000. PCH has included a developer fee of $2,500,000 in accordance with these program restrictions, and has deferred 50% ($1,250,000) of the developer fee based on BGAs standard practice. Repayment of deferred developer fee occurs after required debit service and is spread evenly over 10 year period. Until repayment, the deferred developer fee acts as a project permanent financing source of funds.
Construction Financing
During the construction phase, PCH will utilize 3 funding sources to cover development costs; LIHTC Equity, CCDC soft loan and tax-exempt bond proceeds. In order to minimize interest expenses, PCH will use the LIHTC equity funds first, followed by the CCDC soft loan and finally draw on the bond proceeds. Our initial tax credit calculation estimates that Vivo Towers will receive $30,645,646 in tax credit equity, 47% of which ($14,342,244) will be used during the construction phase. The second funding source will be in the form of a soft loan from the CCDC. The soft loan will carry a simple interest of 3% that will be deferred and paid out of project residual receipts. The soft loan of $23,477,076 is approximately $135,000 per rent-restricted unit, an amount that is under an estimated funding limit of $150,000 per unit. The final construction period funding source will be the tax-exempt bond proceeds provided by Red Capital Group. Again, PHC is utilizing BGAs close business relationships and previous project success with RCG to minimize additional financing expenses by dealing with one management team for financing at each stage of the project (construction, bond underwriting, and tax credit syndication). The construction period bonds will be structured as 2-year revenue bonds and have an estimated yield of 4.25%. PCH has included an increase of 9.25% to the initial bond principle to cover construction period interest payments and bond underwriting expense.
Chapter 6 - Finance
91
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Construction Phase
LIHTC Equity $14,324,244 $16,303,402 (47%) (53%) CCDC Soft Loan $23,477,076 TE Revenue Bond $46,223,613
$14,324,244
$23,477,076
$46,223,613
= $84,042,933
Permanent Financing
At project conversion the tax credit equity and CCDC soft loan will remain in the project as permanent financing sources. Additionally a portion on the 2-year revenue bonds will convert to 30-year mortgage bonds that will be fully amortized and funded from project debt service. Based on our cash flow analysis, $14,830,211 of in the initial bond proceeds will remain in the project as a permanent financing source. The four remaining funding sources, LIHTC equity (53%), MHP, TOD and deferred developer fee will repay the $31,393,402 of outstanding revenue bonds.
Project Conversion
TE Revenue Bond DDF = $1,250,000 MHP = $5,190,000 TOD = $8,650,000
= $46,223,613
LIHTC = $16,303,402
Converts to 30 Year Bond
= $14,830,211
92
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Project Operation
Rents
100% of Vivo Towers 173 units are rent restricted to low income applicants earning a maximum of 50% of the Area Median Income. Rental limits are determined using the 2008 California Redevelopment Law with Low Income Housing Tax Credits rental maximum.
SUMMARY TABLE RENT LIMITS, 2008 (1) CENTRE CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION I. CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT LAW WITH LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS EXTREMELY LOW INCOME 25% AMI Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom $316 $361 $406 $469 30% AMI $379 $433 $487 $563 35% AMI $442 $505 $568 $656
VERY LOW INCOME 40% AMI Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom $505 $577 $649 $750 45% AMI $568 $649 $730 $844 50% AMI $631 $721 $811 $938
LOW INCOME 55% AMI Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom $694 $793 $892 $1,031 60% AMI $758 $866 $974 $1,125
II. CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT LAW ONLY LOW INCOME 60% AMI Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom $758 $866 $974 $1,082 MODERATE INCOME 110% AMI $1,389 $1,587 $1,785 $1,983
Unit Mix
Units are dispersed relatively evenly between 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units. PHC has included 1 bedroom Source: State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, San Diego platforms lofts and both 2 and 3 Redevelopment bedroom Housing Commission, California Law. flats and Townhomes. Although the Townhome units are slightly larger then flat units, this is mainly due to the extra vertical circulation space required for Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: i:ccdc\CCDC 2008_Rents;4/11/2008;rks Townhomes and therefore the same rental limits are charged for each type of unit.
93
(1) Reflects gross rent. Gross rent minus utility allowance = maximum cash rent. See the "San Diego Housing Commission Utility Allowance" to calculate the utility allowance based on a project's actual utility profile.
Chapter 6 - Finance
Unit AMI Matrix & Rent Limits

PCH: Poly Collaborative Housing
VIVO:Towers
Project Unit Dispursion Total 50% AMI 40% AMI 30% AMI Allocation Percentage per AMI Category 100% 50% 40% 10% 1 Bedroom Platform Lofts 60 30 24 6 2 Bedroom Flats 40 20 16 4 2 Bedroom Townhomes 12 6 5 1 3 Bedroom Flats 37 19 15 4 3 Bedroom Townhomes 24 12 10 2 Total 173 87 69 17
California Redevelopment Law w/ LIHTC - Rent Limits AMI Level 1BR 2 BR 50% 676 811 40% 541 649 30% 406 487
3 BR 938 750 563
Target AMI
The total project unit allocation per AMI level was determined on a percentage basis to maximize Vivo Towers CTCAC application score. Utility Allowance 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR
Heating (Electric) 3 4 4 Cooking (E) 2 3 3 Commercial Space Other Electric 12 15 19 Vivo Towers will provide a small portion of ground floor commercial space. PHC will develop the core Total 17 22 26
and shell of these spaces, with improvement costs paid for by the tenant. A commercial rental rate of $2.5/sf/mo. is consistent with industry knowledge reports, BGA estimates and current projects. Leases Unit AMI Matrix & Rent Limits will be on a NNN basis In addition to the commercial space, the 5 live work lofts are incorporated into the operating budget Total 50% AMI 40% AMI 30% AMI Allocation Percentage per AMIassociated Category with their development 100% 40%the eligible 10% as commercial space and all costs are50% excluded from 1 Bedroom Platform Lofts 60 30 24 6 basis.
2 Bedroom Flats 40 20 16 4 2 Bedroom Townhomes 12 6 5 1 Operational Expenses 3 Bedroom Flats 37 19 15 4 Total annual operating expense $4,190/unit, which is consistent with BGAs comparative projects and 3 Bedroom Townhomes 24 12 10 2 173 87 Additionally, 69 17 exceeds Total the CTCAC minimum per unit operating expenses of $3,900/unit/yr. vacancy Project Unit Dispursion
rates, replacement reserves and rental assumptions are consistent with both CTCAC and BGA.
Management Fee
A management fee of 6% of Gross Potential Residential Rental Income has AMI Level 1BR 2been BR included 3 BRfor BGA.
California Redevelopment Law w/ LIHTC - Rent Limits 50% 40% 30% 676 541 406
Utility Allowances
Utility Allowances are consistent with the San Diego Housing Commission Utility Allowance Schedule: Revised March 10, 2008.
Utility Allowance Heating (Electric) Cooking (E) Other Electric Total
94
811 649 487
938 750 563
1 BR 3 2 12 17
2 BR 4 3 15 22
3 BR 4 3 19 26
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Debt Service
Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) for the first year of building operation is 1.15 which exceeds the CTCAC minimum requirement of 1.10
School Financing Structure

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

Land Acquisition: $0 New Construction Hard Costs: $200/SF Renovation of Existing Building: $150/SF Contractor General Requirements: 5% of Hard Costs Contractor Overhead and Profit: 5% of Hard Costs Prevailing Wage Increase: 20% increase to labor costs, estimated to be 60% of total hard costs. Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment: $200/SF of gross floor area. Hard Cost Contingency: 11.25% which is a weighted average between 7.5% and 15% to account for the increased risk associated with the renovation of the existing building
Project Sources
Due to complexities associated with the development of an effective financing structure for educational facilities, PCH did not attempt to develop an innovative financing structure for the construction of the Urban Academy and Museum Schools. All of the development costs associated with the construction of the two schools are financed through a conventional construction loan at 6.5% interest for 24 months and a 50% interest draw reserve. At project completion the balance of the construction loan and interest reserve would convert to a permanent loan. Although a more detailed finance structure would include other more effective financing mechanisms, PCHs goal was to provide the CCDCs Educational Task Force with a bestcase/worst-case scenario for the costs associated with the development of the two downtown school facilities.
Chapter 6 - Finance
95
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Our initial estimate was that the two schools would be able to accommodate roughly 340 students. assuming the entire construction loan converted to a permanent loan at project completion, with an annual rate of 6.25% for 30 years, the annual funding burden per student would equal $5,879, or $3.62/ SF. At a rate of 5.25% for 40 years, the annual funding burden per student decreases to $4,049, or $2.49/ SF.
Conclusion
Taking into account the need for affordable housing in Downtown San Diego and the greater San Diego County area, and collaborating with prominent leaders in the business of affordable housing development, PCH has created a financing structure that provides long -term feasibility for Vivo Towers, the Urban Academy and Museum School.
96
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Financial Analysis
Vivo Towers - Unit Mix

One Bedroom Platform Lofts Average SF 587 Number 60 Percentage of Total 35% Total SF 35,208 TDC per Unit Two Bedroom Flats Average SF Number Percentage of Total Total SF TDC per Unit Possible Live Work Lofts Average SF 1,245 Number 5 Total SF 6,225 *Not Included in Project Totals
780 40 23% 31,200
Two Bedroom Townhomes Average SF 1,266 Number 12 Percentage of Total 7% Total SF 15,192 TDC per Unit 52 30% Three Bedroom Townhomes Average SF 1,354 Number 24 Percentage of Total 14% Total SF 32,496 61 35%
Total # of 2 bedroom units Total % of 2 bedroom units to total units Three Bedroom Flats Average SF Number Percentage of Total Total SF TDC per Unit
1,061 37 21% 39,251
Total # of 3 bedroom units Total % of 3 bedroom units to total units

*Average square footages are based on weighted averages of the actual units.
Total Unit Count Total Bedroom Count Net (Rentable) Residential Square Footage
173 347 153,347
Chapter 6 - Finance
97
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Vivo Towers - Gross Square Footage Plan

Affordable Housing Affordable Residential (w/circulation & Support) Interior Community Spaces Commercial Outdoor Open Space Parking # Commercial Parking Spaces # Residential Parking Spaces Total # Parking Spaces Gross SF of Parking Residential Parking Ratio Commercial SF/ dedicated space Avg Garage Gross SF per Space Urban Academy Classroom Space Administration Support & Circulation Museum School Classroom Space Administration Support & Circulation Shared School Spaces Multipurpose / Cafeteria Library Outdoor Open Space Residential Density (of entire 1.378 acre site) Residential Density (of .689 acre Housing Site) Affordable Housing Site GSF Schools Site GSF Affordable Housing Site FAR Schools Site FAR Gross SF 190,278 4,017 12,479 13,365 with 3 Levels 17 159 176 87,654 0.9 734 498 (with 4 Levels) 17 213 230 113,988 1.2 734 496
14,692 1,713 5,881
8,671 1,502 3,951
2,351 2,595 16,255 126 du/acre 252 du/acre 220,139 41,356 7.3 1.4
98
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Project Sources and Uses

SOURCES OF FUNDS Tax Exempt Bond CCDC Soft Loan Capital Contributions Limited Partners Deferred Developer Fees MHP Prop 1C - TOD Tax Exempt Bond Financing Affordable Rental Housing Construction Permanent USES OF FUNDS 46,223,613 - Hard Costs 23,477,076 23,477,076 Acquisition Construction Costs 14,342,244 30,645,646 General Contractor Exp. 1,250,000 TOTAL HARD COSTS 5,190,000 8,650,000 Soft Cots 14,830,211 Architecture and Engineering Building Permit and Fees Financing Costs Legal Fees Capitalized Reserves Other Soft Costs Soft Cost Contingency Developer Fee TOTAL SOFT COSTS 84,042,933 84,042,933 TOTAL USES Amount 200,000 62,059,868 7,136,885 69,396,752
TOTAL SOURCES
3,469,838 2,267,595 4,130,322 45,000 2,289,957 555,556 637,913 1,250,000 14,646,180 84,042,933
Chapter 6 - Finance
99
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Affordable Housing Development Budget

Item Land Acquisition Total Land Cost or Value Demolition Legal Off-Site Improvements Total Acquisition Cost Construction Work Site Improvements Construction Work Residential Community/Shared Commerical Parking Prevailing Wage Increase LEED Premium General Conditions Total Construction Cost General Contractor Expenses Construction Contingency General Contractor Fee Subgaurd Insurance Against Subcontractor Default Property Liability/Property Damage Insurance Total General Contactor Expense Total Hard Cost Architecture Fees Architecture (Consultants Included) Sureveying and Engineering Total Architecture Fees Building Permit and Fees Building Plan Check Fees Building Permit Fees Civil Engineering Plan Check Fee Civil Enginering Permits Development Impact Fees Sewer Capacity Fees Sewer Connection Fees Water Capacity Fees Water Connection Fees County Water Fees Redevelopment Agency Processing Fee CTCAC Fees/Other Total Building Permits and Fees Construction Interest and Fees Construction Underwritting & Int. Exp. Construction Loan Origination Fee Real Estate Taxes During Construciton Insurance During Construction Title & Recording During Construction Total Construction Interest and Fees Cost per sf/unit/% 0 20 0 0 Unit 10,000 Project Total 200,000 Eligible Basis 200,000
200,000
200,000
15 196 196 150 100 20% 5% 200,000/mo
13,365 190,278 4,017 12,479 87,654
200,475 37,294,488 787,332 1,871,850 8,765,400 5,894,345 2,445,977 4,800,000 62,059,868
2 Years
200,475 37,294,488 787,332 1,871,850 4,382,700 5,894,345 2,445,977 4,800,000 57,677,168
5% 4% 1.25% 1.25%
3,102,993 2,482,395 775,748 775,748 7,136,885 69,396,752
3,102,993 2,482,395 775,748 775,748 7,136,885 65,014,052
4% (Of Hard Costs) 1% (Of Hard Costs)
2,775,870 693,968 3,469,838
2,775,870 693,968 3,469,838
100,000 200,000 30,000 50,000 3,450 1,300 50,000 2,765 30,000 325,000 2,500 180,000
LS LS LS LS 173 173 LS 173 LS LS LS LS
100,000 200,000 30,000 50,000 596,850 224,900 50,000 478,345 30,000 325,000 2,500 180,000 2,267,595
100,000 200,000 30,000 50,000 596,850 224,900 50,000 478,345 30,000 325,000 2,500 180,000 2,267,595
9.25% of Bond Issue 0.75% 1.02% 1.50% 5000
3,865,759 32,109 0 5,000 3,902,869
3,865,759 32,109 0 5,000 3,902,869
**continued on next page**
100
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Affordable Housing Development Budget (Cont.)

Permanent Financing Premanent Loan Fee Cost of Issuance Title & Escrow - Permanent Total Permanent Financing Cost Legal Fees Lender Legal Cost Paid By Applicant Other - Owner Legal Total Legal Cost Capitalized Reserves Operating Reserve Replacement Reserve Rent Up Reserve Transition Reserve Total Reserve Costs Other Tax Credit App./Alloc./Monitoring Fees Syndication Third Party Reports (EIR, Etc.) School Fees Marketing/Rent-Up Market Study Total Other Costs Soft Cost Contingency Total Project Costs Before Dev'p Fee Developer Costs Developer Fee Deffered Developer Fee Total Developer Costs Total Soft Costs Total Project Cost 1% 0.50% 5000 0 0 148,302 74,151 5,000 227,453 -
35,000 10,000
1 1
35,000 10,000 45,000
35,000 10,000 45,000
3 Months Stabalized 300 -
173
2,238,057 51,900 2,289,957
60,000 35,000 50,000 2 10,000 20,000
190,278
60,000 35,000 50,000 380,556 10,000 20,000 555,556 637,913 82,792,933
50,000 380,556 20,000 450,556 637,913 75,787,823
5%
12,758,267
Max Allowable per TCAC vs. 15% of EB 10%
2,500,000 (1,250,000) 1,250,000 14,646,180 84,042,933
2,500,000 (1,250,000) 1,250,000 12,023,771 77,037,823
Chapter 6 - Finance
101
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Unit AMI Matrix & Rent Limits

Project Unit Dispursion Total 50% AMI 40% AMI 30% AMI Allocation Percentage per AMI Category 100% 50% 40% 10% 1 Bedroom Platform Lofts 60 30 24 6 2 Bedroom Flats 40 20 16 4 2 Bedroom Townhomes 12 6 5 1 3 Bedroom Flats 37 19 15 4 3 Bedroom Townhomes 24 12 10 2 Total 173 87 69 17
California Redevelopment Law w/ LIHTC - Rent Limits AMI Level 1BR 2 BR 50% 676 811 40% 541 649 30% 406 487
3 BR 938 750 563
Utility Allowance Heating (Electric) Cooking (E) Other Electric Total
1 BR 3 2 12 17
2 BR 4 3 15 22
3 BR 4 3 19 26
102
Rent Schedule
Unit Size 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 30 26 31 676 811 938 17 22 26 659 789 912 659 789 912 No. of Units Maximum Less Utility Maximum Gross Rent Allowance Net Rent Proposed Net Rent
Chapter 6 - Finance
AMI Level
Rental Limit Calc. Formula
VIVO:Towers
50%
Cal. Redev'lp. Law/ LIHTC
Total Monthly Income Unit Size 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 24 21 24 541 649 750 17 22 26 524 627 724 No. of Units Maximum Less Utility Maximum Gross Rent Allowance Net Rent Proposed Net Rent 524 627 724
Monthly Income at Max. Rent 19,770 20,514 27,816 68,100
Annual Income at Max. Rent 237,240 246,168 333,792 817,200
AMI Level
40%
Total Monthly Income Unit Size 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 6 5 6 406 487 563 17 22 26 No. of Units Maximum Less Utility Maximum Gross Rent Allowance Net Rent 389 465 537 Proposed Net Rent 389 465 537
Monthly Income at Max. Rent 12,576 13,042 17,666 43,283
Annual Income at Max. Rent 150,912 156,499 211,987 519,398
AMI Level
30%
PCH:
Total Monthly Income
Monthly Income at Max. Rent 2,334 2,418 3,276 8,028 119,411
Annual Income at Max. Rent 28,008 29,016 39,308 96,332 1,432,931
Poly
Total Residential Rental Income
Collaborative
Description SF/Unit 1,245 12,479 5 1
No. of Units
Total SF 6,225 12,479
Monthly Rent/SF 2.5 2.5
Annual Income 186,750 374,370 561,120
Live/Work Commerical/Retail Space Total Commerical Rental Income
Gross Monthly Income 15,563 31,198 46,760
Housing
103
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Operating Budget
RENTAL INCOME From Rent Schedule Add: Miscellaneous Income Laundry Vending Add: Garage and Parking Spaces Add: Commerical Income Gross Potential Income Less: Residential Vacancy @ 5% Less: Commerical Vacancy @ 50% Less: Laundry Vacancy @ 5% Less: Vending Vacancy @5% Less: Garage and Parking Vacancy @5% Effective Gross Rental Income OPERATING EXPENSES Administration Advertising/Marketing Accounting Annual Audit Legal Fees Bank Fees Credit Card Fees Software/Maint./Leases Office Supplies/Copier Credit Check Expense Postage/Delivery Security Gaurds Contracted Services Uniforms Travel/Dues/Subscriptions Total Administration Expenses Management Fee @ 6% of GPI Utilities Electricity Gas Water and Sewer Trash / Recycling Cable TV Telephone, Fax & Internet Total Utilities Expense **continued on next page PUM 690 20 3 59 Monthly 119,411 3,460 438 10,133 46,760 180,201 5,971 2,338 173 22 507 171,191 Annually 1,432,931 41,520 5,252 121,591 561,120 2,162,414 71,647 280,560 2,076 263 6,080 1,801,790
35
1,141
7.63 2.67 2.44 6.1 0.69 1.18 0.61 1.07 1.53 1.07 23.71 0.92 0.92 51
1,320 462 422 1,055 119 204 106 185 265 185 4,102 159 159 8,743 10,812
15,840 5,543 5,065 12,664 1,432 2,450 1,266 2,221 3,176 2,221 49,222 1,910 1,910 104,921 129,745
9 7 10 6 4 3 39
1,557 1,211 1,730 1,038 692 448 6,676
18,684 14,532 20,760 12,456 8,304 5,377 80,113
104
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Operating Budget (Cont.)

Payroll On-Site Manager Salaries Front Desk Clerks/Community Liason Leasing Agent Payroll Processing Payroll Taxes Workman's Comp Health Insurance Employee Training Total Payroll Expenses Property Insurance and Taxes Property and Liability Insurance CA Partnership Tax City Permit/Fees Housing Authority Monitoring Fees Real Estate Taxes (1.02% of Project Cost) *eligible for property tax exemption Total Property Insurance and Tax Expenses Operating and Maintenance On-Site Manager Free Rent Fire/Elevator Alarm Monitoring Elevator Maint/Repairs Carpet Cleaning Pest Control Landscaping General Maintenance and Repairs Total Operating and Maint. Expenses Total Operating Expenses Funded Reserves Required Replacement Reserve Deposits Other Reserves Total Reserve Expense Total Project Expenses NOI Finacial Expenses Bond Repayment 2nd Mortgage Debt Service 3rd Mortgage Debt Service Ground Lease Total Financial Expense **Total Project Expenses: $4,190/month **Operating Expenses are consistatnt with Barone Galasso & Associates compartive projects 27 22 16 7 21 15 10 1 119 4,590 3,803 2,707 1,265 3,653 2,634 1,715 245 20,612 55,081 45,637 32,479 15,176 43,840 31,608 20,582 2,940 247,343
18 1 3.66 4.3 27
3,114 173 633 744 4,664
37,368 2,076 7,598 8,927 55,969
2 7 4 2 2 11 26
888 330 1,189 633 317 265 1,848 4,581 56,089
10656 3,965 14,262 7,598 3,799 3,176 22,172 54,972 673,063
25 25
4,325 4,325 60,414 110,778
51,900 51,900 724,963 1,076,826
875,469 1 875,470
Chapter 6 - Finance
105
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Tax Credit Calculation

Unit Size 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom TOTAL Threshold Basis Adjustments to Basis Prevailing Wage Parking Beneath Units Day Care Center Energy Efficiency Toxic Mitigation Distributive Energy Technology Elevator % Units Below 50% AMI % Units Below 35% AMI Total Adjustments to Basis Adjusted Threshold Basis issue Federal Tax Credits Total Eligible Basis Grant Proceeds Total Qualified Basis Total Requested Unadjusted Eligible Basis Difficult to Develop Area (DDA) Total Adjusted Eligible Basis Applicable Fraction Total Qualified Basis Applicable Percentage Annual Federal Credit Total Project Cost Permanent Financing Funding Gap Tax Credit Factor (TCF) Total Credits Needed for Feasability Annual Federal Credit Necessary for Feasability Maximum Annual Federal Credits Equity Raised for Federal Credit Remaining Funding Gap Tax Credit Investor Pay In Schedule Payment Trigger Percentage Amount Construction Phase 47% 14,342,244 100% Complete & IRS Form 8609 53% 16,303,402 Total 100% 30,645,646 Unit Basis Limit 178,401 215,200 275,456 No. Of Units 60 52 61 173 Value
20% 7% 2% 4% 15% 5% 10% 90% 20%
Basis X No. Of Units 10,704,060 11,190,400 16,802,816 $38,697,276 Additional Basis 7,739,455 2,708,809 773,946 1,547,891 5,804,591 1,934,864 3,869,728 34,827,548 15,210,490 74,417,322 $113,114,598.27 Amount 77,037,823 0 77,037,823 77,037,823 130% 100,149,170 100% 100,149,170 3.60% 3,605,370 84,042,933 29,920,211 54,122,722 0.85 63,673,790 6,367,379 3,605,370 30,645,646 23,477,075.72
90% 10%
Value
from dev'l budget
lessor of above
lessor of above
106
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Funding Calculations
Tax Exempt Bond Funding Determination Lender/Underwritter Total Development Cost 50/50 Test Term Yield Rate Bond Underwritting Expense Interest Draw Interest Expense During Construction Total Underwritting and Interest Expense Amount of Bond Financing Used During Const. (55%) Permanent Bond Financing Lender/Underwritter Loan Term Interest Rate Debt Coverage Ratio Loan Fees (1%) Loan Expenses (0.5%) Total Loan Fees & Expenses NOI Debt Service Maximum Monthly P&I (NOI/DCR/12) Maximum Mortgage (PV of monthly Payments) CCDC Soft Loan Lender Loan Term Interest Rate CCDC Funding Amount per Unit Number or Rent Restricted Units Base Loan Amount Funding Needed for Feasibility (from Tax Credit Calc.) CCDC Soft Loan Requested Payment Terms Total Loan Amount PROP 1C-TOD Loan Initial Base Amount per Unit # of Rent Restricted Unit Loan Amount Term Interest Rate Annual Required Payment Rate Annual Required Payment Amount Max. Annual Accruable Interest MHP Loan Initial Base Amount per Unit # of Rent Restricted Unit Loan Amount Term Interest Rate Annual Required Payment Rate Annual Required Payment Amount Max. Annual Accruable Interest Red Capital Group 84,042,933 42,021,466 2 Years 4.25% 2,101,073 50% 1,785,912 3,886,986 46,223,613
Red Capital Group 30 4.25% 1.23 148,302.11 74,151.06 222,453.17 1,076,826 875,469 72,956 14,830,211
CCDC 55 3% 160,000 173 27,680,000 23,477,076 23,477,076 Interest Only/Deferred 23,477,076
50,000 173 8,650,000 55 3% 0.42% 36,330.00 259,500
30,000 173 5,190,000 55 3% 0.42% 21,798.00 155,700
Chapter 6 - Finance
107
108
PCH:
Cash Flow Analysis - Short Form

Inflation 2.5% 2.5% Year 1 1,432,931 1,432,931 Year 2 1,468,754 1,468,754 Year 3 1,505,473 1,505,473 Year 13 1,927,133 1,927,133 Year 14 1,975,311 1,975,311 Year 15 2,024,694 2,024,694
INCOME FROM HOUSING UNITS Restricted Unit Rents Other Gross Potential Income - Housing
Poly
Collaborative
OTHER INCOME Laundry Vending Garage and Parking Other Income Commerical Income Gross Potential Inomce - Other 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 41,520 5,252 121,591 561,120 729,484 2,162,414 2,216,475 2,271,887 2,908,207 2,980,912 42,558 5,384 124,631 575,148 747,721 43,622 5,518 127,747 589,527 766,414 55,840 7,064 163,527 754,644 981,074 57,236 7,240 167,615 773,510 1,005,601
58,667 7,421 171,805 792,848 1,030,741 3,055,435
Gross Potential Income - Total
Housing
VACANCY ASSUMPTIONS Restricted Units Laundry Vending Garage and Parking Commerical Income Total Vacancy Loss 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 50.0% 71,647 2,076 263 6,080 280,560 360,625 1,801,790 1,846,834 1,893,005 73,438 2,128 269 6,232 287,574 369,640 75,274 2,181 276 6,387 294,763 378,881 96,357 2,792 353 8,176 377,322 485,000 2,423,207
98,766 2,862 362 8,381 386,755 497,125 2,483,787
101,235 2,933 371 8,590 396,424 509,553 2,545,882
Effective Gross Income
673,063 51,900 1 724,964 1,076,825 51,900 1 748,521 1,098,313
OPERATING EXPENSES AND RESERVE DEPOSITS Residential Expenses w/o Real Estate Taxes Real Estate Taxes Replacement Reserves Other Reserves Ground Lease Total Expenses and Reserves 3.5% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 696,620
721,002 51,900 1 772,903 1,120,102
1,017,045 51,900 1 1,068,946 1,354,261
1,052,641 51,900 1 1,104,542 1,379,245
1,089,484 51,900 1 1,141,385 1,404,497
Net Operating Income
DEBT SERVICE Bond Payment TOD - (Required 0.42% Annual Interest Payment) MHP - (Required 0.42% Annual Interest Payment) Total Required Debt Service 875,469 36,330 21,798 933,597 143,229 1.15
875,469 36,330 21,798 933,597 164,716 1.18
875,469 36,330 21,798 933,597 186,505 1.20
875,469 36,330 21,798 933,597 420,664 1.45
875,469 36,330 21,798 933,597 445,648 1.48
875,469 36,330 21,798 933,597 470,900 1.50
CASH FLOW after all debt service
DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO
VIVO:Towers
Deferred Developer Fee Repayment Developer Fee Repayment Balance
25,000 118,229
25,000 139,716
25,000 161,505
420,664
445,648
470,900
Residual Recipts Distribution CCDC MHP-TOD
80% 20%
94,583 23,646
111,773 27,943
129,204 32,301
336,532 84,133
356,518 89,130
376,720 94,180
Chapter 6 - Finance
Inflation 2.5% 2.5% Year 1 1,432,931 1,432,931 Year 2 1,468,754 1,468,754 Year 3 1,505,473 1,505,473 Year 4 1,543,110 1,543,110 Year 5 1,581,687 1,581,687 Year 6 1,621,230 1,621,230 Year 7 1,661,760 1,661,760 Year 8 1,703,304 1,703,304 Year 9 1,745,887 1,745,887 Year 10 1,789,534 1,789,534 Year 11 1,834,273 1,834,273 Year 12 1,880,129 1,880,129 Year 13 1,927,133 1,927,133 Year 14 1,975,311 1,975,311 Year 15 2,024,694 2,024,694 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 41,520 5,252 121,591 561,120 729,484 2,162,414 2,216,475 2,271,887 2,328,684 2,386,901 2,446,573 2,507,738 2,570,431 2,634,692 2,700,559 42,558 5,384 124,631 575,148 747,721 43,622 5,518 127,747 589,527 766,414 44,712 5,656 130,941 604,265 785,574 45,830 5,798 134,214 619,371 805,213 46,976 5,942 137,569 634,856 825,344 48,150 6,091 141,009 650,727 845,977 49,354 6,243 144,534 666,995 867,127 50,588 6,399 148,147 683,670 888,805 51,853 6,559 151,851 700,762 911,025 53,149 6,723 155,647 718,281 933,801 2,768,073 54,478 6,891 159,538 736,238 957,146 2,837,275 55,840 7,064 163,527 754,644 981,074 2,908,207 57,236 7,240 167,615 773,510 1,005,601 2,980,912 58,667 7,421 171,805 792,848 1,030,741 3,055,435 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 50.0% 71,647 2,076 263 6,080 280,560 360,625 1,801,790 1,846,834 1,893,005 1,940,330 1,988,839 2,038,560 2,089,524 2,141,762 2,195,306 73,438 2,128 269 6,232 287,574 369,640 75,274 2,181 276 6,387 294,763 378,881 77,155 2,236 283 6,547 302,132 388,353 79,084 2,292 290 6,711 309,686 398,062 81,061 2,349 297 6,878 317,428 408,014 83,088 2,408 305 7,050 325,364 418,214 85,165 2,468 312 7,227 333,498 428,669 87,294 2,529 320 7,407 341,835 439,386 89,477 2,593 328 7,593 350,381 450,371 2,250,188 91,714 2,657 336 7,782 359,141 461,630 2,306,443 94,006 2,724 345 7,977 368,119 473,171 2,364,104 96,357 2,792 353 8,176 377,322 485,000 2,423,207 98,766 2,862 362 8,381 386,755 497,125 2,483,787 101,235 2,933 371 8,590 396,424 509,553 2,545,882 673,063 51,900 1 724,964 1,076,825 1,098,313 1,120,102 1,142,192 1,164,582 1,187,271 1,210,256 51,900 1 748,521 51,900 1 772,903 51,900 1 798,138 51,900 1 824,256 51,900 1 851,289 51,900 1 879,268 3.5% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 696,620 721,002 746,237 772,355 799,388 827,367 856,324 51,900 1 908,225 1,233,536 886,296 51,900 1 938,197 1,257,109 917,316 51,900 1 969,217 1,280,971 949,422 51,900 1 1,001,323 1,305,120 982,652 51,900 1 1,034,553 1,329,551 1,017,045 51,900 1 1,068,946 1,354,261 1,052,641 51,900 1 1,104,542 1,379,245 1,089,484 51,900 1 1,141,385 1,404,497 875,469 36,330 21,798 933,597 143,229 1.15 1.18 1.20 1.22 1.25 164,716 186,505 208,596 230,985 253,674 1.27 875,469 36,330 21,798 933,597 875,469 36,330 21,798 933,597 875,469 36,330 21,798 933,597 875,469 36,330 21,798 933,597 875,469 36,330 21,798 933,597 875,469 36,330 21,798 933,597 276,659 1.30 875,469 36,330 21,798 933,597 299,940 1.32 875,469 36,330 21,798 933,597 323,512 1.35 875,469 36,330 21,798 933,597 347,375 1.37 875,469 36,330 21,798 933,597 371,523 1.40 875,469 36,330 21,798 933,597 395,955 1.42 875,469 36,330 21,798 933,597 420,664 1.45 875,469 36,330 21,798 933,597 445,648 1.48 875,469 36,330 21,798 933,597 470,900 1.50 25,000 118,229 25,000 139,716 25,000 161,505 25,000 183,596 25,000 205,985 25,000 228,674 25,000 251,659 25,000 274,940 25,000 298,512 25,000 322,375 371,523 395,955 420,664 445,648 470,900 80% 20% 94,583 23,646 111,773 27,943 129,204 32,301 146,876 36,719 164,788 41,197 182,939 45,735 201,328 50,332 219,952 54,988 238,810 59,702 257,900 64,475 297,219 74,305 316,764 79,191 336,532 84,133 356,518 89,130 376,720 94,180
VIVO:Towers
Cash Flow Analysis - Long Form
INCOME FROM HOUSING UNITS Restricted Unit Rents Other Gross Potential Income - Housing
OTHER INCOME Laundry Vending Garage and Parking Other Income Commerical Income Gross Potential Inomce - Other
Gross Potential Income - Total
VACANCY ASSUMPTIONS Restricted Units Laundry Vending Garage and Parking Commerical Income Total Vacancy Loss
Effective Gross Income
OPERATING EXPENSES AND RESERVE DEPOSITS Residential Expenses w/o Real Estate Taxes Real Estate Taxes Replacement Reserves Other Reserves Ground Lease Total Expenses and Reserves
Net Operating Income
DEBT SERVICE Bond Payment TOD - (Required 0.42% Annual Interest Payment) MHP - (Required 0.42% Annual Interest Payment) Total Required Debt Service
PCH:
CASH FLOW after all debt service
DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO
Poly
Deferred Developer Fee Repayment Developer Fee Repayment Balance
Collaborative
Residual Recipts Distribution CCDC MHP-TOD
Housing
109
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
School Space Allocation

Item Construction Demolition - Existing Structures Site Improvements Rehabilitation New Construction Total SF of Construction Work Square Footage Allocation Administration Circulation Library Multi-Purpose Classroom Bathroom MEP & Other Open Space - At Grade Open Space - Roof Deck Total SF Of Educational Space Provided Number of Classrooms Average SF per Classroom Average SF per Student/Classroom Urban Academy School incl. incl. 27,392 0 Museum School incl. incl. 0 18,606 Total 6,700 13,000 27,392 18,606 65,698
1,400 2,700 0 2,650 14,849 900 500 Shared Shared
700 6,900 2,000 0 9,225 600 500 Shared Shared
2,100 9,600 2,000 2,650 24,074 1,500 1,000 10,514 3,000 56,438 20 1,204 71
12 1,237 67
8 1,153 77
110
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
School Development Budget

Acquisition Total Land Cost or Value Demolition - Existing Structures Legal Off-Site Improvements Total Acquisition Cost Construction Work Site Improvements Renovaiton/Rehabilitation New Construction General Requirements Contractor Overhead & Profit Prevailing Wage Increase Furniture, Fixture and Equipment General Liability Insurance Total Construction Cost Construction Contingency Total Hard Cost Architecture Engineering Fees Architecture (Consultants Included) Sureveying and Engineering Total Architecture Engineering Fees Construction Period Expenses Construction Loan Interest (full utilization for 2yrs) Construction Loan Origination Fee Real Estate Taxes During Construciton Insurance During Construction Title & Recording During Construction Total Construction Interest and Fees Permanent Financing Expenses Premanent Loan Fee Cost of Issuance Title & Escrow - Permanent Total Permanent Financing Expenses Legal Fees Lender Legal Cost Paid By Applicant Other - Owner Legal Total Legal Cost Soft Cost Contingency Total Project Costs Before Dev'p Fee Developer Costs Developer Fee/Overhead/Profit Total Developer Costs Total Soft Costs Total Project Cost Total Project Cost per SF Item Cost per sf/unit/% 0 20 0 0 Unit 6,700 Total 134,000
134,000
50 125 196 5% 5% 20% 200 80,000
13,000 27,392 18,606
45,998 1
650,000 3,424,000 3,646,776 386,039 386,039 926,493 9,199,600 80,000 18,698,947 2,103,632 20,936,578
11.25%
18,698,947
5% (0f Hard Costs) 1% (0f Hard Costs)
1,046,829 209,366 1,256,195
6.00% 0.75% 1.02% 1.50% 5000
22,192,773 22,192,773 0 22,192,773 1
1,731,036 166,446 332,892 5,000 2,235,374
1% 1% 5000
24,428,147 24,428,147 1
244,281 244,281 5,000 493,563
35,000 10,000
1 1
35,000 10,000 45,000 201,507 25,168,216
5%
4,030,131
7.5%
25,168,216
1,887,616 1,887,616 6,119,254 27,055,832 588
Chapter 6 - Finance
111
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
School Funding Requirement Calculation

Description Land Acquisition Consultants Construction Contingencies Financing Expense Developer Costs Total Project Costs Total Project Costs per SF Total Project Costs per Student Urban Academy 753,717 11,299,768 1,383,083 1,637,362 1,132,570 16,206,499 Museum School 502,478 7,533,179 922,055 1,091,575 755,046 10,804,333 Total 20,000,000 1,256,195 18,832,947 2,305,138 2,728,937 1,887,616 27,055,832 588 79,576
$ $ $
Total Principal Annual Rate Term of Loan Monthly Payment Cost/SF Annual Funding Requirement
Permanent Loan Burden
Dev'l Budget 27,055,832 6.25% 30 ($166,587) ($3.62) 1,999,048.96
Control Estimate 22,999,000 5.25% 40 ($114,735) ($2.49) 1,376,822.27
Urban Academy Annual Funding Requirement Museum School Annual Funding Requirement Annual Funding per Student
1,199,429.38 799,619.58 5,879.56
826,093.36 550,728.91 4,049.48
112
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Chapter 6 - Finance
113
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Appendix A - Letters of Support
114
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
115
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
116
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
117
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
118
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
119
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
120
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
121
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
122
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
123
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
124
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
125
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
126
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Appendix B - Centre City Planed District Ordinance Excerpts Design Requirements:

Street Wall
From Centre City Development Corporations Centre City Planned District Ordinance
Street Wall Frontage. A street wall containing habitable space shall be provided along 100% of the frontage along public streets, except for courtyard entrances and public open spaces, or where the site crosses an easement or active fault line. The street wall shall be located within 5 feet of the property line adjoining any public street except for properties where the street wall contains ground-level residential units, in which cases the street wall shall be set back a minimum of 3 feet and a maximum of 10 feet from the property line adjoining any public street. The minimum height of the street wall shall be 45 feet as per Table 0310-A. In residential projects, an exception to this minimum height may be approved for roof-top open space if the area is located over 30 feet above the sidewalk grade and measures no more than 50 feet along the street wall. (156-3-43) Courtyard entrance can be a maximum of 30 feet wide in residential projects, as specified in Section 156.0311(m)(2) of this Division. The minimum ground floor height for buildings, measured from the average grade of the adjoining public sidewalk, in increments of no more than 100 feet along a project frontage, to the finish floor elevation of the second floor, shall be an average of 15, but no less than 13 at any one point. (15-63-42)
Tower
The maximum lot coverage of the tower portion of the building shall be 50% of the lot area. The maximum tower floor plate dimensions shall be 200 in the North-South direction, and 130 in the East-West dimension (Table 0310-A). One boundary side of the tower must be set back a minimum of 15 unless exempt by design review.
Upper Tower Composition:

To create a graceful transition to the sky and avoid a cut-off, flat top appearance, the upper 20% of any tower (measured above the base) shall achieve an articulated form and composition using architectural techniques such as layering, material changes, fenestration patterns, and/or physical stepbacks. Actual reduction of floor areas and/or recessed balconies can assist this composition goal. Tower tops shall resolve mechanical penthouses and other technical requirements in an
127
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
integrated coherent manner consistent with the composition below, yet not employ flamboyant or excessive skyline gestures. Building facades over 50 feet wide should have plane offsets and material changes to create shadows and relief. Some elements of towers shall integrate with, and extend into, the building base facades to avoid the appearance of towers isolated from the street and their own bases.
Blank walls:
Large or continuous blank walls shall be limited to 15% of a respective building facade area, must employ deep reveal scoring, texture and/or material changes to break up large surfaces, and have a maximum horizontal dimension of 15 feet.
Exterior Stairways.
Exit stairways shall be incorporated into the enclosed floor plate of buildings. Exterior stairs connecting no more than three floors may be permitted through the Design Review process.
Glass:
Glass materials shall exhibit visible light transmittance of a minimum of 60%. Glass color shall not be emphasized as a signature element, and subtle gray/green or blue/gray tints shall be encouraged if clear glass is not proposed. Projecting balconies facing public streets shall average no less than 40% open (perforated mesh, 40% translucent glass, or open rail) or transparent above a height of 18 inches above the balcony walking surface. (15-6-3-47), (15-6-3-55)
Commercial Space Depth

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

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

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

At least 50 percent of all dwelling units shall provide private open space, on a balcony, patio, or roof terrace, with a minimum area of 40 square feet each and an average horizontal dimension of 6 feet.
128
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Balconies should be proportionately distributed throughout the project in relationship to floor levels and sizes of units. (15-6-3-51)
Street Level Design

To avoid a monotonous flat wall plane, storefront windows, bulkheads, entries, and other surfaces shall recess 6 to 18 inches from primary columns or walls. At no time should this result in the storefront being set back more than the allowable 5-foot setback from the front property line.
Building Materials:
The building base shall be clad in durable upgraded materials (stone, tile, metal, brick, glass or similar) from at least the floor slab of the second floor down to one (1) inch of finish sidewalk grade, and these materials shall wrap corners of exposed interior property line walls a minimum of 3 feet. Exit corridors, garage openings, and all recesses shall provide a finished appearance to the street with street level exterior finishes fully wrapping into the openings a minimum dimension of 10 feet. (15-6-3-52)
Pedestrian Entrances
Separate pedestrian entrances for a single nonresidential tenant must be at least 25 feet apart. Door thresholds for any nonresidential use shall be at sidewalk level. Pedestrian ramps within the public right-of-way are prohibited, except where necessary for required disabled access to existing buildings when no alternative is available. Recessed entrances shall not exceed 25 feet in width and the face of a door or gates shall be within 15 feet of the property line. (15-6-3-54)
Transparency
A minimum of 60% of the street-facing building faade containing non-residential uses between 3 and 12 feet above the sidewalk shall be comprised of clear, non-reflective windows that allow views of indoor space. Interior blinds, drapes, and/or interior shelving for product displays visible from the public right-of-way may potentially obscure a maximum of 30% of the transparent area of each respective storefront or structural bay. (15-6-3-54)
Blank Walls
No more than 30% of the linear frontage of the first story street wall may consist of blank walls. The maximum length of any continuous blank wall is 20 feet, or 40 feet if the blank wall includes artwork approved by CCDC as part of the project review. All blank wall area shall be enhanced with architectural detailing, material texture, ornamentation, and/or artwork. (15-6-3-54)
Parking
Parking shall be provided at 1 space per dwelling unit. Additional parking spaces shall be provided at a ratio of one space for every 30 units. These spaces shall be permanently reserved and clearly marked for use by visitors/service only. The 1:1 ratio may be reduced with conditional approval.
129
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
The project shall provide at least 3 levels of parking below grade prior to the provision of any parking above grade, unless the CCDC president determines that the site is significantly impacted by the underground water table, which would create exceptional financial hardship on the project.
Bicycle Storage:
Secured bicycle storage shall be provided at a ratio of one area for every 5 dwelling units. Bicycle storage facilities shall be enclosed with access restricted to authorized persons.
Non-Residential Parking:
Commercial/Retail parking shall be provided at 1 space per 1,000 sf, unless the GFA of the Commercial/Retail is less than 30,000 sf. (Table 0313-B). One motorcycle parking stall and one bicycle parking space shall be provided for every twenty required vehicle stalls. No vehicular access curb may be located closer than 65 feet from the curb line of the closest intersection. Curb cuts on the same parcel must be separated by a minimum of 80 feet. No curb cuts are permitted on the streets designated on Figure E (Limited Vehicle Access) unless driveway access is not feasible on adjacent streets due to lot size and/or configuration, or other significant factors. (15-63-72)
130
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
131
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Appendix C - Team Biographies

Billy Jencks acted as Team Facilitator and Lead Architectural Designer for
this years challenge. Billy is a 24 year old MBA student, with a Bachelors of Architecture from Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. Originally from Orange County, he has had internship experience working with the architecture firms Arcanum Architecture in San Francisco, KTGY Group in Irvine, and Austin Veum Robbins Partners in San Diego. After graduation this June, 2008 he plans to seek employment with an innovative and sustainable minded architectural design firm in California. Billy is an associate member of the American Institute of Architects, and a LEED Accredited Professional.
Eric Cole acted as Architectural Team Leader. He is a M.B.A student at the California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. He holds a Bachelor of Architecture degree, also from Cal Poly. Mr. Cole works for Steven Pults and Associates as an intern architect and will begin work with Skidmore Owings and Merrill in San Francisco this summer. He has played for four years and served as a leader of the Cal Poly Rugby club ranked 2nd in the nation in 2004 and has also played for the Washington Rugby Club. He is an avid sailor and furniture craftsman. Mr. Cole expects to eventually unite his passion for architecture with his budding business skills to start his own architecture firm.
background in construction management. Upon graduation from the University of Washington in 1999, Erik began working for one of the largest commercial general contractors in the Pacific Northwest. Working in the field of estimating for the first three years of his professional career provided a strong foundation for his transition into project management. Erik contributed eight years of professional construction management experience before deciding to pursue his Masters Degree in City and Regional Planning at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Currently, Erik is completing his first year in the program and intends to graduate in June 2009. Eriks specific interests are in the field of private redevelopment of industrial brownfield sites.
Erik Simon acted as City and Regional Planning Team Leader, and has a
Adam Windham acted as Finance Team Leader for this years challenge.
Adam earned his undergraduate degree in Construction Management at Cal Poly SLO, and is currently an MBA student. He has had experience in real estate development through work experience in the project management and construction field. Adam is motivated and excited to become an active member of the professional real estate finance community.
132
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Mark Fairman Architectural Designer. Mr. Fairman is an advocate for environmental responsibility in the building industry. Within the architectural sector he has held three positions, the most recent as a designer for Bloodgood Sharp Buster, Architectsa residential architecture firm. His focus spans from low-income multi-family housing to complex institutions. In June 2007, Mr. Fairman graduated cum laude from California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, with a Bachelor in Architecture. During his education, he studied for one year in Florence, Italy where as part of a multi-cultural team won an international design competition. His senior thesis involved designing a self-sufficient cancer treatment and rehabilitation center that focused on holistic and alternative methods of treatment. He is currently pursuing an M.B.A. to develop the skills to effectively work with clients in the development industry. He will begin his career as an architectural designer with Gensler Architects this August in San Francisco. Ashley Drum Architectural Designer. Ashley obtained her Bachelors of
Architecture degree from Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo in 2007. As an architecture student, she participated in various design competitions as well as served as an active member of the AIAS. Her internship experience has provided her with a vast knowledge of high-end residential design. Ashley is currently completing her Masters of Business Administration at Cal Poly and intends to graduate this June.
technic State University, San Luis Obispo. Ashley was born and raised in San Diego, California. She graduated Salutatorian from Patrick Henry High School in 2002. She is working on her Bachelors of Architecture expected in June 2008. Her emphasis throughout attending Cal Poly has been sustainability and green design. When graduating she will also be obtaining a minor in Sustainable Environments. She plans to bring her emphasis on sustainable design into the professional world of architecture.
Ashley Nolting Architectural Designer. Ashley is a student at California Poly-
customer service, leadership, and internship roles. While earning her environmental science degree at Oberlin College, she was the manager of one of the cafeterias and Resident Assistant in one of the dorms. Ms. Eng-Rohrbach restarted and was the chief editor of the Oberlin College Yearbook. She has interned for organizations including the Cleveland Green Building Coalition, New York City Parks and Recreation, and Ohio Public Interest Research Group. She assists her parents tree service company by helping with the creation of documents. Originally from Emmaus, Pennsylvania, she currently resides in San Luis Obispo, California. Currently, Ms Eng-Rohrbach is pursuing a Masters in Business Administration at the California Polytechnic State University. She is the President of the Graduate School of Business Association which serves academically and socially the student body of her graduate program.
133
Brandi Eng-Rohrbach Sustainability Specialist. Brandi has served various
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Business Administration for his final year and was a recent graduate from the schools architecture program. Working as a junior architect in Half Moon Bay, land development intern in San Jose, SAT instructor, and recruitment coordinator at Google, Alex offers a breadth of experience to the team. He has served as chairman for Leadership Education Achievement and Development (LEAD) program, secretary, and president for the award-winning Cal Poly chapter of Sigma Nu. Raised in Half Moon Bay, Alex fostered a love for the natural environment, traveling, good character, and artistic expression.
Alexander C. Smith Finance Team Member. Alex continues his Masters in
Colin B. Clarke City & Regional Planning Team Member. Colin has a Bachelor of Science in Community & Regional Development with an emphasis in Policy & Planning and Organization & Management, as well as a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology: Organizational Studies. He is currently finishing up his first year of the Master of City & Regional Planning (MCRP) graduate program at Cal Poly, which is ranked nationally as number one in zoning administration, number six for land use planning, and number nine in the technology area. He greatly enjoys the programs emphasis on practical, real-world learning experience.
Throughout his time as a student at UC Davis, Colin was involved on and off campus. He served as President and APA Liaison of the American Planning Association (APA) Student Chapter at UC Davis. Colin attended as many conferences, workshops, meetings, and forums as possible to fuel his level of intrigue (something he continues to do). He has completed internships at the City of Union City Economic & Community Development Department and with the City of Davis Planning Division of the Community Development Department. Colin is extremely passionate about everything that is planning, especially creating projects that embrace place-making, transit-oriented development (pedestrian and biker-friendly environments, encouraging use of public transit), as well as green building practices and moving towards the practice of sustainability. After an extensive amount of research over winter break, he is working with his parents to build their home green by working with the builder and a certified Green Point Rater from Build It Green. Just recently, Colin accepted a part-time job offer at Crawford Multari & Clark Associates, a consulting firm in downtown San Luis Obispo, where he is working on the Regional Permitting Plan (RPP) and Environmental Management System (EMS) for the San Luis Obispo County Public Works Department.
134
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
ated valedictorian of Marysville-Pilchuck High School in 2003. In high school, he also received the Student-Athlete of the Year award and all-state honors twice in wrestling. John has since competed as a Cal Poly wrestler. John is set to graduate from Cal Poly in June of 2008 with a Business Administration, finance concentration degree with a Construction Management minor. In his college career, he was wrestling team representative in the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee and finished second place at the national ASC Preconstruction Services Competition. John has also worked as an intern for Swinerton Builders in San Diego and Seattle. This June, he will start as a full-time Project Engineer managing Swinerton projects at Microsoft in Redmond, WA.
John Hanks Construction Management. Born in Everett, WA, John gradu-
MBA in Cal Polys accelerated one-year program. Before beginning the program, she received a BA in Communication Studies, also from Cal Poly. Throughout her undergraduate years, she worked for A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. where she became fully trained in all administrative operations. Robyn was also an active member of Alpha Phi Omega, a national community service fraternity, where she served on the executive board for a year. She looks forward to graduation and traveling to China and India with her fellow MBA students this June.
Robyn Bowie Presentation Coordinator. Robyn is currently pursuing her
135
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Appendix D - LEED Checklist
LEED-NC Version 2.2 Registered Project Checklist

Ash & Kettner San Diego, Ca
Yes ? No
8 Y 1 1 1 1 1
Sustainable Sites
Prereq 1 Credit 1 Credit 2 Credit 3 Credit 4.1 Credit 4.2
14 Points
Required 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Yes ? No
Credit 4.3 Credit 4.4 Credit 5.1 Credit 5.2 Credit 6.1 Credit 6.2 Credit 7.1 Credit 7.2 Credit 8
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Site Selection Development Density & Community Connectivity Brownfield Redevelopment Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms Alternative Transportation, Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity Site Development, Protect of Restore Habitat Site Development, Maximize Open Space Stormwater Design, Quantity Control Stormwater Design, Quality Control Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof Heat Island Effect, Roof Light Pollution Reduction
2 1
Water Efficiency
Credit 1.1 Credit 1.2
5 Points
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
Yes ? No
Credit 2 Credit 3.1 Credit 3.2
Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation Innovative Wastewater Technologies Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction
5 Y Y Y 2 3
Energy & Atmosphere

Prereq 1 Prereq 2 Prereq 3 Credit 1 Credit 2
17 Points
Required Required Required 1 to 10 1 to 3 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
Credit 3 Credit 4 Credit 5 Credit 6
Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems Minimum Energy Performance Fundamental Refrigerant Management Optimize Energy Performance On-Site Renewable Energy Enhanced Commissioning Enhanced Refrigerant Management Measurement & Verification Green Power
continued
136
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
Yes
No
4 Y
Materials & Resources

Prereq 1 Credit 1.1 Credit 1.2 Credit 1.3 Credit 2.1
13 Points
Required 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Yes ? No
Credit 2.2 Credit 3.1 Credit 3.2 Credit 4.1 Credit 4.2 Credit 5.1 Credit 5.2 Credit 6 Credit 7
Storage & Collection of Recyclables Building Reuse, Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof Building Reuse, Maintain 100% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof Building Reuse, Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural Elements Construction Waste Management , Divert 50% from Disposal Construction Waste Management , Divert 75% from Disposal Materials Reuse , 5% Materials Reuse ,10% Recycled Content, 10% (post-consumer + pre-consumer) Recycled Content, 20% (post-consumer + pre-consumer) Regional Materials , 10% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Regio Regional Materials , 20% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Regio Rapidly Renewable Materials Certified Wood
9 Y Y
Indoor Environmental Quality

Prereq 1 Prereq 2
15 Points Required Required 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 Points

1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Yes ? No
Credit 1 Credit 2 Credit 3.1 Credit 3.2 Credit 4.1 Credit 4.2 Credit 4.3 Credit 4.4 Credit 5 Credit 6.1 Credit 6.2 Credit 7.1 Credit 7.2 Credit 8.1 Credit 8.2
Minimum IAQ Performance Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring Increased Ventilation Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy Low-Emitting Materials , Adhesives & Sealants Low-Emitting Materials , Paints & Coatings Low-Emitting Materials , Carpet Systems Low-Emitting Materials , Composite Wood & Agrifiber Products Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control Controllability of Systems, Lighting Controllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort Thermal Comfort, Design Thermal Comfort, Verification Daylight & Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces Daylight & Views, Views for 90% of Spaces
2 1
Innovation & Design Process

Credit 1.1 Credit 1.2 Credit 1.3 Credit 1.4 Credit 2
1 1 1 1
Yes ? No
Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title LEED Accredited Professional
30 24 8
Project Totals (pre-certification estimates)

Certified 26-32 points Silver 33-38 points Gold 39-51 points Platinum 52-69 points
69 Points
137
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Appendix E - Financial Supplements

9% BASIS LIMITS
COUNTY
ALAMEDA ALPINE AMADOR BUTTE CALAVERAS COLUSA CONTRA COSTA DEL NORTE EL DORADO FRESNO GLENN HUMBOLDT IMPERIAL INYO KERN KINGS LAKE LASSEN LOS ANGELES MADERA MARIN MARIPOSA MENDOCINO MERCED MODOC MONO MONTEREY NAPA NEVADA ORANGE PLACER PLUMAS RIVERSIDE SACRAMENTO SAN BENITO SAN BERNARDINO SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOAQUIN SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN MATEO SANTA BARBARA SANTA CLARA SANTA CRUZ SHASTA SIERRA SISKIYOU SOLANO SONOMA STANISLAUS SUTTER TEHAMA TRINITY TULARE TUOLUMNE VENTURA YOLO YUBA
SRO & STUDIO $167,958 $115,615 $115,615 $117,916 $115,615 $115,615 $153,578 $115,615 $117,916 $107,562 $115,615 $115,615 $121,367 $115,615 $112,739 $107,562 $115,615 $115,615 $119,066 $107,562 $153,578 $115,615 $115,615 $107,562 $115,615 $115,615 $147,826 $153,578 $115,615 $120,792 $117,916 $115,615 $117,916 $117,916 $115,615 $115,615 $124,243 $174,286 $107,562 $138,623 $133,446 $138,623 $138,048 $138,623 $117,916 $115,615 $115,615 $153,578 $165,658 $107,562 $117,916 $115,615 $115,615 $107,562 $115,615 $138,623 $117,916 $117,916
1 BEDROOM $193,654 $133,303 $133,303 $135,956 $133,303 $133,303 $177,074 $133,303 $135,956 $124,018 $133,303 $133,303 $139,935 $133,303 $129,987 $124,018 $133,303 $133,303 $137,282 $124,018 $177,074 $133,303 $133,303 $124,018 $133,303 $133,303 $170,442 $177,074 $133,303 $139,272 $135,956 $133,303 $135,956 $135,956 $133,303 $133,303 $143,251 $200,950 $124,018 $159,831 $153,862 $159,831 $159,168 $159,831 $135,956 $133,303 $133,303 $177,074 $191,002 $124,018 $135,956 $133,303 $133,303 $124,018 $133,303 $159,831 $135,956 $135,956
2 BEDROOMS $233,600 $160,800 $160,800 $164,000 $160,800 $160,800 $213,600 $160,800 $164,000 $149,600 $160,800 $160,800 $168,800 $160,800 $156,800 $149,600 $160,800 $160,800 $165,600 $149,600 $213,600 $160,800 $160,800 $149,600 $160,800 $160,800 $205,600 $213,600 $160,800 $168,000 $164,000 $160,800 $164,000 $164,000 $160,800 $160,800 $172,800 $242,400 $149,600 $192,800 $185,600 $192,800 $192,000 $192,800 $164,000 $160,800 $160,800 $213,600 $230,400 $149,600 $164,000 $160,800 $160,800 $149,600 $160,800 $192,800 $164,000 $164,000
3 BEDROOMS $299,008 $205,824 $205,824 $209,920 $205,824 $205,824 $273,408 $205,824 $209,920 $191,488 $205,824 $205,824 $216,064 $205,824 $200,704 $191,488 $205,824 $205,824 $211,968 $191,488 $273,408 $205,824 $205,824 $191,488 $205,824 $205,824 $263,168 $273,408 $205,824 $215,040 $209,920 $205,824 $209,920 $209,920 $205,824 $205,824 $221,184 $310,272 $191,488 $246,784 $237,568 $246,784 $245,760 $246,784 $209,920 $205,824 $205,824 $273,408 $294,912 $191,488 $209,920 $205,824 $205,824 $191,488 $205,824 $246,784 $209,920 $209,920
4+ BEDROOMS $333,114 $229,301 $229,301 $233,864 $229,301 $229,301 $304,594 $229,301 $233,864 $213,330 $229,301 $229,301 $240,709 $229,301 $223,597 $213,330 $229,301 $229,301 $236,146 $213,330 $304,594 $229,301 $229,301 $213,330 $229,301 $229,301 $293,186 $304,594 $229,301 $239,568 $233,864 $229,301 $233,864 $233,864 $229,301 $229,301 $246,413 $345,662 $213,330 $274,933 $264,666 $274,933 $273,792 $274,933 $233,864 $229,301 $229,301 $304,594 $328,550 $213,330 $233,864 $229,301 $229,301 $213,330 $229,301 $274,933 $233,864 $233,864
REVISED: January 9, 2008
138
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
4% BASIS LIMITS
COUNTY
ALAMEDA ALPINE AMADOR BUTTE CALAVERAS COLUSA CONTRA COSTA DEL NORTE EL DORADO FRESNO GLENN HUMBOLDT IMPERIAL INYO KERN KINGS LAKE LASSEN LOS ANGELES MADERA MARIN MARIPOSA MENDOCINO MERCED MODOC MONO MONTEREY NAPA NEVADA ORANGE PLACER PLUMAS RIVERSIDE SACRAMENTO SAN BENITO SAN BERNARDINO SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOAQUIN SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN MATEO SANTA BARBARA SANTA CLARA SANTA CRUZ SHASTA SIERRA SISKIYOU SOLANO SONOMA STANISLAUS SUTTER TEHAMA TRINITY TULARE TUOLUMNE VENTURA YOLO YUBA
SRO & STUDIO $209,948 $139,774 $139,774 $150,127 $139,774 $139,774 $195,568 $139,774 $150,127 $132,871 $139,774 $139,774 $141,499 $139,774 $139,774 $132,871 $139,774 $139,774 $154,729 $132,871 $195,568 $139,774 $139,774 $132,871 $139,774 $139,774 $186,365 $195,568 $139,774 $155,879 $150,127 $139,774 $138,048 $150,127 $139,774 $135,747 $154,729 $229,505 $132,871 $177,162 $166,808 $177,162 $171,985 $177,162 $150,127 $139,774 $139,774 $195,568 $214,550 $132,871 $150,127 $139,774 $139,774 $132,871 $139,774 $177,162 $150,127 $150,127
1 BEDROOM $242,068 $161,158 $161,158 $173,095 $161,158 $161,158 $225,488 $161,158 $173,095 $153,199 $161,158 $161,158 $163,147 $161,158 $161,158 $153,199 $161,158 $161,158 $178,401 $153,199 $225,488 $161,158 $161,158 $153,199 $161,158 $161,158 $214,877 $225,488 $161,158 $179,727 $173,095 $161,158 $159,168 $173,095 $161,158 $156,515 $178,401 $264,617 $153,199 $204,266 $192,328 $204,266 $198,297 $204,266 $173,095 $161,158 $161,158 $225,488 $247,374 $153,199 $173,095 $161,158 $161,158 $153,199 $161,158 $204,266 $173,095 $173,095
2 BEDROOMS $292,000 $194,400 $194,400 $208,800 $194,400 $194,400 $272,000 $194,400 $208,800 $184,800 $194,400 $194,400 $196,800 $194,400 $194,400 $184,800 $194,400 $194,400 $215,200 $184,800 $272,000 $194,400 $194,400 $184,800 $194,400 $194,400 $259,200 $272,000 $194,400 $216,800 $208,800 $194,400 $192,000 $208,800 $194,400 $188,800 $215,200 $319,200 $184,800 $246,400 $232,000 $246,400 $239,200 $246,400 $208,800 $194,400 $194,400 $272,000 $298,400 $184,800 $208,800 $194,400 $194,400 $184,800 $194,400 $246,400 $208,800 $208,800
3 BEDROOMS $373,760 $248,832 $248,832 $267,264 $248,832 $248,832 $348,160 $248,832 $267,264 $236,544 $248,832 $248,832 $251,904 $248,832 $248,832 $236,544 $248,832 $248,832 $275,456 $236,544 $348,160 $248,832 $248,832 $236,544 $248,832 $248,832 $331,776 $348,160 $248,832 $277,504 $267,264 $248,832 $245,760 $267,264 $248,832 $241,664 $275,456 $408,576 $236,544 $315,392 $296,960 $315,392 $306,176 $315,392 $267,264 $248,832 $248,832 $348,160 $381,952 $236,544 $267,264 $248,832 $248,832 $236,544 $248,832 $315,392 $267,264 $267,264
4+ BEDROOMS $416,392 $277,214 $277,214 $297,749 $277,214 $277,214 $387,872 $277,214 $297,749 $263,525 $277,214 $277,214 $280,637 $277,214 $277,214 $263,525 $277,214 $277,214 $306,875 $263,525 $387,872 $277,214 $277,214 $263,525 $277,214 $277,214 $369,619 $387,872 $277,214 $309,157 $297,749 $277,214 $273,792 $297,749 $277,214 $269,229 $306,875 $455,179 $263,525 $351,366 $330,832 $351,366 $341,099 $351,366 $297,749 $277,214 $277,214 $387,872 $425,518 $263,525 $297,749 $277,214 $277,214 $263,525 $277,214 $351,366 $297,749 $297,749
REVISED: January 9, 2008
139
140
PCH:
2008 Operating Costs Summary Minimums
Poly
Collaborative
Region
Project Type
At Risk and Non Targeted (a) Large Family Senior
Single Room and Special Needs
All Other
Housing
Capital and Northern Area
Central
Coastal
East Bay
Inland Empire
Los Angeles
Orange
San Diego
San Francisco
San Mateo and Santa Clara
Elevator Non-Elevator Elevator Non-Elevator Elevator Non-Elevator Elevator Non-Elevator Elevator Non-Elevator Elevator Non-Elevator Elevator Non-Elevator Elevator Non-Elevator Elevator Non-Elevator Elevator Non-Elevator Elevator Non-Elevator
$3,600 $3,400 $3,500 $3,300 $3,200 $3,000 $3,900 $3,700 $4,600 $4,400 $3,400 $3,200 $3,900 $3,700 $3,600 $3,400 $3,900 $3,700 $6,300 $6,100 $4,600 $4,400
$3,600 $3,400 $3,500 $3,300 $3,200 $3,000 $3,900 $3,700 $4,600 $4,400 $3,400 $3,200 $3,800 $3,600 $3,600 $3,400 $3,900 $3,700 $6,300 $6,100 $4,600 $4,400
$2,900 $2,700 $2,800 $2,600 $2,500 $2,300 $3,100 $2,900 $3,600 $3,400 $2,700 $2,500 $3,000 $2,800 $2,800 $2,600 $3,100 $2,900 $5,000 $4,800 $3,600 $3,400
$3,700 $3,500 $3,700 $3,500 $3,300 $3,100 $4,000 $3,800 $4,700 $4,500 $3,500 $3,300 $4,000 $3,800 $3,700 $3,500 $4,000 $3,800 $6,500 $6,300 $4,700 $4,500
VIVO:Towers
(a) Tax-Exempt Bond Projects with 30% or more of their units three-bedroom or larger use Large Family column. Tax-Exempt Bond Projects designed primarily to serve Seniors use the Senior column. Tax-Exempt Bond Projects primarily serving special needs populations or serving as an SRO use the Single Room and Special Needs column.
Please refer to Regulation Section 10327(g)(1) for additional information regarding the Operating Expense Minimums.
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
SAN DIEGO HOUSING COMMISSION UTILITY ALLOWANCE SCHEDULE Revised: March 10, 2008 Based on actual rates and average consumption estimates. Dwelling Unit Size 3 BR 4 BR 2 BR
$12 $4 $8 $3 $13 $9 $15 $53 $8 $10 $10 $14 $4 $10 $3 $15 $11 $19 $64 $8 $10 $10 $18 $6 $13 $4 $20 $14 $24 $81 $8 $10 $10
0 BR Heating Cooking Water Heating Other Electric Water & Sewer Trash Range/Microwave Refrigerator Gas Electric Gas Electric Gas Electric
$7 $2 $5 $2 $7 $5 $9 $30 $8 $10 $10
1 BR
$9 $3 $6 $2 $10 $7 $12 $41 $8 $10 $10
5 BR
$21 $6 $14 $5 $22 $16 $27 $93 $8 $10 $10
6 BR
$23 $7 $16 $5 $25 $18 $31 $104 $8 $10 $10
Example: A two bedroom apartment affordable at 50% AMI is equipped with an electric heating system, a gas stove, and an individual gas water heater. Water and sewer are paid by the owner. The tenant would pay for gas & electric utilities. The utility allowance and rent computation is as follows: UTILITY ALLOWANCE COMPUTATION 1. Find the column that represents the unit size. 2. From the column select the figures that represent the allowances for each tenant paid utility and appliance. Fill in and add these amounts below: Heating the Unit (Gas or Electric) Cooking (Gas or Electric) Water Heating (Gas or Electric) Other Electric Water & Sewer TOTAL UTILITY ALLOWANCE: UTILITY ALLOWANCE COMPUTATION SHEET 1. Find the column that represents the unit size. 2. From the column select the figures that represent the allowances for each tenant paid utility and appliance. Fill in and add these amounts below: Heating the Unit (Gas or Electric) Cooking (Gas or Electric) Water Heating (Gas or Electric) Other Electric Water & Sewer TOTAL UTILITY ALLOWANCE:
4.00
+$
8.00
+$
+$ +$ +$ =$
13.00 15.00 0.00 40.00
+$ +$ +$ =$
The monthly tenant paid rent would be: Allowable Gross Rent: Utility Allowance: Maximum Cash Rent
$ 889 ($40) $ 849

141
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
SUMMARY TABLE RENT LIMITS, 2008 (1) CENTRE CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION I. CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT LAW WITH LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS EXTREMELY LOW INCOME 25% AMI Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom $316 $361 $406 $469 30% AMI $379 $433 $487 $563 35% AMI $442 $505 $568 $656
VERY LOW INCOME 40% AMI Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom $505 $577 $649 $750 45% AMI $568 $649 $730 $844 50% AMI $631 $721 $811 $938
LOW INCOME 55% AMI Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom $694 $793 $892 $1,031 60% AMI $758 $866 $974 $1,125
II. CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT LAW ONLY LOW INCOME 60% AMI Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom $758 $866 $974 $1,082 MODERATE INCOME 110% AMI $1,389 $1,587 $1,785 $1,983
142
(1) Reflects gross rent. Gross rent minus utility allowance = maximum cash rent. See the "San Diego Housing Commission Utility CAL POLY: san luis obispo Allowance" to calculate the utility allowance based on a project's actual utility profile.
Source: State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, San Diego Housing Commission, California Redevelopment Law.
California Transit Stations Located in Urbanized Areas as of 1/14/08 Identified in Section 103(a)(2)(A) of the December 3, 2007 TOD Housing Program Guidelines*
VIVO:Towers
A URBANIZED AREA CITY STATION NAME
B COUNTY
G TYPE OF STATION Bus Comm Rail

Comm & Light Rail, Bus
PCH: Poly
F TRANSIT AGENCY RT AMTRAK, NCTD NCTD, MTS, SDT NCTD NCTD NCTD NCTD NCTD NCTD NCTD NCTD NCTD NCTD NCTD NCTD NCTD NCTD NCTD SDT SDT SDT, MTS NCTD, METROLINK SDT, MTS SDT, MTS SDT NCTD SDT NCTD SDT SDT SDT SDT SDT, MTS SDT SDT
Comm Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail, Bus Comm Rail Light Rail, Bus Light Rail, Bus Light Rail Comm Rail Light Rail Comm Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail
AMTRAK, NCTD, SDT, MTS Comm & Light Rail, Bus
210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245
Sacramento San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego
Sacramento San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego
Sacramento Solana Beach San Diego San Diego Oceanside Oceanside Oceanside Oceanside Oceanside Vista Vista Vista San Marcos San Marcos San Marcos Escondido Escondido Oceanside San Diego San Diego San Diego Oceanside San Diego San Diego San Diego Encinitas San Diego Carlsbad San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego
E STATION LOCATION (ADDRESS OR INTERSECTION) Consumnes River College Transit Center 8401 Center Pkwy Solana Beach 105 Cedros Ave Santa Fe Depot/America Plaza 1050 Kettner Blvd Sorrento Valley 11170 Sorrento Valley Rd Coast Highway Godfrey St & Tremont St El Camino Real S El Camino Real & Industry Rd Rancho Del Oro Rancho Del Oro Dr & Oceanside Blvd College Boulevard Avenida Del Oro & Oceanside Blvd Melrose Melrose Dr & Oceanside Blvd Vista Transit Center Olive Ave & Vista Village Dr Escondido Ave Escondido Ave & Phillips St Buena Creek S Sante Fe Ave & Buena Creek Rd Palomar College N Las Posas Rd & Mission Rd San Marcos Civic Center San Marcos Blvd & Mission Rd CSU San Marcos Barham Dr & La Moree Nordahl Road Nordahl Rd & Mission Rd Escondido Transit Center 700 W Valley Pkwy Crouch St Crouch St & Oceanside Blvd City College 12th Ave & C St 12th Market 12th Ave & Market St Mission Valley 1400 Camino De La Reina Oceanside Transit Center 195 S. Tremont St Fenton Parkway 2000 Fenton Pkwy Rio Vista 2020 Qualcomm Way Palm Ave 2340 Palm Ave Encinitas 25 East D St 25th & Commercial 25th St & Commercial St Carlsbad Village 2775 State St Harborside 28th St & Harbor Dr Convention Center 2nd Ave & J St 32nd & Commercial 32nd Street & Commercial St Old Town Transit Center 4005 Taylor St Euclid Ave 450 Euclid Ave Grantville 4510 Alvarado Canyon Rd 47th St 47th St & Castana St 5th Ave 5th Ave & C St
Collaborative
Light Rail Light Rail, Bus Light Rail Light Rail
Housing
* This "transit stations" list is not exhaustive but based on the best information available at the time, compiled only for the purposes of the TOD Housing Program. Corrections are welcome.
7 of 15
143
144
PCH: Poly
B COUNTY
Collaborative Housing
246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281
San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego
San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego
San Diego San Diego Carlsbad San Diego La Mesa San Diego La Mesa San Ysidro Lemon Grove San Diego San Diego San Diego El Cajon San Ysidro San Diego La Mesa San Diego San Diego Chula Vista Chula Vista San Ysidro San Diego La Mesa El Cajon Lemon Grove Santee San Diego El Cajon San Diego Chula Vista San Diego San Diego La Mesa National City National City San Diego
Gaslamp Quarter Encanto/62nd St Carlsbad Poinsettia Alvarado Medical Center 70th St Qualcomm Stadium Amaya Dr Beyer Blvd Lemon Grove Depot Civic Center SDSU Transit Center Barrio Logan Gillespie Field San Ysidro Fashion Valley Transit Center Grossmont Transit Center Hazard Center 12th & Imperial Bayfront/E St H St Iris Ave Seaport Village La Mesa Blvd El Cajon Transit Center Massachusetts Ave Santee Town Center Morena/Linda Vista Arnele Ave County Center/Little Italy Palomar St Mission SD Pacific Fleet Spring St 24th St 8th St American Plaza
E STATION LOCATION (ADDRESS OR INTERSECTION) 5th Ave & Harbor Dr 62nd Street & Akins Ave 6511 Avenida Encinas 6658 Alvarado Rd 7255 Alvarado Rd 9449 Friars Rd Amaya Dr & Severin Dr Beyer Blvd & North Cottonwood Rd Broadway & Lemon Grove Ave C St & 3rd Ave Campanile Dr & Hardy Ave Cesar Chavez Pkwy & Main St Cuyamaca St & Weld Blvd East Beyer Blvd & East San Ysidro Blvd Fashion Valley Rd & Riverwalk Dr Grossmont Center Dr & Fletcher Pkwy Hazard Center Dr & Frazee Rd Imperial Ave & North 12th Ave Interstate 5 & E St Interstate 5 & H St Iris Ave & 30th St Kettner Blvd & W G St La Mesa Blvd & Spring St Main St & Marshall Ave Massachusetts Ave & Lemon Grove Ave Mission Gorge Rd & Cuyamaca St Napa St & Gaines St North Marshall Ave & Arnele Ave Pacific Highway & West Cedar St Palomar St & Industrial Blvd Rancho Mission Rd & Ward Rd South 32nd St & Harbor Dr Spring St & Palm Ave West 24th St & Interstate 5 West 8th St & Harbor Dr West C St & Kettner Blvd
F TRANSIT AGENCY SDT SDT NCTD SDT, MTS SDT, MTS SDT SDT SDT SDT SDT MTS SDT SDT SDT SDT, MTS SDT, MTS SDT SDT, MTS SDT SDT, MTS SDT, MTS SDT SDT SDT, MTS SDT SDT SDT SDT SDT SDT SDT SDT SDT SDT SDT SDT
G TYPE OF STATION Light Rail Light Rail Comm Rail Light Rail, Bus Light Rail, Bus Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Bus Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail, Bus Light Rail, Bus Light Rail Light Rail, Bus Light Rail Light Rail, Bus Light Rail, Bus Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail, Bus Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail Light Rail
VIVO:Towers
8 of 15
VIVO:Towers
B COUNTY
PCH: Poly
282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317
San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland San Francisco-Oakland
San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Mateo San Mateo Alameda San Mateo Santa Clara Santa Clara San Mateo San Francisco San Francisco San Mateo San Mateo Alameda San Mateo Alameda Alameda Alameda Contra Costa Contra Costa Alameda Alameda San Francisco San Francisco San Mateo Alameda San Francisco Alameda San Francisco Alameda San Mateo
San Diego San Diego San Diego El Cajon Escondido Carlsbad Chula Vista Atherton Redwood City Union City Millbrae Palo Alto Palo Alto Menlo Park San Francisco San Francisco San Bruno Burlingame Oakland S. San Francisco San Leandro Oakland San Leandro Richmond Richmond Berkeley Oakland San Francisco San Francisco Millbrae Fremont San Francisco Berkeley San Francisco Hayward Burlingame
Middleton Washington St Westfield UTC Parkway Plaza North County Fair (2) Plaza Camino Real Southwestern College Atherton Redwood City Union City Millbrae Stanford California Ave Menlo Park 22nd Street Civic Center San Bruno Broadway 12th Street So Francisco San Leandro West Oakland Bay Fair Richmond Richmond North Berkeley 19th Street S.F. State Stonestown Millbrae Fremont 16th St Mission Downtown Berkeley 24th St Mission South Hayward Burlingame
E STATION LOCATION (ADDRESS OR INTERSECTION) West Palm St & Kettner Blvd West Washington St & Pacific Highway 4545 La Jolla Dr 415 Parkway Plaza 272 E. Via Rancho Pkwy Marron Rd & El Camino Real 900 Otay Lakes Rd 1 Dinkelspiel Station Ln 1 James Ave 10 Union Square 100 California Dr 100 Embarcadero Rd 101 California Ave 1120 Merrill St 1149 22nd St 1150 Market St 1151 Huntington Ave 1190 California Drive 1245 Broadway 1333 Mission Rd 1401 San Leandro Blvd. 1451 7th Street 15242 Hesperian Blvd. 16th & MacDonald Ave 1700 Nevin Ave 1750 Sacramento St 1900 Broadway 19th Ave & Holloway Ave 19th Ave & Winston Dr 200 North Rollins Rd 2000 BART Way 2000 Mission St 2160 Shattuck Avenue 2800 Mission St 28601 Dixon Street 290 California Dr
F TRANSIT AGENCY SDT SDT MTS MTS NCTD NCTD MTS CALTRAIN CALTRAIN BART CALTRAIN CALTRAIN CALTRAIN CALTRAIN CALTRAIN BART BART CALTRAIN BART BART BART BART BART AMTRAK BART BART BART MUNI MUNI BART BART BART BART BART BART CALTRAIN
G TYPE OF STATION Light Rail Light Rail Bus Bus Bus Bus Bus Comm Rail Comm Rail Heavy Rail Comm Rail Comm Rail Comm Rail Comm Rail Comm Rail Heavy Rail Heavy Rail Comm Rail Heavy Rail Heavy Rail Heavy Rail Heavy Rail Heavy Rail Comm Rail Heavy Rail Heavy Rail Heavy Rail Light Rail Light Rail Heavy Rail Heavy Rail Heavy Rail Heavy Rail Heavy Rail Heavy Rail Comm Rail
Collaborative
9 of 15
Housing
145
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
r e t a i l
COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL | SAN DIEGO
The Knowledge Report

RETAIL | FOURTH QUARTER | 2007
Demand slows down; vacancy stays low

SAN DIEGO COUNTY OVERVIEW
MARKET INDICATORS VACANCY BY SPACE TYPE 2007 Q4 Direct Sublease Total 3.29% 0.25% 3.53% 2007 Q3 3.15% 0.30% 3.46% Change
Similar to the office and industrial markets in San Diego County, new supply outpaced demand to cause an overall increase in vacancy in 2007. However, the magnitude of this imbalance was relatively small considering the fact that vacancy has been relatively low and new construction is dwindling and will continue to decline in the upcoming years. For this reason, the retail market outperformed the office and industrial markets considerably. The December 2007 San Diego County employment rate measured 4.9% at yearend. This was slightly higher than the national rate of 4.8%, but considerably lower than the state rate of 5.9% during the same period. In Q4 2007, approximately 12,900 net jobs countywide were created, supporting a 1.1% employment increase -or 14,900 net jobs for 2007. Industries reporting the most impressive gains in 2007 were Trade, Transportation, and Utilities (4,400 net jobs) followed by Professional and Business Services (2,800 net jobs) and Information (800 net jobs). In contrast, the Construction and Financial Activities sectors lost a total of 4,100 and 1,100 net jobs, respectively. The USD Index of Leading Economic Indicators for San Diego County pointed to a
NEW SUPPLY, ABSORPTION AND VACANCY RATES

2007 YTD 474,769
NET ABSORPTION 2007 Q4 Total NEW SUPPLY 2007 Q4 Total 156,626 2007 YTD 42,843
N e w Su p p ly , N e t A b so rp tio n & V a c a n c y
1,800 1,600 Thousands of Square Feet 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2000 3.5%
4.4% 4.1% 4.0% 3.5% 3.2% 3.1% 3.0%
4.6% 4.4% 4.2% 3.8% 3.6% 3.4% 3.2% 3.0% 2.8% 2.6% Vacancy Rate 4.0%
733,467
For the second consecutive year, vacancy increased with the year-end 2007 rate reaching 3.5%. While there was strong net absorption of 474,769 square feet for the year, new supply outpaced demand with 733,467 of new shopping centers coming online.
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
New Supply
Net Absorption
Vacancy
146
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
The Knowledge Report | Fourth Quarter | 2007 | San Diego
VACANCY RATES BY MARKET
South County
3.0% 3.0% 2.5% 3.2% 4.5% 1.9% 2.1% 3.1% 3.4% 4.8%
weakening local economy that may continue into early 2008. As of December 2007, the index has declined 20 of the last 21 months, resulting in a 8.0% decrease over one year. Demand in San Diego County retail was relatively flat in the fourth quarter of 2007 with only 42,843 square feet of net absorption. This brought the overall net absorption in 2007 to 474,769 square feet. Bolstered by new construction in Chula Vista, the South County posted the highest net absorption of any market in the county with 87,940 square feet in fourth quarter.
8%
activity in 2008. When examining the major submarkets those with over 1 million square feet of inventory the highest vacancy (7.0%) occurred in San Marcos. Only the major submarkets of College Area, La Mesa, and Escondido posted vacancies over 5.0%. Sublease vacancy remained low countywide at 0.3%. Only 156,626 square feet of construction was completed in fourth quarter. This brought the 2007 new supply total to 733,467 square feet. An additional 178,067 square feet is currently under construction with 1.8 million square feet of potential future development on the drawing board. Over 80% of this is planned for North County. Rental rates throughout the county have been stable since mid-year 2003. At the end of fourth quarter 2007, average asking rates stood at $1.93 per square foot triple-net, a mere $0.01 increase from
(Continued on page 4)
East County North County I-15 Corridor North San Diego Central San Diego 0%
2.8% 2.8%
2% 4% 6%
Direct Vacancy
Sublease Vacancy
All market areas of the county reported vacancy at or below 5% at the end of fourth quarter 2007. Sublease vacancy was nearly non-existent with all markets posting rates below 1% with South County reporting virtually nonexistent availability.
Over the course of fourth quarter, vacancy remained virtually unchanged at 3.5%. However, it increased slightly over the year-end 2006 vacancy of 3.2%. Since year-end 2003, vacancy has remained at or below 4.0%. Vacancy is predicted to increase to over 4% during 2008 due to softening demand and recession concerns. However, vacancy should not increase dramatically due to limited construction
SALES AND LEASING ACTIVITY
SALES ACTIVITY
PROPERTY NAME Casa De Oro Center Tri-City Crossroads Torrey Highlands Plaza 7808-7816 Miramar Road Hillside Village Shopping Center Presidio Plaza SUBMARKET Spring Valley Oceanside Rancho Penasquitos Miramar Mid-City Morena SALES PRICE $13,075,000 $10,600,000 $8,400,000 $5,950,000 $4,085,000 $2,600,000 SIZE SF 71,000 42,646 14,042 20,314 18,700 10,927 PRICE / SF $184.15 $249.96 $598.21 $292.90 $218.45 $237.94 CAP RATE N/A 6.00% 7.00% N/A 7.60% N/A
LEASE ACTIVITY
PROPERTY NAME Marketplace at Liberty Station 687 S. Coast Highway 101 Fallbrook Plaza South Bay Plaza Camino Village Plaza 790 N. Johnson Avenue SUBMARKET Pacific Beach/Pt. Loma Encinitas Fallbrook/Bonsall National City Encinitas El Cajon TENANT Vons Whole Foods Market Kahoots, Inc. Deans Shoeshack Black Whale Lighting Sleeptrain SIZE SF 55,385 25,000 7,520 5,000 4,873 4,627 RENT / SF* N/A N/A $1.40 N/A $2.70 $1.05
* Effective rent on a NNN basis.
COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL
147
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
Existing Properties Submarket Bldgs Total Inventory SF * Direct Sublease Vacancy Vacancy Rate Rate Total Vacant SF Vacancy Rate Current Period
Absorption Net Absorption Current SF Net Absorption YTD SF
New Supply Net New Supply Current SF
U/C & Proposed Proposed SF
Rent Avg. Rental Rate **
Net New Under Supply YTD Construction SF SF
CENTRAL SAN DIEGO Clairemont College Area Downtown/Coronado Kearny Mesa Logan Heights Mid-City Mission Valley Morena Navajo/San Carlos Pacific Beach/Pt. Loma Southeast S.D. Tierrasanta Total EAST COUNTY East County El Cajon La Mesa Lakeside Lemon Grove Ramona Santee Spring Valley Total I-15 CORRIDOR Poway Rancho Bernardo Rancho Penasquitos Scripps Ranch Total NORTH COUNTY Carlsbad Del Mar/Solana Beach Encinitas Escondido Fallbrook/Bonsall Oceanside San Marcos Vista Total NORTH SAN DIEGO Carmel Valley La Jolla Mira Mesa Miramar University City Total SOUTH COUNTY Chula Vista/Bonita National City San Ysidro/Imperial Beach Total
18 27 4 58 11 23 15 32 22 17 8 6 241
1,473,915 1,510,784 75,277 2,892,874 548,818 986,724 1,603,319 1,805,459 1,043,738 793,184 273,265 265,424 13,272,781
1.93% 4.90% 3.14% 2.99% 2.58% 4.16% 0.12% 2.90% 4.24% 1.57% 0.51% 2.98% 2.76%
0.00% 0.36% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05%
28,495 79,519 2,365 86,495 14,157 41,038 3,282 52,429 44,295 12,425 1,400 7,920 373,820
1.93% 5.26% 3.14% 2.99% 2.58% 4.16% 0.20% 2.90% 4.24% 1.57% 0.51% 2.98% 2.82%
(5,920) (22,471) (31,624) (2,157) 209 (16,421) 29,079 (6,170) (55,475)
57,115 (45,674) 2,524 (24,817) (5,309) (17,838) 1,350 (5,141) (41,580) 5,104 1,000 (2,520) (75,786)
10,000 10,000
99,797 23,000 122,797
$2.85 $1.61 $2.50 $2.08 $1.51 $1.71 $2.91 $1.82 $1.55 $2.62 $1.30 $2.18 $1.81
8 69 33 8 8 10 21 13 170
282,364 3,416,285 1,475,995 345,985 393,974 417,127 1,262,896 994,096 8,588,722
3.42% 2.24% 2.28% 1.68% 2.67% 1.54% 4.38% 1.79% 2.51%
0.00% 0.08% 2.78% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.66% 0.70%
9,669 79,471 74,694 5,810 10,520 6,420 55,266 34,357 276,207
3.42% 2.33% 5.06% 1.68% 2.67% 1.54% 4.38% 3.46% 3.22%
4,645 (1,995) 34,754 (1,896) (1,300) 34,208
13,009 (13,041) (34,108) 36,674 (570) 1,478 (8,928) (89) (5,575)
72,000 72,000
71,530 71,530
$2.00 $1.54 $1.77 $1.24 $1.38 $1.22 $1.73 $1.44 $1.60
29 27 9 12 77
1,553,552 2,344,242 581,075 312,929 4,791,798
3.05% 1.31% 1.09% 1.51% 1.86%
0.00% 0.41% 0.43% 0.19% 0.27%
47,364 40,315 8,835 5,334 101,848
3.05% 1.72% 1.52% 1.70% 2.13%
9,440 (4,371) 5,494 (1,000) 9,563
(11,481) 300,779 (5,107) (2,174) 282,017
240,239 240,239
38,000 38,000
$2.40 $2.50 $2.93 $2.72 $2.46
24 17 37 70 10 58 48 56 320
1,559,774 1,022,790 2,834,290 3,781,709 491,749 4,214,146 2,529,418 3,054,572 19,488,448
4.44% 0.72% 1.72% 5.58% 3.05% 5.72% 6.92% 3.68% 4.51%
0.17% 0.43% 0.08% 0.27% 0.00% 0.54% 0.10% 0.28% 0.28%
71,858 11,735 51,039 221,220 15,000 263,996 177,619 121,123 933,590
4.61% 1.15% 1.80% 5.85% 3.05% 6.26% 7.02% 3.97% 4.79%
3,172 716 (2,702) (47,937) 7,000 (12,745) (11,541) 37,980 (26,057)
6,735 11,301 (29,733) 110,028 (12,488) 25,891 (21,932) 25,586 115,388
178,712 26,000 44,685 249,397
36,766 29,301 30,000 96,067
45,000 16,000 1,052,955 188,707 122,648 1,425,310
$2.90 $3.89 $2.41 $1.71 $1.58 $2.07 $1.78 $1.84 $2.04
7 13 31 14 6 71
622,953 838,089 2,325,295 391,519 454,822 4,632,678
1.10% 4.02% 1.47% 11.70% 5.13% 3.10%
0.00% 0.00% 0.41% 0.13% 0.35% 0.25%
6,864 33,711 43,630 46,314 24,931 155,450
1.10% 4.02% 1.88% 11.83% 5.48% 3.36%
(1,060) 3,213 3,420 (455) (12,454) (7,336)
(2,699) (600) (2,849) 5,393 (17,492) (18,247)
24,000 24,000
$4.50 $4.27 $1.84 $1.87 $2.13 $2.03
82 24 35 141
5,267,001 1,401,918 2,128,882 8,797,801
3.06% 4.64% 1.73% 2.99%
0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02%
162,767 65,064 36,816 264,647
3.09% 4.64% 1.73% 3.01%
101,466 (4,993) (8,533) 87,940
201,755 (26,274) 1,491 176,972
156,626 156,626
243,831 243,831
94,229 94,229
$2.26 $1.10 $1.93 $1.78
MARKET TOTALS - SAN DIEGO COUNTY Total 1,020 59,572,228
3.29%
0.25% 2,105,562
3.53%
42,843
474,769
156,626
733,467
178,067
1,775,866
$1.93
* Building inventory consists of shopping centers over 10,000 SF ,excluding regional malls. ** Average rental rates are average asking rates quoted triple net on a per square foot per month basis. Note: Adjustments in total inventory and number of buildings may occur for various reasons including but not limited to square footage adjustments, property type changes, and demolition of properties which could affect increases and/or decreases in the property sample.
COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL
148
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
AVERAGE ASKING DIRECT RENTAL RATES

$2.00 $1.95 $1.90 $1.85 $1.80 $1.75 $1.70 $1.65 $1.60 $1.55 $1.50 $1.45 $1.40 $1.92 $1.93 $1.78 $1.87 $1.66 $1.70 $1.76
241 OFFICES IN 54 COUNTRIES ON 6 CONTINENTS
$1.55
Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 07 Average $/SF (NNN)
Rental rates have followed an increasing trend for over five years. As of fourth quarter 2007, the average asking rental rate stood at $1.93 per square foot on a triple-net basis. Strong retail demand will continue to drive rental rates upward for the foreseeable future.
$ / SF (NNN)
USA 98 Canada 18 Latin America 14 Asia Pacific 46 EMEA 65 $54 billion in annual transaction volume 595.7 million square feet under management 9,327 Professionals
SHOPPING CENTER INVESTMENT TRENDS
CONTACT INFORMATION
SAN DIEGO: Jim Zimsky Managing Director 4660 La Jolla Village Dr. Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92122 Tel: 858.455.1515 Fax: 858.546.9146 RESEARCH: Christopher Reutz Director of Research Tel: 858.677.5385
This report has been prepared by Colliers Macaulay Nicolls Inc. (CMN) for general information only. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources deemed reliable and no representation is made as to the accuracy thereof. Colliers International does not guarantee, warrant or represent that the information contained in this document is correct. Any interested party should undertake their own inquiries as to the accuracy of the information. Colliers International excludes unequivocally all inferred or implied terms, conditions and warranties arising out of this document and excludes all liability for loss and damages arising there from. This report and other research materials may be found on our website at www. colliersmn.com. Colliers Macaulay Nicolls Inc. and its country subsidiaries are member firms of Colliers International Property Consultants, an affiliation of independent companies with over 240 offices throughout more than 50 countries worldwide.
There were 29 shopping center sales in 2007 posting a median price per square foot of $226. The dip in median price for 2007 was followed by corresponding minor increase in cap rate to 6.1%. In 2008, cap rates are expected to increase.
$275 $250 $225 Price Per SF $200 $175 $150 $125 $100 $75 2000 2001 2002 2003 Median $/SF 2004 2005 Cap Rate 2006 2007 $88 $89 $110 $133 $141 8.5% 7.5% 6.9% 6.0% 6.1% $182 9.9% 10.0% 9.4% $238 $226
11% 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% Cap Rate
Fax: 760.438.8925
CARLSBAD: Jim Spain Managing Director 5930 Priestly Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Tel: 760.438.8950
(Continued from page 2)
third quarter. However, this was a significant 9.0% increase from a year ago. Average rents exceed over $2.00 per square foot in 19 of the 40 submarkets. Some retail centers in the premier submarkets of Carmel Valley, La Jolla, Carlsbad, and Rancho Bernardo are commanding rents in the $3.50 to $4.50 per square foot triple-net range. The highest averages are $3.89 per square foot in Del Mar/Solana Beach, $4.50 per square foot in Carmel Valley, and $4.27 per square foot triple-net in La Jolla. Investment sales activity (strip, neighborhood, community, lifestyle, and power centers over 10,000 square
feet) decreased slightly compared to 2006. There were 29 reported sales compared to 32 sales in 2006. Average cap rates have declined over the past six years but increased minimally in 2007 to 6.1%. Many buyers have adopted a wait-and-see approach to the market. We anticipate that during 2008, investment sales activity will pick up when cap rates begin to approach 7.0% or greater. In 2007, the median sales price per square foot decreased by $12 to $226 per square foot. This the second highest average price historically, with 2006 being the peak at $238 per square foot.
149
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
References
1Austin, Douglas H. Affordable Housing in Downtown San Diego. Urban Land. January 2004, pg. 36-37. 2Baxamusa, Murtaza H. (AICP). Half of San Diego County lives in unaffordable housing. Center on Policy Initiatives (CPI). 8 January 2007. <http://www.onlinecpi.org>. 3Baxamusa, Murtaza H. (AICP). Housing Affordability Falls by 8 Percentage Points. Center on Policy Initiatives (CPI). 3 October 2006. <http://www.onlinecpi.org>. 4Calavita, Nico. San Diego Adopts Inclusionary Housing. Planning. October 2002, pg. 32. 5CCDC. Affordable Housing Policy Considerations. Updated 3/7/07. <http://www.ccdc.com/resources/resource_files/Affordable_Housing_Policy_ Considerations.pdf>. 6CCDC. Downtown Affordable Housing Strategy. March 2007. <http://www.ccdc.com/resources/resource_files/Affordable_Housing_Strategy.pdf>. 7CCDC. San Diego Downtown Community Plan: Rising on the Pacific. April 2006. <http://www.ccdc.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/planning.community_plan>. 8CCDC. What is Affordable Housing? <http://www.ccdc.com/resources/resource_files/Affordable_Housing_What_Is_It.pdf>. 9City-Data.com. 92101 Zip Code Detailed Profile. 9 March 2008. <http://www.city-data.com/zips/92101.html>. 10Crary, David and Konrad, Rachel. On two coasts, renters squeezed by lack of affordable housing. The San Diego Union-Tribune 14 September 2007. 11Davis, Mike, Mayhew, Kelly and Jim Miller. Under the perfect sun: the San Diego tourists never see. New York: New Press, 1946. 12Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners. San Diego Downtown Community Plan: Adopted April 2006. Centre City Development Corporation. 13ESRI forecasts for 2007. Radius 1, 3, & 5 miles from Kettner & Ash. 14Green Buildings: The Wave of the Future. The Global EnviroTimes 17 (Apr. 2008). 16 Apr. 2008.
150
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
15Housing Resources Directory (2007-2008). County of San Diego Department of Housing and Community Development. <http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/sdhcd/docs/housing_resource.pdf>. 16Jervey, Gay. A Revival for San Diegos Downtown. The New York Times 11 July 2004. 17Katz, Ashley. Newly Released Studies Confirm Energy Savings Significant in LEED, ENERGY STAR Buildings. United States Green Building Coalition. 3 Apr.2008. 15 Apr. 2008. <http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070602/news_1mc2solara.html>. 18Lenz, Bree. Innovative Connections. The American Institute of Steel Construction. Aug. 2005. 28 Mar. 2008. <http://www.aisc.org/MSCTemplate.cfm?Section=Modern_Steel_ Construction2&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=27992> 19National Railway Historical Society. n.d. 15 April 2008. <http://www.nrhs.com> 20Nico Calavita Retires, Professor of Public Administration & Urban Studies. 23 May 2004. SDSUniverse. <http://www.sdsuniverse.info/people_content.asp?id=16939>. 21Mission History. Mission Basilica San Diego de Alcala. n.d. 10 April 2008. <http://www.missionsandiego.com/mission_history.htm> 22Pedal to the Park. n.d. 15 April 2008. <http://pedaltothepark.com> 23Petrillo, Lisa. Energy-efficient affordable housing: Eco-friendly units were designed for lowincome families. The San Diego Union Tribune 2 June 2007. 24Pierce, Emmet. A land bank for foreclosed properties? Task force looks for way to keep ownership local. The San Diego Union Tribune 17 February 2008, pg. A.1. 25Post, Nadine. High-Strength Rebar Called Revolutionary. Cary Kopczynski & Company. 23 Sept. 2007. ENR Magazine. 26 Mar. 2008. <http://www.ckcps.com/pdf_files/ENR_high_Strength_Rebar.pdf> 26Schendler, Auden and Randy Udall. LEEDing Us Astray? Grist. 26 October 2005. 29 Feb 2008. <http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/10/26/leed>. 27Silagi, Richard. Rail Pictures. n.d. 15 April 2008 <http://www.railpictures.net> 28Steele, Jeanette. Going downtown for housing: Agencys effort helps meet demand for lowcost rentals. The San Diego Union Tribune 3 February 2008, pg. B.1. 29TBN North America. The Bergen Network. n.d. 15 April 2008. <http://thebergennetwork.com/index2.php>
151
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
VIVO:Towers
30The ConXtech Website. ConXtech. 25 Mar. 2008 <http://www.conxtech.com/owners.php> 31U.S. Census Bureau. Census of Population and Housing: ESRI Forecasts for 2007 and 2012. 32U.S. Census Bureau. Poverty Thresholds 2007. 29 January 2008. <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.html>. 33Weisberg, Lori. Buying or renting, housing is still pricey: Affordability problems persistent, report says. The San Diego Union Tribune 30 January 2008, pg. A.1. 34Weisberg, Lori. Greener pastures outside of county? Region sees more leave than move here; housing costs blamed. The San Diego Union Tribune 22 March 2007. 35Weisberg, Lori. Out of Sites: Few city-owned properties are suitable for affordable housing. The San Diego Union-Tribune 26 August 2007.
Community Participation - Organizations Centre City Development Corporation: About CCDC. 8 April 2008 http://www.ccdc.com/index.cfm/ fuseaction/aboutCCDC.home. San Diego Unified School District: About the district: Overview. 8 April 2008 http://www.sandi.net/ about/index.html About the Downtown San Diego Partnership: Who we are. 16 April 2008 http://www.downtownsandiego.org/ San Diego Housing Federation: Purpose. 16 April 2008 http://www.housingsandiego.org/about.php San Diego Housing Commission: About us and our programs. 16 April 2008 http://www.sdhc.net/
152
VIVO:Towers
PCH:
Poly
Collaborative
Housing
153

Bofa Calpoly 2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bofa Calpoly 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VIVO:Towers

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

Barone Galasso & Associates

The Need for Vivo Towers at Kettner & Ash

Need for Downtown Schools

A History of The Harborside and Museum Schools

Introduction to Vivo Towers

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

Chapter 1 - Site Description & Analysis

Site Description & Analysis

Some notable features of San Diego

The Columbia District

Demographics, Statistics, & Opinion

Chapter 1 - Site Description & Analysis

Southern Hotel 40-45% AMI 50 SRO Studios

Kettner & Ash

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

Island Village 280 Studios ($613-737) 60% AMI

Lillian Place 74 Units: 1-bdrm($329-1155) 2-bdrm ($393-1,383) 3-bdrm ($450-$1595) 30-110%AMI

Studio 15 60% AMI 274 Studios ($491-737)

3.4-G-1 Continue to promote the production of affordable housing in all of downtowns

Arts & Cultural Locations

Parks and Open Space

Chapter 1 - Site Description & Analysis

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

Chapter 1 - Site Description & Analysis

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

Chapter 1 - Site Description & Analysis

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

Chapter 1 - Site Description & Analysis

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

Chapter 1 - Site Description & Analysis

Existing Affordable Housing in San Diego

Existing Site Analysis

Chapter 1 - Site Description & Analysis

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

Chapter 1 - Site Description & Analysis

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

General Design Criteria

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

The Urban Academy and Museum Schools

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

Green Building Rating Systems, and LEED

CAL POLY: san luis obispo

Sustainable Features of Kettner & Ash

Controlled Storm Water Runoff

Heat Island Effect Reduction

Light Pollution Reduction

Low-flow Water Fixtures and Appliances

Energy and Atmosphere